[fl-=\\\\ 8

II‘ r.

‘ “w” .

 

LIBRAR Y V
Michigan Sate

University ‘
“—J

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item
RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIFLL§_:

Place in book return to rexrzme
charge from circulation mu:

 

 

© 1981

MONICA l. STEPHENSON

All Rights Reserved

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF TASKS
PERFORMED BY SUPERVISORS OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

By

Monica 1. Stephenson

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfiliment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of E1ementary and Special Education

1981

ABSTRACT

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF TASKS
PERFORMED BY SUPERVISORS OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

By

Monica I. Stephenson

The purpose of this study was to identify the role of the
special education supervisor through the identification of tasks per-
formed and to identify task competencies required for the position for
possible incorporation into the rules for approval of special educa-
tion supervisors. The need for the study was indicated by the empha-
sis placed on the development of competency-based approval guidelines
for special education supervisors and by the lack of research designed
to identify the responsibilities of the special education supervisor
and to elicit from practicing supervisors their views as to the cru-
cial competencies to be incorporated in the approval guidelines.

The review of the literature focused primarily on three major
topics: (1) supervision in general education, (2) supervision in
special education, and (3) state certification requirements for spe-
cial education supervisors. This review indicated that while initial
attempts have been made to describe through research the responsibili-
ties of supervisors of special education and the competencies needed

for effective performance of these responsibilities, further research

Monica I. Stephenson

is needed to generate competencies for a generic supervisory role
which can effectively function under both present and future contin-
gencies.

The ten competency areas and sixty-eight task statements
incorporated in the questionnaire were derived through a review of the
literature and a preliminary review of the questionnaire by twelve
supervisors of special education. The questionnaire was sent to 296
approved supervisors of special education in Michigan. The respond-
ents were asked to indicate for each task statement: (1) whether the
task was performed in their present position and (2) whether a compe-
tency for the task statement should be included in the special educa-
tion supervisor approval guidelines. Frequency and percentage
distributions were analyzed to provide (1) a description of the typi-
cal responsibilities of supervisors of special education in Michigan
and (2) a list of task statements to be recommended for inclusion as
competencies for special education supervisor approval guidelines.

From the 296 questionnaires sent, data were analyzed from 209
questionnaires (7l%). The majority of supervisors were employed by
districts with a reimbursable special education staff of ninety or
more and a supervisory staff ranging from four to seven. A profile
of responsibilities typical of special education supervisors was
developed through investigation of the frequency distribution of
tasks performed by the respondents. Those tasks performed by 80% or
more of the respondents were identified as typical responsibilities.
Of the sixty-eight tasks specified, forty-eight (70.6%) were identi-

fied as tasks typically performed by special education supervisors

Monica 1. Stephenson

in the State of Michigan. Those tasks below 80% were interpreted as
indicating variation among responsibilities of supervisors which
needed further investigation.

The task statements to be recommended as competencies for
inclusion in the proposed guidelines were determined by the percentage
of agreement indicated by the respondents. It was found that (l) a
large majority of tasks were viewed by the respondents as meriting
inclusion as competencies, and (2) the respondents seemed more
inclined to report undecided or to give no response than to state
disagreement. Thus, it was decided that all tasks receiving agree-
ment above 69% would be recommended as competencies in special educa-
tion supervisor approval guidelines. 0f the sixty-eight tasks
presented, forty-nine have been recommended. Tasks with the highest
agreement were in the competency areas of Instructional Personnel,
School Law, and Inservice Education. Tasks receiving the lowest
agreement were from the competency areas of Curriculum, Learning
Resources, and Public Relations.

The data were analyzed to identify factors which might cause
variation in task performance. Factors investigated were: (1) type
of district, (2) size of district, (3) title of position, and (4) years
of supervisory experience. Of those considered, only two appear to
contribute to the variation in task performance: position title and
size of school district. Further investigation is needed to verify

the differences found in this study.

To my parents,

Mr. and Mrs. w. Edward Stephenson.

11'

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals rendered guidance and assistance to the
writer throughout this study. Special appreciation is extended to:

Dr. Charles E. Henley, the chairman of my dissertation com-
mittee and advisor, who was always willing to listen and to give
assistance and support.

Dr. J. Edwin Keller, a member of my committee, who rendered
many hours of guidance, assistance, and support in the analysis and
presentation of the data.

Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Stanley E. Bryan, my commit-
tee members, who acted as facilitators throughout my doctoral pro-
gram.

Mr. Khalil Elaian, a graduate assistant in the Office of
Research Counseling, who assisted me through the data analysis.

The Michigan special education supervisors who cooperated
with the writer and participated in the study.

Mr. Mohammad A. Suleibi, a good friend, who gave me the cour-
age and moral support to continue.

Mrs. Sue Cooley, who skillfully typed this dissertation and
guided me through the final stages of preparation.

To these people I give my deepest appreciation for their

assistance.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................
LIST OF FIGURES .......................

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION .....................

Need ........................
Purpose ......................
Limitations ....................
Definitions ....................
Overview ......................

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............

Supervision ....................

Tasks as a Means of Identifying and Describing

Role Functions .................
Special Education Supervision ...........
Historical Studies ................
Current Research and Training Programs ......
Research Studies .................
Training Programs ................
Certification ...................
Summary ......................

III. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY ..............
Population .....................

Design and Development of the Questionnaire . . . .
Questionnaire ..................

Pilot Administration of the Questionnaire

Administration of the Questionnaire ........
Identification of the Project ..........
Distribution of the Questionnaire ........
Response .....................

Treatment of Data .................

iv

—-'OCD\JI\J

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...........

Introduction .....................
Questionnaires Received ...............
Characteristics of the Positions ...........
Tasks Performed ...................
Agreement With Competency Statements .........
Determination of Factors Which Contribute to

Variation in Task Performance ...........
Summary .......................

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............

Summary .......................
Recommendations ...................
General Discussion ..................
Future Research ...................

APPENDICES ...........................

A. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE .............

B. TABULATION OF RESPONSES AND PERCENTAGES TO INDIVIDUAL
ITEMS ON QUESTIONNAIRE ................

C. INFORMATION FOR FIGURE I ................

D. PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECT TASK PERFORMANCE GROUPED BY
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES ................

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................

126
I36

I46
I49

Table

10.

ll.

12.

l3.
I4.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Growth in Number of State-Supported Positions .....

Function Clusters for Special Education Leadership

Systems .......................

Distribution of Supervisors According to Special

Education Staff Size .................

Distribution of Supervisors According to Programs

Supervised ......................

Distribution of Tasks According to Percentage of

Subjects Performing the Task .............

Seven Tasks Receiving Highest Percentage of Subject

Performance .....................

Tasks Performed by 80 Percent or More of the Population

Tasks Performed by Less Than 80 Percent of the

Population ......................

Frequency Distribution of Tasks by Frequency of

Performance .....................

Distribution of Tasks According to Respondents' Level

of Agreement .....................

Seven Tasks With Highest Percentage of Subject

Response .......................

Tasks Recommended for Acceptance as Competencies in

Special Education Supervisor Approval Guidelines . . .

Tasks Receiving Less Than 70 Percent Agreement .....

Relationship Between Task Performance and Percentage

of Respondent Agreement ...............

Tasks With Largest Variation Between Position Titles .

vi

27

59

62

64

66

71

73

75

83

84
88

89
96

Table
l6.

T7.

18.

19.

Tabulation of Responses and Percentages to Individual
Items on Questionnaire ................

Means and Standard Deviations for Each Item,
Numbers 2 Through 77; Question 2: Approval ......

Frequency of Item Means and Item Variances;
Question 2: Approval .................

Percentage of Subject Task Performance Grouped by
Demographic Variables ................

vii

Page

127

I38

T43

T47

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

l. Plotting of Tasks by Group Level of Agreement and
Consensus ....................... 78

2. Listing of Tasks by Level of Agreement and Consensus
as Shown in Figure l ................. 79

3. Plotting of Tasks by Group Level of Agreement and
Consensus ....................... l37

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Supervision has been described as one of the most relevant

administrative positions in education. As Lucio (l967) stated:

In some measure the stability and effectiveness of organi-

zations whether they are armies, governments, or religious

groups, have been dependent upon the kind and quality of

supervision. The ways in which organizations have met chang-

ing conditions, the degree of freedom allowed for individual

action, the ways in which human potentialities have been uti-

lized, or the evaluation and reward system utilized--all have

been parameters affecting organizational health and perpetua-

tion (p. 1).
In education and business, the supervisor has provided both technical
and organizational assistance to those under his/her supervision.

The task of supervision in the original sense of the Latin

word, supevideo, is to oversee. This includes the demonstrating of
techniques, offering suggestions, giving orders, evaluating perform-
ance, and checking on results. In education, supervisors have ful-
filled these functions by giving directions, checking on compliance
with prescribed teaching techniques, and evaluating the results of
instruction by teachers in their charge. Supervision is the process
of helping teachers to improve both instruction and the curriculum.
In Harris' terms (1975):

Supervision of instruction is what school personnel do

with adults and things to maintain or change the school

Operation in ways that directly influence the teaching pro-

cess employed to promote pupil learning (pp. 10-11).

I

The position of supervisor has been ill-defined in the field
of special education. Functions performed have been determined more
by the needs of the situation than by any theoretical concept. As
administrative functions have increased, the director has passed on
those functions which he/she has been unable to complete. These have
been inherited by the supervisor, performing the role of an assistant
administrator. With the tasks assigned to supervisors varying, the
development of a core of supervisory responsibilities has remained
vague and undefined. Supervision emphasizing the improvement of
instruction and curriculum has been neglected in special education
due to the lack of personnel and insufficient funds.

The advancement of training programs for special education
supervisors has been hindered by a lack of knowledge and understand-
ing of the role and function of the supervisor (Henderson, l968;
Hodgson, l964; Mackie & Engel, l956). The absence of a unifying
administrative/supervisory theory has further prevented the concep-
tualization of the functions of the special education supervisor

(Gordon, 1973).

Need
The leadership challenge in special education has intensified
with the enactment of Public Law 94-l42 (Burello & Sage, 1979). In
Michigan, administrators were just beginning to adjust to the changes
demanded by Michigan mandatory legislation, Public Act l98, when they
were confronted with the additional requirements of this federal

legislation.

The implications for both new and expanded human services
under mandatory special education legislation are multiple. A new
partnership is required between general and special education.
Isolated services must be correlated to provide a continuum of ser-
vices designed to fit the needs of the mildly handicapped pepulation.
The severely handicapped must now be provided services within the
public school system. Such new and expanded programs have escalated
the need for new technologies, diagnostic devices, identification
criteria, and personnel with the training and skills to utilize these
advances. Increased cooperation must also be cultivated with other
agencies which provide services to handicapped students.

This changing picture of special education has created new
demands on special education leadership personnel to develop the
skills to direct the special education program through this time of
transition and into the future. New leadership positions and new
demands on established administrative positions have been created by
(1) overall changes in program philosophy and program growth;

(2) shifts in pupil population, both as a result of geographic mobil-
ity and the growing conviction that all children should have equal
educational opportunities; (3) shifts in teacher and specialist
availability and utilization; (4) the knowledge explosion; and

(5) current and predicted changes in organizational patterns (Johnson,
Gross, & Weatherman, 1973).

These broad changes are increasing the complexity of adminis-
trative requirements for public school programs for the handicapped.

Federal and state mandatory legislation requires additional emphasis

on the administrative aspects of special education in order to assure
compliance with requirements in the laws and in the administrative
rules which implement them. More and more school districts are see-
ing administrative specialists as being absolutely essential for the
successful management of their special education programs.

There has been a rapid growth in the number of supervisors
of special education since the early 19705. Wyatt (I968) predicted
that by I972 the number of supervisors would be equal to the number of
directors. This Opinion was based on the assumption that with the
increased consolidation of districts and the development of inter-
mediate units, these two functions (administration and supervision)
would become more clearly dichotomized as they proceeded to a higher
technical level.

The growth in number of supervisors has, in fact, surpassed
the growth in the number of directors in the State of Michigan. The
increase in the number of persons reimbursed as directors and super-

visors is shown in Table I from the Michigan Department of Education.

Table l.--Growth in number of state-supported positions.a

 

1970-71 1974-75 1977-78

 

Directors lll l53 I77
Supervisors 60 154 266

 

Source: As per telephone conversation between Dr. Charles E. Henley
and the Michigan Department of Education, September l978.

aReimbursement information is not available beyond the
1977-78 year.

Several reasons have been postulated for the growing number
of supervisors. Both Henderson and Wyatt noted consolidation and
development of intermediate units as possible factors for growth.
Lucio (1962) has identified the following reasons for the increased
number of supervisors:

Tasks of school become more in number and varied;

l.
2. Growth of school organization demands more supervision;
3 Supervisory positions created to knit specialized tasks

together;
4. Parkinson's Law.
a. An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals.
b. Officials make work for each other (p. 25).
Henderson (1968) stated that the demand for supervisory per-
sonnel would accelerate at a pace beyond that of the demand for top-
level administrators.

Too often "supervisor" equals "junior administrator," with
differences between director and supervisor limited in scope,
but not activity. . . . When and if sufficient specialization
occurs, it should be possible to employ these master teachers
as supervisors in the true sense of the term. . . . The super-
visor would have improvement of curriculum as primary respon-
sibility, and would spend most of his time in the classroom
demonstrating the use of new materials or techniques. . .

In- service education and curriculum development would thus be
a continuous, integrated function of supervisors (p. 385).

The number of supervisors in special education has increased.
However, the question regarding the role which has evolved for this
administrative position remains. Have they maintained the tradi-
tional role described by Henderson as the "junior administrator,"
or are they now being utilized as supervisors whose main role is to
directly improve instruction and the curriculum? A functional analy-
sis of the supervisor's role could answer this question and could
lead to substantial changes in both approval requirements and in

university preparation programs.

A Revised Michigan Special Education Code became effective
on January 14, 1977. At that time, qualifications for special educa-
tion directors and supervisors were altered. State administrative
rules required the State Board of Education to approve training
sequences for persons who wished to be approved as special education
directors and supervisors. Incorporated within the new rules were
broad competency areas to be embodied in university training programs.
A study by Hodson (1974), to be described later, generated
the competency areas which were incorporated into the director approval
pattern. These were:
1. Program development and evaluation.
2. Personnel staffing, supervision, and evaluation.
3. Interpersonal relationships, communications, persuasion,
and morale.
4. Evaluation of in-service organization and management.
5. Budgeting, financing, and reporting.
6. Parent relationships.
7. School plant planning.
8. Consultation.
9. Research and grant writing.
10. Office management.
11. School—related legal activities and due process hearings.
Broad competency areas for supervisors were also listed in
the Rules and Regulations for the special education supervisor approval
pattern. The competency areas identified for supervisors were as

follows:

4.
5.

Systematic study of curriculum.
Administrative and supervisory procedures.
Evaluation methods and procedures.
Communication skills techniques.

In-service education.

The competency areas identified for supervisors of special

education were developed through a committee and were not based on a

study of the area. As a result, questions from the field have been

raised regarding the relevance of those competency areas identified

in the rules for supervisors. It has also been questioned whether

appropriate competencies can be developed without more information

and interpretation of the present role of the special education super-

visor in Michigan.

To summarize, the problem is as follows:

1.

There is a lack of information about the role of the
supervisor of special education in Michigan.

This infbrmation is needed to develop appropriate require-
ments for the approval and subsequent reimbursement of
persons in this position by the State of Michigan.

This information is needed by the universities to deve10p
appropriate preparation programs for special education

supervision.

Purpose

The purpose of this research was to identify the role of the

special education supervisor through the identification of tasks

performed and to identify task competencies required for the position

for possible incorporation into the rules for approval of special edu-

cation supervisors. This research had the following goals:

1.

To compile a list of tasks related to the position of
special education supervisors.

To determine the importance of each task to the current
functioning of the special education supervisor.

To define competencies and competency areas which can be
included in the Michigan Supervisor of Special Education
approval pattern.

To identify those factors which influence task variation

in the supervisory positions.

Limitations

 

This study was designed to develop the first two steps in a

series of four which would lead to the validation of a set of compe-

tencies for inclusion in a pre-service training program for special

education supervisors. The four steps needed for competency valida-

tion are:

1.

Derivation of a set of tasks for supervisors of special
education based upon research and analysis of the role(s)
performed.

Specification of a set of broad competency areas for
special education supervisors in current practice.
Development of pre-service training programs designed to
ensure the attainment of specified minimal proficiency in

each of the competencies identified.

4. Determination of the ability of this type of training pro-
gram to produce more efficient and effective special edu-
cation supervisors through field research comparing gradu-
ates of programs which include these competencies with
graduates of programs which do not.

These above steps are similar to those stated by Hodson (1974). It is
hoped that the third and fourth steps will be realized as soon as
possible to complete the process.

The generation of competencies in this study utilized a com-
bination of sources: a review of the literature, a job analysis of
activities performed by supervisors, and the needs specified by super-
visors currently practicing in the area of special education. As
research in this area is limited, the results depend heavily on the
opinions of the practitioners in the field. While this is a viable
source of information, there are limitations to data collected from
this level. The information gathered reflects the opinion at only one
level. It does not report the views of the group supervised or of
the administrators to whom the supervisors are responsible.

Both supervisory approval and pre-service training programs
need to develop professional skills for supervisors which are not only
effective in current practice but which will also be effective under
future conditions. The field of special education is rapidly changing.
Therefore, the structure developed in this area must be changeable
without destroying a foundation of stability. The data collected in
this studywill only reflect that which is prevailing currently. As a

result, the competencies generated must be validated continually and

10

revised to meet the ever-changing demands in the field of special
education.

Information generated by this study will be limited in another
aspect. The population to be studied are special education super-
visors presently employed in public education districts in the State
of Michigan. The results generated will, therefore, be applicable
only in Michigan and will not be generalizable to special education

supervisors in other states.

Definitions

 

Special Education Supervisors are those persons in full-time

 

supervisory positions who have either temporary or full state approval
as a supervisor of special education under R 340.1771 of the Michigan
Special Education Code and who receive state reimbursement as a super-
visor of special education.

Directors of Special Education are those persons in full-time

 

special education administrative positions who have either temporary
or full state approval as a director of special education under

R 340.1771 of the Michigan Special Education Code and who receive
state reimbursement as a director of special education.

Intermediate School Districts are those Michigan public school

 

districts which are organized on a county or multicounty basis in
accordance with Public Act 190 of 1957.

Local School Districts are those Michigan public school dis-

 

tricts which are not designated as intermediate school districts and

which come under the jurisdiction of an intermediate school district.

ll

Task is a piece of work, especially one assigned to or
demanded of a position.

Competency Areas are those broad general areas of task respon-

 

sibility which professional supervisory personnel perform in their
positions.

Role is a function assumed or taken by someone.

Overview

Pertinent literature, especially that dealing with super-
vision and supervisory functions, is reviewed in Chapter II.

In Chapter III, the methodology and procedures for collecting
and analyzing data are explained, including a description of the popu-
lation surveyed, the methods used to generate the tasks and compe-
tency areas, and the method of analysis of the data obtained.

The data are analyzed and the results are interpreted in
Chapter IV.

In Chapter V, a summary of the research findings together
with discussion and recommendations for further research are pre-

sented.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

During the late 19605, increased interest developed in
special education leadership. From 1966 to 1969, ten doctoral dis-
sertations dealt with varying aspects of special education adminis-
tration. Prior to this period, few studies had been conducted
regarding special education leadership. This increased interest in
the identification of and the need for special education leadership
influenced the develOpment of pre-service training programs in
special education administration. As a result of the passage of
Public Law 88-164, federal funds were provided to establish univer-
sity training programs for special education administrators. Par-
ticipating universities placed emphasis on the development of a general
administrative position for special education. It wasn't until the
early 19705 that research began to be concentrated on the tasks and
pre-service training needs of special education supervisors.

An extensive review of the literature revealed a limited
amount of research in the area of special education supervision. As
a result, a review of recent literature pertaining to supervision in
related areas was conducted. This chapter consists of three sections.
The first contains literature on supervision in general education.

The second is a review of literature pertaining specifically to

12

13

special education supervision. Special attention is given in the
third section to state certification requirements for special educa-

tion supervisors.

Supervision

 

The role of supervisor is often misunderstood in the admin-
istrative structure. When "frills" are reduced, this position is
one which may be seen as expendable. Perhaps part of the misunder-
standing of and/or lack of credibility with the position lies in the
profusion of professional Opinions regarding the nature of the posi-
tion and the limited amount of research in the area.
While a variety of concepts of supervision are found in the
literature, the ultimate goal of supervision appears to be the improve-
ment of the products of instruction (Barr, 1931). Although authors
may vary in the methods used to reach this goal, the major objectives
remain the same. Below are various authorities' definitions of
supervision.
Harris (1975) defines supervision as:
What school personnel do with adults and things for the pur-
pose of maintaining or changing the operation of the school
in order to directly influence the attainment of major
instructional goals (p. 11).

Burton and Brueckner (1955) state that
supervision is concerned with improving the setting for learn-
ing and should have a democratic base and philosophy that
respects individual differences, and assumes teachers are
capable Of growth . . . in initiative, self-reliance, and
responsibility. It is creative, not prescriptive, and pro-

ceeds in an orderly, cooperatively planned and executed series
of activities (p. 85).

14

Wiles (1967) sees a supervisor as
one who expedites, establishes communication, and serves as
a liaison between people who can help. He is one who lis-
tens, stimulates, supports, and encourages the teachers to
try new things (p. 3).

Sergiovanni and Starrett (1971) assert that
the ultimate purpose of supervision is human growth for both
the staff members and the students they serve. This is pro-
moted through supplying continuit and constant readaptation
in the educational program (p. 10 .

In all of the definitions found through the review of the
literature, the major objective of supervision remains the same.
Supervision seeks to improve methods of teaching and learning and
to coordinate and integrate all educational efforts and materials.

The area of business gives a more directive stance to super-
vision. Shapiro (1978) defines an effective supervisor as

one who is able to plan, organize, direct and control the

activities of others; make productive decisions; provide

necessary training and leadership; communicate clearly;

practice sound human relations; and apply motivational

principles on a regular basis (p. 45).
In the above definition, directing is defined as the function of guid-
ing individuals to perform their job in a manner that allows for the
accomplishment of company and individual Objectives. Controlling is
the process of periodically comparing actual performance against plans
and taking corrective action when results differ from the original
objectives. The main thrust of supervision in business, then, appears

to be the attainment of organizational objectives.

15

Tasks as a Means of Identifying
and Describing ROTe Functions

 

Task analysis is defined by the United States Bureau of

Employment Security (1965) as

the process of identifying, by Observation, interview and

study, and of reporting the significant worker activities

and requirements and the technical and environmental facts

of a specific job (p. 5).
Task analysis is the identification of tasks which comprise the job
and the identification of the skills, knowledges, abilities, and
responsibilities that are required for the worker to perform suc-
cessfully. Those that are identified must differentiate that job
from all others. Although task analysis becomes increasingly diffi-
cult as one moves into administrative positions, it is the major
method utilized by those interested in constructing a conceptual
framework for describing the job responsibilities of school adminis-
trators (Sage, 1968).

Historically, the supervisory role has encompassed two major
responsibilities: (a) providing leadership for developing, improving,
and maintaining effective learning opportunities for children and
youth, such as attention to content selection, teaching methods,
materials, and evaluation; and (b) providing leadership in designing
effective ways of working with teachers and other members of the
school staff to achieve the first function.

Several authorities in the field have outlined tasks which
they, as professionals, identify as the responsibility of supervisors.
Barr et al. (1938) outlined the leadership functions of the school

supervisor at the local level to include the following:

am

16

Evaluating the educational products in light of accepted
objectives of education.

Studying the teaching-learning situation to determine the
antecedents of satisfactory or unsatisfactory student
growth and achievement.

Improving the teaching-learning situation.

Evaluating the objectives, methods and outcomes of super-
vision (pp. 9-11).

Lucio and McNeil (1962) specified six discrete duties which

supervisors perform:

—.l
0

Planning: Supervisors help develop programs and policies.
Administration: Supervisors are the decision-makers con-
cerning policy changes.

Supervision: Supervisors are responsible for the improvement
of the quality of teaching.

