THEFREQUENCYAND SIAMHCANCEOFTASKS, PERFORMED BY STATE STAFF IN BUSINESS AND V_ " DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION A DiSSertationfortheDegreemPM. MICHIGAN STATE UNA/ERSITY :_ , ’ JOHN ALLENDAENZER. f. w '1976, ; LIBRARY [/ III/[W 1 Michigan state University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE FREQUENCY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TASKS PERFORMED BY STATE STAFF IN BUSINESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION presented by JOHN ALLEN DAENZER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D degree in m. Major professor Date August I, 1976 0-7 639 ABSTRACT THE FREQUENCY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TASKS PERFORMED BY STATE STAFF IN BUSINESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION By John Allen Daenzer The problem of the study was the identification and analysis of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. An assessment was conducted using a task analysis approach to determine: (l) how freQuently tasks were performed, and (2) how significant tasks were perceived by state super- visors of business and office education and/or distributive education. Tasks were ranked on the basis of frequency and significance scores and comparisons were made to ascertain if there was a difference in frequency and significance of the tasks for: (1) business and office education and/or distributive education state supervisors, (2) state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern of the state vocational education division, and (3) state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members. Program responsibilities, assignments within the state vocational education division, organizational patterns of the state vocational educa- tion division, the number of staff members, titles of state supervisors, and titles of subordinates to the state supervisors provided data that were analyzed in the study. John Allen Daenzer The population used in the study was the total number of state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education in the United States and the District of Columbia (N=105). The population consisted of forty-five state supervisors of business and office education, forty-nine state supervisors of distributive education, and eleven state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs. A survey instrument which consisted of a list of one hundred and twenty-nine tasks performed by state supervisors was developed through the review of literature, professional experience of the researcher, and assistance of a panel of consultants which was composed of thirty state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. The panel of consultants were representatives of twenty-two different states. Collection of data occurred in January and February of 1976. A return of 89% was received from the subjects. After data were received the tasks were ranked based upon frequency and significance scores calculated. Sorts of the data for ranking by frequency and significance were made for: (l) business and office education state supervisors, (2) distributive education state supervisors, (3) the organizational patterns of the state vocational education division, and (4) the number of state staff members for the vocational program. FINDINGS Based on the problem of the study and its assumptions and limit- ations the following were the findings: John Allen Daenzer Approximately half of the respondents were responsible for programming at all levels (secondary, post-secondary, and adult). About half of the state supervisors were responsible for only one level of programming. Over one-third of the state supervisors were assigned in a business education service and another one-third were assigned in a distributive education service. Approximately eleven percent were assigned in a service for both business and distributive education, while the remaining seventeen percent of the state supervisors were assigned to other units or divisions within the state vocational education division such as: secondary units, post-secondary units, adult units, area vocational-technical center units, curriculum units, research units, and personnel units. Fifty-one percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized according to service such as: agriculture, business and office, distributive, health, home economics, and trade and industrial education. Thirty-two percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized by both service and function. Seventeen percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized in some other organizational pattern. Forty-one percent of the state supervisors reported that they had no staff besides themself. About one-forth of the state supervisors had two staff members including themselves. Over a third of the states had larger staffs which consisted of three or more staff members. About a third of the state supervisors were titled "state supervisor." Twenty percent of the state supervisory persons were titled "consultant." Sixteen percent were titled "specialist." Nineteen percent were titled "director." Eight percent were titled "chief," and five percent were titled with other various titles. One-third of the subordinates to state supervisory personnel were titled "consultant," a quarter of the subordinates were titled "supervisor," eighteen percent were titled "specialist," sixteen percent were titled "assistant supervisor," five percent were titled "associate" to a chief, and four percent were titled "executive director" for the state association of the distributive education clubs of America. Job descriptions returned by thirty-seven percent of the respondents were similar. Responsibilities and tasks were broadly defined for the state supervisors. 10. ll. 12. 13. John Allen Daenzer Forty-three percent of the respondents returned copies of the state vocational education division organization chart. Organizational patterns varied except for those states (51%) which were organized by service. Policy manuals for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education do not exist as a separate document. Only two respondents (4%) returned a policy manual as requested. Nine state supervisors noted that a copy of the state plan for vocational education could be sent because it is the operational document for vocational education. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations to local educational agencies about programs. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors of distributive education were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Oisseminating materials and information. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations to local educationai agencies ; about programs. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education were: Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Preparing budgets and end-of—the-year reports. Evaluating vocational education administrators. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of distributive education were: Developing objectives for local educational agency's programs. T4. 15. 16. John Allen Daenzer Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies; Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service organization were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations about programs to local educational agencies. . The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service and function organ- ization were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Responding to correspondence. Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. Responding to requests and assignments made by the state director of vocational education. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in an other organizational pattern were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on- going programs. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post-secondary, and adult education. Assisting school districts in meeting standards to qualify for funding. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. Working with professional teacher organizations. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. John Allen Daenzer 17. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service organization were: Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational service. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Evaluating professional staff members in your division. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 18. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service and function organization were: Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Preparing budgets and end-of—the-year reports. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. . Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. l9. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in other organizational patterns were: Planning and organizing the state's participation at the national conference of the vocational student organiza- tion. Conducting werkshops for the state officers of the vocational student organization. Preparing quarterly reports. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 20. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with one staff member were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. John Allen Daenzer Evaluating programs at the local educational agency site. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 21. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with two staff members were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. Oisseminating information about the vocational student organization. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. 22. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with three or more staff members were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Working with professional teacher organizations. Oisseminating materials and information. Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 23. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors with one staff member were: Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Evaluating professional staff members in your division. 24. 25. John Allen Daenzer The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors with two staff members were: Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Reviewing expenditure reports for vocational funds spent by the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors with three or more staff members were: Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Preparing quarterly reports. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made: 1. Only seven of the tap ten percent of the most frequently performed tasks by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most frequently performed tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the most frequently performed tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the t0p ten percent of the most significant tasks by state superv1sors of business and office education and/or d1str1but1ve education, state supervisors working in a service. John Allen Daenzer service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most significant tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the most significant tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the top ten percent of the most frequent and the most significant tasks selected by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most frequently performed and most significant tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that state super- visors view different tasks to be most significant than those that they are performing most frequently. Only five of the lowest ten percent of the least frequent tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as least frequently performed tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the least frequently performed tasks for the eight groups. Only three of the lowest ten percent of the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as least significant. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the least significant tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the lowest ten percent of the least frequent and the least significant tasks selected by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected. Therefore, it has been concluded that state supervisors view different tasks to be least significant than those that are least frequently performed. The number of staff members, vocational program, and/or organiza- tional pattern of the state vocational education division do have an impact on the frequency and the significance of the tasks. THE FREQUENCY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF TASKS PERFORMED BY STATE STAFF IN BUSINESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION By John Allen Daenzer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researcher wishes to take this opportunity to express his appreciation and gratitude to all those individuals who gave their time and expertise to make this dissertation a reality. A sincere expression of appreciation and thanks is extended to Dr. Peter G. Haines, who served as major advisor, committee chairman, teacher and friend, and for his commitment to service and guidance of his candidates. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Robert Poland (Business Education), Dr. Rex Ray (Vocational-Technical Education), Dr. W. J. E. Crissy (Marketing), and Dr. Calhoun Collier (Elementary Education), who served as members of the guidance committee and gave assistance throughout the study. Sincere appreciation is expressed to my professional colleagues in the state and my special friends at the Vocational-Technical Education Service of the Michigan Department of Education for their support and encouragement for the study. To my wife Connie, daughter Shelley, and son Mark for their understanding and patience throughout the course of the study, the researcher expresses his acknowledgment and appreciation. To my friends appreciation is expressed for their indulgence, and last, but not least, to my professional colleagues in state supervision in the United States, for their cooperation and willingness to assist which made this study a successful and worthwhile effort. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................... vii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ......................... l The Problem of the Study ................. 2 Background of the Problem ........... . . . . . 3 Need for the Study .................... 5 Limitations of the Research Study ............ 7 Definition of Terms ................... 8 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................ ll The History and Development of State Supervision ..... ll Leadership Functions of State Supervisors ........ l4 The Viewpoint of the Supervisor's Clientele ....... l7 The Role of a State Supervisor .............. l9 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................... 30 The Panel of ConsUltants ................. 31 Instrumentation ..................... 33 The Survey Instrument ................ 34 The Pilot Study ..................... 35 Data Collection ..................... 36 Analysis of the Data ................... 39 IV. FINDINGS .......................... 4l Demographic Data ..................... 41 Program Responsibilities of the Respondents ..... 41 The Organizational Assignments of the Respondents . . 44 Organizational Patterns of the State Vocational Education Divisions ................ 44 The Size of the State Staffs ............. 47 Titles of State Supervisors ............. 48 Titles of Subordinates ................ 49 The Relationship of Tasks to Business and Office Education and Distributive Education State Supervisors ...... 52 The Most Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 52 The Most Significant Tasks ............. 53 The Least Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 54 The Least Significant Tasks ............. 55 iii The Relationship of Tasks to the Type of State Department of Education Organization ........ . . 74 The Most Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 74 The Most Significant Tasks .............. 75 The Least Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 77 The Least Significant Tasks ............. 78 The Relationship of Tasks to the Size of The State Staff .................... 80 The Most Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 80 The Most Significant Tasks .............. 81 The Least Frequently Performed Tasks ......... 83 The Least Significant Tasks ............. 84 Discussion of the Findings ................ 85 Analysis of the Most Frequent and/or Most Significant Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Analysis of the Least Frequent and/or Least Significant Tasks ................. 