Curriculum development: Supervisors may prepare teaching
guides which set objectives and methods and materials in the ‘
teaching content area.

Demonstration teaching: Supervisors may actually teach
desired lessons for teachers in order to help them achieve
the needed teaching skills.

Research: Supervisors explore, study and recommend changes

on the basis of data collected during classroom observations
p. 3 .

Instructional supervisory behavior was defined by Lovell (1967)

as having the following functions in educational organizations:

N-J

Ohm-I30»)

Goal development.

Coordination and control (the continuous process of develop-
ing and maintaining the social structure).

Motivation.

Problem solving.

Professional development.

Evaluation (p. 24).

Harris (1975) listed ten major tasks of supervision. They are

as follows:

\ICSU'l-wa-J

Developing curriculum.

Organizing for instruction.
Staffing.

Providing facilities.

Providing materials.

Arranging for inservice education.
Orienting new staff members.

l7

Relating special services.
Developing public relations.
Evaluating (p. 13).

OkDCI)

When compared, there are several recurrent themes among the

specified tasks presented in the above listings. These are:

l. The recognition of the goal-setting and goal-accomplishing
function of supervision.

2. An awareness of the instructional aspects of supervision
and the requirements of supervisory expertise.

3. A perception of supervision as a differentiated function
varying in accordance with the requirements of unique
situations.

In most cases, emphasis is placed on instructional improvement.
Diversification seems to lie in the definition given to instructional
improvement and the methods used to achieve this goal.

The difficulty in describing a specific role for the super-

visory position arises for several reasons. Lucio and McNeil (1962)
identified several factors which influence role definition:
First, distinctive situations make unique demands on super-
visory behavior. Second, instead of ascribing certain roles
to certain status, Our culture's emphasis on achievement Often
makes it legitimate for anyone to play anyone else's role when
the usurper has the requisite skill and can help the partici-
pants (p. 39).
There are other factors which affect the responsibilities
assigned to the supervisor. One factor is the unique features of the
district of employment. The role is defined by the district of employ-

ment to meet specific local needs. As a result, there may be little

consistency between the role descriptions found in the various

18

districts. This variation in role definition accounts for some of
the diversification found in supervisory activities. Differing school
district structures, administrative patterns, and district size may
also affect the responsibilities defined for the role of the super-
visor (Trow, 1967; Stogill, 1956; Kohl & Marro, 1971; Mackie & Engel,
Hodgson, 1964; Henderson, 1968).

Variance in responsibilities is also influenced by the variety
of roles which have been defined for supervisors. Dudley (1970)
describes three different roles which may be performed by super-
visors:

l. The administrative role.

2. The supervisory role.

3. The leadership role.
The administrative role deals with the tasks of management, staffing
selection, placement and evaluation, and curriculum coordination.
The supervisory role concentrates on the improvement of instruction
through the development of materials, improvement of physical facili-
ties, initiation of relevant research, classroom supervision, and
professional growth and evaluation. Leadership responsibilities are
found in staff and school-community relationships. While these roles
are presented as distinct entities, they are often performed concur-
rently. These multiple roles may cause confusion within the organi-
zation for both the supervisor and the supervisee.

The Special Education Supervisor Training Program (SEST) at
the University of Texas at Austin recognizes the following super-

visory roles:

19

1. An instructional supervisor, whose primary assignment is
to work with teachers and others on instructional matters.

2. A change agent, who brings about changes in behavior, role
or structure for whole organizations or subsystems for the
purpose of improving instruction.

3. A maintenance supervisor, whose function is to perpetuate
the status quo.

4. An administrative supervisor, who performs a wide variety of
administrative tasks which still do relate to the improve-
ment of instruction received by children (Harris & Bessent,
1969).

Again, the delineation of roles may not be as clear as the above defi-
nitions indicate. Various roles may, in fact, be performed by the
same individual.

There may also be variation in the perception of the role as
viewed by the organization, by the individual, and/or by those being
supervised. Esposito, Smith, and Burbach (1975) felt that one of the
major forces impeding effective supervision was the lack of a clear
role concept. The confusion that exists among practitioners and
clients was felt to be due to the lack of congruence between percep-
tions of the role and activities performed. The authors indicated
that the tasks of supervision had not been functionally classified in
accordance with the conceptualizations of the roles selected by super-
visors, such as administrative, helping, coordinating. As a result,

a study was conducted to determine if a number of supervisory tasks
could be categorized according to specified dimensions.

Surveys were sent to all public school supervisors in the
state Of Virginia. The instrument was designed to assess the fre-
quency of performance of twenty-two specified activities. An analysis

Of the data identified four factors: indirect service to teachers,

direct service to teachers, administrative services, and evaluation

20

services. These were seen as relating to two distinct roles, the
helping role and the administrative role. These results were
interpreted as demonstrating that the supervisory role is multi-
dimensional. Confusion was felt tO be generated by the difference
between the role the supervisor verbally communicated and the role of
tasks which he/she performed. With delineation of the dimensions in
the supervisory role, it was felt that confusion would be decreased
through the supervisor performing tasks which coincided with his/her
role conceptualization.

In summary, various factors are seen as influencing the
responsibilities accorded to the supervisory position in education.
Some of the factors identified are: the influence of the individual
situation, such as the district interpretation of the role, the size
of the district, and the organizational structure Of the district;
the interpretation of the individual in the position; and the corre-
lation between the role as perceived, the activities performed, and
the role as perceived by the individuals being supervised. With this
range of variables influencing the supervisory role, confusion regard-
ing the responsibilities of the role becomes more understandable, and
the development of a generalized set of competencies which could be

superimposed upon the variations becomes even more difficult.

Special Education Supervision

 

Historical Studies

 

In 1952-1954 the United States Office of Education conducted

a research study to describe the roles and functions of special

21

education personnel (Mackie, Williams, & Dunn, 1957). This study

was part of a larger nationwide study of the Qualification and

 

Preparation of Teachers of Exceptional Children, which focused on
personnel of all types. The data were generated using two separate
procedures. The first involved a committee Of ten to twelve experts
who identified and described the competencies believed to be needed
by persons in each role. The second consisted of a series of ques-
tionnaires which were sent to 102 special educators in state depart-
ments, 153 administrators in colleges and universities, and 1,079
teachers in ten areas of exceptionality.

The results of this study acknowledged a number of discrete
leadership roles, including that of the director and supervisor.
Distinctions were based on place of employment and a differentiation
between the role of director and supervisor or specialist. State-
ments of functions typically performed by persons in each role, per-
centages of time allocated to each activity, statements of competen-
cies perceived to be important, and specification of training and
experience deemed essential for the development Of the competencies
were derived from the data.

Activity areas listed for supervisors included the following:

1. Consulting with regular educators.

2. Observing teachers of exceptional children.

3. Consulting with special education teachers.

4. Consulting with parents.

5. Consulting with local special education administrators.

22

Less than 10 percent of the time was found to be concerned with in-
service education. Even less time was spent on professional study
and research activities. Approximately 17 percent of supervisory
time was spent on direct service to students.

An analysis of the time spent on various functions in the local
school district showed an overlap between the director and the super-
visor role. Differences centered on the amount of emphasis placed on
certain activities. Clear distinctions between the two roles appeared
to apply mostly in larger school districts.

Shortly after the USOE study, a study was conducted by Mackie
and Engel (1956) for the purpose of analyzing the competencies needed
by directors and supervisors in local school systems. Information
was elicited from 153 directors and supervisors in special education
in the local schools. The communities ranged in size from 25,000 to
999,999 and included both city and county systems.

A list of competencies (knowledge and ability items) prepared
by the Office of Education staff was rated by the respondents as to
relative importance. Those solicited were asked to evaluate the
importance of the competencies first for the position of director and
second for the position of supervisor. The results indicated that
there was a great deal of similarity in the way the two groups (super-
visors and directors) rated the importance of the competencies for the
two positions.

Competencies were rank ordered for both the director and the
supervisor role. The following lists the ranking of the first ten

competencies for the supervisor role:

23

1. Ability to recognize acceptable and unacceptable teaching
and teacher pupil relationships in the area of exceptionality
for which he is responsible, and to give constructive sug-
gestions to his staff.

2. A knowledge or understanding Of the types of specialized
materials, equipment and supplies and their sources of pro-
curement in the areas of exceptionality for which he is
responsible.

3. A knowledge or understanding of the physical, mental or
emotional characteristics of the types of exceptional chil-
dren for which he is responsible.

4. Ability to serve as consultant to the special education staff
[in the area responsible for] special teaching methods and
curriculum development.

5. Knowledge Of teaching methods and educational adjustment

appropriate to specific areas.

Ability to work as member Of a professional team.

Ability to serve as a consultant to special education staff

[in areas of responsibility] on emotional and social problems

of individual exceptional children.

Ability to work COOperatively with individual parents.

Ability to serve as consultant to special education staff on

specialized educational aids, equipment and supplies.

10. Knowledge and understanding of the types and locations of

various community organizations concerned with exceptional
children and their services (p. 14).

\JC‘

L000

Comparison between the ranking of competencies for both positions
indicated a clear distinction between the role of director and that
of supervisor. All of the items with the exception of 3 and 6 were
statistically significant for the supervisory role.

In 1966, further differentiation between the two roles was
recognized by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Using
input from approximately seven hundred persons, the committee pre-
pared statements regarding areas of professional preparation and
competence for a variety of educator specialties. Included were state-
ments regarding the leadership functions of administrators and super-
visors of special education. The report concluded that although the
administrative and supervisory functions are clearly different, they

are complementary.

24

Concurrent with the statements, William Geer (1970), president

of the Council for Exceptional Children, indicated that

we are just entering a period when recognition is given to the

need for specialized preparation of such leadership personnel.

This has increased the need for a definition of the separate

functions and related competencies of administrative and super-

visory personnel in special education, the certification of the

separate positions, and/or the accreditation of institutions

preparing persons for each of these positions (p. 440).
As the period of separate preparation was just beginning, however,
the possibility of useful differentiation in the preparation programs
at that time was doubtful. As a result, the two types of functions
were grouped together in general areas of knowledge. These areas of
knowledge reflected a mixture of technical, human relations, and gen-
eral conceptual competencies.

The project also recognized that the responsibilities Of the

administrator vary with the size and type of program.

The responsibilities of the administrator of special education

will vary with the size and type of program. In some cases,

the administrator may have total responsibility for the admin-

istration and supervision of all of special education. In

others, he may be responsible for the administration of special

education but may delegate all or part of the responsibilities

for supervision (p. 440).

Connor (1961), in a monograph entitled The Administration of

 

Special Education Programs, made the following differentiation between
administration and supervision:

Although sometimes combined in special education programs,
administration and supervision are separate aspects of the

team approach to the education of exceptional children.
Administration is usually considered as the organization and
operation Of programs while supervision deals with the improve-
ment of instruction. However, school problems cannot be

divided into supervisory or administrative aspects and many
special education local and state programs combine these
functions. . . . Some of the generally accepted responsibilities

25

of supervisors are considered under the administrator's functions
to encompass the programs in existence in rural areas and in
most county and local districts (p. 11).

In 1971, Kohl and Marro conducted a nationwide study to gather
normative data from local administrators of special education. In
this study administrators were differentiated from those persons who
performed only in supervisory or coordinative capacities. Special
education administrators were defined as those individuals who admin-
istered more than two special education programs and spent at least
50 percent Of their time in special education. Individuals meeting
the above criteria were identified through state departments of edu-
cation. A total of 1,756 special education administrators were
included in the study.

Data were collected on the following: persOnal characteris-
tics, experience and preparatory background, the supervision and
administration role(s) Of the special education program, a description
of the job and conditions of employment, organizational characteris-
tics, programming elements, and perceptions on selected current issues
and practices. Analysis of the proportion of time administrators
spent on various duties showed a similarity to the duties reported by
Mackie and Engel (1956). Administrators spent the majority of their
time on administrative tasks. The second greatest segment of time was
spent on the supervision and coordination of instruction. The study
found the administrator performing the majority of the supervision
functions. This was felt to be a vital role in improving supervision

and instruction. Functions included under the category of supervision

were (1) the modification or adaptation of the curriculum; (2) working

26

closely with the staff in selecting instructional materials, teaching
methods, and determining pupil placement; and (3) creating a climate
of instructional experimentation.

Differentiation of training on the basis of different role
functions (administration versus supervision) has been emphasized by
Johnson, Gross, and Weatherman (1973). It is their suggestion that
the distinction between roles be drawn on a noncategorical basis.

Role differentiation could then be made on the basis of general func-
tions, such as policy making, total program functions, as opposed to
the specific functions such as dealing with individual program develop-
ment and implementation. The general functions would be those that
would call for skills acquired in general administrative training pro-
grams. The functions listed for the supervisory level would draw on
more technical specialist training. Functions would be separated as
shown in Table 2. Such an approach to role differentiation would
support the special/regular education interface and deemphasize the
usual categorical structure. It would also be an attempt to clarify
the differentiation between administration and supervision.

Studies of special education supervisors and supervisory func-
tions comprise only a small portion of the literature. Rather, major
emphasis has been placed on analyzing the administrator and defining
administrative functions. This is due to the fact that the adminis-
trative role has been the most visible, has been most readily identi-
fied with special education, and has been felt to be the most needed.
Training programs have been designed to train the administrator, the

director of special education. Supervision, while recognized as

27

 

.Kmm .a .Am~m_ .wbomaeewz Lo
xuwmcm>wcz ”mwroammccwzv ugsou cw cowumuzvm pmwuomwuumsmumawiummmm mocmscoegma
vac cowumNPLommpmumo .cmsgwsummz vcmguwm can .mmocu .o aggmw .comcson .< censqu "mucaom

 

auw_pn_mcoammm
Owemomamusmcmocm

.Fa>as-emecwz

mmTHVPPQPmcoammm
owewumamupm>mg

cowgmusum ucwgma
cowum:_m>m mpmwcmumz
acmanPw>mo Espaomggau
ucmsmmmcmz mmmu
ucwemum—a pcmuaum
cowmw>cmnzm chcomcma
cowumapm>m pmccomcma

comwmm4 xucmmq

ucmsaopm>mo mwmam
:owum:_m>m Emcmoca omm<zm

mcwccmpa Emgmoca

mmao: newcmmpu comumecomcH
mmwuso m>wpmcpmmcmsc< maowcm>
newcoumcoz\u:mEQoFm>mo ammosm
mcowumpmm OWPasm

mamume mcwucoamm mpmum
mpmuo>u< Emcmoca

Lopmpwpwumm new Louwanxm
pamEpwzcumm szcomcma

ALOmP>Lmazm Emcmogqv
HmH4<Humam

Acoumgpmmcwsn<\cmmmcmzv
HmH4<mmzmo

 

.msmwmxm amgmcmnmmp cowumuzum meumam Low mcmymzpu cowuuczuni.m «page

28

important, has taken a second place to that of the administrator, in
both emphasis and importance. As a result, training programs for
supervisors have either not been developed or have been conceptualized
as a preparatory step in the training of a director of special edu-

cation.

Current Research and Training Programs

 

Competencies.--A major movement is underway to reorganize pre-

 

service and in-service education, certification requirements, and on-
the-job performance of public school personnel into programs which
emphasize the specification of and training for competencies. This
movement has evolved from a recognition of the need for more precision
in the analysis Of positions, in training programs, and in valid
assessment procedures for measuring the performance Of education per-
sonnel (Merwin, 1973).

McCleary and Brown (1973) defined competencies as follows:
Competency is the presence of characteristics or the absence Of
disabilities which render a person fit, or qualified, to per-
form a specified task or to assume a defined role. To be com-
petent is to possess sufficient knowledge and ability to meet
specified requirements in the sense of being able, adequate,
suitable and capable (p. 2).

The general definition contains two elements: (1) the specification
of the task or defined role and (2) the indication of knowledge,
abilities, or other identifiable characteristics needed to perform
the task or role.

Competencies are evolved through a job analysis of existing

practice and an analysis of the knowledge base of the field through a

review of the literature. An early model discussed by McCleary and

29

Brown (1973) specified three successive procedures to be used in the
development Of a competency:

1. Job analysis and identification of critical tasks.

2. Categorization of tasks and identification of knowledge
and skills to perform in each category of tasks.

3. Theory definition, to provide the perspective and the
cognitive maps to understand the tasks and to select
appropriate procedures and courses of action (p. 1).

Several criticisms have been stated regarding the competency-
based approach. One of the major criticisms expressed is the lack of
consistent definitions which extend to all aspects of the competency
approach (Andrews, 1972). McCleary (1976) stated three additional
criticisms of the approach. He described competency-based education

as:

1. Impersonal and mechanistic approaches to human develop-
ment. ‘

Triviality of behavioral statements.

Imposition of accountability and questionable system
approaches (p. 34).

(JON

The January 1974 issue of Phi Delta Kappan dealt exclusively

 

with the area of performance-based instruction. Questions about com-
petency education, role identification, and validation were raised by
several contributors. Sandoz (1974) pointed out the evident shakiness
of the doctrine itself, its tendencies and unproven validity. He

felt they should all be considered before adopting competency programs.
Rosen and Kay (1974) were concerned about the "fractionation" which
can occur. Others were concerned about the validity of the concept
and impetuous acceptance of the movement by many individuals and
institutions without critically analyzing the entire educational scene

(Maxwell, 1974; McDonald, 1974; Brown & Okay, 1973; Sinatra & Masla,

30

1973). Lack of knowledge in identifying competencies must also be
fully acknowledged as a problem.

In spite of the criticisms and weak points which have been
identified, there appears to be a need to generate and to validate
statements of competencies for use in both data-based planning for
pre-service and in-service education programs and for use as criteria
in personnel selection or advancement and merit pay considerations
(Gale & McCleary, 1972). However, additional research needs to be
completed in this area to establish the validity of the competency

approach.

Research Studies

 

Hodson (1974) conducted a research study to generate competency
areas and competency statements for directors of special education, to
be used as rules of approval for special education directors in Michi-
gan and to be incorporated in pre-service training programs. Fifteen
competency areas and seventy-nine competency statements were generated
through a review Of the literature and a preliminary study of the
activities of six intermediate and local directors of special educa-
tion in Michigan. A questionnaire which incorporated the identified
competencies was sent to 144 directors of special education. The
respondents were asked to answer two questions for each competency:
(1) whether the competency should be developed through a pre-service
training program or on-the-job, and (2) the importance of the compe-

tency to their functioning as a director of special education.

31

Competencies which received a high rating and were indicated as
apprOpriate to pre-service training were to be included in the approval
requirements. There was some variation between the responses Of the
intermediate and local directors in preferences for initial develop-
ment of competency statements and in the average ratings of competency
statements. On the basis of the responses of the total group, thirty-
one out of the seventy-nine competency statements were identified for
inclusion in the proposed guidelines for the development of pre-
service training programs. Eleven out of the fifteen competency areas
were identified for inclusion in the proposed rules for approval of
special education directors in Michigan.

The structure used for competency acceptance in this study is
questioned. Only with a 41 percent or more acceptance as a pre-
service task and a 3.5 mean rating of importance could a competency
be accepted as an element Of the approval requirements. Those compe-
tencies which received a high mean score but were rated as inapprop-
riate for pre-service training were not accepted for inclusion. The
hypothesis which correlates importance with-preservice training seems
to disregard the importance of competencies which can be developed by
other methods. The source of opinion used in this instance is also
questioned. While directors can indicate their own opinion, their
involvement with university training programs in most instances is
limited. It would have been advantageous to augment the director's
viewpoint with the Opinion Of individuals from the university.

Cisz (1973) made an initial attempt to determine the signifi-

cant functions and proficiencies needed by supervisors in local school

32

district special education programs. Local school districts were
defined as public school units which included city, county, and/or
intermediate school districts. A list of proficiencies and functions
was developed through a survey of preparation programs for super-
visors, state certification requirements, and a review of the litera-
ture. Ten proficiencies and ninety-five special education supervisor
functions were developed. The ten proficiencies (areas of knowledge
and experience) specified were: school finance, school law, school
organization and administration, school plant and equipment, research,
supervision and techniques of staff development, personnel, develop-
mental and educational psychology, curriculum and teaching methods,
and human relations. For each proficiency was a sublist of functions
(duties required of supervisors).

The proficiencies and functions were incorporated in a ques-
tionnaire and sent to local special education supervisors, teachers,
and principals in fifty randomly selected local school districts with
special education programs. Cities which qualified for inclusion were
those with populations of over 100,000. Subjects were asked to rate
the importance of proficiencies and functions as (l) duties super-
visors should perform under ideal circumstances and (2) duties super-
visors perform in actual practice.

The supervisor respondents gave the highest mean scores for
the following eleven functions performed in actual practice:

1. Hold individual conferences with teachers and others to pro-
vide consultative services.
g. Arrange and make classroom visitations and Observations.

Encourage teachers and others to try new ideas and to partici-
pate in planning and organizing for instruction.

33

4. Recognize teacher's state of develOpment and plan strategies
for bringing about teacher change.

5. Act as a liaison between main office, principal, and teacher.

6. Orient and induct new staff members by necessary information
and assistance.

7. Foster and build staff morale and relations.

8. Identify needs for, develop and conduct inservice activities

for promoting staff growth.

9. Provide methods, approaches, techniques for teaching excep-
tional children.

10. Operate programs as set forth by various school laws.

11. Provide for demonstration teaching, microteaching, and visi-
tations between teachers (p. 111).

The functions given lowest ranking were those for which other school

personnel have major responsibilities.

Training Programs

 

The Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at Indiana
University implemented a training program for supervisors in speech,
hearing, and language programs in the schools in 1972. The content
of the program was based on items from a study of school supervisors
by Anderson (1972). Emphasis has since broadened to focus on super-
vision as a process applied in many settings. Distinction is made in
the program between the two major aspects of the role of the supervisor,
clinical teaching and program management. Clinical teaching isdefined
as an interaction between the supervisor and the supervisee which
furthers the development of clinical skills of students or practicing
clinicians in relation to changes in client behavior. Program manage-
ment is defined as those activities that relate to the administration
or coordination of programs. The theory developed throughout the pro-
gram emphasizes joint problem solving by the supervisor and the

supervisee related to client or program needs. It utilizes an

34

analytical approach to behavior in the supervisory conference and

assumes that interaction between the supervisor and supervisee is

as important to the total learning process and is as measurable as

the interaction between the clinician and the client (Anderson, 1979).

10.
11.

Tasks for which students are prepared include:

Assessing program needs for all communicatively handicapped
children from pre- to post-school levels.

Planning, implementing and coordinating appropriate program
models.

Evaluating programs and personnel to determine their effec-
tiveness in serving the communicatively handicapped child.
Maximizing the use Of all available personnel.

Assisting clinicians in self-evaluation of their competen-
c1es.

Assisting clinicians in developing plans to enhance their
own professional growth.

Interfacing with other components of school programming to
utilize the total educational milieu.

Assessing the in-service needs of personnel in the total
school program as related to communication disorders of
children.

Assisting special education and other school personnel in
planning and implementing appropriate diagnostic and pro-
gram models for children who are high risk populations (pre-
school, severely or multiply handicapped).

Planning and implementing research projects.
Self-evaluation of their own supervisory behavior (p. 13).

By the completion of the program, the supervisor trainee has

developed the following competencies in the leadership-management

role:

1.

Utilize business management and school administration proce-
dures in organizing and administrating programs for children
with communication disorders.

Relate programs for all children with communication disorders
to the general educational program.

Maximize the use of all personnel (professional and parapro-
fessional) in the school system in the delivery of services
to the child with a communication disorder.

Utilize information about state and federal laws, regulations
and resources, funding sources, referral agencies, and various
types of programming for handicapped children.

35

5. Plan and direct research relative to communication disorders,
particularly in the school setting.

6. Assess the needs for in-service training in the school
related to the communicatively handicapped child and plan
and conduct in-service training programs for clinicians and
other school personnel.

7. Plan and conduct prevention programs related to communication
disorders.

8. Work with school administrators in such areas as budgeting,
funding, physical planning and equipment, and personnel selec-
tion as related to the program for children with communication
disorders.

9. Utilize existing services in innovative programming for chil-
dren with communicative disorders (pp. 13-14).

The study and research components of the program have been based
primarily on the clinical supervision model by Cogan (1973).

From 1972 to 1975, the Special Education Leadership Supervisor
Training Project (SEST) at the University Of Texas in Austin focused
on the identification of competencies needed for the improvement of
instructional leadership in special education. A secondary purpose
of the project was to generate a model for the competency-guided
preparation of education leaders of all kinds.

The basic assumption of the generic model states that there are
certain basic competencies required by all educational leaders. Three
domains of behavior were identified in which all professional leaders
engage. Two of the three domains, problem solving and human relations,
are seen as generic to all leadership positions. The third domain,
the job-task domain, deals with the job-specific, interchangeable
portion of the model.

The supervisor is defined as an instructional leader and an
agent for effecting change. This definition does not include mainte-

nance functions nor administrative tasks not directly related to the

36

improvement of instruction. Seven job-task areas are identified as
specific to the special education supervisory role (SEST, 1974).
These tasks are similar to those identified by Harris (1975) and
reported earlier.

1. Developing Curriculum: The Process of Improving the Guide-
lines of Instruction.

2. Developing Learning Resources: The Process of Improving the
Availability of Resources for Learning in the School or Com-
munity.

3. Staffing for Instruction: The Process of Improving the
Recruitment, Selection and Assignment of Personnel for
Instructional Improvement.

4. Organizing for Instruction: The Process of Improving Organi-
zational Structures to Facilitate Instruction.

5. Utilizing Support Services: The Process of Securing and
Providing Supporting Services to Students, Parents and Staff
for Instructional Improvement.

6. Providing In-service Education: The Process of Improving the
Quality of Instructional Practices Within the Staff by Pro-
viding Opportunities for Professional Growth.

7. Relating to the Public: The Process of Improving the Quality
of Working Relationships Between the School Staff and the
Public to Promote Instructional Improvement (pp. 14-20).

Critical competencies which are statements of behavior patterns
to be demonstrated in actual job situations were developed for each of
the job-task areas. The critical-competency concept is defined as

one of professional performance specification which describes a
fairly complex array (If on-the-job behaviors which produce,
when manifested at a reasonably high quality, a product or ser-
vice which would be highly valued by school officials under most
educational conditions (p. 13).

Additional levels of competencies have also been developed:
major competencies and specific statements. These comprise the basic
components and primary indicators of the critical competency to be
utilized in the training program.

Gruber (1974) conducted a study to determine if there were

regional differences in the ranking of the critical competencies

37

developed by the Special Education Supervisor Training Project (SEST).
Supervisors of special education throughout the country were asked to
rank the competencies on the basis of importance in current practice
and importance for inclusion into an ideal training program. Seven
additional competencies were incorporated into the original competency
list utilized by the SEST project to function as distractors.

The results of the study indicated few regional differences.
Of those differences found, there were more significant differences
between regions on the importance rating in current practice than in
the ideal training program. Significant differences found were in the
rating of the following competencies in current practice:

Utilizing Specialized Personnel

Producing Learning Materials

Evaluating and Selecting Materials

Interviewing for Selection

Selecting Personnel

Monitoring New Arrangements

Scheduling Services

Securing New Services

Designing Budgetary Recommendations

Delivering Services

The following is the rank ordering of the top ten competencies
in current practice for the total population:

1. Utilizing Time

2. Acquiring Relevant Data

3. Designing Budgetary RecommendatiOns

38

Utilizing Human Resources

5. Selecting Personnel

6. Specifying New Job Descriptions
7. Providing Information Programs
8. Securing New Services

9. Scheduling Services

10. Securing Learning Resources (nonmaterial)
Three of the seven distractors included in the study ranked in the top
ten critical competencies needed in current practice. These were
Utilizing Time, Acquiring Relevant Data, and Designing Budgetary
Recommendations. None of the critical competencies from the job-task
area, Developing Curriculum, ranked in the top group for current prac-
tice. At least one critical competency was included from each of the
other job-task areas (see listing on pages 32 and 33).

The ten top-ranked critical competencies to be included in an
ideal training program were as follows:

1. Supervising With the Clinical Model

Designing Budgetary Recommendations

LA.)

Providing Information Programs

4. Planning for Professional Growth

5. Specifying New Job Descriptions
Utilizing Human Resources

7. Acquiring Relevant Data

8. Selecting Personnel

9. Securing New Services

10. Analyzing Services and Sources

39

Two of the distractors were ranked in the top ten critical competencies
to be included in the ideal training program: Designing Budgetary
Recommendations and Acquiring Relevant Data. Critical competencies
from the following three job-task areas were not included in the rank-
ing: DevelOping Curriculum, Developing Learning Resources, and
Organizing for Instruction.

In reviewing regional differences, it was noted that Region
Five showed more differences than any other region. Region Five
included the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio. It was significantly different from other regions
in seven out of the ten competencies in which differences were analyzed.
These were: Evaluating and Selecting Materials, Interviewing for
Selection, Selecting Personnel, Monitoring New Arrangements, Schedul-
ing Services, Securing New Services, and Designing Budgetary Recommen-
dations.

The Gruber study has been cited by the SEST Project as a
validation of the critical competencies generated by the project. The
inclusion of distractors in the top-ranking competencies was seen as
inconsequential to the project. While these distractors have been
recognized as receiving recognition, they are interpreted as not con-
forming with the philosophical approach taken by the project. Those
competencies which received a high ranking--Utilizing Time, Acquir-
ing Relevant Data, and Designing Budgetary Recommendations--are classi-
fied by the project as maintenance functions, not congruent with the

change orientation.

4o

Certification

 

Several studies have reviewed state certification standards.

Hallenberg (1966) reported that wide discrepancies existed in the cer-
tification standards for supervisory personnel in the fifty states.
A total of seventy-one supervisory certificates were available in
thirty-six Of the fifty states. Of the seventy-one certificates,
twelve were for supervision of special subject areas under which
special education was categorized.

Kohl and Marro (1972), as part of a nationwide study designed
to gather normative data about the local administrator of special
education, concluded that certification of special education adminis-
trators varies from state to state. Data indicated that very few
administrators held special education administration certificates and
only four out of ten held regular administration credentials.

Ebersdorfer (1973) found thirteen of the fifty states had
specific requirements for endorsement as a supervisor Of special edu-
cation. The thirteen states were Alabama, California, Illinois,
Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Eleven of the thirteen
required a masters degree or the equivalent. Pennsylvania was the
only state to have developed a core of competencies as a basis for
certification. This endorsement incorporated the following areas:
supervision of instructional processes and teachers and teacher aides;
school law; finance and budget preparation; group dynamics; curriculum
development; and research techniques. New York certification also

specified general administration and supervisory competencies.

41

It was the recommendation of the study that the requirements
for special education certification be changed. It was indicated
that certification officers and universities training special educa-
tion administrative and supervisory personnel should work closely on
a collaborative, cooperative basis to bring about needed changes. It
was also stated that the university program approval approach was felt
to be the most effective method for certification.

Forgnone and Collings (1975) conducted a status study concern-
ing the state certification-endorsement of special education adminis-
trators. The data indicated that twenty-three states required no
certification-endorsement in either general educational administra-
tion or special education administration. Eighteen of the states
required that a director of special education hold a general adminis-
tration certificate. Of the nine states which have the certification
provision, three certify through an approved university program
method. These three are Colorado, Iowa, and New Jersey. The remain-
ing six states have specific course and/or field experience and
teaching experience requirements.

State certification standards for special education super-
visors vary as shown in the above studies. The following review will
examine three of the state certification procedures which specify
competencies for supervisory certification--Iowa, Utah, and Washing-
ton.

Iowa defines the supervisor of a special education instruc-
tional area as a professional discipline specialist (in one disability

area) who has been assigned responsibility by the director of special

42

education for the development, maintenance, supervision, improvement,
and evaluation of professional practices and personnel within one
specialty area (Iowa State Department of Education, 1977). The
applicant, in addition to other criteria, must have secured a masters
degree from a recognized institution and have completed an approved
program in special education, including preparation in elementary and
secondary level supervision or curriculum. Other criteria in formal
training and experience are:

l. Coursework in the areas of

a. fiscal and personnel management

b. supervision and evaluation

c. curriculum development and modification and

d. program development

Exemplary direct service skills in specific support or
instructional area;

Extensive local professional experience;

Rapport with local and state service agencies and personnel;
Previous successful supervisory experience;

In—service delivery skills; and

Interest and capability in clinical research (p. 13).

N

\IOSU'l-bw

Utah requires an advanced level of preparation for supervisory
endorsement in a broad set of curriculum subjects or in a field of
specialty appropriate to the supervisory assignment (Utah State Depart-
ment of Education, 1977). There is no separate endorsement for special
education supervision. Programs of preparation for supervisors are to
facilitate the acquisition of those competencies deemed essential for
effective supervision in the public schools. The effective supervisor
must demonstrate the ability to perform the following:

1. State and formulate educational goals--design and implement
programs to achieve these goals.

2. Effectively communicate information concerning goals, activi-
ties, problems and programs to various school-related publics.

3. Identify, promote and apply sound principles of educational
psychology and learning theory.

43

Organize and conduct in-service and teacher training programs
which result in greater educator effectiveness.

Identify, promote and apply up-tO-date instructional tech-
n1ques.

Exercise leadership by assisting groups in defining a task,
analyzing the components, planning action steps and follow-
through activities, evaluating results and releasing energies
of group members to bring their capabilities to bear on all
phases of problem-solving.

Identify, promote and apply sound principles of counseling in
human interaction.

Administer, score and interpret a broad variety of stan-
dardized tests and develop evaluation instruments to assess
objectives not adequately measured by standardized tests.
Diagnose and analyze pupil needs.

Plan, implement and interpret fundamental educational research.
Use community survey techniques.

Gather, evaluate, interpret and disseminate school and commu-
nity resource information.

Use both first-hand and mediated experiences.

Design education facilities in the area of specialization.
Select effective equipment and instructional materials.
Identify, promote and apply sound budgetary principles.
Identify and apply sound principles Of staff selection,
assignment and personnel management.

Identify, promote and implement federal and state programs
related to areas Of specialization (p.

Instructional Program Specialist I is the title of Washington

State's supervisorycertification (Washington State Department of Educa-

tion, 1975). This role is defined as follows: "Consults with and

assists inter-media and local school districts regarding various edu-

cational programs, providing expert advice on and evaluation of pro-

grams" (p. 1). Typical responsibilities would include:

1.
2.

\I 05 01-50.)

Provides advisory service to school administrators and
educators in specialized curriculum field.

Gives guidance to development of sequential programs in
specialty.

Organizes, promotes and plans in-service training of teachers.
Prepares and disseminates curricular materials.

Makes surveys to determine status of educational programs,
specialty, and areas of needed improvement.

Visits schools to give advisory services, evaluate programs
and to observe new programs.

Performs other work as required (p. 2).

44

To qualify for the Instructional Specialist Program I Certifi-
cate, the applicant must demonstrate the following knowledge and
abilities:

Knowledge of: 1 State and federal laws affecting specialty.
2. Departmental rules and regulations.
3. Public school organization and administration.
4

Teaching methods, materials, problems and sub-
ject matter and/or operational procedures of

specialty.
Ability to: 1. Plan and organize educational programs.
2. Interpret statutory provisions to local school
authorities.
3. Communicate effectively, both orally and in
writing.

4. Establish and maintain effective working rela-
tionships with school administrators and the
general public (p. 2).

Each state examined has emphasized different factors in its
certification requirements. Utah indicates specific competencies which
the applicant must acquire through a university training program to
qualify for endorsement. This is a general education supervisory
endorsement required of all supervisors. Iowa, in contrast, limits
Special education supervisory endorsement to the supervision of one
specific disability area. Competencies for the applicant are speci-
fied in broad areas Of coursework and experience. Responsibility is
then placed on the training institution to develop the specific compe-
tencies for training and to specify the structure to measure the
experience requirements.

Washington places major emphasis on the types of tasks to be
performed by the supervisor. Positions which require the endorsement

are indicated through the definition of position responsibilities.

General specification of knowledge and abilities again allows the

45

interpretation and the development of specific competencies by the
university. It should also be noted that the term "supervisor" is
not used in either the role description or in the competencies

required.

24m

Kurpius and Baker (1977), in discussing the lack of research
and evaluation in the supervisory process in all fields, state that
what inquiry does exist is limited to methods of implementing philoso-
phies or conceptual precepts and does not involve questioning the
precepts themselves. The consequence is that professional traditions
and precedents are the guidelines for supervision. The manner in
which the profession is practiced upon the public clientele is also
the method of supervision. Until more research is directed toward
supervision, competencies will continue to be subjectively based and
subject to the bias of the individual or organization that determines
them.

In the review of the literature dealing with supervision and
special education, an attempt was made to show the professional and
organizational confusion which exists both in the areas of job respon-
sibilities and in the role definitions. One major controversy cen-
ters around the definition of the supervisor as either the maintainer
of the status quo or as an agent of change. The first definition,
the one of maintenance, links supervision with administrative activity.
The change agent definition, on the other hand, which only incor-

porates activities leading directly to the improvement of instruction,

46

has little contact with administrative tasks. While this dichotomy
may simplify the develOpment of a theoretical approach to supervision,
it is questioned whether it prepares personnel for the practical
aspects of the present or the changes of the future. Nor does it
prepare a generic type of supervisor who is able to function in a
continuum of positions. It is hoped that the present study will
utilize the variations found in the literature to generate competen-
cies for a generic supervisory role which will effectively function

under both present and future contingencies.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter includes the following: (1) identification of
subjects, (2) the design and implementation of the survey instrument,
(3) pilot administration of the survey instrument, (4) administration
of the questionnaire, and (5) treatment of the data.

This research was endorsed by the Special Education Service
Area of the Michigan Department of Education. Results are to be
utilized in the development of guidelines for the approval of special

education supervisors.

Population

 

The population for this study included all persons serving as
special education supervisors in the state of Michigan, excluding
those employed by the Detroit Public Schools, during the 1979-80 school
year. The supervisory position is difficult to define inasmuch as
local and intermediate school districts use a variety of different
titles and roles for persons employed in such positions. The criteria
for the inclusion in the study population were therefore established
as follows:

All individuals approved by the state of Michigan for reim-
bursement as a supervisor of special education who held

full-time supervisory positions in special education during
the 1979-80 school year.

47

48

Because a list Of persons meeting these criteria was not avail-
able from a single source, the following procedure was utilized to
develop a list of persons meeting the criteria.

1. A computer printout of reimbursed special education super-
visors for the 1977-78 school year was obtained from the Michigan
Department of Education.

2. The records of the Michigan Department Of Education were
searched and a list Of all persons eligible for reimbursement as a
supervisor of special education was developed.

3. The listing of supervisors of special education in the
Directory Of Special Education Administrators published by the State-
wide Communication and Dissemination System was reviewed.

4. The above three lists were correlated and compared. A
master list of 250 potential subjects was developed.

5. Inconsistencies and questions which became apparent as the
lists were collated were investigated through telephone contacts with
directors of special education at the Intermediate School District
level. As a result of this step, names were added and deleted from
the master list. The final population for the study consisted Of 296
supervisors of special education.

Supervisors employed by the Detroit Public School System were
not included in this study. It was felt that this population was
unique and would not reflect the characteristics of the general popu-

lation of the state.

49

Design and Development of the Questionnaire

 

The purposes of this study were to gain information from
special education supervisors regarding (1) the tasks which they per-
form in their present position and (2) competencies which they feel
are relevant for inclusion in the Michigan Special Education Super-
visory Endoresment. To accomplish these goals, a questionnaire was

developed.

Questionnaire

 

A copy of the questionnaire used in this study is located in
Appendix A. It consists of three major sections. The first section
was designed to assist the supervisors in identifying tasks which they
perform. To accomplish this, seventy-seven tasks were listed under
ten competency areas. The competency areas used were (1) Organizational
Structure, (2) Instructional Personnel, (3) Support Services, (4) Inser-
vice Education, (5) Curriculum, (6) Learning Resources, (7) Public
Relations, (8) Financial Structure, (9) School Law, and (1) Program
Management. The subjects were asked to indicate whether or not they
performed each task. If the task was performed, they were asked to
indicate how frequently it was performed within a year's period. Fre-
quency of performance was rated on a five-point scale: l--not performed,
2--daily, 3--weekly, 4--monthly, 5--less than monthly.

In the second part of the questionnaire, supervisors were asked
to report for each task whether a competency for the task should be
included in the special education supervisor approval guidelines.

Opinions were rated on a five—point scale: l--strongly disagree,

50

2-~disagree, 3--no opinion, 4--agree, 5--strongly agree. They were
also asked to report additional competencies which they felt should
be included in the approval pattern.

The third section of the questionnaire was designed to elicit
demographic information about the subjects. This section asked ques-
tions regarding the professional experience of the individual respond-
ent, characteristics of the district in which they were employed, and
characteristics of their position.

Two major sources were used to delineate the competency areas
and task statements used in the questionnaire: a review of the litera-
ture and a preliminary study to validate and to refine the task state-
ments identified.

The literature review served as an initial source of information
relative to supervisors of general education and special education pro-
grams. A review of the literature (see Chapter II) was conducted spe-
cifically to determine the competency areas and the task statements
for supervisors as revealed by previous studies, state certification
requirements, and by authorities in the areas of general education and
special education. The criteria used for acceptance of competency
areas and task statements were: (1) frequency of appearance in the
literature, (2) use in other related studies, and (3) evaluation based
on the author's previous professional experience. The competency areas
and task statements thus identified were incorporated into a first
draft of the questionnaire directed toward practicing supervisors of
local and intermediate school districts. The rough draft of the ques-

tionnaire, competency areas. and task statements was reviewed by two

51

university professors knowledgeable in both special education and
research design for clarity and appropriateness. On the basis of
this review, some statements were reworded and others discarded.

The basic format of the questionnaire, placing the task state-
ments in the center of the page with the two questions on either side,
was chosen to simplify completion and to provide less opportunity for
confusion.

Once the questionnaire was initially developed, it was infor-
mally presented to two special education supervisors for review. Addi-
tional changes were made to some of the task statements as a result of
their input.

Pilot Administration of
the Questionnaire

 

 

The questionnaire was administered to twelve individuals in
special education supervisory positions. These supervisors were chosen
for their experience and expertise in the field and for the variety of
supervisory responsibilities which their current positions incorporate.
The purpose of the pilot administration of the questionnaire was to
validate the competency areas and task statements identified through
the review Of the literature and to further clarify wording and format.

An initial telephone contact was made to each of the supervisors
selected to participate in the pilot administration. During that con-
versation, a brief synopsis of the study was given, a request was made
for the individual to participate in the pilot study, and a time was
set for an interview. In some instances a face-to-face interview with

the individual was impossible due to the geographical distance involved.

52

In these situations a questionnaire was sent to the individual with a
letter explaining the project and the purpose of the pilot study.

When a personal interview was possible, the questionnaire was delivered
at the interview. Analysis of the questionnaire by the supervisor was
completed at the second interview. If the questionnaire was returned
by mail, written comments were clarified through telephone contact.

Feedback was Obtained regarding the task statements and com-
petency areas incorporated, suggestions for additions, clarity Of
the wording, and the format of the questionnaire. Two major changes
resulted from the suggestions made. Concern was expressed about the
order of the competency areas. The respondents felt that the special-
ized areas should not be placed at the beginning of the questionnaire.
Therefore, the order of the competency areas was changed with the more
generalized areas appearing initially.

The second change dealt with responses to the first question,
which asked the respondent to measure the extent to which each task
was performed through an estimation of time and effort expended,
as indicated on a five-point scale. Comments from pilot partici-
pants indicated that responses would be difficult to evaluate using
the proposed scale, inasmuch as the terms used were felt to be vague
and to lack objectivity. Questions were also raised regarding the
measurement of the importance of a task through time expenditure. As
a result, the first question was changed to place emphasis on task
performance. The revised question was stated as follows: (1) Do you

perform this task? (2) If yes, how Often? The corresponding

53

five-point scale was changed to read: l--task not done, 2--completed
daily, 3--completed weekly, 4--completed monthly, 5--comp1eted less
than monthly.

Feedback was also obtained regarding task statements omitted,
and several task statements were added as a result Of suggestions made.
The questionnaire format was redesigned to increase clarity and to
enhance subject response.

The final instrument and procedure were reviewed and approved
by two university professors familiar with survey design and special

education.

Administration of the Questionnaire

 

Identification of the Prgject

 

Various methods were used to inform special education adminis-
trators of the purpose of the study. It was felt that promotion of
the project would increase the participation Of the population and
the support of other administrative personnel. Presentations were
made at several organizations of special education administrators,
such as the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Educa-
tion (MAASE), the Michigan Association of Intermediate Special Educa-
tion Administrators (MAISEA), and the Special Education Supervisors
of Michigan (SESOM). Each presentation consisted of a brief explana-
tion of the study, a description of the population to be surveyed, and
the use which would be made of the resulting data. The study was also

publicizedtn/the Michigan Department of Education, Special Education

54

Service Area, through contacts with individuals and meeting with
concerned organizations.

Letters were sent to all intermediate directors of special
education by the investigator. A copy of this letter is located in
Appendix A. The letter announced the study and informed the directors
that supervisory staff in their area were being asked to participate.
It was felt that through such information they would encourage their

staff to participate.

Distribution of the Questionnaire

 

Survey packets were sent to each subject. Included in each
packet was a cover letter, a copy of the questionnaire, and a self-
addressed stamped envelope. A copy of the survey packet is found in
Appendix A. The cover letter stated that the investigation had been
contracted by the Michigan Department of Education in order to collect
data regarding competencies needed by special education supervisors
in the field. The letter was cosigned by a representative of the
state department and the investigator. The subjects were requested to
return the questionnaire in the self-addressed stamped envelope within
a two-week period.

Three weeks following the initial mailing of the questionnaire,
a second packet was mailed to those not responding. Enclosed in the
second packet was a letter, a copy of the questionnaire, and a self-
addressed stamped envelope. The letter restated the purposes of the

study and requested a response within a two-week period.

55

Those subjects not responding to the second mailing were con-
tacted by telephone and requested to return the questionnaire by
June 1, 1980. If problems prevented their compliance, it was requested

that the investigator be contacted.

Response
Two hundred twenty-one (75 percent) of the 296 identified

special education supervisors participated in the survey. 0f the ques-
tionnaires returned, data were analyzed from 209 questionnaires (71
percent). Those responding to the questionnaire represented equally
proportionate groups of those employed by intermediate and local school
districts. One hundred eight (51.7 percent) of those responding were
employed by an intermediate school district. Ninety-five (45.5 per-
cent) were employed by a local school district. 'Survey responses
indicated that 149 (73 percent) supervisors responding held full
approval, while forty-three (21.1 percent) had temporary approval.
Twelve (5.9 percent) indicated that they held other identifiable types
of approval, including approval as directors of special education.
Ninety-three (44.9 percent) respondents indicated that they had com-
pleted two to five years' experienCe as a supervisor of special educa-
tion. Sixty-two (29.7 percent) respondents had completed six to ten
years in a supervisory capacity, and thirty-two respondents (15.5 per-
cent) had just begun in a position of supervision. These numbers
appear to indicate an increase in the number of supervisors at approxi-
mately the same period PL 94-142 was instituted. More recent years,
however, reflect a decrease in the number of supervisors beginning in

the field.

56

Treatment of Data

 

The data Obtained from the questionnaire were treated with the
use of descriptive statistics. Responses to the sixty-seven task
statements were analyzed by tabulating the response frequencies and
the percentage of responses to provide answers for the following
questions:

1. What are the typical characteristics of the position of
special education supervisors?

2. What tasks are typically the responsibility Of special
education supervisors?

3. To what extent does this population agree that the various
tasks should be included as competencies for special education super-
visor approval?

4. Are there factors which can be identified that influence

variation in tasks performed by special education supervisors?

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Introduction

 

This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of the data.
An attempt is made to identify findings of particular interest which
may assist in identifying the role of the special education supervisor
in Michigan. Four major areas of concern were addressed:

1. To determine the characteristics of the positions held
by supervisors of special education in Michigan.

2. TO determine the tasks which are typically performed by
the supervisors of special education in Michigan.

3. To determine which of the tasks are recommended for incor-
poration as competencies in the special education supervisor approval
procedure.