92 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 98 The Problem . . . . . ................ 98 Research Questions . . ................ 99 Background of the Problem .............. 99 Need for the Study .................. lOO Limitations of the Research Study .......... 100 Review of Related Literature ............. 101 The Population .................... 102 The Panel of Consultants ........... . . . . 102 Instrumentation ................... 103 The Survey Instrument ............... 104 The Pilot Study ................... 104 Data Collection ................... 105 Analysis of the Data ................. 106 Findings ....................... 107 Conclusions ..................... 113 Recommendations ................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................ 116 APPENDICES Appendix A: Cover Letter for Survey Instrument ........ 123 Appendix B: Sample Survey Instrument ............. 125 Appendix C: Follow-Up Letter ................. 136 Appendix D: Response Data .................. 138 iv Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: F.C.I. and S.C.I. Scores ............. 140 Rank Order of Tasks by F.C.I. and S.C.I. Scores for Business and Office Education, Distributive Education, and Dual Role State Supervisors ............... 151 Rank Order of Tasks by F.C.I. and S.C.I. Scores for One, Two, and Three or More Staff Members ................. 162 Rank Order of Tasks by F.C.I. and S.C.I. Scores for Service, Service and Function, and Other Organizational Patterns of the State Vocational Education Division ...... 173 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. The Addition of Tasks Provided by the Panel of Consultants .................... 32 II. Program Responsibilities of the Respondents ......... 42 111. Where the Respondents were assigned within the State Vocational Education Division ............ 45 IV. Number and Percentage of Job Descriptions, Organization Charts, and Policy Manuals Returned ...... 50 V. Number and Percentage of Returns ............... 51 VI. The Rank Order by F.C.I. of the Tasks Performed by State Supervisors of Business and Office Education and Distributive Education ................. 57 VII. The Rank Order by S.C.I. of the Tasks Performed by State Supervisors of Business and Office Education and Distributive Education ................. 65 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. ,The Organization of the State Vocational Technical Education Divisions ............... 46 2. Respondents Reporting "One," "Two," or "Three or More" Staff Members (including themselves) ........ 47 3. Titles of State Supervisory Personnel ............ 48 4. Titles of Subordinates to the State Supervisory Personnel ................... 49 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM In most states the program of funded vocational education for public schools includes junior high school through the fourteenth year and is administered by the staff of a divisiOn or bureau of the state department of education. The vocational division typically includes staff services in the occupational programs of agriculture, business and office education, distributive education, home economics (wage earning and consumer education), health education, and trade and industrial education. Vocational guidance and vocational rehabili- tation programs may be in the same division or in a separate one administered by the chief state school officer. In each state the vocational staff is chaired by a state director of vocational education. This person is responsible to the chief state school officer and the State Board for Vocational Education. The state director's duties are concerned with general administration including staff personnel relations, state plans, budgeting of funds, financial records, public relations, teacher education, studies, and investigations. Staff members under his leadership are state super- visors of the various services. Some are called "directors" or "consultants" rather than "supervisors." The number of state staff depends upon the scope of the program and/or the organization of the division and the resources available as well as the state's philosophy of vocational education and its commitment to vocational education. The Problem of the Study The problem of this study was the identification and analysis of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office and distributive education. An assessment was conducted by using a task analysis approach to determine how frequently tasks were performed by the state supervisors and how significant the state supervisors perceived the performance of those tasks. The following research questions were the focus of this study: 1. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office educa- tion, distributive education, and those state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs? 2. What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office educa- tion, distributive education, and those state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs. 3. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members for the vocational program? 4. What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members for the vocational program? 5. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a state voca- tional education division that was organized by a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern? 6. What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a state vocational education division that was organized by a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern? Background of the Problem There were in 1975 forty-five chief state supervisors of business and office education, forty-nine chief state supervisors of distributive education and eleven chief state supervisors who were in charge of both vocational programs according to the United States Office of Education listings.1 Of these persons, some were entitled assistant directors of vocational education, others, state supervisors, assistant state super- visors, consultants, or specialists. Some were assigned to a business education division while others were assigned to a section or unit entitled the business and distributive education division, distributive education division, business education division, secondary unit, post-secondary unit, curriculum development unit, adult education unit, personnel development unit, or research unit. It appeared from personal contacts by the researcher before the study was undertaken that the state supervisors: (1) played different roles and performed different tasks based upon the organization of the state vocational education division and the number of professional persons employed by the division, (2) state supervisors without other subordinates were able to do only the barest essentials, (3) others had support staff to perform additional 1United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Directory of State Officials with Supervisory Responsibilities for Business and Office Occupations" and "State Supervisory Personnel for Distributive Education,: Washington: U.S.O.E. 1975. functions, (4) a few state supervisors had large enough staffs to undertake a comprehensive program. A survey of state supervisors of business and office education was reported in 1975 which developed a profile of both the person and the position.2 That study dealt with the degree level, professional experience, previous positions, monthly salary, job satisfaction, and some specific functions performed by the state supervisors. The survey data revealed that the typical state supervisor is a family man in early middle age, a college or university graduate with a master's degree, and a former school teachers. The position involves a number of functions and responsibilities such as supervision of high school business education programs, development of curriculum materials, and arrangement of workshops. The Mercer study was the most recently reported research conducted with state supervisors of business education. The study left many questions with regard to the actual and perceived role for state supervisors of the two vocational programs. Stirewalt3 stated that state supervisors are generally interested in knowing how their administrative and supervisory activities compare with other state supervisors. Additionally, they are concerned with specific functions that relate to the effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of these activities. 