4. To determine the factors which contribute to variation of
task performance among supervisors of special education.

Results are presented for each of the four major areas of con-
cern in an attempt to answer specific questions. An attempt has been
made to identify the role of the special education supervisor through
the identification Of tasks performed and to identify the task compe-

tencies required for the position.

57

58

Questionnaires Received

 

Two hundred ninety-six questionnaires were mailed to identi-
fied special education supervisors in Michigan. Of this number, 221
(75 percent) were returned. Data were analyzed from 209 (71 percent)
of the number returned. Twelve of the questionnaires were not included

in the data analysis due to either incomplete responses or late return.

Characteristics of the Positions

 

The subjects were asked to respond to several demographic
questions regarding features of the district in which they were
employed and of their present position. The response frequencies and
percentages were calculated for each question. In some instances not
all subjects responded to all of the questions. Therefore, the per-
centage of response reported may not total 100 percent. An analysis
of the data revealed the following information about the employing
districts and the positions held by the respondents.

l. The majority of the subjects were employed by districts
employing a director of special education. Only eleven subjects
(5.3 percent) were employed by districts which did not employ a direc-
tor of special education. It was assumed that when a director was not
employed, the supervisor functioned as a director of special education
for that district.

2. A range of position titles was reported. These were coded
into five groups: (1) supervisor, (2) director, (3)principal, (4)coor—
dinator, and (5)0ther. One hundred fourteen (55.1 percent) had the
term supervisor in the title of their position. Within this group,

eighty-nine (78 percent) had a general supervisory title, such as

59

supervisor of special education. Six (5 percent) had the title of
supervisor Of ancillary services, while eighteen (16 percent) had
titles which indicated other specific areas of supervisory responsi-
bility, i.e., supervisor of the physically handicapped.

Twenty-two (10.6 percent) held a position with the title of
director. Twenty-seven (13 percent) held a position with the title of
principal. Nineteen (9.2 percent) held the position with a title of
coordinator. Included within this group were two coordinators of
ancillary services.

Titles which could not be grouped in the above categories were
classified as Other. Examples of such titles were Assistant Director,
Assistant Principal, Administrator, Administrative Assistant. Twenty-
five (12.1 percent) of the respondents fell within this group.

3. The largest number of supervisors were employed in dis—
tricts with a reimbursable special education staff of more than ninety.
The number and percentage of supervisors reporting various staff sizes
are shown in Table 3. It is apparent that the majority of supervisors
were from districts with relatively large special education staffs.

Table 3.--Distribution Of supervisors according to special education
staff size.

 

 

Staff Size Number of Supervisors Percent of 196
Over 90 67 34.0
51-90 52 26.5
26-50 39 19.9
11-25 30 15 3

l-lO 8 4 1

Z = 196

\0
£0
00

 

60

The number of reimbursable special education staff was defined in the
questionnaire as not including supervisors, assistant directors, or
paraprofessional staff.

4. The greatest number of supervisors, seventy-seven (38.5
percent), were employed by districts having a special education super-
visory staff of four to seven. This count included assistant directors.
Seventy-three (36.9 percent) were employed by districts having a super-
visory staff of one to three. Twenty-three (11.6 percent) were employed
by districts with a supervisory staff of eleven, and nineteen (9.6 per-
cent) had a supervisory staff of more than eleven.

5. The subjects were asked to indicate the number of profes-
sional personnel they directly supervised. Responses by personnel
category simply indicated that supervision of the personnel specified
was included within their position responsibilities. Categories of
personnel to which they were to respond were (1) special education
teachers, (2) psychologists, (3) school social workers, (4) physical
and/or occupational therapists, (5) speech and language therapists,
and (6) teacher consultants. A space was then provided for the addi-
tion of other types of professional personnel.

One hundred sixty-three (78 percent) of the subjects indicated
that they directly supervised special education teachers. One hundred
twelve (53.5 percent) indicated that they supervised psychologists,
and 118 (56.5 percent) supervised school social workers. Physical
therapists and occupational therapists were supervised by ninety-six
(45.9 percent). Speech and language therapists were supervised by 131

(62.7 percent) of the respondents. One hundred five (52 percent)

61

indicated direct supervision of teacher consultants. The types of
professional personnel included under the category of Other were
audiologist, physical education therapist, curriculum resource con—
sultant, nurse, homebound teacher, vocational evaluator, program
coordinator, and orientation/mobility specialist. The largest group
of professional personnel supervised by the respondents was Special
education teachers. However, personnel in the Other categories were
supervised by over half of the respondents.

6. Respondents were asked to indicate the categorical pro-
grams for which they had direct supervisory responsibility. The num-
ber of categorical programs directly supervised ranged from zero to
ten. The majority of the respondents (72.5 percent) supervised from
one to four programs. Sixteen (8 percent) indicated that they had no
direct supervisory responsibilities for categorical programs. Forty—
one (19.8 percent) of the respondents had direct supervisory respon-
sibility for from five to ten programs. In Table 4 are shown the
number and percentage of supervisors with direct supervisory respon-
sibility for specified programs.

To summarize, the majority of subjects were directly responsible
to a director of special education. Employed under a range of titles,
the word supervisor was incorporated in the majority of the titles
(55.1 percent). The largest number of respondents were employed by
districts with a reimbursable special education staff of over ninety.
The number of supervisory staff most frequently reported was from four
to seven. In their present position, respondents most frequently had

responsibility for the direct supervision of special education teachers,

62

Table 4.--Distribution of supervisors according to programs supervised.

 

Number of

 

Program Supervisors Percent
Educable mentally impaired 68 32.5
Trainable mentally impaired 72 34.4
Severely mentally impaired 67 32.1
Speech and language 74 35.4
P“4::1:I‘1.:23.23“W 51
Learning disabilities 68 32.5
Emotionally impaired 86 41.1
Hearing impaired 43 20.6
Visually impaired 33 15.8
Other 70 24.0

Homebound 12 6.0
Severely multiply impaired 34 16.0
Early childhood/preschool 19 9.0
Cross-categorical 1.0
Autistic 3.0
Vocational/work study 8 4.0

 

speech therapists and teacher consultants, groups which also represent
the largest numbers of personnel in special education. The number of
categorical programs directly supervised ranged from zero to ten, with
the majority of the respondents supervising from one to four programs.
It will be noted that sixteen (8 percent) of the subjects reported no
responsibility for direct supervision of categorical programs. It is
assumed that they occupy positions which are primarily administrative.
The number of subject responses from intermediate school districts

was equally proportionate to the number of responses of subjects from

63

local school districts. Thus, it is apparent that characteristics

described apply to both types of districts.

Tasks Performed

 

The data were analyzed in an attempt to answer the following
questions related to the tasks performed by special education super-
visors:

1. Which tasks are performed by a majority of supervisors

of special education?

2. What is the most common frequency of task performance?

The responses given by the special education supervisors regard-
ing tasks performed were divided into two groups: (1) those indicating
they performed the task and (2) those indicating they did not perform
the task. The data were tabulated and percentages were calculated on
the sixty-eight tasks. A space was provided in each competency area
for the addition of tasks which had not been included. As there were
few additions, these items were not included in the data analysis.

For data analysis, tasks were numbered by location on the
questionnaire. It will be noted that the task numbers in some instances
are not sequential. Numbering was begun with the number two. Between
each competency area a number was omitted. This number represented the
discarded items mentioned above. An exception, however, occurs between
the competency areas 9.0 School Law and 10.0 Program Management. Here
the numbers are sequential. Appendix A contains a copy of the question-

naire with the tasks numbered.

64

In Table 5 is shown the distribution of tasks according to the
percentage of subjects performing the task. For example, in the "number
of tasks" column the first entry is seven: this means that for seven
tasks, 95 percent or more of the respondents performed the task. The
percentage of subjects performing the task is based on the number who
actually reported performing the task out of the total N of 209. Sub-
jects who failed to respond to the task were considered as not perform-
ing the task involved. This decision was based on the Observation that
there tended to be a correlation between the number who said they did

not perform the task and the number who left it blank.

Table 5.--Distribution of tasks according to percentage Of subjects
performing the task.

 

 

Percent of Subjects Number Percent Cumulative

Performing the Task of Tasks of Tasks Percent
95-100 7 10.3 10.3
90-94 14 20.6 30.9
85—89 18 26.4 57.3
80-84 9 13.2 70.6
75-79 4 5.9 76.5
70-74 5 7.3 83.8
65-69 3 4.4 88.2
60-64 1 1.5 89.7
55-59 4 5 9 95.6
50—54 -- -- --
45-49 1 1.5 97.0
40-44 -- -- --
35-39 1 l 5 98.5
30-34 -- -- --
25-29 -- -- --
20-24 -- -- --
15-19 1 1.5 100.0

Total 68

 

65

By inspection of the distribution of tasks in Table 5, it is
apparent that the large majority (70.6 percent) of the tasks fall above
79 percent of subjects performing the task. The cases falling below
80 percent represent the tail of a skewed distribution. It was there-
fore decided to consider all tasks in the 75-79 class interval or below
as sufficiently deviant to be worthy of note. Conversely, all tasks
that are performed by a higher percentage of the subjects are to be
considered as typical of the responsibility of supervisors of special
education in Michigan.

Table 7 lists those tasks performed by 80 percent or more of
the respondents. These tasks are considered as typical of the respon-
sibilities of special education supervisors in Michigan. The assump-
tion was made that the percentage of subject performance was equated
'UJtheinmortance of the task in the supervisory role. Thus, tasks
receiving the highest percentage of performance were of greater impor-
tance than those tasks receiving lower subject response. Using this
assumption, tasks receiving the highest subject response as shown in
Table 7 were analyzed for areas of importance. The seven tasks receiv-
ing the highest subject response were 67, 66, 22, 23, 14, 15, and 11.
These were located in three competency areas: Instructional Personnel,
Inservice Education, and School Law. The top-rated tasks (67, 66) were
from the competency area of School Law. Thus, it was concluded that
the most important areas of supervisor responsibility were School Law,

Inservice Education, and Instructional Personnel.

Table 6.--Seven tasks receiving highest percentage Of subject

66

 

 

performance.
Task Percent

67. Enforce state and federal special education 97.6
standards for program operation.

66. Interpret school law and codes to 97.1
others.

22. Analyze needs for inservice Opportunities 96.7
for the staff.

14. Utilize personnel management skills to 96.7
build staff relations.

15. Provide consultation services on staff 96.7
problems.

23. Select activities for inclusion in 95.7
inservice plans.

11. Recommend most competent, qualified person(s) 95.2

for employment.

 

67

Table 7.--Tasks performed by 80 percent or more of the population.

 

Task Frequency Percent

 

1.0 Organizational Structure
2. Analyze the formal and informal

structures for instruction. 187 89.4
3. Design formal changes to improve

instruction. 196 93.8
4. Adapt instructional policies to

changing organizational structure. 191 91.4
5. Facilitate implementation of

instructional changes. 193 92.3

6. Promote and develop working
relationships between regular and 183 87.5
special education personnel.

2.0 Instructional Personnel

 

8. Propose plans for filling staff

vacancies. ~ 192 91.9
9. Write competency specifications for

instructional staff positions. 174 83.2
10. Recruit qualified candidates for

available positions. 179 85.6
11. Recommend most competent, qualified

person(s) for employment. 199 95.2
12. Participate in the evaluation of

personnel. 197 94.2
13. Assign and reassign staff. 179 85.6
14. Utilize personnel management skills

to build staff relations. 202 96.7
15. Provide consultation services on

staff problems. 202 96.7

3.0 Support Services

 

l7. Analyze the support services. 197 94.2
18. Develop plans for providing needed

services. 196 93.8
19. Design delivery systems for maximiz-

ing service contributions to instruc- 185 88.5

tional improvement. ~

68

Table 7.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Task Frequency Percent
4.0 Inservice Education
22. Analyze needs for inservice oppor-
tunities for the staff. 202 96.7
23. Select activities for inclusion in
inservice plans. 200 95.7
24. Design effective inservice programs. 194 92.8
25. Direct and lead beneficial inservice
education activities. 183 87.5
26. Plan inservice as part of larger
strategies for instructional 188 90.0
improvement.
27. Orient and induct new staff. 194 92.8
28. Supervising through process Of class-
room observation, feedback, planning. 189 90.4
29. Planning for individual staff growth
through the development of objectives , 183 87. 5
sequential experiences and evaluation.
30. Act as a liaison between main
Office, principal and teacher. 168 80.4
5.0 Curriculum
32. Analyze the current curriculum. 177 84.7
34. Coordinate the formulation of cur-
riculum goals. 170 81.3
6.0 Learning Resources
43. Identify sources of funds and
materials. 173 82.8
46. Inform staff concerning available
resources. 188 89.9
7.0 Public Relations
50. Inform public of school program. 190 90.
51. Involve public in school programs. 183 87.5
52. Recognize impact of public opinion
on schools. 189 90.4
53. Establish community contacts. 193 92.3

69

Table 7.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

Task Frequency Percent
8.0 Financial Structure

58. Assess budgetary needs for super-

vised areas. 182 87.1
59. Prepare and justify budgetary

recommendations. 180 86.1
60. Specify line item allocations

and priorities for areas involved. 168 80.4
63. Assist in administration of budgetary

allocations for areas supervised. 181 86.6
64. Maintain inventories of instruc-

tional supplies and equipment. 168 80.4

9.0 School Law

66. Interpret school law and codes to

others. 203 97.1
67. Enforce state and federal special

education standards for program

Operation. 204 97.6
68. Develop policy to implement special

education/civil rights legislation. 174 83.2

10.0 Program Management

70. Assist teachers and other personnel

in identifying exceptional children. 184 88.0
71. Assist teachers and other personnel

in utilizing diagnostic techniques. 187 89.5
73. Assure that information obtained

through testing is interpreted 81 made 177 84.7

available to appropriate individuals.
74. Establish criteria for the place-

ment of exceptional children in 187 89 5

appropriate classes and settings '

using mandated regulations.
75. Assist teachers and others in

evaluating pupil progress. 181 86.6
76. Maintain appropriate central office

pupil records. 178 85.2
77. Assist teachers in maintaining

pupil records. 182 87.1

 

70

Table 8 presents those tasks performed by less than 80 percent
of the population, which represent the tail of the distribution. The
tasks are listed in decreasing percentage of subject performance.

Many Of the items performed by 50 to 79 percent of the supervisors

are tasks which are Often the responsibility of other personnel within
a district. For example, the major responsibility for special educa-
tion transportation is often assigned to one individual within the dis-
trict. In some instances it is combined with regular transportation.
Similarly, some of the tasks listed in the Curriculum competency area
are seen as the major responsibility of the teacher, with coordination
as the responsibility of the supervisor. These items thus may be the
responsibility of the supervisor in some instances but are not viewed
as a typical responsibility of special education supervisors in Michigan.

For several of the competency areas, all of the tasks included
in the area were performed by 80 percent or more of the respondents.
These competency areas were:

1.0 Organizational Structure

2.0 Instructional Personnel

4.0 Inservice Education
Conversely, six competency areas contain tasks which were performed
by less than 80 percent of the respondents. Five of these areas con-
tain only one task below 80 percent. In the competency area, Curricu-
lum, however, seven out of nine tasks fall below 80 percent of subject
performance.

This clustering of lower-performance tasks within the competency

area Of Curriculum may be interpreted two ways. It may simply indicate

71

Table 8.--Tasks performed by less than 80 percent of the population

 

 

(N= 21).

NO. Task Percent
54. Participate in community programs for benefit of youth. 79.9
44. Prepare budget and administer for needed materials. 78.9
33. Develop criteria for curriculum development. 77.5
61. Assist in administration of federally funded programs. 77.5
69. Stimulate the development of needed legislation and

work toward the accomplishment of this legislation. 74.6
42. Propose and justify a materials selection process. 73.7
39. Disseminate and implement revised curriculum. 73.2
55. Influence community decisions relevant to school

programs or youth in the community. 73.2
45. Plan procedures for maintaining and securing media

and equipment. 72.7
56. Alleviate community conflicts affecting schools. 67.5
40. Adapt and implement curricula from outside the

district. 67.0
35. Select content material. 66.5
62. Seek additional sources of funding through grant

procurement. 63.1
20. Assess transportation needs, determine best trans-

portation means, arrange appropriate transportation

schedules, and provide necessary personnel. 56.4
38. Coordinate field testing of materials. 56.4
36. Write instructional objectives. 55.0
37. Design and sequence learning activities. 55.0
47. Design non-print learning resources that contribute

to a curriculum. 46.4
48. Produce various forms of non-print media. 38.3

72. Administer appropriate standardized intelligence
or psychological tests. 18.2

 

72

the inclusion in this area of several tasks which are not in fact
typical of the responsibility of supervisors. Rather, the tasks are
more the responsibility of teachers. Therefore, they are not per-
formed by supervisors. If, however, it is assumed that the percentage
of subject performance is equated to the degree of importance of the
task, a task receiving a lower percentage Of subject performance would
have a lower degree of importance. Thus, a clustering of tasks within
a competency area receiving lower subject response might indicate an
area of lesser importance to the supervisory role. Investigation
showed that both interpretations have merit. In the area of Curricu-
lum, three of the tasks receiving a low percentage of subject perform-
ance were interpreted as the responsibility Of teachers, and three of
the tasks dealing with coordination activities were interpreted as
supervisory responsibilities. However, those tasks from the area of
Curriculum which were performed by more than 80 percent of the popu-
lation received subject responses of from 80 to 84 percent. Thus,

it was decided that the competency area of Curriculum is an area of

lesser importance to the supervisory role.
How frequently are tasks performed?

The respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with
which tasks were performed. Frequency of performance was indicated
on a four-point scale: l--daily, 2--weekly, 3--monthly, and 4--1ess
than monthly. Responses were analyzed for the total population. The
number and percentage of responses for each task are shown in Appen-

dix B.

73

The modal frequency was calculated for each task. Table 9
shows the distribution of tasks according to frequency of performance.
By inspection of the distribution of tasks in Table 9, it is apparent
that the majority of tasks (63 percent) were performed less than
monthly. The least number of tasks, three (4.4 percent), were per-
formed weekly. In both of the remaining categories, few tasks were
performed. It is interesting to note the clustering Of tasks at the
less-than-monthly category. It is apparent that many tasks were per-
formed on a cyclical basis. For example, the recruitment and hiring
of staff is a task which is generally performed once a year, at the
beginning of the school year. Evaluation of staff is conducted two
or three times a year, in the fall and spring. Placement of students,
while occurring throughout the year, receives the bulk of the refer-
rals in the beginning of the school year and at the beginning of school
term periods. Thus, the clustering of tasks at the less-than-monthly
category appears to validate the cyclical performance of many of the

supervisory responsibilities.

Table 9.--Frequency distribution of tasks by frequency of performance.

 

 

Response Number of Tasks Percent
Daily 10 14.7
Weekly 3 4.4
Monthly 6 8.8
Less than monthly 43 63.2
Not performed __6_ 8.8

Total 68 99.9

 

74

Investigation showed that many of the tasks performed daily
emphasize human relations. For example, the tasks of developing
working relationships between regular and special education personnel,
of utilizing personnel management skills to build staff morale, of
providing consultation services on staff problems, and of acting as
liaison between personnel all depend on the use of human relations
skills. Other tasks performed daily dealt with the interpretation and
enforcement of mandatory legislation and program management. Tasks
performed weekly dealt with program management. Assisting teachers
to use diagnostic techniques, establishing the criteria for placement
of exceptional children in appropriate classes, and assisting teachers

in evaluation pupil progress were indicated as tasks performed weekly.

Agreement With Competency Statements

 

The data were analyzed in an attempt to answer the following
question:

To what extent does this population agree that the

various tasks should be included as competencies

for supervisor approval?

To report the findings regarding the respondents' agreement
with task statements, the "agree" and "strongly agree" responses were

combined. Thus, in Table Hlthe first column, labeled "agree,' refers
to these two ratings. Similarly, the second column refers to the two
"disagree" response Options. The third column combines responses of
"undecided" and no response. In making this latter combination, it

is assumed that failure to respond grew out of indecision on the part

75

of the respondent. Support for this assumption is the Observation that

no response tended to increase as undecided responses increased.

TablelIL--Distribution of tasks according to respondents' level of
agreement.

 

Percent of Those Strongly Agree Disagree Undecided +
Responding + Agree No Response
As Indicated (N) (N) (N)

 

95-100
90-94
85-89
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4

—l—J
I—I-thN-bCh-DCDCDN—A'
I I I I I
I

-_l '

MN
mmoomwmmi —'—41

26
31

III—J—'-’l
\IIN-—‘l

l
l
1

M
II
0‘
(I)

Z 68

M
ll
0‘
oo

 

Table 10 presents a distribution of the tasks according to the
percentage of respondents (1) agreeing that the task should be included
as a competency, (2) disagreeing, and (3) being undecided. Thus, to
illustrate interpretation of the table, it can be observed in the
first column that eight tasks received "agree" ratings by 85 percent

tO 89 percent of the respondents, and in the second column that

76

twenty-six tasks received "disagree" ratings by only 5 to 9 percent
of the respondents.

It is immediately obvious that (1) the large majority Of tasks
are viewed by the majority of respondents as meriting inclusion as
competencies and (2) the respondents seem more inclined to report
being undecided, or to fail to respond altogether rather than to state
disagreement.

In the “agree" column the distribution of tasks in the class
intervals above the interval 65-69 approximates normality. Thus tasks
that fall below this top group form the tail of a skewed distribution.
Thus, although 69 percent seems to be a respectable amount of agree-
ment, it was decided to take a closer look at all of the tasks falling
at this level or below to see what factors may account for failure of
these tasks to be more highly agreed upon as required competencies.
Conversely, all cases that received a higher percentage of agreement
are to be considered as those sufficiently agreed upon to be recom-
mended for inclusion as competencies in the special education supervisor
approval guidelines.

A second method was used to analyze the findings regarding the
respondents' agreement with the inclusion of task statements as compe-
tencies in the special education supervisor approval guidelines. Mean
scores and standard deviations were calculated for each task. The
highest mean score received was 4.717, while the lowest mean score
Obtained was 2.549, a range of 2.168. Few means were found at the
extreme ends of the scale. Standard deviations ranged from a low of

0.63 to a high of 1.28, a range of 0.7. This small range suggests

77

little variation of opinion regarding the inclusion of tasks as com-
petencies in the guidelines. The table presenting the mean scores and
the standard deviation for each task is presented in Appendix C.

Figure 1 presents a two-dimensional plotting of each task by
mean score and standard deviation. The mean represents the amount Of
respondent agreement, while the standard deviation is used as an indi-
cation of the amount of consensus among respondents.

The horizontal axis of the graph represents task means. It
has been divided into equal sections to represent the five-point scale
used on the questionnaire. The vertical axis has been divided into
increments to represent the range of standard deviations. Each task
has been plotted on the graph by the coordinates representing the
degree of consensus and the amount of agreement.

Means have been calculated for both the horizontal and verti-
cal axes. It will be noted that on the horizontal axis the mean of
the means (4.091) is located toward the agreement end of the scale.
This reflects the agreement tendency noted earlier. The mean of the
standard deviations is .89.

Each axis has been divided into three parts which includes
one-third of the tasks, to assist in the interpretation of the data.
The sections of the horizontal axis represent agreement, disagreement,
and the intermediate values. The sections of the vertical axis repre-
sent high consensus, moderate consensus, and low consensus. Tasks are
then interpreted by the section in which they are located on the graph.

Examination of the graph presents an interpretation of the

group responses. One-third of the lowest means are plotted in the

Standard Deviation

Low Consensus

.89

High Consensus

 

 

 

 

 

. D ‘ I I
l
l
4 |
1 l E
4..)
I m
1 g
C'
l a
.3 - I I §
'11 I I .2
C
'20 I 1 .9.
V1
. 2 4 I I 8
C
C
I l 'T
U» I 1 a
| c
.1. . ' 8
37 . 1:
. «I I 8
9 ' '
q ”7 .‘s . Iol I g
a", . 3.1 . I _I
as r3
G;
. O 7 01.0 1“ ' 1:1 I“
39 ' l
oss
1‘1
-—( — — — —— — — — —— — .5 I—u— — —— — — -— — -
41 "h bJ‘TbO
- I fil-Tb w
0 . 3 d %' E1317 *5
.vifi. V“ w
W {E”“ g
I i3 5' 7:3 I
‘33§2_7°_ _ ._ _ __.._._
- ——-—------ .wwa.
. ."7 .1. .. ’
0'87 1 3" £95, .5
l 0 0" a“? m
I... . 5.,
15
| C
| . a
. be c
OJ« 1 I 74 5
| | is E”
1 I 1.2 :3
m
l l ,3,
l
I T V I 1' T J
2 3 41 5
Disa ree _ Agree
9 x= 4JB1
Mean

Consensus

Figure l.--Plotting of tasks by group level of agreement and consensus.