2Russell Mercer, "Administrative and Supervisory Activities of State Supervisors," Business Education Forum, Volume 29, No. 8 (May, 1975), pp. 25-27. 3Bruce E. Stirewalt, ”Profile of a State Supervisor," Business Education Forum, Volume 27, No. 8 (May, 1973) pp. 46-48. Need for the Study Professional journals, research studies, and periodicals state many principles of supervision for the state level. The list is very complete. Which principles should have special emphasis or thrust becomes a serious problem if the most effective state supervision and leadership is to be obtained. Expansion and reorganization of vocational education divisions in the states occurred in the late 1960's and early 1970's as a result of legislation such as the Vocational Education Act of 1963 and the Amendments to the Vocational Act in 1968. Some of the state vocational education divisions are now organized by curriculum level or function rather than by services for the vocational program, which was the traditional pattern of organization. This study responded to the needs expressed by state supervisors of business and office education, state supervisors of distributive education, the United States Office of Education, teacher educators of business and distributive education, and state directors of vocational education. There is need to provide a comprehensive list of tasks performed by state supervisors including both the frequency and significance. The results of this study will assist state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education to review their roles so that tasks may be addressed which are of most significance. An outcome of the study will be a guide which will assist those involved in the field in improving their coverage of responsibilities. Up to now state supervisors have not been provided this kind of specialized development tool as a unique group. Evidence of need is 4 A recommendation was made for "support for found in the Essex Report. professional and para-professional staff recruitment, preparation, and upgrading at all levels, including leadership." This recommendation also appeared in the subsequent vocational education amendments of 1968.5 The need for more effective state supervision and leadership of business education and distributive education is necessary. The tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education are extensive, and the selection of those tasks and the frequency and significance becomes a serious problem in order to provide a comprehensive study. The need for change in the administrative organization at the state level is imperative today as a result of data processing systems, management systems, infor- mation systems, and the expansion of programs and personnel. A basic element of the philosophy of supervision should be that the past, present, and future practices should be questioned, examined and evaluated. In 1972, the National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education6 conducted a survey to determine the structure of state supervision for distributive education. Among the findings, the 4United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, Vocational Education: The Bridge Between Man and His Work, A Report Prepared by the Advisory Council of Vocational Education (Washington: U.S.O.E., OE-80053), 1968, p. 13. 5United States Congress, Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, Public Law 90-576, 90th Congress, October 16, 1968, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968. 6K. Otto Logan, "The History of the National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education: 1945-1973," National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1973. results of the survey indicated that less than half of the states used the term "supervisor" in the title of the state staff person who was ultimately responsible for the state-wide distributive education program. Further, over half of the state staff personnel were responsi- ble for program services and activities over and above those in the distributive education program. This survey further emphasized and substantiated the fact that the role of a state supervisor is a changing one. Another evidence of need might be the position that Price and Hapkins recognized as a lack of written information concerning the responsibilities of a state supervisor of business education. In the "Review and Synthesis of Research in Business and Office Education,"7 Price and H0pkins made reference to only one study that had been completed, that by Smith. The study set forth the critical requirements of an effective state supervisor in the field of business education. Limitations of the Research Study This study was completed with the following limitations: 1. The study was based upon the results of tasks rated by state supervisors based upon their self-perceptions. No diary was kept by the respondents. . 2. The results of the study were based upon data provided by only the state supervisors of the vocational program not by any subordinates. 3. The study did not attempt to determine, evaluate, or predict the state supervisor's degree of current or future success in his role. 7Ray G. Price and Charles R. Hopkins, "Review and Synthesis of Research in Business and Office Education, 2nd. Edition, (Research Series No. 55, Columbus: E.R.I.C. Clearinghouse on Vocational and Technical Education, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State University) 1970, p. 87. 4. No attempt was made to compare various states or state supervisors. Definition of Terms State Supervisor - The person on the state department of education staff who is primarily responsible for the administration and supervision of a state-wide vocational program in an occupational program such as: agriculture, business and office education, distributive education, health education, home economics, and trade and industrial education. Distributive Education - Various combinations of subject matter and learning experiences related to the performance of activities that direct the flow of goods and services, including their appropriate utilization, from the producer to the consumer or user. These activities include selling, and such sales-supporting functions as buying, transporting, storing, promoting, financing, marketing research and management. Distributive education is comprised of programs of occupational instruction in the field of distribution and marketing. These programs are designed to prepare individuals to enter, or progress or improve competencies in, distributive occupations.8 Business and Office Education - A body of subject matter, or combina- tion of courses and practical experience, is organized into programs of instruction to provide opportunities for students to prepare for or advance in selected office occupations. In the instructional process various aspects of subject matter frequently are drawn from other subject- matter areas. Learning experiences are designed to lead to employment 8United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Vocational Education and Occupations. Washington: U.S.O.E., Bulletin VE80061, 1969, p. 19. and/or advancement of individuals in occupations in public or private enterprises or organizations related to the facilitation function of the office. "Facilities function" as used here refers to the expediting role played by office occupations as the connecting link between the production and distribution activities of an organization. Included are a variety of activities, such as recording and retrieval of data, supervision and coordination of office activities, internal and external communication, and the reporting of information.9 State Vocational Education Division - The division or bureau of the state department of education that provides services for vocational and technical education and is administratively responsible for vocational and technical education programs in that state under direction of the state board for vocational education. Task - The work to be done; a piece of work; a duty. Staff - Personnel who are in support roles to the state supervisor of a vocational program. Organizational Pattern - The systematizing or constituting into a whole of the interdependent parts. Frequency - The rate of occurrence. Significance - Importance in the mind of the respondent Vocational Education - Organized educational programs, services, and activities which are directly related to the preparation of individuals 9Op. Cit. 1969, p. 57. 