CONSENSUS

Low

Moderate

High

Low

79

AGREEMENT

Moderate

High

 

Items 10, 20, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 45, 47, 48.
54, 55, 56, 62,
64, 69, 72

Items 13, 30,
61, 77

 

Items 42, 46

Items 3, 5, 8,
9, ll, 23, 32,
33, 43, 51, 68,
73, 75

Items 19, 27, 44
50, 53, 60, 70,
71, 76

 

Item 25

 

 

Items 2, 4, 17.
22, 26, 34

 

Items 6, 12, 14,
15, 18, 24, 28,
29, 52, 58, 59,
63, 66, 67, 74

 

Figure 2.--Listing of tasks by level of agreement and consensus

as shown in Figure l.

 

80

section below the mean of 4.00. The section below the mean of 4.00
with standard deviations of less than 0.84 reflects high consensus
among the group and a tendency toward disagreement. Task 25 falls
in this section. It will be noted, however, that this task is located
near the cut-off point of 4.00, with a mean of 3.99. This position on
the graph makes interpretatiOn of this task tenuous.

Mean scores below 4.00 with standard deviations from 0.83 to
0.95 are interpreted as registering disagreement with moderate group
consensus. Two tasks fall within this section, 42 and 46. Again
task 46 is located near the mean point of 4.00 with a mean of 3.92.
Interpretation of this task requires further analysis. Both of these
tasks are from the competency area, Learning Resources.

Several tasks are located in the section registering disagree-
ment and low consensus. These tasks are 10, 20, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40,
45, 47, 48, 54, 55, 62, 64, 69, and 72. The largest number Of tasks
are from the competency area, Curriculum. Five of the nine competen-
cies (55 percent) from this area are included. Three tasks are from
the competency area, Learning Resources. Two tasks are from the area,
Public Relations. There is one task from each of the following areas:
Support Services, Financial Structure, School Law, and Program Manage-
ment. Variation in the consensus with these tasks will be examined
later in this chapter.

Mean scores above 4.25 with a standard deviation of less than
0.84 are interpreted as having strong agreement for acceptance with a
high level of consensus by the respondents. Fifteen tasks are in this

area: 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 52, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, and 74.

81

These tasks are from the following competency areas: three tasks
from areas of Instructional Personnel, Inservice Education, andanan-
cial Structure; two tasks from School Law; and one task from Organi-
zational Structure, Support Services, Public Relations, and Program
Management. From the results, it is apparent that there is strong
group agreement for the acceptance Of these tasks as competencies in
the supervisor guidelines.

The area located on the graph between the mean scores of 4.00
and 4.25 is interpreted as indicating intermediate values between the
extremes of agreement and disagreement. Those tasks which are regis-
tered in this section are tasks which have received an intermediate
rating from subjects for acceptance in the approval pattern. One area
of this section, representing intermediate agreement with low group
consensus,indicatesitems where there may be the greatest difference
of opinion on tasks. Further investigation of the tasks registered
in this section, however, showed consistent moderate agreement on each
of the tasks rather than large variation between scores. Tasks located
in this section are 13, 30, 61, and 77. Due to the consistent moderate
agreement, it was decided to include all the tasks in this section as
competencies in the supervisor guidelines.

Inspection of the graph shows that the majority of the items
fall above the mean value of 4.00. Using the interpretation of the
graph as proposed by Wilson and Taylor (1980), it was decided that those
tasks having a mean of 4.00 or higher have the agreement of the respond-
ents for recommendation as competencies. 0f the sixty-eight tasks,

forty-seven of those tasks are recommended for acceptance.

82

The results derived from the two methods of analysis show a
high level of agreement. Comparison of the lists of tasks falling
below the acceptance level of respondent agreement indicates a differ-
ence in the rating of only two tasks, 25 and 46. Both of these tasks
have a mean Of 3.9, a mode of 4.00, and a percentage of agreement of
72.7 percent. Thus, they were plotted on the graph in close proximity
to the cut-off line for acceptance. Since the percentage of agreement
and mode are within the acceptance level, both tasks will be recom-
mended for acceptance.

Table 12 lists those tasks recommended for acceptance as com-
petencies in the special education supervisor approval guidelines.
Tasks are listed by competency area, with the percentage of respondent
agreement given at the right of the task statement. 0f the sixty-
eight competencies specified, forty-nine have been recommended for
acceptance in the proposed guidelines. The assumption was made that
the percentage of agreement was equated to the level of importance.
Therefore, those tasks with the highest subject response have the
highest level of importance. Investigation of the six tasks with the
highest percentage of subject response (tasks 12, 14, 15, 28, 66, and 67)
showed a clustering in three competency areas: Instructional Personnel,
Inservice Education, and School Law. The tasks with the highest per-
centage were from the competency area of Instructional Personnel. Thus,
it was decided that the task competencies dealing with utilizing per-
sonnel management skills, the evaluation of personnel, and providing

consultation services from the area of Instructional Personnel were the

83

Table ll.--Seven tasks with highest percentage of subject

 

 

response.
Task Percent
14. Utilize personnel management skills 95.7
to foster and build staff morale and
relations.
12. Participate in the evaluation of 92.8

15.

28.

66.

67.

74.

personnel.

Provide consultation services on staff 91.9
problems.
Supervising through a process of 89.9

classroom observation, feedback,
and planning.

Interpret school law and codes to 89.9
others.

Enforce state and federal special 89.4
education standards for program

Operation.

Establish criteria for placement of 87.5

exceptional children in appropriate
classes and settings using mandated
regulations.

 

84

Table 12.--Tasks recommended for acceptance as competencies in special
education supervisor approval guidelines.

 

Percent
Task Agreement

 

1.0 Opganizational Structure

 

2. Analyze the formal and informal structures of

instruction. 81.9
3. Design formal changes to improve instruction. 83.7
4. Adapt instructional policies to correspond with

the changing organizational structure. 76.5
5. Facilitate the implementation of effective

instructional change practices. 82.3

6. Promote and develop working relationships between
regular and special education personnel. 83.3

2.0 Instructional Personnel

 

8. Propose plans for filling staff vacancies to

improve instruction. 78.0
9. Write competency specifications for instruc-

tional staff positions. 77.0
11. Recommend most competent, qualified persons for

employment. 81.3
12. Participate in the evaluation of personnel. 92.8
13. Assign and reassign staff. 71.8
14. Utilize personnel management skills to foster

and build staff morale and relations. 95.7
15. Provide consultation services on staff problems. 91.9

3.0 Support Services

 

l7. Analyze support services available. 82.8
18. Develop plans for providing needed services. 84.7
19. Design delivery systems for maximizing service

contributions to instructional improvement. 77.1

4.0 Inservice Education

 

22. Analyze needs for inservice opportunities for
staff. 84.2

23. Select activities for inclusion in inservice
plans. 81.4

85

Table 12.--Continued.

 

Task Percent
Agreement

 

4.0 Inservice Education (cont'd)

 

24. Design effective inservice programs to meet

staff needs. 83.8
25. Direct and lead beneficial inservice educa-
tion activities. 72.7

26. Plan inservice education programs as part Of
larger strategies for instructional improvement. 78.0

27. Orient and induct new staff members through
information and assistance. 81.3

28. Supervising through a process Of classroom
observation, feedback and planning. 89.9

29. Planning for individual staff growth through
the development of objectives, sequential
experiences and evaluation. 82.3

30. Act as liaison between main office, principal
and teacher. 71.8

5.0 Curriculum

 

32. Analyze the current curriculum. 83.3
33. DevelOp criteria for curriculum development. 79.5
34. Coordinate the formulation of curriculum goals. 80.4

6.0 Learning Resources

 

43. Identify sources of funds and materials. 75.1
44. Prepare budget and administer for needed materials. 77.5
46. Inform staff concerning available resources. 72.7

7.0 Public Relations

 

50. Inform public of school program. 85.6
51. Involve public in school programs. 79.0
52. Recognize impact of public opinion on schools. 84.7
53. Establish community contacts. 84.2

86

Table 12.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

Percent
Task Agreement
8.0 Financial Structure

58. Assess budgetary needs for supervised areas. 87.1
59. Prepare and justify budgetary recommendations. 86.1
60. Specify line item allocations and priorities

for areas involved. 79.0
61. Assist in administration of federally funded

programs. 73.7
63. Assist in administration of budgetary alloca—

tions for areas supervised. 84.6

9.0 School Law

66. Interpret school law and codes to others. 89.9
67. Enforce state and federal special education

standards for program Operation. 89.4
68. Develop policy to implement special education/

civil rights legislation. 78.0

10.0 Program Management

70. Assist teachers and other personnel in iden—

tifying exceptional children. 85.6
71. Assist teachers and other personnel in utiliz-

ing diagnostic techniques. 81.8
73. Assure that information obtained through testing

is interpreted and made available to appropriate 78.9

individuals.
74. Establish criteria for placement of exceptional

children in appropriate classes and settings 87.5

using mandated regulations.
75. Assist teachers and others in evaluating pupil

progress. 79.9
76. Maintain appropriate central Office pupil

records. 78.9
77. Assist teachers in maintaining pupil records. 74.6

 

87

most important task competencies to recommend for the approval guide-
lines.

Table 13 presents those tasks which fall below 70 percent
agreement. Investigation showed that of the nineteen tasks listed,
six are from the area of Curriculum, four from the area of Learning
Resources, and four from the area of Public Relations. Many of the
tasks with low agreement have been identified through respondent com-
ments as responsibilities Of other personnel within the district. For
example, the following tasks were earmarked by the supervisors as
responsibilities of the director of special education: 62, seeking
funding through grant procurement; 10, recruiting qualified candidates;
20, arranging transportation; and 54, 55, and 56, dealing with involve-
ment in community affairs. Thus, it appears that as task responsi-
bility varies in districts, the response level of agreement for
acceptance becomes lower.

In Table 14 is shown the relationship between task performance
and respondent agreement. The table shows the distribution of the
fifteen most performed tasks and the fifteen least performed tasks by
percentage of respondent agreement. Through investigation of the
table, it is apparent that a relationship exists between task perform-
ance and respondent agreement. Tasks which were most performed received
80 percent and above on agreement for recommendation. In contrast,
tasks which were least performed received below 70 percent respondent
agreement for recommendation. Thus, it would appear that those

competencies supervisors utilize in the performance of their

88

responsibilities are the ones they have recommended for acceptance

in the supervisor approval guidelines.

Table l3.--Tasks receiving less than 70 percent agreement.

 

No. Task Percent

 

62. Seek additional sources of funding through grant

procurement. 67.9
10. Recruit qualified candidates for available positions. 67.4
64. Maintain inventories of instructional supplies and

equipment. 66.5
39. Disseminate and implement revised curriculum. 66.0
42. Propose and justify a materials selection process. 61.2
55. Influence community decisions relevant to school

programs or youth in the community. 60.3
54. Participate in community programs for benefit of

youth. , 59.8
69. Stimulate the development of needed legislation and

work toward the accomplishment of this legislation. 58.8
56. Alleviate community conflicts affecting schools. 58.4
35. Select content material. 55.5
45. Plan procedures for maintaining and securing media

and equipment. 54.6
40. Adapt and implement curricula from outside the

district. 54.2
36. Write instructional objectives. 52.6
37. Design and sequence learning activities. 50.2
38. Coordinate field testing Of material. 49.3
20. Assess transportation needs, determine best trans-

portation means, arrange appropriate transportation 40.6

schedules, and provide necessary personnel.
47. Design non-print learning resources that contribute

to a curriculum. 29.6
48. Produce various forms of non-print media. 22.5

72. Administer appropriate standardized intelligence
or psychological test. 19.2

 

89

Table l4.--Relationship between task performance and percentage of
respondent agreement.

 

% Agreement

 

 

Performance
Below 70 70-79 80-89 90 & Above
Most
(N = 15) " " 12 3
Least
(N = 15) '5 " " "

 

Most Performed: Items 3, 5, ll, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 27,
53, 66, and 67.

Least Performed: Items 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48,
55, 56, 62, and 72.

Task statements have been organized by competency areas. Due
to the structure of the questionnaire, however, the importance of each
competency area can not be directly assessed. As a result, the value
of the competency areas has been inferred through the level of agree-
ment of tasks within the area. For example, a high level of importance
was given to the competency area, Instructional Personnel, through the
high level of agreement given to three tasks within the area. An addi-
tional examination of competencyareas was conducted through the analy-
sis of the tasks accepted and rejected within the area.

1.0 Organizational Structure: To implement an organizational
structure to improve instruction.

All of the task statements included under this area were
accepted for inclusion in the guidelines.
2.0 Instructional Personnel: To implement procedures for

the recruitment, selection and assignment of personnel
for instructional improvement.

 

90

All seven task statements in this area were accepted for
inclusion in the guidelines for special education supervisors. The
three receiving the highest percentage of agreement were from this area.

3.0 Support Services: To improve the services available to

students, parents and staff which though non-instructional,
support the instructional process.

 

Three of the four task statements were accepted. The task which
was not accepted dealt with the assessment and development of transpor-
tation provisions. Many comments indicated that this task was the
responsibility of other personnel within the district.

4.0 Inservice Education: To improve the quality of instruc-

tional practices within the staff by providing opportu-
nities for professional growth.

 

0f the nine competencies listed in this area, nine were
accepted for inclusion in the guidelines. The task dealing with super-
vising through classroom observation was rated among the top six tasks
by level of agreement. This appears to be an area of importance in
the supervisory role.

5.0 Curriculum: To achieve coordination/continuity of
instruction.

 

Only three of the nine task statements included under this
competency area were accepted for inclusion. Those included had to do
with the analysis of the current curriculum, development Of criteria
for curriculum development, and the coordination of the formulation of
the curriculum goals. Statements which dealt with actual curriculum
development did not achieve acceptance. These included the selection
Of content, writing of instructional objectives, designing and sequenc-

ing learning activities, dissemination and implementation of revised

91

curriculum, and adaptation of curriculum from outside the district.
Comments indicated that tasks dealing with the development of the cur-
riculum were felt to be the responsibility of the teaching staff.

6.0 Learning Resources: To improve availability of resources
for learning in the school and community.

 

Three of the seven task statements received recommendation for
acceptance. The three which were accepted had to do with (l) identi—
fying sources of funds and materials, (2) preparing and administering
a budget for needed materials, and (3) informing staff concerning
available resources, tasks of an administrative type. Task statements
which were not accepted dealt with proposing a materials selection
process, planning procedures for maintaining and securing media and
equipment, and producing non-print learning resources.

7.0 Public Relations: To improve the quality of working

relationships between the school staff and the public
to promote instructional improvement.

 

Agreement for acceptance was received by four of the seven
task statements. Accepted tasks dealt with informing the public about
the school program, involving the public in the school program, recog-
nizing the impact of public opinion on schools, and establishing commu-
nity contacts. Those not accepted dealt with participating in community
programs to benefit youth, influencing community decisions relevant to
school programs, and alleviating community conflicts affecting schools.
These tasks reflect a more direct involvement in the local community
and may be interpreted as the responsibility of other personnel within
the district.

8.0 Financial Structure: To improve the availability of
financial resources.

 

92

Five of the six task statements were accepted for recommenda-
tion. The task which was not accepted dealt with seeking additional
sources of funding through grant procurement. This again may be the
responsibility of other personnel within the district. This was an
area which was previously viewed as of low priority in the supervisory
role. Respondents in this study have given more importance to this
area than expected.

9.0 School Law: To improve the quality of instructional

practices within the school by making available the
legal requirements of special education.

 

Of the four task statements included in this area, three were
accepted for inclusion in the guidelines. The task which was
not accepted dealt with the stimulation (If needed legislation. Those
included had to do with interpreting school law, enforcing federal and
state special education standards in program operation, and developing
policy to implement such standards. Two of the four tasks received a
high percentage of acceptance.

10.0 Program Management: To implement the procedures for

identifying, assessing, and placing students in ser-
vices which will meet their needs.

 

Seven of the eight task statements included under this compe-
tency area were accepted. The task which was not accepted deal t with admin-
istering standardized intelligence tests. This task received the lowest
percentage of acceptance of the tasks specified.

To summarize, it is apparent that the respondents have indi-
cated that the competency areas of Organizational Structure, Instruc-
tional Personnel, and Inservice Education are very important to the

supervisory role. High importance was also indicated to the competency

93

areas, Instructional Personnel, Inservice Education, and School Law
through the high percentage of agreement given to individual tasks
within the area. Conversely, respondents have indicated low importance
through the acceptance Of few tasks within a competency area. Thus,

the competency areas of Curriculum, Learning Resources, and Public
Relations have relatively less importance in the supervisory role as
areas although individual competencies within an area may be considered
important. The areas of Learning Resources and Curriculum also included
tasks receiving a lower percentage of agreement.

Determination of Factors Which Contribute
to Variation in Task Performance

 

 

The data were analyzed in an attempt to identify factors which
might cause variation in task performance by supervisors of special
education. The responses given on task performance were divided into
groups according to subject demographic information. Groupings were
made by (1) type of district; (2) size of district, local and inter-
mediate; (3) title of position; and (4) years of experience as a
special education supervisor. The frequency and percentage of sub-
jects performing each task was calculated by group. A table present-
ing this information can be found in Appendix 0.

Analysis of subject responses for the total population demon-
strated that 80 percent of the subjects performed a large majority of
the tasks (70.6 percent). With such high agreement on task performance,
it was apparent that few differences would exist between the groups on

those tasks considered as typical ofsupervisorresponsibilities. As

94

previously described, comparisons were made on the twenty tasks fall-
ing below the 80 percent subject performance.

The responses of subjects employed by intermediate school dis-
tricts were compared to the responses of those employed by local school
districts. Response differences between groups ranged from .4 percent
to 15.1 percent. It was decided that with this small range, there was
little difference between the responses of subjects from intermediate
school districts and the responses of subjects from local school dis-
tricts.

The responses of subjects employed by local school districts
were divided into three groups by size Of the district student popula-
tion. Subject responses were then compared by group. Inspection
showed the range of differences between subject responses was 5.7 per-
cent to 28.6 percent. With this small range, it was decided that
there was little difference among these groups.

The responses of subjects from intermediate school districts
were divided into four groups by district student population. The
groups were as follows: group l--O-20,999; group 2--21,000-39,999;
group 3--40,000-99,999; and group 4--lO0,000 and over. The difference
between subject responses ranged from 1 percent to 35 percent. Com-
parisons between groups showed the following:

1. Comparison showed little difference between groups 1,

2, and 3.
2. Comparison of groups 2 and 4 showed that the percentage of

subject task performance was consistently larger in group 2. In only

95

nine out of twenty-one (43 percent) of the tasks, however, was there
a difference of 20 percent or larger.

3. Comparison between groups 3 and 4 showed a 20 percent
difference on subject task performance in eleven out of twenty-one
tasks, with no consistent pattern emerging.

4. Comparison between groups 1 and 4 showed the greatest dif-
ference between subject responses. There was a 20 percent difference
between subject performance in fifteen out of twenty-one tasks, with
subject response in group 4 lower in nineteen out of twenty-one tasks.

From the comparisons, it is apparent that the size of the
intermediate school district causes variation in the tasks performed
by supervisors of special education employed in these districts. In
larger districts, subject task performance is consistently lower than
in smaller districts. Frequently, supervisors in large districts tend
to perform more specialized, consultative roles which narrow the range
of tasks performed in their position. This may account for the lower
subject task performance in this group.

The responses of subjects were compared by title of position.
Difference between responses ranged from 10.9 percent to 39 percent.
Table 15 lists those tasks showing the most interesting variation in
subject response. Group responses to these tasks indicated the largest
intergroup discrepancies. Subject responses to the twelve tasks not
included in this table are listed in Appendix 0.

Examination of subject responses by group showed that task
performance appears to be associated with expectations associated with

the title Of the position. For example, principals are expected to

96

 

.cowue_mwmm_ m_;p to peas;m_F
~.m~ m.mm ¢.ow m.o~ unsouum mg» ucmzou xcoz new :omumpmwmmp
umvmm: Co oceanopm>mc mgp mumpas_um .mo

«.54 o.mm e.om o.¢o .bcmsaczooca “seam emsoceb
mcwccae mo mmugzom pmcowumnum xwmm .mo

.zpwczs

m.~m _.¢N m.Pm «.mu -EoO on» cw gaze» Lo mamgmoca Foogum op

acm>m_mc meowmwumc xpwczesou mucmapecfi .mm

«.mo m.mk m.mm N.om .gusox eo wwwmcma
Low mamgmoga appczssou cw mumqwuwpcma .cm

m.o~ o.um o.om o.om .szpqucczu m on maznwcucoo
was“ mwuczommc mcwccwmp acreauco: cmwmoo .Ne

m.~m m.nm m.om m.m~ .ucwsawzcm can mwuwe mcwgaumm
was mcwcmmucwwe so» mmcauwuocq cmpm .m¢

N.MN o.mm «.mw P.wN .mmmuoga
cowuomme mpmmcmume a aewumsw new mmoaoca .mq

m.mo N.mw w.Fw w.mn .Espaumc
-czu cmmw>mc “cosmpasw use mumcwswmmwo .mm

o.~m m.—w m.mm m.mo .wacmpms ucmpcou pumpmm .mm

 

Logmcwucoou Fmawo:_ca couumcwo comw>cmazm

 

mm .o
a_bwp cowbwmoa x H z

I. III.II| I1 10 1 I III- II 111 I -1111-
.1111 .III

.Aucmucma :wv mmpuwu cowpwmoa :wwzpma cowumwgm> ummmcmp :uwz mxmmp11.m— mPQm»

97

have more direct responsibility for the content material of curriculum
than are directors or supervisors. An analysis of subject responses
verifies this expectation. Directors showed higher subject response
on tasks which tend to be administrative. Tasks 42 and 45 deal with
the development of procedure and are interpreted as administrative
tasks. The percentage Of respondents performing this task in the
directors group was larger than in the other groups. Thus, it is
apparent that a relationship exists between the title of the position
and the variation Of tasks performed.

The reSponses Of subjects were compared by years of experience
as a supervisor of special education. Subjects were divided into four
groups. Inspection of subject response by groups showed differences
ranging from 1.6 percent to 25.6 percent. It was, therefore, decided
that increased experience has little effect on subject task perform-

ance.

Summary

The analysis of the data indicated the following information
about the employing districts and positions respondents held. The
majority of supervisors were in districts which employed a director of
special education. The largest number of supervisors were employed by
districts with a reimbursable special education staff of more than
ninety. The average number of supervisory staff ranged from four to
seven. The majority of respondents (72.5 percent) supervised a range
of from one to four categorical programs directly. However, sixteen
respondents (8 percent) indicated they had no direct supervisory respon-

sibility for categorical programs. The largest group of professional

98

personnel supervised were special education teachers. In addition,
personnel in the other categories were supervised by over half of the
respondents.

A profile of responsibilities typical of special education
supervisors was developed through an investigation of the frequency
distribution of tasks performed by the reSpondents. Those tasks per-
formed by 80 percent or more Of the respondents were identified as
typical responsibilities of special education supervisors. 0f the
sixty-eight tasks specified, forty-eight (70.6 percent) were identi-
fied as tasks typically performed by special education supervisors in
the state of Michigan. Those tasks below 80 percent were interpreted
as tasks indicating variation among the responsibilities of super-
visors which needed further investigation.

Assuming that task importance was indicated through percentage
of subject performance, the tasks receiving the highest percentage of
subject performance were identified and analyzed. The seven tasks
with the highest subject response were from the competency areas of
School Law, Inservice Education, and Instructional Personnel. Thus,
it was decided that these areas were of the highest importance in the
supervisory profile. The competency areas of least importance were
Curriculum and Learning Resources.