10 for paid and unpaid employment, or for additional preparation for a 10 career requiring other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree. 10National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education, A Task Force Report "Defining Critical Terms in Vocational Education: for the National Association of'State Directors OfEVbcatifihal Edhtation," Printed by the West Virginia Department ofrEducation, Charleston, West Virginia, 1976, p. 9. Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE "Supervision and supervisor are terms which have various connotations to different persons. Each person interprets the terms in relation to his own aspirations, experiences, and needs. To one person, supervision denotes guidance and help through a variety of carefully planned activities that present a program of growth and develOpment; to another person, supervision has only the limited narrow connotation of classroom observation. To one person, the supervisor is one to fear as a constant threat to his security; to another person, the supervisor is merely a "snoopervisor" to be endured." The History_and Development of State Supervision Each state is required, under provisions of federal vocational legialation, to prepare and submit to the federal authority a plan for 2 The the use of the federal funds provided for vocational education. idea for a state plan for vocational education originated when attempts were being made in 1911 to pass the Page Bill, prior to the Smith-Hughes .Act. An amendment to the Page Bill contained reference to a state plan for vocational education. The Commission on National Aid to Vocational 1Paul P. Plevyak, "Supervision in Business Education in the Eastern States," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, No. 3 (March, 1968), p. 16. 2United States Congress, Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, Public Law 90-576, 90th Congress, Ohtober 16, 1968, (Washington: Government Printing Office) 1968, p. 4. 11 12 Education suggested that amendment and it was incorporated into the Bill. The state plan is necessary to insure adequate standards because grants to states were (and are) made under broad conditions and are intended to meet certain specific needs within a state that may be unique to that state.3 The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and the George-Barden Act of 1946 specified that the state plan shall state the kinds of vocational education efforts for which appropriations shall be used. Both of these acts required that plans for the administration and supervision of the vocational programs be addressed. The topical outline for the state plan for vocational education, under provisions of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 also required that administration and supervision be continuously addressed with the submitting of the state plan.4 The states were authorized under the legislation of 1917 to use federal funds for supplementing salaries of only supervisors of agricultural education programs under the provisions of the Smith-Hughes Act. However, it soon became apparent that qualified supervisors were needed in each of the vocational program areas such as: distributive education, trade and industrial education, and home economics. In 1918, the Federal Board for Vocational Education authorized the states to use a portion of the federal funds allocated for teacher training to pay salaries and other expenses of supervisors. This authorization was designed to stimulate the states to provide state supervision in home economics and trade and industrial education which 3Roy W. Roberts, Vocational_and_2nacti£al_Arts_£du£atiQns (New York: Harper and Rowe Publishers) l965,p. 147. 41m. 13 were in addition to the currently supervised and supported agricultural education programs. Because the allocated funds for teacher training were used for salaries, clerical services, travel, communications, and supplies, that portion of the funds allocated for supervision was also available for these types of expenditures. All subsequent vocational education acts recognized the importance of supervision by providing that federal funds could be used by the states for this purpose.5 Two acts affected supervision of business and office education and distributive education. First, the George-Dean Act of 1936 authorized federal funds for vocational distributive education for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938. During the first year of funding, twenty states employed twenty-one full-time and six part-time state supervisors and teacher educators to provide leadership to this vocational program. By the close of the fiscal year ending on June 30, 1939, thirty-one states had employed thirty-one full-time and nine part—time supervisors, assistant supervisors, and teacher educators in distributive education. Supervision of business education at this time was directed by supervisors of other vocational programs. In 1939, a Business Education Service was established in the Vocational Education Division of the United States Office of Education to administer the distributive educa- tion programs and coordinate other business education activities. That office was changed to the Distributive Education Service in 1951, since business education was not a program supported by federal funds. 5Ibid. pp. 205-206 14 The second act affecting supervision of business and office education and distributive education was in 1963. Business and office education programs were deemed as supportable with federal monies. Before the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, only thirteen states had supervision in the business and office education programs; these states used state funds for this purpose. 6 Blackstone said, "Business education, for the most part, has been lacking in supervision at practically every level primarily because of a lack of funds. The Vocational Education Act of 1963 provided an incentive, particularly at the state level, for the supervision of business education." Because of the impact of the 1963 Act, every state department of education now has a person with supervisory responsibilities for the vocational program in business and office education. Leadership Functions of State Supervisors Phillips7 requested chief state school officers and their staffs to rate their state department of education. An instrument which covered a diverse list of activities was used. The Phillips' study analyzed the states leadership functions in the state department of education to determine the status of development, the level of aspiration, 6Bruce I. Blackstone, "Supervision in Business Education...at the National Level," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, No. 4, (Summer, 1968), p. 51. ‘ 7Harry L. Phillips, "A Functional Analysis of, and Projections for, State Departments of Education," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1968). 15 and the relative priority for improvement for each of the seventy-five leadership functions. The results and conclusions of the Phillips‘ study indicated that there was a large variation in state departments in regard to their leadership functions and their aspirations and priorities for improving them. The conclusions of the Riddle8 study which reviewed leadership experiences by state department of educations in state-wide curriculum and instructional improvement were almost entirely negative. Riddle claimed that he found that state departments did not accept their responsibilities for long-range planning; their responsibilities for curriculum and instructional improvements were not satisfactorily handled, and over-all there was little state-wide cooperation with state departments of education. The study indicated, at that time, that state departments were not performing as effectively as they could have been. 9 in his study of state supervision and leadership for Thomas, business education, developed a list of specific responsibilities of the state department of education that he felt must be considered in the overall state-wide planning for effective supervision and leader- ship. The list included: 8Bruce E. Riddle, "An Analysis of State Departments of Education with Respect to Their Emerging Leadership Functions in Educational Improvement," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma) 1964. 9Ellis R. Thomas, “An Analysis of State Supervision and Leadership of Business and Office Education with Implications for and Recommendations to the State of New Jersey," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University) 1971. Mad 0 o 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 16 Sensitivity to changing educational needs. Development of a stateuwide plan, based on clearly defined short-range and long-range goals and a solid philosophy, to assist local educational agencies to maintain an up-to-date business educa- tion program consistent with the changing technology. Continuous involvement in curriculum development through published guides, long-range planning, and in-service conferences. Provisions for assistance to teachers and guidance counselors for a complete testing and career development program. Close liaison with professional organizations for purposes of program development. Provision for a variety of consultive services to educational agencies at all levels. Provision for research and development activities. Active participation in teacher education programs including participation in the development of state-wide certification requirements. A thorough program review and evaluation program. Determination of where and how state and federal vocational funds may be used most effectively. Publication of apprOpriate instructional materials and teacher guides. Provision for the dissemination of information and establishment of demonstration centers relating to successful pilot and experimental programs. Establishment of equipment and layout standards for the business eduCation departments of the secondary schools (and others, as the need arises) of the state. Development of active involvement of business and industry into the total business education scheme. Publication of bulletins which can call attention to the significant research studies that would be of particular value to the business teachers of a particular state. Encouragement of professional growth on the part of business education teachers, providing opportunities for affiliation and active participation in approp- riate educational organizations. Attention to non-vocational business education courses as well as the pure vocational. Provision for making available data relating to new instructional films, new teaching aides, unique courses of study, and statistical data related to student enrollment, teacher trends, and employment. Provision for development of an active and highly progressive state youth organization. Development of ways to relate pertinent information to all teachers regarding significant outcomes of regional and national business education conferences. 17 21. Provision for assisting teachers and school adminis- trators in conducting appropriate surveys for improvement of the business education curriculum, 22. Provision for assisting in program development for adults and students with special needs such as disadvantaged and mentally and/or physically handicapped. The Viewpoint of the Supervisors: Clientele In perceiving the role of the state supervisor for business education and distributive education, it is always important to receive feed-back from the persons who receive the state supervisor's services. This input can be used to evaluate his effectiveness and to develop short- range and long-range goals for improvement of the services he can provide. In 1974, the National Business Education Association sent question- naires to nine hundred and two selected business teachers. In an effort to obtain opinions covering every aspect of the field, the survey was mailed to a cross section of individuals, including members of the N.B.E.A. Executive Board, officers and executive board members of the five regional associations, officers of the National Association for Business Teacher Education and representatives of its member colleges and universities, presidents of state business education associations, state supervisors of business education, and local (city/county) super- visors of business education. The role of the state supervisor was ques- tioned in such areas as leadership, planning, policy, administration, supervision, in-service, teacher-training, standards for teacher certifi- cation, and other functions that related closely to state supervision. Cited are some of the opinions expressed by respondents:10 IDO. J. Byrnside, Jr., "Proposed Vocational Education Legislation: Challenging Opportunities for Business Education," Business Education Forum, (Volume 28, No. 8) May, 1974, pp. 5-8. T77 77 18 "It is important that state supervisors don't become completely regulatory in nature and thus become a negative influence on the educational process.“ "State supervisors should work on needs assessments." "Establish standards in concert with practitioners, serve as a clearing house for all relevant information." "Homogenize programs at all levels." "The services should not be determined by an inequitable state plan that calls for those services to be provided to only those schools that receive federal funds." "Schools not qualifying for federal funds according to the state plan for vocational education may be the schools that need help the most." "The state business education association should make sure that all of business education is served by the state supervisor." "If a state supervisor better serves the state's teachers, it will consequently better serve the students." In addition to the above quoted comments, complete and total cooperation with teacher education was a goal that was hoped for by many of the respondents. DeMille11 used a questionnaire to secure data about what functions should be conducted by a state consultant of business education. The study was limited to but eight states and Puerto Rico. His questionnaire went to state staff as well as twenty business teacher educators and forty-five business teachers. Some of the major functions of the state consultant for business education that were reported were: 11Stanford D. DeMille, "A Study of State Business Education Supervisory Functions," (unpublished Master's thesis, Brigham Young Univer51ty) 1960. boom 0"! 19 To promote the business education program with school administrators, business organizations, and general publics. To promote the continuing evaluation of the business education curriculum. To act in an advisory capacity to all business teachers. To provide information and to make recommendations for facilities. To work closely with business teacher educators in determining courses of study and requirements for certification. To assist the teachers in establishing pupil achievement standards. To promote workshops and other group conferences for business teachers. Special funding for vocational education programs by law carries with it the responsibility for involvement of state supervision through promo- tion of program development at the local level because with the acceptance of funds, the local educational agency accepts some responsibilities. Roley12 said the local educational agency accepts the following responsi- bilities with the funding: 1. been) To allow the state to consult on planning of program development. To plan several types of programs such as preparatory, supplementary, laboratory, cooperative and simulated. To have its teachers certified. To complete follow-up studies. The Role of a State Supervisor Ristau 13 said, "The administration of any program should seek to fulfill two basic objectives: to facilitate the operation and to enhance 12 Dennis E. Roley, "Supervision in Business Education in the Western States, National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 24, No. 8 (May, 1971) pp. 38-40. 13 Robert A. Ristau, "Strategies for Effective Administration of Vocational Education at the State Level," Business Education Forum, Volume 26, No. 8, (May, 1972), p. 31. 