Investigation of the distribution of tasks according to fre-
quency Of performance showed the majority of tasks performed on a
less-than-monthly basis. Thus, most tasks in the supervisor profile

are performed in a cyclical pattern.

99

A determination of the task statements to be recommended as
competencies for inclusion in the proposed guidelines was made on the
basis of the percentage of agreement indicated by the respondents.

It was found that (l) a large majority of the tasks presented were
viewed by a majority of the respondents as meriting inclusion as
competencies, and (2) the respondents seem more inclined to report
undecided or to give no response than to state disagreement. It was
therefore decided to consider all tasks receiving a percentage of
agreement above 69 percent as sufficiently agreed upon for inclusion
as competencies in the special education supervisor approval guide-
lines. Of the sixty-eight tasks presented in the study, forty-nine
have been recommended for acceptance. Tasks receiving the highest
percentage of agreement were from the competency areas of Instructional
Personnel, Inservice Education, and School Law. Tasks receiving the
lowest percentage of respondent agreement were from the competency
areas of Curriculum, Learning Resources, and Public Relations.

A relationship was found between task performance and task
acceptance. Those competencies supervisors used in the performance of
their responsibilities were the ones recommended for acceptance in the
supervisor approval guidelines.

The data were analyzed to identify factors which might cause
variation in task performance. Factors investigated were: (1) type
of district, (2) size of district, (3) title of position, and (4) years
of experience as a special education supervisor. 0f the factors con-

sidered, only two appear to contribute to the variation in task

100

performance. These are the title of the position and the size of
the district. Differences noted, however, were slight. Further

investigation is needed to verify the differences found in this study.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The purpose of this study was to identify the role of the

special education supervisor through the identification of tasks
performed and to identify task competencies required for the position
for possible incorporation into the rules for approval of special edu-
cation supervisors. The need for the study was indicated by the empha—
sis placed on the development of competency-based approval guidelines
for special education supervisors and by the lack of research designed
to identify the responsibilities of the special education supervisor in
Michigan and to elicit from practicing supervisors their views as to
the crucial competencies to be incorporated in the approval guidelines.
The study proposed to develop the first two steps in a series of four
leading to the validation of competencies for inclusion in a preservice
training program for special education supervisors.

The review of the literature focused primarily on three major
tOpics: (l) supervision in general education, (2) supervision in
special education, and (3) state certification requirements for special
education supervisors. This review indicated that while initial
attempts have been made to describe through research the responsibili-
ties of supervisors of special education and the competencies needed

for the effective performance Of these responsibilities, further

101

102

research is needed to generate competencies for a generic supervisory
role which can function under both present and future contingencies.

The ten competency areas and sixty-eight task statements
incorporated in the questionnaire were derived through a review of the
literature and a preliminary review of the questionnaire by twelve
supervisors of special education. The questionnaire was sent to 296
approved supervisors of special education in Michigan. The respondents
were asked to indicate for each task statement: (1) whether the task
was performed in their present position and (2) whether a competency
for the task statement should be included in the special education
supervisor approval guidelines. Frequency and percentage distribu-
tions were analyzed to provide (1) a description of the typical respon-
sibilities of supervisors Of special education in Michigan and (2) a
list of task statements to be recommended for inclusion as competen-
cies for special education supervisor approval guidelines.

From the 296 questionnaires sent, data were analyzed from 209
questionnaires (71 percent). The majority of the supervisors were
employed by districts with a reimbursable special education staff of
ninety or more, and with a supervisory staff ranging from four to seven.
One hundred fifty-two (72.5 percent) indicated they had direct super-
visory responsibility for a range of from one to four programs, while
sixteen (8 percent) indicated they had no direct supervisory respon-
sibility for categorical programs. The largest group of professional
personnel supervised were special education teachers. In addition,
personnel in the other categories were supervised by over half of the

respondents.

103

A profile of responsibilities typical of special education
supervisors was developed through an investigation of the frequency
distribution of tasks performed by the respondents. Those tasks per-
formed by 80 percent or more of the respondents were identified as
typical responsibilities of special education supervisors. Of the
sixty-eight tasks specified, forty-eight (70.6 percent) were identi-
fied as tasks typically performed by special education supervisors in
the state of Michigan. Those tasks performed by less than 80 percent
of the respondents were interpreted as tasks indicating variation among
the responsibilities of supervisors which need further investigation.

Assuming that task importance was indicated through percentage
of subject performance, the tasks receiving the highest percentage of
subject performance were identified and analyzed.' The seven tasks
with the highest subject response were all from the competency areas of
School Law, Inservice Education, and Instructional Personnel. Thus,
it was decided that these areas were of the highest importance in the
supervisory profile. The competency areas Of least importance were
Curriculum and Learning Resources.

Investigation of the distribution of tasks according to fre-
quency of performance showed the majority Of tasks performed on a
less-than-monthly basis. Thus, it appears that most tasks in the
supervisor profile are performed on a cyclical pattern.

A determination of the task statements to be recommended as
competencies for inclusion in the proposed guidelines was made on the
basis of the percentage of agreement indicated by the respondents.

It was found that (l) a large majority of the tasks presented were

104

viewed by the majority of respondents as meriting inclusion as compe-
tencies, and (2) the respondents seem more inclined to report undecided
or to give no response to task statements than to state disagreement.
From the distribution of tasks, it was decided to consider all tasks
receiving a percentage of agreement above 69 percent to be suffi-
ciently agreed upon for inclusion as competencies in the special edu-
cation supervisor approval guidelines. Of the sixty-eight tasks,
forty-nine have been recommended for acceptance. Tasks receiving the
highest percentage of agreement were from the competency areas of
Instructional Personnel, Inservice Education, and School Law. Tasks
receiving the lowest percentage of respondent agreement were from the
competency areas of Curriculum, Learning Resources, and Public Rela-
tions.

A relationship was found to exist between task performance and
task acceptance. Those competencies supervisors use in the performance
of responsibilities were those recommended for acceptance in the super-
visor approval guidelines.

The data were analyzed to identify factors which might cause
variation in task performance. Factors investigated were (1) type of
district, (2) size of district, (3) title of position, and (4) years
of experience as a special education supervisor. 0f the factors, only
two appear to cause variation in task performance. These were the
title of the position and the size of the district. Differences noted,
however, were slight. Further investigation is needed to verify the

differences found in this study.

105

Recommendations

 

The following competency areas are recommended for inclusion
in the Michigan rules for approval of special education supervisors:
College or university credit shall be distributed appropriately
to assure knowledge and competency in the following areas:
1. Organizational Structure
Instructional Personnel
Support Services
Inservice Education
Curriculum
Learning Resources
Public Relations
Financial Structure
School Law

OOCDNO‘U'l-P-wm

—I

Program Management

It is recommended that the forty-nine task statements recom-
mended for incorporation as competencies for state adoption as guide-
lines for the special education supervisor approval also be incorporated
as guidelines for the development of training programs of special edu-
cation supervisors. These task statements are listed in Table 10.
Emphasis in the training program should be placed on those areas

receiving high subject agreement.

General Discussion

 

The assumption was made that a task performed by a high per-
centage of the supervisors responding to this survey wasa task which
must be considered of importance in the supervisory role. The results

of this study indicated three areas of importance for the supervisory

106

role. These are (1) School Law, (2) Instructional Personnel, and
(3) Inservice Education.

In order to compare this study with the results of similar
studies cited in Chapter II, a list has been provided comparing the
three areas rated highest and lowest in Cisz's study, the three high

and low areas in Gruber's study, and the three high and low areas in

 

 

this study.
Cisz Gruber Stephenson
1. Curriculum 1. Supervisor Role 1. School Law
2. Public Relations 2. Instructional 2. Instructional
High Personnel Personnel
3. Inservice 3. Inservice 3. Inservice
Education Education Education
1. School Finances 1. Curriculum 1. Curriculum
Low 2. School Plant 2. Learning 2. Learning
-——- and Equipment Resources Resources
3. School Law 3. Public Relations 3. Public Relations

In comparing these studies, one finds close agreement between
the Gruber and Stephenson studies. While parallel comparisons can't
be made because the areas are somewhat different and the studies are
based on different populations, it is obvious, when comparing the
areas, that two of the three top areas in the Gruber study are consis-
tent with two Of the top three areas identified in this study.

In the Cisz study it is interesting to note two of the three
top areas represent results which are directly opposite to the results
of this study. The areas which are rated as the lowest areas of impor-

tance for this study are rated as the highest areas for the Cisz study.

107

The lack of agreement between the two studies may reflect the varia-
tion between the populations studied. The Cisz study surveyed special
education supervisors in cities with total populations of over 100,000
people. The supervisory role in districts of this size may be unique
to the needs of the district. Specialized areas of responsibility in
these large districts may emphasize tasks for which this pOpulation of
supervisors shows low priority.

One area of obvious concern to the special education super-
visors in this study is the interpretation and implementation of the
law. Recent federal mandatory legislation, PL 94-142, appears to have
increased the importance Of this area. Legislative requirements in
conjunction with court decisions have made necessary a concentration
on the legality of educational provisions for exceptional children.
Supervisors now have a major part of the responsibility to Operate
programs which comply with both state and federal regulations. Thus,
a major aspect of the supervisory role is concerned with the interpre-
tation, implementation, and enforcement of state and federal special
education standards for program operation. The importance of this
area in the present study appears to substantiate the influence of
recent changes in special education upon the supervisory role.

As shown in the other studies reviewed, the area of Instruc-
tional Personnel has always been an area of importance for the super-
visory role. Through recent legislation, however, emphasis in this
area has increased. The implementation of federal mandatory legisla-
tion has increased the number of rules and regulations to be followed

locally. In some instances, state regulations conflict with the

108

federal regulations. The confusion which has developed through the
increased and sometimes conflicting regulations plus the stress
experienced in a period of change has resulted in the frustration of
personnel in both regular and special education. Thus, the tasks of
building staff morale and staff relations through the use of manage-
ment skills and staff consultation are more necessary than ever to
assist educational personnel to cope with and to incorporate those
changes which are occurring in special education.

While inservice education has always been considered an element
of the supervisory role, it has often take a backseat to other areas
of responsibility. Now, however, inservice education, under the title
of personnel develOpment, is one of the required components of recent
federal legislation, PL 94-142. Its purpose is to train personnel to
implement federal regulations. This emphasis has raised the priority
level of this area in the supervisory role. Ninety-five percent of
the supervisors surveyed indicated that they had responsibility for
tasks concerned with inservice education. Tasks receiving highest sub-
ject response dealt with the analysis of inservice needs for personnel
and the selection of activities for inservice programs.

Close agreement is found in two of the three studies on the
competency areas receiving low ratings. The findings of the Cisz
study give more substantiation to the traditional role of the super-
visor. Emphasis is placed on the areas of curriculum and public rela-
tions. Areas which are more administrative are given low priority.
The Gruber and Stephenson studies indicate findings which are contrary

to the traditional role. Administrative areas are given high priority,

109

while the areas of curriculum and public relations are given low
priority. The question is raised whether the difference in findings
indicates a change in the supervisory role.

The difference in findings may derive from differences between
the studies. As previously considered, the lack of agreement between
the findings of the studies may be due to the different populations
studied. The Cisz study analyzed the role of supervisors of special
education in large city school districts. The other two studies used
populations which represented a continuum of supervisory roles, study-
ing supervisors from school districts of various sizes. Thus, the
results of the Cisz study may portray the role of the supervisor in a
large city school district.

0n the other hand, the differences in findings may be due to
the procedures used in this study to arrive at the area ratings. In
the Cisz study, the participants were asked to rate the competency
areas. In the present study, the respondents were not asked to rate
the competency areas. Ratings of the areas were derived indirectly
through the rating of tasks within the area. The same procedure was
used to rate the areas of the Gruber study for comparison of results.
For example, twelve of the twenty tasks receiving low ratings were
from the areas of Curriculum and Learning Resources. Therefore, the
areas were interpreted as receiving low ratings. In some instances,
tasks receiving low ratings were identified as the direct responsibility
of other personnel in the district. As a result, these tasks and the

areas which included them received low ratings. Thus, rating areas

110

through tasks accepted and rejected in these instances may have given
a false rating of the area.

In contrast, there are some factors which show that the area
ratings may be accurate. There is some evidence which supports the
low rating of these areas among supervisory responsibilities. Tasks
from the areas of Curriculum and Learning Resources which were clas-
sified as typical responsibilities of supervisors (rated above 80 per-
cent) received low ratings when compared to other tasks within the
supervisory profile. In addition, several tasks which received low
subject response had previously been viewed as supervisory responsibili-
ties. These are tasks such as developing the criteria for curriculum
development and disseminating and implementing a revised curriculum.
Thus, the low rating of the areas does appear to have some substantia-
tion. There does appear to have been a change in the supervisory role.

The low priority for the area of Curriculum in supervisor
responsibilities may have develOped for several reasons. The relation-
ship between the teacher and supervisor in the role of master teacher
has changed. The historical role of the supervisor called for modeling
and the direct training of the teacher. As the educational level of
teachers has increased, this role has become Obsolete. Teachers new
function more independently and have assumed responsibilities which
were previously viewed as those of the supervisor. Thus these areas
have decreased in priority in supervisor responsibilities.

Supervisors have also been inundated with new responsibili-
ties. New rules and regulations, increased services, and new develop-

ments in the field of special education have created new priorities

111

and responsibilities. Administrative tasks which were previously the
responsibility of directors have been inherited by supervisors. As

a result, priorities in the supervisory role have shifted. Thus,

the competency areas of Curriculum and Learning Resources have
decreased in level of importance in the supervisory role and in many
cases have become the partial responsibility Of other personnel.

The importance given to the competency area, Financial Struc-
ture, is worthy of notice. In both task performance and subject agree-
ment, three Of the five tasks in this area received high ratings.
Neither in training programs nor in certification requirements for
supervisors of special education has the need for competencies in the
area of finances been fully recognized. It is apparent from the
results of this study that supervisors feel that competencies in this
area are of high priority. Therefore, training programs and certi-
fication requirements should be changed to reflect this need.

The results of this study indicate that special education
supervisors place more importance on the performance of tasks from
the areas of School Law, Instructional Personnel, and Inservice Educa-
tion than previously indicated. Conversely, areas which have tradi-
tionally been recognized as the responsibility of supervisors have
been given less importance than expected. The areas of Curriculum and
Learning Resources were placed in low priority in the responsibilities

Of supervisors.

112

Future Research

 

The distribution of the frequency with which tasks are per-
formed indicated that few of the tasks were performed either daily or
weekly. The majority of the tasks were shown as performed less than
monthly, giving the role of the supervisor a cyclical pattern. The
question is raised as to why there are few tasks performed either
daily or weekly. Are supervisors, in fact, spending each day doing
tasks that they do only bi-monthly, semi-annually, or less; or did
the list of tasks developed for this study omit many tasks that are
done on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis? The lack of tasks at these
frequencies may, in fact, portray an accurate picture of the super-
visor's role. Whatever the interpretation, the results of this study
appear to be incomplete.

Thus, it is suggested that further efforts to describe, through
research, the responsibilities of supervisors incorporate a more com-
prehensive method to derive task statements and competency areas. A
study of daily activities conducted for a period of time at four inter-
vals during the year used in conjunction with those tasks derived
through the review Of the literature would develop a more comprehensive
listing of both competency areas and task statements, thus ensuring a
more accurate profile of special education supervisory responsibilities.

A second question is posed by the finding that the respondents
seemed inclined to report undecided or to give no response than to state
disagreement. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the respon-
dents were biased in the direction of seeing all the tasks as impor-

tant. Affiliation of the study with the Special Education Services

113

Area of the Michigan Department of Education, while increasing subject
participation, may also have influenced subject response in a positive
direction. Conversely, the positive direction of responses may simply
be a validation of the task statements specified. It is suggested
that in any future attempts to secure responses of this type, atten-
tion be paid to this issue of bias in favor of what the respondent

may perceive to be the wishes of the person sponsoring the research.

Finally, the results of this study do not appear to shed much
light on variables which greatly influence the variation in task per-
formance known to exist among special education supervisors. It would
appear that the slight differences which did emerge may be based as
much on factors such as individual perception of the position and
development of the position as on the demographic variables investi-
gated.

It must be remembered that the differences which were identi-
fied were slight. Thus, the results may show differences where they
do not exist. While logic may support the findings, further in-depth
research on the variation in task performance must be conducted before

any conclusions can be drawn.

APPENDICES

114

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

115

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MST LANSING - mono/LN «an

 

COLLIGI OP [DUCA‘UON - IIJCKSON HALL

April 29, 1980

In 1977 the Michigan legislature passed R 340.1772 which
mandated that candidates for approval as a supervisor of special
education have knowledge and competencies in five (5) areas
related to supervision. In order for the Department of Education
to have criteria upon which colleges and universities can have
their programs approved, the Department has contracted with Monica
Stephenson to collect data regarding competencies needed in the

field.

Your supervisory staff will soon be receiving a question-
naire concerning the competencies needed by a supervisor of
special education. It is strongly felt that supervisors with
practical experience will be able to effectively identify the

needs in this area.

Any assistance which you can give to encourage the com-
pletion and return of these questionnaires will be greatly

appreciated.

Sincerely,

777W §p afém

Monica I. Stephenson

301 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

Office phone: (517) 355-6631
Home phone: (517) 332-7487

MIS/mea

116

fimém

Richard L. Baldwin, Ed.D.
Special Education Consultant
Michigan Dept. of Education
Bureau of Educational Services
P.O. Box 30008

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: (517) 373-0923

H7

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGI 0" EDUCATIO‘ £551 LANSI\(. - MICHIGA\ - 4862‘
DEPARTMENT 0! ELEMFVTARY AND SPECIM EDLCATIO\

On May 1 you were sent a questionnaire concerning the
competencies needed by a supervisor of special education. The
purpose of the questionnaire is to gather information from you,
the person who is doing the job, so that appropriate and rele-
vant competency areas can be designed for state approval of
special education supervisors. These will then be used to
develop guidelines for university training programs.

We have not yet received your response to the question-
naire which we feel would be helpful in this study and for the
advancement of the profession. Another instrument is enclosed
for your use. If you have already returned the original in-
strument, please accept our thanks and disregard this reminder.

Your immediate response would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

2 ”W Q9 467143.41» : ? 2 7"“

Monica I. Stephenson Richard L. Baldwin, Ed.D.

301 Erickson Hall Special Education Consultant
Michigan State University Michigan Dept. of Education
East Lansing, MI 48824 Bureau of Educational Services

Office phone: (517) 355—6631
Home phone: (517) 332-7487

MIS/mea

118

SPECIAL EDUCATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING. HI 48624

SPECIAL EDUCATION
SUPERVISOR SURVEY

 

 

WHAT THIS SURVEY IS ABOUT

The purpose of this survey is to gather information which will identify appropriate
CO’petency areas to be incorporated in the rules for state approval of speCial educatiur
s-;erv:scrs and in guidelines for university training programs. As a speCial education

5‘»‘.

5;;eersot. you can be of valuable assistance in the process. This survey explores the

tasms you perform in your present position. Your responses will be kept in strict cc:f;-
dense. —— —

 

DIRECTIONS

.4

Read each question carefully. Please answer all of the questions fully.

2. If you do not understand a question or it appears inappropriate for your
specific situation. write a note or explanation in the margin.

3. Return the completed questionnaire as promptly as possible in the en-
closed envelope. we sincerely appreciate your cooperation.

 

Is this your correct address? If not. please indicate correct address:

O‘ies ONO

 

 

 

119

 

 

Below you will find a list of major competency areas with their corresponding
competency statements. For each task. you will find three questions to answer:

1) Do you perform this task?
2) If yes. how often?
3) Should a competency for this task be included
in the approval requirements for speCial
education supervisors?
For each area. please circle one response for each category. You may find it

helpful to complete all the categories on the left side before answering the
category on the right side of the page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9° Y°° Petf°tm ‘h’ Include in Approval I
task? I
(circle) (circle) I
z. s " D
cu m: :2 a: r I
' c >4“ 8‘ oh he 4.. we
5 >"‘ 5 0 c v o~il e c o l
x u - 1 4a m c c e e «I a o u
:2. 3:53”: “5" 3“”:th
we we *
"g E ‘3 3 uzo :: a as a
boot a e e I a I a a e
H'U; N M Q Ah I! N M Q in
1.0 Organizational Structure: To implement
an organizational structure to improve
instruction.
f”” I
I ) 2 3 4 5 2 Analyze the formal and informal struc- l 2 3 4 S I
tures for instruction
A.
I ) 2 3 4 5 3 Design formal changes to improve in- l 2 3 4 S I
struction. I
I I 2 3 4 5 [. Adapt instructional policies to cor- l 2 3 4 5 I
respond with the changing organisational -
structure I
—I
I l 2 3 4 5 5 facilitate the implementation of I
effective instructional change practices. 1 2 3 4 5 I
1
I I 2 3 4 5 6 Promote and develop working relation- 1 2 3 4 S I
ships between regular and speCial i
education personnel. I
I) 2 3 4 5 Other, Specify: l 2 3 4 5 1
I.
it
2.0 Instructional Personnel: To implement
proce urea for recruitment, selectiOn
and assignment of personnel for instruc-
tional improvement.
I I 2 3 4 5 8 Propose plans for filling staff vacanCies l 2 3 4 5 I
to improve instruction. '
I ) 2 3 4 5 9 write competency specifications for l 2 3 4 5
instructional staff positions.
I I 2 3 4 5 I0 iecruit qualified candidates for avail- I 2 3 4 5
able positions.
I ) 2 3 4 5 II Recommend most competent, qualified l 2 3" 4 5
person(s) for employment.
I ) 2 3 4 5 '2 Participate in the evaluation of l 2 3 4 5 _
personnel. I
I ) 2 3 4 5 I3 Assign and reassign staff. I 2 3 4 S g
I I 2 3 4 5 I“ Utilize personnel management skills 1 2 3 4 S I
to foster and build staff morale and
relations.
I) 2 3 4 s '5 Provide consultation services on staff 1 2 3 4 5 I
problems. J
I) 2 3 4 5 Other, specify: 1 2 3 4 5 I
I

 

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you perform the Include in Approval
task?
(circle) IcircleI
u c
2:: r 2: :3 3 8 r
I 9 >~ ~ 0.: Di- 5.. 2 3t.
.5 525...: 822835:
s..::=:£ ' ”*5" 2'32325
«a: 3 o a: 3 .3 wt: 0 :3 m u:
U o g, a a a I e a e e e
~13; N H v in as N H v in
3.0 Su rt Services: To improve the ser-
Vices avaiIaEIe to students. parents.
and staff which. thOugh non-instruction-
al. support the instructional process.
I
i I 2 3 4 5 I7 Analyze the support services available. 1 2 3 4 5
I
I 2 3 4 5 I8 Develop plans for providing needed ser- 1 2 3 4 S
I Vices.
I
I I 2 3 4 5 Design delivery systems for manimiring l 2 3 4 5
‘ l9 serVice contributions to instructional
, improvement.
I I 2 3 4 5 20 Assess transportation needs, determine 1 2 3 4 5 I
I best transportation means. arrange appro- I
Z priate transportation schedules. and I
prOVide necessary personnel. 5
I 2 3 4 5 Other, speCify: l 2 3 4 S '
#1
4.0 ln-serVice Education: To improve quality
of instructionil praCtices within the
staff by providing opportunities for pro-
fessional growth. .
I 2 a r - , I
, I I 4 5 22 Analyse needs or inserVice opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 ;
I for the staff.
I I 2 3 4 5 23 Select actiVities for inclusion in in-ser- l 2 3 4 5
Vice plans. I
I I 2 3 4 5 2“ Design effective inservice programs to l 2 3 4 5
meet staff needs.
I I 2 3 4 5 2 Direct and lead benefiCial in-serVice l 2 3 4 5
5 education actIVities.
I I 2 3 4 5 Plan inserVice education programs as part 1 2 3 4 5
26 of larger strategies for instructional
improvement.
I ) 2 3 4 5 Orient and induct new staff members I 2 3 4 S
27 through information and assistance.
I I 2 3 4 5 Supervising through a process of class- 1 2 3 4 S
28 room observation. feedback. planning. ,
I ) 2 3 4 5 Planning for individual staff growth I 2 3 4 5 I
29 through the development of objectives. I
sequential experiences and evaluation.
I I 2 3 4 5 30 Act as a liaison between main office. 1 2 3 4 5 i
principal and teacher. .
I I 2 3 4 5 Other, specify: 1 2 3 4 5 i
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

C O l T I I U I O I I I X T P A G I

 

 

121

 

~_.—.—-—.<

Do yOu perform the

 

 

 

Include in Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

task?
(circle) (Circle)
l ad C 1':
2* . 2: :2 z s r
i Z > u 4:: on. b - o-o
filzzsns 522225:
I g: ‘7‘- : c ti TASK 5'; .5 '2 5‘ 5.2
I "E E a a: 3 :3 at: a :3 < v:
I :ééhgss .: "'43.:
I _
5.0 Curriculum: To achieve coordination/
continuity of instruction.
I I
I I I 2 3 4 5 32 Analyze the current curriculum. 1 l 2 3 4 S ‘
I II 2 3 4 5 33 Develop criteria for curriculum i l 2 3 4 5 I
I
i development. $
‘ I I 2 3 4 5 h Coordinate the formulation of curric- l 2 3 4 S
3 ulum goals. :
i I I 2 3 4 5 35 Select content material. 1 2 3 4 5 4
I I I 2 3 4 5 36 write instructional objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 ;
I I I 2 3 4 S 37 Design and sequence learning actiVities. l 2 3 4 S I
g I 2 3 4 5 38 Coordinate field testing of material. 1 2 3 4 S 2
I I I 2 3 4 S Disseminate and implement revised 1 2 3 4 S '
I 39 curriculum. 1
I I I 2 3 4 5 A Adapt and implement curricula from out- 1 2 3 4 5
0 side district.

I I I 2 3 4 5 Other. speciry: l 2 3 4 s ,
i I
I 6. Learning Rescurces: To improve avail—

I iEIlity of resources for learning in
the school and comunity.

I
II 2 3 4 5 “2 Propose and justify a materials selec- l 2 3 4 3 i
tion process. _
I I 2 3 4 5 143 Identify sources of funds and materials. 1 2 3 4 5 1

I I 2 3 4 5 bl. Prepare budget and administer for need— 1 2 3 4 5
ed materials. |
4.
I I 2 3 4 5 “5 Plan procedures for maintaining and l 2 3 4 5 -
securing media and equipment. I
I I 2 3 4 5 h Inform staff concerning available 1 2 3 4 5 I
6 resources. '
II 2 3 4 5 “7 Design non-print learning resources 1 2 3 4 5 i
that contribute to a curriculum. .
I I 2 3 4 S “8 Produce various forms of non-print l 2 3 4 5 l
media. I

I I 2 3 4 5 Other. specify: 1 2 3 4 S

 

 

 

 

 

_._._-—.... -—

 

 

 

C O N T I N U E O N N E X T P A G E

 

 

 

 

 

122

 

I
Do you perform the I

 

 

Include in Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

task?
(Circle) I (Circle)
5 r____"'E""-' c
c x e > >~t s. 4 >
c L I > C-— —~t s o u
I _ )4 — U 4: l7 5- b " C" L
.5 .2 - 5 .2 s: z 'z e s:
t a - ‘25 c e E TASK i. : e 1:: i. i. c
I ' 0" >- U
5 t t- 3 g 8 S In: D D 3 46‘
b E Z I s s s s 4 I I e I
~55 I64 n ' in 0! n n v in
7.0 Public Relations: To improve the quality
of working relationships between the
school staff and the public to promote
instructional improvement.
I I 2 3 4 5 50 Inform public of school program. I 2 3 4 5
' I I 2 3 4 5 SI Involve public in school programs. I 2 3 4 5
I I I 2 3 4 S 52 Recognize impact of public opinion on I 2 3 4 S
: schools.
' I I 2 3 4 s 53 Establish coununity contacts. I 2 3 4 s
I I 2 3 4 5 5h PartiCipate in community programs I 2 3 4 5
for benefit of youth.
I I 2 3 4 5 55 Influence comunity deCisions relevant l 2 3 4 5
to school programs or youth in the
comunity.
f I I 2 3 4 5 56 AlleViate community conflicts affecting l 2 3 4 S
L_, schools.
I I 2 3 4 5 Other. speCify: l 2 3 4 5
8.0 FinanCial Structure: To improve the
availability of financial resources.
I I
j I I 2 3 4 5 Assess budgetary needs for supervised l 2 3 4 S
58 areas.
I I 2 3 4 5 Prepare and justify budgetary l 2 3 4 5 I
I 59 recommendations. '
. I I 2 3 4 5 Specify line item allocations and prior- 1 2 3 4 5
I 60 ities for areas involved. I
44
I I I 2 3 4 5 6' Assist in administration of federally l 2 3 4 S 5
I funded programs. I
I I I 2 3 4 5 62 seek additional sources of funding through I 2 3 4 5
I grant procurement.
| I I 2 3 4 5 63 Assist in administration of budgetary l 2 3 4 5 I
I allocations for areas supervised. I
‘ I I 2 3 4 5 6“ lhintain inventories of instructional I 2 3 4 5 .
I supplies and equipment. I
I I I 2 3 4 5 Other. IPCCify: l 2 3 4 s
I
I ;

 

 

 

 

 

 

C O I T 1 I U E O I

rest pic:

 

 

123

 

Do you perform the

 

 

 

Include in Approval

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
task?
(circle) (circle)
2.. S) M. o 2 i
f c o m g-— u o o 1: n
C 9 >4 on 3.: Oh- l- -4 0‘9
.5 :25.“ 522225:
a:- .4 q eé TASK z: 5 1:: 3 :2
l 34.9 3 § § 3 no o :a e u:
' “ch I D e e I e a a e
I use: N n v in as N M Q sh
9.0 School Lav: To ilprove the quality of
Instructional practices within the
school by making available the legal
require-ents of special education.
A I ) 2 3 4 5 66 Interpret school law and codes to others. I 2 3 4 5 1
II 2 3 4 5 67 Enforce state and federal special educa- l 2 3 4 5
tion standards for program operation. _
II 2 3 4 5 68 Develop policy to implenent special 1 2 3 4 5
education/civil rights legislation. ;
I I 2 3 4 S 6 Stimulate the developnent of needed 1 2 3 4 5 f
9 legislation and work toward the '
accolplishnent of this legislation.
I 2 3 4 5 Other. specify: 1 2 3 4 5 .
I
10.0 Prggram Management: To implement the
proce ures or i entifying. assessing.
and plaCing students in services which
will nest their needs.
: I I 2 3 4 5 Assist teachers and other personnel in l 2 3 4 s
‘ 70 identifying exceptional children. I
g I ) 2 3 4 5 7' Assist teachers and other personnel in l 2 3 4 S ‘
I utilising diagnostic techniques.
: I ) 2 3 4 5 Administer appropriate standardized in- l 2 3 4 S
3 72 telligence or psychological tests.
I I 2 3 4 5 Assure that information obtained through 1 2 3 4 5 ,
73 testing is interpreted and Iade available I
to appropriate individuals. I
I I I 2 3 4 5 Establish criteria for the placement of l 2 3 4 5
1 7h exceptional children in appropriate
. classes and settings using nandated
{ regulations.
; .
I I I 2 3 4 5 75 Assist teachers and others in evaluating l 2 3 4 5 I
I pupil progress.
I I 2 3 4 5 76 Maintain appropriate central office 1 2 3 4 s
f pupil records. ,
I
I; I I 2 3 4 5 77 Assist teachers in naintaining pupil l 2 3 4 s I
I records. ;
I () 2 3 4 5 Other. specify: 1 2 3 4 s -
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

C O N T I N U E O I N E X T P A G E

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

 

wOuld like to know the following information about you and your present position.

 

 

Check the type of district by which you are employed.

‘3

<:>lntermediate Other gfi
Explain: I
<:)Local I

Specify the total student population of
the district. (fill in the appropriate
space for your position.)

Fourth Friday count of 1979.

 

 

Student population.
local district.

Student population.
intermediate dlStthb

 

 

 

 

 

Does your district employ a Director of Special Education?

<:>Yes <:>Other

ho Explain: (

 

 

EHhc do you report to? l

a . L I

0

What is the title of your position?

 

 

 

 

I POSition I
Title
Briefly describe your responSibilities.
I 1
Indicate your approval status.
Full Approval. SuperVisor of (:>0ther

 

SpeCial Education.

Interim Approval (Temporary).
Supervisor of Special Education

 

How many years have you completed as a supervisor of
speCial education?

011 and up

How many reimbursable special education staff are employed in your district?
Do not include superVisors. assistant directors or paraprofessionals.

Ol - lo 026 - 50 O91 and up
On - 25 051 - 90

What is the size of your speCial education superVisor staff including
asSistant directors?

8:, 83.12., "I

 

125

lo. How many professional personnel do you directly superVise? SpeCify number.

 

SpeCial Education Teachers gj

Psychologists I

 

 

School Social Morkers

 

Physical Therapists
Occupational Therapists

 

Speech Therapists

 

Teacher Consultants

 

Other . speci (y:

 

 

 

 

 

ll. Programs which yOu superVise: Read the list below and check (-! all the programs
that you directly superVise.
( ) Educable Mentally Impaired ( ) Learning Disabilities
( ) Trainable Mentally Impaired ( ) Emotionally Impaired
( ) Severely Mentally Impaired ( ) Hearing Impaired
( ) Speech and Language ( ) Visually Impaired
( ) Physically 6 Otherwise Health ( ) Other
Impaired
SpeCify:

__‘____..__4

 

 

12. Do you have any comments you would like to make on the questionnAire?

 

 

1‘r T H A N K Y O U V E R Y H U C H ! 1‘r

 

 

APPENDIX B

TABULATION 0F RESPONSES AND PERCENTAGES
T0 INDIVIDUAL ITEMS ON QUESTIONNAIRE

126

APPENDIX B

Table l6.—-Tabu1ation of responses and percentages to individual items

on questionnaire.

 

Frequency of Performance

 

Level of Agreement
With Inclusion

 

 

 

 

Task
No. . Not Dis- Unde-
Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less Done Agree agree cided
1.0 Organizational Structure
2 6 26 42 62 57 16 171 10 28
2.9 12.4 20.1 29.7 27.3 7.7 81.9 4.8 13.4
3 3 8 30 67 91 10 175 26 8
1.4 3.8 14.4 32.1 43.5 4.8 83.7 3.8 12.4
4 4 8 19 66 98 14 160 37 10
1.9 3.8 9.1 31.6 46.9 6.7 76.5 4.8 18.6
5 6 22 42 68 61 10 172 9 28
2.9 10.5 20.1 32.5 29.2 4.8 82.3 13.4 4.3
6 6 59 41 28 55 20 174 30 5
2.9 28.2 19.6 13.4 26.3 9.6 83.3 14.3 2.4
2.0 Instructional Personnel
8 3 5 6 38 143 14 163 33 13
1.4 2.4 2.9 18.2 68.4 6.7 78.0 15.8 6.2
9 2 2 0 20 152 33 161 37 11
1.0 1.0 O 9.6 72.7 15.8 77.0 17.7 5.2
10 4 6 4 20 149 26 141 48 20
1.9 2.9 1.9 9.6 71.3 12.4 67.4 23.0 9.6
11 4 2 7 28 162 6 170 26 13
1.9 1.0 3.3 13.4 77.5 2.9 81.3 6.2 12.4
12 7 14 17 47 119 5 194 12 3
3.3 6.7 8.1 22.5 56.9 2.4 92.8 5.7 1.5
13 4 7 8 19 145 26 150 20 39
1.9 3.3 3.8 9.1 69.4 12.4 71.8 9.6 18.7

127

128

Table 16.--Continued.

 

Frequency of Performance Level Of Agreement

 

 

 

Task With Inclusion
No. -
. Not 015- Unde-
Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less Done Agree agree cided
14 2 111 41 33 17 5 200 3 6
1.0 53.1 19.6 15.8 8.1 2.4 95.7 1.4 2.9
15 3 108 51 23 20 4 192 7 10

1.4 51.7 24.4 11.0 9.6 1.9 91.9 3.3 4.7

3.0 Support Services

 

17 5 24 41 57 76 7 173 10 26
2.4 11.5 19.6 26.8 36.4 3.3 82.8 4.8 22.4

18 6 18 34 47 97 7 177 7 25
2.9 8.6 16.3 22.5 46.4 3.3 84.7 3.4 12.0

19 7 11 28 44 102 17 161 11 37
3.3 5.3 13.4 21.1 48.8 8.1 77.1 5.3 17.7

20 8 16 24 24 54 83 85 25 80
3.8 7.7 11.5 11.5 25.8 39.7 40.6 12.0 38.3

4.0 Inservice Education

 

22 2 9 17 86 90 5 176 9 24
1.0 4.3 8.1 41.1 43.1 2.4 84.2 4.3 11.5
23 2 5 23 65 107 7 170 11 28
1.0 2.4 11.0 31.1 51.2 3.3 81.4 5.2 13.4
24 4 7 14 62 111 11 175 8 26
1.9 3.3 6.7 29.7 53.1 5.3 83.8 3.8 12.5
25 5 1 16 57 109 21 152 8 49
2.4 .5 7.7 27.3 52.2 10.0 72.7 3.8 23.5
26 8 3 12 47 126 13 163 9 37

3.8 1.4 5.7 22.5 60.3 6.2 78.0 4.3 17.7

27 6 6 20 33 135 9 170 13 26
2.9 2.9 9.6 15.8 64.6 4.3 81.3 6.2 12.4

28 4 31 49 60 49 16 188 5 16
1.9 14.8 23.4 28.7 23.4 7.7 89.9 2.4 7.6

129

Table 16.--Continued.

 

Frequency of Performance Level Of Agreement

 

 

 

 

 

Task With Inclusion
No. . Not 015- Unde-
Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less Done Agree agree cided
29 7 7 26 56 94 19 172 5 32
3.3 3.3 12.4 26.8 45.0 9.1 82.3 2.4 15.3
30 6 82 44 21 21 35 150 13 46
2.9 39.2 21.1 10.0 10.0 16.7 71.8 6.2 22.0
5.0 Curriculum
32 5 14 21 47 95 27 174 10 25
2.4 6.7 10.0 22.5 45.5 12.9 83.3 4.8 11.9
33 5 6 13 40 103 42 166 9 34
2.4 2.9 6.2 19.1 49.3 20.1 79.5 4.3 16.3
34 7 7 20 43 100 32 168 9 32
3.3 3.3 9.6 20.6 47.8 15.3 80.4 4.3 15.3
35 7 7 13 33 86 63 116 22 71
3.3 3.3 6.2 15.8 41.1 30.1 55.5 10.5 34.0
36 7 4 17 28 66 87 110 31 68
3.3 1.9 8.1 13.4 31.6 41.6 52.6 14.8 32.5
37 10 4 11 24 76 84 105 26 78
4.8 1.9 5.3 11.5 36.4 40.2 50.2 12.5 37.3
38 10 4 6 22 86 81 103 28 78
4.8 1.9 2.9 10.5 41.1 38.8 49.3 13.4 37.3
39 8 6 7 28 112 48 138 18 53
3.8 2.9 3.3 13.4 53.6 23.0 66.0 8.6 25.3
40 10 4 5 18 113 59 114 20 75
4.8 1.9 2.4 8.6 54.1 28.2 54.5 9.5 35.8
6.0 Learning Resources
42 8 5 8 38 103 47 128 20 61
3.8 2.4 3.8 18.2 51.2 22.5 61.2 23.0 29.2
43 9 16 17 45 95 27 157 13 39
4.3 7.7 8.1 21.5 45.5 12.9 75.1 13.4 18.7

Table 16.--Continued.

130

 

Frequency of Performance

 

Level of Agreement

 

 

 

Task With IHC1U510n
No. . Not Dis- Unde-
Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less Done Agree agree cided
44 7 17 22 38 88 37 162 11 36
3.3 8.1 10.5 18.2 42.1 17.7 77.5 11.5 17.3
45 5 4 18 31 99 52 114 30 65
2.4 1.9 8.6 14.8 47.4 24.9 54.6 29.7 31.1
46 4 18 46 70 54 17 152 17 40
1.9 8.6 22.0 33.5 25.8 8.1 72.7 18.2 19.1
47 7 3 9 16 69 150 62 47 100
3.3 1.4 4.3 7.7 33.0 50.2 29.6 45.4 47.8
48 7 1 9 12 58 122 47 56 106
3.3 .5 4.3 5.7 27.8 58.4 22.5 48.3 50.7
7.0 Public Relations
50 7 26 36 48 80 12 179 9 21
3.3 12.4 17.2 23.0 38.3 5.7 85.6 4.3 10.0
51 7 26 24 56 77 19 165 11 33
3.3 12.4 11.5 26.8 36.8 9.1 79.0 5.2 15.8
52 13 92 27 31 39 7 177 7 25
6.2 44.0 12.9 14.8 18.7 3.3 84.7 3.4 12.0
53 6 49 39 50 55 10 176 10 23
2.9 23.4 18.7 23.9 26.3 4.8 84.2 4.7 11.0
54 9 11 31 54 71 33 125 25 59
4.3 5.3 14.8 25.8 34.0 15.8 59.8 12.0 28.3
55 10 14 22 46 71 46 126 18 65
4.8 6.7 10.5 22.0 34.0 22.0 60.3 8.6 31.1
56 12 25 21 25 70 56 122 17 70
5.7 12.0 10.0 12.0 33.5 26.8 58.4 8.1 33.5

Table 16.--Continued.

131

 

Frequency of Performance

 

Level of Agreement
With Inclusion

 

 

 

 

Task
. . N D' - U de-
No Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less 03:6 Agree agiee cided
8.0 Financial Structure
58 2 19 24 70 69 25 182 7 20
1.0 9.1 11.5 33.5 33.0 12.0 87.1 3.3 9.5
59 2 7 12 53 108 27 180 7 22
1.0 3.3 5.7 25.4 51.7 12.9 86.1 3.3 10.6
60 5 12 12 41 103 36 165 12 32
2.4 5.7 5.7 19.6 49.3 17.2 79.0 5.7 15.3
61 6 46 20 40 56 41 154 14 41
2.9 22.0 9.6 19.1 26.8 19.6 73.7 6.7 19.6
62 7 4 7 20 100 70 115 19 48
3.3 1.9 3.3 10.0 47.8 33.5 67.9 9.1 23.0
63 4 47 30 41 63 24 177 3 25
1.9 22.5 14.4 19.6 30.1 11.5 84.6 1.4 11.9
64 2 30 21 37 80 39 139 22 48
1.0 14.4 10.0 17.7 38.3 18.7 66.5 10.5 23.0
9.0 School Law
66 3 85 62 34 22 3 188 4 17
1.4 40.7 29.7 16.3 10.5 1.4 89.9 1.9 8.2
67 2 128 39 19 18 3 187 6 16
1.0 61.2 18.7 9.1 8.6 1.4 89.4 2.9 7.6
68 3 28 22 40 84 32 163 11 35
1.4 13.4 10.5 19.1 40.2 15.3 78.0 5.3 16.8
69 7 10 5 27 114 46 123 20 66
3.3 4.8 2.4 12.9 54.5 22.0 58.8 9.5 31.5

132

Table 16.--Continued.

 

Frequency of Performance Level Of Agreement

 

 

 

 

Task With Inclusion
No. . Not Dis- Unde-
Blank Daily Weekly Monthly Less Done Agree agree cided
10.0 Program Management
70 6 59 57 41 27 19 179 9 21

2.9 28.2 27.3 19.6 12.9 9.1 85.6 4.3 10.0

71 6 49 56 44 38 16 171 12 26
2.9 23.4 26.8 21.1 18.2 7.7 81.8 5.8 12.4

72 10 4 7 3 24 161 40 90 79
4.8 1.9 3.3 1.4 11.5 77.0 19.2 43.1 37.8

73 8 6O 54 36 27 24 165 9 35
3.8 28.7 25.8 17.2 12.9 11.5 78.9 4.3 16.8

74 8 54 55 38 40 14 183 5 21
3.8 25.8 26.3 18.2 19.1 6.7 87.5 2.4 10.0

75 8 43 55 48 35 20 167 9 33
3.8 20.6 26.3 23.0 16.7 9.6 79.9 4.3 15.8

76 8 106 29 24 19 23 165 12 32
3.8 50.7 13.9 11.5 9.1 11.0 78.9 5.7 15.3

77 8 53 28 61 40 19 156 15 38
3.8 25.4 13.4 29.2 19.1 9.1 74.6 7.2 18.2

 

Employing District

 

Intermediate Local Other

 

154. 108 95 6
51.7 45.5 2.9

133

Table 16.--Continued.

 

Student Population

950- 4,000- 7,000- 10,000- 17,000-
3,999 6,999 9,999 16,999 25,999

 

26,000+ Blank

 

155. Local

17 18 9 21 21 14 109
8.1 8.6 4.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 52.2

 

Student Population
0-20,999 21,000-39,999 40,000—99,999 100,000+ Blank

 

 

156. Intermediate

37 30 15 27 100
17.7 14.4 7.2 12.9 47.8

 

Position Title

 

 

Supervisor Director Principal Coordinator Other
158- 114 22 27 19 25
54.5 10.5 12.9 9.1 12.0

 

Approval Status

 

 

Full Approval Interim Other Blank
159. 149 43 12 5
71.3 20.6 5.7 2.4

 

Years of Experience
0-1 2-5 6-10 11+ Blank

 

 

160. 32 93 62 20 2
15.3 44.5 29.7 9.6 1.0

Table 16.--Continued.

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Staff
1-10 11-25 26-50 51-90 90+ Blank
161. 8 30 39 52 67 13
3.8 14.4 18.7 24.9 32.1 6.2
Supervisory Staff
0 1-3 4-7 8-11 12+ Blank
162. 6 73 77 23 19 11
2.9 34.9 36.8 11.0 9.0 5.3
Professionals Supervised
1-10 11-25 26-50 51-90 91+ Blank
163. Spec. ed. teachers 65 68 22 . 7 1 46
31.1 32.5 11.5 3.3 .5 22.0
164. Psychologists 111 1 O 0 0 97
53.1 .5 0 O 0 46.4
165. School social workers 108 10 O 0 O 91
51.7 4.8 0 0 0 43.5
166. Physical therapists/ 88 8 0 0 0 113
occup. therapists 42.1 3.8 0 0 0 54.1
167. Speech therapists 114 17 0 0 0 78
54.5 8.1 0 0 0 37.3
168. Teacher consultants 95 9 1 0 0 104
45.5 4.3 .5 0 O 49.8
169. Other 72 3 1 0 0 132
34.4 1.4 .5 0 0 63.2

Table 16.--Continued.

135

 

Programs Directly Supervised

 

 

 

 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
16 35 36 42 39 19 6 8 3 1
8.0 17.0 17.0 20.0 18.5 9.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.4 .4

Yes Blank

170. Educable mentally impaired 68 141
32.5 67.6

171. Trainable mentally impaired 72 137
34.4 65.6

172. Severely mentally impaired 67 142
32.1 67.9

173. Speech and language 74 135
33.4 64.6

174. Physically or otherwise health impaired 51 158
24.4 75.6

175. Learning disabled 68 141
32.5 67.5

176. Emotionally impaired 86 123
41.1 58.9

177. Hearing impaired 43 166
20.6 79.4

178. Visually impaired 33 176
15.8 84.2

179. Other 89 120
42.6 57.4

 

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION FOR FIGURE 1

136

Standard Deviation

 

APPENDIX C

 

1.5 ‘
m
3
If:
c
Q:
cr
:
C
U 1
3 e4 1
O
_J
1.3 4
'12.
.1.
1.2 4}
'36
1.1 4 .37 .57
"II "n .,,
'95 .59
.n 5'
as "’
'51.
1.0 4 to ,5“ U 3o
'3,
.35
. '77
“b
q; 5. .OC
‘n ' ‘1‘.
.27
0.9 '1 0’3. .. '73
s .qq
a 5,750.7]
8!
3:313 2:11.”
o.’ .5. 01°
4‘- ii ~61
15"" n '57
t ‘e a”
.0 '51
4'1 .
V: vs
a
m
S . Co.
2 w
8 0.7 1
'17
.c
'9 ii.
I
I'd
2 3 4 5
Disagree Agree
Mean

Figure 3.--P10tting of tasks by group level of agreement and consensus.