20 the effectiveness of the program. All administrative acts and functions should lead to the accomplishment of those two objectives. Those who are involved in various administrative roles should see themselves in the perspective of service to an important clientele." An administrator, whatever the level of operation, has many critical functions to perform, among which are planning, organizing, directing, budgeting, supervising, and coordinating. The complexity of each of these functions increases as higher levels of administration are reached but the basic concept of administration does not diminish in importance. A supervisor's responsibility is to see that programs comply with all established standards, a duty which can only be fulfilled by conducting a planned and organized review of school programs. A written guideline for this purpose will assure full coverage and serve as an outline for a written report. This review guideline may vary from a mere checklist to a concise statement of purpose, philosophy, and methods of approach to be used. In Blackstone's14 article which reported about the incentives provided by the Vocational Education Act of 1963, he states that the administrative responsibilities generally recognized as being of major importance to a state supervisor of business and office education are as follows: 14Blackstone, op. cit., p. 51 21 1. Determining what items of program costs are reimbursable and ascertaining that the amount of reimbursement is based upon firm figures. 2. Checking the accuracy of the data in official reports. 3. Making a thorough program review in every school periodically (this will consist of checking for compliance and assisting the school in developing a higher quality program). 4. Arranging for yearly evaluations of school programs by trained teams of teachers, supervisors, teacher educators, and state personnel. 5. Determining where and how funds may be used most effectively, including recommending the dis- continuance of programs which have outlived their usefulness. Another look at the role of the state supervisor was done by 15 Overbey who sent questionnaires to state consultants of business education in nineteen states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia to determine the role of state consultants. Overbey concluded from the analysis of the data that the role was: 1. To promote pupil growth by working with teachers. 2. To assist administrators and teachers in developing and revising curriculums, up-dating facilities and equipment, and developing desirable community relationships. 3. To promote professional growth of the business teacher through in-service education programs and professional organizations. 16 Hausmann employed a questionnaire to rate the important duties of a consultant of business education. Twenty-one state consultants 15John W. Overbey, "The Nature, Purpose, Philosophy of Supervision at the State Level in Secondary Schools, with Specific Reference to Business Education in Selected States," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951). 16Betty N. Hausmann, "State Supervision in Business Education in Texas," (unpublished Master's thesis, Texas Technological College, 1964). 22 of business education were participants in her study. The five most important duties found were: Consulting. Program coordination. Publications. Public relations. In-service training. 01-9de Some statements of responsibilities of state consultants of business education were made by the consultants and were reported in an article written by Huffman.17 The statements of responsibilities were: 1. Guidance in planning the CUrriculum. 2. Curriculum evaluation. 3. Pre-service education of business teachers. 4. In-service training of business teachers. 5. Workshops. 6. Instructional materials. 7. Youth leadership through co-curricular activities. 18 Herndon rated the degree of relative desirability for services to be provided to business education teachers by the state departments of education in twelve southern states. Each service listed on the questionnaire had a rating scale with positions on the scale indicating varying degrees of relative desirability. Herndon concluded that the staff of an efficient state supervisory program: 17 .Harry Huffman, "Responsibilities of the State Department of Education for the Administration and Supervision of Business Education,” NatipgalgBuSiness Education Quarterly, Volume 31, No. 4 (Summer, 1963), PP- - - 18 Frank M. Herndon, "A Study of Supervisory Services in Business Education as Rendered by Departments of Education in Twelve Southern Sggges, (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Northwestern University, 23 l. Sought to continuously revise and enrich the business curriculum based upon pupil needs, interests, and aptitudes, in line with the changing community. 2 Conducted area or district group conferences. 3 Made recommendations to administrators for the improvement of facilities and equipment. 4. Informed teachers of significant activities 5 6 7 O and practices in business education. . Organized teachers into committees to study problems of state-wide nature. . Assisted the school personnel in establishing business education programs. Issued bulletins to inform teachers of signifi- cant research studies and the availability of new instructional aids. 20 Chrismer stated that a consultant of business education is primarily concerned with liaison activities, supervision, administration, and professional leadership and Musselman,21 in an article published in the National Business Education Quarterly, reported that the respon- sibilities of state consultants of business education were: 1. Preparation of criteria, standards, and regulations pertaining to the state-wide program. Presentation of methods of Operation to faculties of schools. Approving of proposed programs. Approving and coordination of teacher education programs. Accounting for funds assigned to the state consultant's office. Evaluation of present programs and improvements in the future programs. Coordination of programs. \1 03 0'1 #00 N o o o o o 0 19John M. Chrismer, "The Characteristics of a Good State Supervisor of Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 31, No. 4 (Summer, 1963), pp. 20-21. 20 . . . . Vernon A: Musselman, "Administration and Supervision of Vocational Bu51ness Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 33, No. 4 (Summer, 1965), pp. 8-9. 24 Hall21 used a mailed questionnaire techniQue to survey fifteen state supervisors of business education to study the most effective business education program supervision. She found that the most effective overall supervision of business education programs were where: 1. Instructional materials were being supplied. 2. Curriculums were being continually evaluated and changed. 3. Professional status of business teachers was rapidly being enhanced. 4. Effort was being made to gain maximum use of all physical facilities. 5. Public relations activities were being broadened. 6. Funds were being increased. Van Hook22 said that the state supervisor is in a unique position to cooperate with a number of different agencies. It takes people to do the job of supervision. Even though one person may be placed in the position, he can be no more effective than the cooperation of teachers, administrators, teacher educators, local directors, state board of education members, fellow staff, supervisors of other vocational programs, and students allow him to be. His job should be one of molding all of these groups into an effective team. Van Hook further stated that the state supervisor must have a good working relationship with other state agencies such as the state employ- ment service, the state department of labor, the state welfare office, the vocational rehabilitation department, and other agencies. 21Linnie R. Hall, "State Supervision of Business Education with Implications for the State of Oklahoma," (unpublished Doctor‘s dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1951). 22.Victor Van Hook, "Supervision in Business Education...at the State Level," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, No. 4 (Summer, 1968), pp. 45-50. 