137

138

 

um“. mum.¢ .mEanota wmmpm co mmow>tmm cowpappzmcoo mnw>ota .m_
Nmo. upm.e .mcomympma use
mpmtoe mwmpm upwzn new tmumom op mFwam pamEmmmcmE Pmccomcma mNWpr: .e_
_mo._ oeo.e .tcmsm cmtmmmmt new cmtmm< .mp
woo. mmm.e .chcomtmn mo cowumapm>m asp cw mamawowptma .m_
omm. emp.¢ .ucmexopasm toe Amchmtm; umweppmac .bcmungoo pmoe ucwEEoomm .FP
Nmo._ mmm.m .mcowpwmoa mFQmpmm>m toe mmumcwucmu umwwwpmzc pwztuwm .oF
“mm. mop.e .mcowpwmog mmmpm chowpoztpmcw tom mcowpmuwmwowam mucmumasoo wows: .m
mmw. omo.¢ .cowuuztpmcw m>ocasw op motocmom> wwmum mcwppwm tom mcmpa mmoaota .w
emu. wom.¢ .chcomtma cowbmuzcm
meomam can ampsmmt cmmzbma mawgmcowpmpwt mcthoz aopm>mc new oposota .o
0mm. nom.e .mmuwuomta
mmcmco chowuuztumcw m>wuowwem mo covumpcmEmpaew asp mumuwpwumu .m
Now. ooo.e .wtzuoztum Paco?“
-mecmmto mcwmcmgo mew gum: ncoammttou o» mmwuepon _m:owpusapmcw uaou< .e
mmm. wmp.e .cowuoztpmcw m>otaew op mmmcmcu pesto; common .m
mpm. mop.¢ .cowpoztumcw tom mmtapuatum Fostoecw vcm Pastom we» wNAch< .m
mm :mm: EmuH

1.1111. 1‘."

.Fm>otaaw ”N cowummsc ”nu gazetsp N mt¢nE=c .Empw comm tom mcowumw>wc ctmccmum cam mcmwz--.N;.mpamp

139

 

ooo.F NNN.¢ .tocomoo ocm Pmamocwto .oowemo owes coozuoo comwmwF m mm po< .om
mow. omm.¢ .cowpmz_o>o ocm moocowtooxm Fowucosoom .mo>wuoonoo
to psoEooFo>oo ocp smootcu cuzotm mmoum szow>wocw to» mcwcco_o .mN
moo. owm.e .m:s=:a_a
.xoooooom .covpo>tomoo Eootmmmpo mo mmoooto m swoops» mommw>toosm .wm
mom. om~.e .oocoumwmmo ocm compostoecw smootcp mamasos meopm 3o: gonna? use pcowto .NN
“mm. Fmp.e .ucoeo>otoew chowpoztamcw
tom mowmopotpm amoLoF to “too mo meatmoto cowpmoaoo mow>tomcw :mpa .oN
mmm. omm.m .mowpw>woom cowooosoo mow>aomcw Powowmocoo ooop one uootwo .mm
mm“. mom.¢ .mooo: tempm poms op msmtmoto mow>tomcw o>wpoommo :mwmoo .em
mmm. wmp.o .mcmpo oom>tomcw cw commo~ocm tom mowpw>wpom poopom .mm
mmm. mpm.¢ .mcopm ocp toe mowp_::otoooo oow>tomcw tom moooc o~»_mc< .NN
me.F mmm.m .Foccomtoo ztmmmoooc wow>oto oco .mopzomcom :omuopcoomoota oumwaootooo
omomttm .mcoos cowumutoomcmto “moo ocwELoboo .mooo: cowpmutoomcotp mmomm< .om
omm. moF.e .pco5o>otoem chomooztpmcw
op mcowusowtpcoo ooe>tom mchwwamE tow msopmxm acm>WFmo cmwmoo .m_
mm“. mom.o .moow>tom oooooc mcwow>oto tow mcmpo oopo>oo .mp
Pow. mop.e .opompwo>o moow>com utoooom ocp oNAFoc< .5,
am coo: .EopH

.omacwocoo--.at mpnmp

140

 

mpo.p oem.~ .wpoos pcptouco: mo mstow moopto> oosoota .mo
epo.p mpp.m .Ezpsopttso m op opooptpcoo posp mootoomot mcpctoop pcptolco: :mpmoo .ne
omm. mmm.m .mootaomot opnoppm>m mcpcaoocoo pwopm stopcp .oo
wmo._ m¢m.m .pcoEopzoo ocm mpooe mcptooom ocm mcpcpmpcpme cop motzooooto capo .mo
mow. em~.e .mpmptopms ooooo: to» topmpcpEoo oco pomozo maggot; .ee
vow. wmo.e .mpoptopoe ocm moose po mootoom suppcoop .mo
Nmm. opm.m .mmoooto coppoo—om mpmptopme o zwppmow oco mmoooto .me
“No. omo.m .poptpmpo oopmpso soap mpoopttzo pcoewposp ocm pomo< .oe
«mm. mow.m .Ezpoopttao oomp>ot pcoempoep ocm opmcpsommpo .om
Neo.p mom.m .pmptopms po moppmop opopp opmcpotoou .mm
moo.p opo.m .moppp>ppoo mcpctoo— oocoooom oco cmpmoo .nm
mep.p mam.m .mo>ppoowno pocoppootpmcp opp»: .mm
omo.p wmm.m .pmptopoe poopcoo pompom .mm
«pm. pmp.o .mpoom Ezpsopttoo po coppop35Lom ocp opocpotoou .om
New. mmp.¢ .pcosoopo>oo Eopzopttzo tom optoppto oopo>oo .mm
Nmm. mpm.¢ .sopzopttso pcottso ogp onxpmc< .mm
om com: xmmp

| '1 1.111111

|I|11 . .

.ooscppcoo--.p_ mpnmp

141

 

mm“. mmo.o .mtospo op moooo ocm zap poogom potatopcp .oo
mwo.p mom.m .pcosopzoo ocm moppoozm pocoppostpmcp eo moptopco>cp cpmpcpmz .oo
omw. mom.¢ .oomp>too:m moose top mcoppmooppm xgmpomooo mo coppmtpmpcpsom op pmpmm< .mo
opo.p mnm.m .pcosotzooto pcmtm smootcp mcpocsm mo mootzom pmcopppoom xoom .No
mom. mm_.e .msmtmoto omoozm Appmtooom po coppmtpmpcpsoo op pmpmm< .pm
mmm. oem.o .oo>po>cp woman to; moppptopto oco mcoppmooppo Empp ocpp xppooom .oo
ppm. eoe.¢ .mcoppoocossooot zgopomozo xmppmow ocm ormoota .mm
m—m. pmo.o .mmoto oomp>tooom top mooo: atmpomozo mmomm< .mm
com. mom.m .mpoonom moppooppo mpop—mcoo opop>opp< .om
pom. pum.m .appcstoo osp op

cpzox to mEotmoto poocom op pcm>opot mcopmpooo appc=EEoo mocmopmcp .mm
moo.p won.m .cpzox po pppocoo tow mamtmoto appczesoo :p opmopoppcoq .om
Nmm. mm~.e .mpuapcoo pppczesoo gmppoapmm .mm
mom. emm.¢ .mpoogom co copcpoo oppozo mo pomoep oNpcmooom .Nm
mam. mm—.e .msmtmoto poogom cw oppozo o>Po>cp .pm
mmm. ewm.¢ .sotmoto poozom to oppozo atomcp .om
om _:moz xmmp

.omscppcouuu.m— mpnmh

142

 

 

0mm. ewo.e .motooot ppozo mcpcpmpcpos op mtmzomop pmpmm< .Nm
me. mmN.e .motooot pposo oopmpo potpcoo opmptootoom cpmpcpmz .mu
cum. omm.e .mmotmoto ppooo moppmopo>o op mtocpo ocm mtogomop pmpmm< .mu

ops. opm.e .mcoppmpzmot oopmooms ocpmz mmcpppom oco momma—o opmptootooo
:p cotoppgo pmcoppomoxm po pcosooopo ocp top optoppto zmppnopmm .om

mww. omm.e .mpmoop>po:p opmptootoom op opomppo>m moms
ocm oopototopcp mp moppmop smootgp oocpopoo coppmstopcp pmcp otamm< .mn
mm~._ mem.m .mpmmp Poopmopogoxmo Lo oocompppopcp ooNpotmocmpm opoptootoom topmpcp5o< .NN
mum. mom.e .moaopccoop oppmocmmpo mcprppp: op poccomtoo tocpo one mtogomop pmpmm< .pu

omm. mpo.o .cotoppgo
pmcoppoooxo mcpzpppcoop :p poccomtoo tocpo oco mtocomop pmpmm< .on

omo.p mop.m .coppmpmpmmp mpcp to pcmsgmppaeouua
ocp otmzop xtoz ocm coppo_mpmop oooooc yo pcosoopo>oo map opmpasppm .mo
«mm. mmm.e .coppopmpmop mpcopt pp>po\coppoo=oo pmpooom pcoempoep op xoppoo oopm>oa .mo

own. omo.¢ .coppotooo
Emtmoto top motmocopm coppoozoo pmpooom potooom one opopm ootomcm .nm

em coo: xmmp

1.111-.- 1|- I1l1.l|1111 .Iri‘l.1|l1-.ill1‘l|'

.omzcmpcounu.m— mpnmh

143

Table 18.--Frequency of item means and item variances; question 2:

 

 

 

 

 

approval.
Mean Frequency Variance Frequency
4.717 1 0.63 2
4.672 1 0.66 1
4.620 1 0.68 1
4.599 1 0.72 1
4.579 1 T°p 0.725 1
4.520 1 33'1/3% 0.76 1
4.516 1 0.77 1
4.508 1 0.78 2
4.421 1 “19“ 0.79 1
4.418 1 0.80 3
4.404 1 Agree 0.81 2
4.384 1 0.815 1
4.380 1 0.82 2
4.305 1 0.83 6
4.296 1 0.84 1
4.293 1 0.85 4
4.284 1 0.86 1
4.265 1 0.87 2
4.268 1 0.875 1
4.263 1 0.88 3
4.254 1 0.89 1
4.250 1 0.90 2
4.240 1 0.92 2
4.234 1 0.93 3
4.226 1 0.95 1
4.223 1 0.96 2
4.222 1 0.98 2
4.219 2 LOW 0.99 1
4.207 1 1.00 2
4.194 1 1.01 1

144

Table 18.--Continued.

 

 

 

.768
.714
.698
.650
.610
.598
.545
.289

Mean Frequency Variance Frequency
4.188 1 1.03 2
4.167 1 1.04 1
4.165 1 1.05 2
4.152 1 1.06 1
4.151 2 1.07 2
4.135 1 1.08 1
4.128 1 1.09 1
4.109 1 1.095 1
4.103 2 1.14 1
4.084 1 1.23 1
4.058 1 1.28 1
4.050 1

4.010 1

4.000 1

3.985 1

3.973 1

3.923 1

3.905 1

3.899 1

3°87] 1 53E172%

3.863 1

3'798 1 Disagree

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

Table 18.--Continued.

145

 

 

Mean Frequency Variance Frequency
3.118 1
2.944 1
2.549 1

 

APPENDIX D

PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECT TASK PERFORMANCE GROUPED
BY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

146

APPENDIX 0

Table 19.--Percentage of subject task performance grouped by demographic

 

 

 

 

 

variables.
Task District Local (N=100)a . 150 (N=109)a
No, 150 Local 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
N=108 N=95 N=35 N=30 N=35 N=37 N=30 N=15 N=27
10 82.4 89.5 85.7 90.0 91.4 89.2 90.0 93.3 59.3
20 52.9 60.0 62.9 56.7 60.0 64.9 56.7 46.7 37.0
25 86.1 88.4 85.7 83.3 97.1 91.9 90.0 86.7 74.1
35 65.7 65.3 57.1 66.7 77.1 73.0 73.3 53.3 55.6
36 55.6 52.6 45.7 53.3 65.7 62.2 66.7 40.0 40.7
37 52.8 56.8 48.6 53.3 68.6 62.2 60.0 33.3 44.4
38 49.1 64.2 51.4 63.3 77.1 56.8 60.0 26.7 40.7
39 67.6 80.0 71.4 76.7 88.6 70.3 76.7 66.7 55.6
40 63.0 71.6 65.7 66.7 80.0 73.0 70.0 60.0 44.4
42 72.2 73.7 77.1 76.7 71.4 86.5 66.7 86.7 51.9
45 71.3 73.7 77.1 76.7 68.6 75.7 63.3 40.0 59.3
46 88.9 91.6 94.3 80.0 97.1 97.3 86.7 73.3 74.1
47 45.5 47.4 42.9 46.7 51.4 51.4 43.3 46.7 40.7
48 40.7 35.8 31.4 36.7 40.0 48.6 40.0 46.7 25.9
54 77.8 82.1 71.4 86.7 88.6 86.5 76.7 93.3 59.3
55 69.4 75.8 68.6 73.3 91.4 73.0 70.0 86.7 51.9
56 63.9 70.5 65.7 76.7 74.3 73.0 66.7 66.7 44.4
62 59.3 67.4 65.7 63.3 71.4 45.9 66.7 93.3 51.9
64 78.7 83.2 88.6 73.3 82.9 75.7 80.0 80.0 81.5
69 71.3 76.8 71.4 90.0 74.3 73.0 73.3 86.7 59.3
72 12.0 24.2 34.3 30.0 11.4 16.2 13.3 0 11.1

147

Table 19.--Continued.

148

 

Task

Position Title

Years' Experience

 

 

3122::- 01235 :22; 622:3:.- 1 2 a 4

N=114 N=22 N=27 N=19 N=25 N=32 N=93 N=62 N=20
10 89.5 100.0 85.2 78.9 64.0 84.4 86.0 85.5 85.5
20 57.9 63.6 55.6 52.6 44.0 62.5 49.5 61.3 60.0
25 89.5 90.9 85.2 84.2 80.0 81.2 89.2 88.7 90.0
35 66.7 72.7 81.5 52.6 52.0 56.2 67.7 69.4 65.0
36 57.0 50.0 59.3 57.9 40.0 50.0 59.1 54.8 45.0
37 54.4 59.1 59.3 57.9 44.0 43.8 61.3 53.2 50.0
38 59.6 63.6 59.3 47.4 36.0 43.8 54.8 69.4 50.0
39 72.8 81.8 85.2 63.2 60.0 62.5 73.1 79.0 75.0
40 70.2 77.3 63.0 57.9 52.0 53.1 67.7 74.2 65.0
42 78.1 86.4 63.0 73.7 52.0 65.6 79.6 69.4 75.0
45 73.7 90.9 77.8 57.9 66.0 65.6 77.4 69.4 80.0
46 93.0 63.6 92.6 84.2 68.0 90.6 92.5 87.1 90.0
47 50.0 50.0 37.0 26.3 48.0 40.6 47.3 50.0 45.0
48 42.1 36.4 33.3 31.6 38.0 31.2 41.9 38.7 35.0
54 80.7 95.5 77.8 68.4 72.0 84.4 77.4 85.5 70.0
55 75.4 81.8 74.1 57.9 64.0 84.4 71.0 72.6 70.0
56 72.8 68.2 59.3 52.6 60.0 68.7 65.6 69.4 70.0
62 64.0 86.4 55.6 47.4 64.0 50.0 64.5 66.1 70.0
64 77.2 90.9 92.6 84.2 72.0 75.0 80.6 77.4 95.0
69 76.3 86.4 59.3 73.7 76.0 71.9 74.2 74.2 90.0
72 18.4 22.7 18.5 26.3 8.0 12.5 25.8 11.3 10.0

 

aStudent population.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

149

~ BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J. Status of supervision in speech, hearing and language
programs in the schools. Journal of Language, Speech and
Hearing, 1972, 3, 12-23.

 

Anderson, J. L. Training of supervisors in speech-language pathology
and audiology. Unpublished paper, 1979.

Andrews, T. E. Certification. In R. W. Houston & R. B. Howsam
(Eds.), Competency-based teacher education. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, Inc., 1972.

 

Barr, A. S. An introduction to the scientific study of classroom
sgpervision. New York: 0. Appleton-Century C0., 1931.

 

 

Barr, A. 5., Burton, W. H., & Brueckner, L. J. Supervision: Principles

 

and practices in the improvement of instruction. New York:
0. Appleton-Century C0., 1938.

 

Brown, J., & Okay, J. Identifying_and classifying competencies for
performance-based teacher education. U.S. Educational Resources
Information Center, ERIC Document ED 076 565, 1973.

 

 

Burello, L. C., & Sage, D. 0. Leadership and change in special educa-
tion. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979.

 

Burton, W. H., & Brueckner, L. J. Supervision: A social process.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955.

 

Cisz, J. V. Determination of the significant functions and profi-
ciencies of supervisors of special education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973.

 

 

Cobb, J. J. The principal as supervisor. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 1975, 5, 27-29.

 

 

Cogan, M. L. Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1973.

 

Connor, L. E. Administration of special education prgggams. New
York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1961.

 

Council for Exceptional Children. Professional standards for personnel
in the education of exceptional children. Washington, D.C.: CEC,
1966.

 

150

 

151

Dudley, A. J. The supervisor's three hats. School Shop, 1970, 5,
54-56. _

 

Ebersdorfer, J. A comparative analysis of current state certification
requirements for special education administrative and supervisopy
personnel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,

973.

 

 

Esposito, J. P., Smith, G. E., & Burbach, H. J. A delineation of the
supervisory role. Education, 1975, 96, 63-67.

Forgnone, C., & Collings, G. 0. State certification-endorsement in
special education administration. Journal of Special Education,
1975, 2’ 5-9.

 

Gale, L., & McCleary, L. E. Competencies of the secondary school
principalship: A needs assessment study. U.S. Educational
Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 077 037, 1972.

 

Geer, W. Administration and supervision--CEC professional standards
for personnel of exceptional children. In C. H. Meisgeier &
J. D. King (Eds.), The process of special education administra-
tion. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook C0., 1970.

Gordon, 1. Classification analysis scheme for specifying the parame-
ters of the activities of special education administrators.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1973.

Gruber, S. E. Regional differences in the ranking of SEST project
critical competencies for special education supervisors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1974.

Hallberg, H. I. Certification requirements for general supervisors
and/or curriculum workers today, tomorrow. Educational Leader-
ship, 1966, 23, 623-625.

Harris, 8. M. Roles of supervisors and curriculum workers. In
H. T. Schafer & R. P. Wahle (Eds.), Toward professional maturity
of supervisors and curriculum workers. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1967.

Harris, 8. M. Sgpervisory behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Harris, 8. M., Bessent, W., & McIntyre, K. E. Inservice education:
A guide to better practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—
Hall, 1969.

 

152

Henderson, R. A. Preparation of administrators and supervisors of
special education. Paper presented at the 46th annual Council
of Exceptional Children Convention, New York, April 1968. In
C. H. Meisgeier & J. D. King (Eds.), Process of special education
administration. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook C0., 1970.

 

Hodgson, F. M. Special education--facts and attitudes. Exceptional
Children, 1964, 30, 196-201.

 

Hodson, M. D. Competencies for special education directors as seen by
intermediate and local directors of special education in Michigan.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1974.

Hollingsworth, S. A. (Ed.). Competency-based training programs: A
generic model. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota,
1976.

 

Houston, W. R., & Howsam, R. B. (Eds.). Competency-based teacher
education: Progress, problems and prospects. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, Inc., 1972.

 

Iowa State Department of Education. Special education support service
programs, personnel approval standards and training program cri—
teria. Des Moines: State of Iowa, Department of Instruction,
1977.

 

Johnson, R. A., Gross, J. C., & Weatherman, R. F. Decategorization and
performance based systems--special education in court. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1973.

 

King, J. D., & Harris, 8. M. Training manual for a competency-guided,
individualized program for special education supervisors, 1972-75.
Special Education Supervisory Training Project. Austin, Texas:
The University of Texas, 1976.

 

Kohl, J. W., & Marro, T. D. A normative study of the administrative
position in special education. Final report. U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped, Projects and Program Research
Branch, March 1971. Project No. 482266. MF: ED 058 679.

 

Kurpius, 0., Baker, R., & Thomas, I. Supervision of applied training.
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977.

 

Lovell, J. T. A perspective for viewing instructional supervisory
behavior. In W. H. Lucio (Ed.). Supervision: Perspectives and
propositions. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1967.

 

 

153

Lucio, W. H. (Ed.). Sgpervision: Perspectives and propositions.
Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Deve10pment, 1967.

Lucio, W. H., & McNeil, J. D. Supervision, a synthesis of thought
and action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

 

 

McCleary, L. E. Competencies in clinical supervision. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 1976, 9, 30-40.

 

 

McCleary, L. E., & Brown, T. C. Competency based educational adminis-
tration and application to related fields. In F. Bieber &
R. E. Peterson (Eds.), The identification and development of
administrative competencies. Proceedings of a seminar, Tempe,
Arizona, January 1973. Tempe: Arizona State University, Tempe
College of Education, 1973.

 

McDonald, F. J. The national commission on performance-based edu-
cation. Phi Delta Kappan, 1974, 296-298.

 

Mackie, R. P., & Engel, A. M. Directors and supervisors of special
education in local school systems. Bulletin No. 13, Office of
Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1956.

 

 

Mackie, R. P., Williams, H. M., & Dunn, L. M. Qualification and
preparation of teachers of exceptional children, 1952-54.
Bulletin, Office of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1957.

 

 

Maxwell, W. D. PBTE: A case of the emperor's new clothes. Phi Delta
Kappan, January 1974, 306-311.

Meisgeier, C. H., & King, J. D. (Eds.). The process of special edu-
cation administration. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook
C0., 1970.

 

 

Merwin, J. C. Performance-based teacher education: Some measurement
and decision-making considerations. American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, June 1973.

 

 

Michigan State Department of Education. Michigan special education
code as amended January 14, 1977. Lansing: Michigan State
Department of Education, 1977.

 

 

Piper, T. J., & Elgart, D. 8. Teacher supervision through behavioral
objectives, an operationally described system. Baltimore:
Paul H. BroOkes Publishérs,‘1979.

 

 

Rosner, B., & Kay, P. Will the promise of C/PBTE be fulfilled?
Phi Delta Kappan, January 1974, 290-295.

 

154

Sage, D. 0. Functional emphasis in special education administration.
Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 69—70.

 

Sandoz, E. CBTE: The nays of Texas. Phi Delta Kappan, January 1974,
304-306.

 

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starrett, R. J. Emerging patterns of sgpervision:

 

Human perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

 

Shapiro, S. L. Sppervision: An introduction to business management.
New York: Fairchild Publications, 1978.

 

Sinatra, L. J., & Masla, J. A. Performance-based teacher education:
A reply to a critic. Educational Technology, 1973, 13, 33-35.

 

Sloat, R. S. Identification of special education and othepppublic
school leadership personnel through task and skill area delinea—
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas,
1969.

 

 

Special Education Supervisory Training Project. Professional super-
visory competencies, competency specifications for instructional
leadership personnel in special education. Document #7. Austin:
University of Texas, 1974. .

 

 

Stogill, R. M., Shartle, C. L., & Associates. Patterns of adminis-
trative performance. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University,
1956.

 

 

Trow, S. J. Effect of an administrator of special education in unified
school districts in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Connecticut, 1971.

 

Unruh, A., & Turner, H. E. Supervision for change and innovation.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1970.

Utah State Department of Education. Certification standards for Utah
public school personnel. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of
Education, 1977.

 

Washington State Department of Education. Cerfication standards.
Olympia: Washington State Department of Education, 1975.

Weatherman, R., & Harpaz, I. A study of special education directors
in Minnesota. Minneapolis: Minnesota University, Department
of Educational Administration, 1975.

 

Wiles, K. Sppervision for better schools. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

155

Wilson, F. R., 8 Taylor, J. A graphic method for isolating high
consensus-high opinion strength items for evaluation and scale
construction.‘ Unpublished paper, Michigan State University,
1980.

 

 

 

Wyatt, K. E. Current employment and possible future needs for
leadership personnel in special education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968.

 

 

"‘4141411141411“