25 In looking at some of the functions of the job of a state supervisor Van Hook said the state supervisor has to function as a long-range and short-range planner. He must make plans and integrate his plans with the plans of other staff members. As an administrator, the state supervisor must work closely with teacher educators in his state. Unless they are kept completely informed, their value to the state supervisor and the vocational program will be limited. In administering, the state supervisor should be sure that the best use of funds is being made, The state supervisor must be a coordinator at the national, state, regional, and local levels. He must be able to exchange information and encourage others to use various publications to disseminate new ideas or new approaches. In addition, he must be able to solicit the cooperation of persons not in his discipline and seek assistance and help from other groups such as counselors. In addition to being an administrator, coordinator, and planner, the state supervisor must be a promoter. The product to be sold is training. As a researcher, the state supervisor must do whatever research he can do. He should stimulate research and see that needed research is conducted. According to Van Hook, state supervisors have several major problems as evaluators. In evaluating, special care must be taken to gather data that are complete and accurate. Evaluation must be used not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end: evaluation should help to determine direction for educational efforts. 26 23 wrote regarding the state department of education's Selden responsibilities relative to teacher certification, Selden felt that it is the role of the state department of education to review teaching certificates that have been issued, to review teacher certification, to determine the applicability to present needs, and to provide leader- ship and guidance in changing shortcomings in certification. He further noted that there is a changing trend toward designating these respon- sibilities to the teacher education institutions. Selden however argued that the state department of education should be setting standards for occupational experiences for certifi- cation and should play a lead role in pre-service and in-service programs. He also recommended a national reciprocity between states for certification of teachers on the basis that it would result in the solution of many certification problems. 24 felt that those persons who deal with people Selden and Swatt during the course of their work have certain ethical responsibilities that need to be considered continuously. State supervisors of business education were no exception. Because of the nature of their work, much time is spent coordinating their daily responsibilities with others. State supervisors work with groups such as their colleagues in the state department of education, school administrators, department chairmen, 23William Selden, "State Department of Education Responsibilities Relative to Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 34, No. 4 (May, 1966), pp, 5-7. 24William Selden and Kenneth Swatt, "Ethics in State Supervision of Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 24, No. 8 (May, 1971, pp. 38-40. 27 guidance counselors, teacher educators, and curriculum coordinators, Many times their leadership is given to students active in the vocational student organization. In all of these situations required decisions and actions have ethical dimensions. The following are responsibilities listed by Selden and Swatt in a suggested order of priority: 1. Responsibility to youth and adults interested in receiving education in the business program. 2. Responsibility to employers of business and office employees. . 3. Responsibility to the taxpayers of the state and the nation. 4. Responsibility to the business educators. 5. Responsibility to other educators. 25 Smith studied the critical requirements for an effective state consultant and compiled a list of twenty-six critical requirements. He used a critical incidents research technique regarding behavior of state consultants. The twenty-six critical requirements determined significant were: 1. Assumes the responsibility for the interpretation of educational legislation. 2. Maintains friendly relations and performs his duties in a professional manner. 3. Cooperates in evaluations and in recommendations for improvement of curriculum. 4. Gives advice and assistance in establishing and maintaining federal and/or state financially supported programs. 5. Adequately prepares for presentations and for answering questions after the presentations. 6. Furnishes and/or suggests teaching aids and techniques. 7. Employs various opportunities to encourage the layman's participation and to increase his interest in the school program. 8. Utilizes diplomacy while discussing personal character- istics and professional affairs with educators or laymen. 9. Actively sponsors youth organizations that supplement the classroom. 25James N. Smith, "Critical Requirements for an Effective State Con- sultant of Business Education as Determined by Analysis of Critical Incidents," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1965). 10. 11. 12; 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 28 Appeals to school administrators for teachers to have a reasonable number of pupils and classes. Plans workshops that will be enriching experiences for the participants. Responds to requests for assistance. Recognizes protocol and reports to the school's administrative offices before visiting teachers or writing reports about the program. Engages capable, efficient, and knowledgeable conference participants and orients them to the group and program. C00perates with educators to plan for maximum use of present equipment and facilities as well as future acquisitions. . Supports teacher requests and recommends additional facilities and equipment for effective learning experiences. Works with committees and names committees to plan group conferences. Assumes responsibility for details regarding his speaking engagements. Cooperates in organizing and promoting adult educational programs. Emphasizes the use of current books in classes and libraries. Arranges for applicable reimbursement to those who attend workshops and conferences. Schedules group conferences in locations convenient to the attending persons. Assists in the development of course outlines and recommends appropriate programs to adults. Provides equipment and other properties for group conferences and experiments with the properties in preparation for the conferences. Utilizes community surveys as a technique of promoting the business curriculum and sometimes conducts or directs the survey. Provides opportunities for business teachers to look at their goals and objectives. Smith concluded that the interpretation of legislation was a major responsibility, group conferences were important activities, teachers were not visited as often as they desired, and state consultants were aware of the importance of protocol when making visits to schools. 29 Smith's only recommendations were that states employ more state staff members to offer new services and to expand existing services and that the title "supervisor" be replaced with the title "consultant“ in the state business education titles. Chapter III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The population used in this study was the total number of state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education in the United States and the District of Columbia (N = 105). The population consisted of forty-five state Supervisors of business and office education, forty-nine state supervisors of distributive education, and eleven state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs. The state supervisors of business and office education were identified from the April, 1975, Directory Qj_State Officials with Superviso:y_Responsibility for Business and Office Occupations Education,1 and the state supervisors of distributive education were identified from the October, 1975, Directory gj_$tate Supervisory_Personnel for Distributive Education.2 Eleven of the state supervisors were listed in both directories because they held a dual role in state supervision for both business and office education and distributive education. 1United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Directory of State Officialggwith Supervisory Responsibility for Business and Office Occupations Education, Washington: U.S.O.E., 1975. 2United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Directory_of State Supervisory Personnel for Distributive Education, Washington: U.S.O.E., 1975} 30 31 The Panel of Consultants The Panel of Consultants consisted of state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education who were attending the American Vocational Association conference at Anaheim, California in December of 1975. The state supervisors used for the Panel of consultants were from the states of Arizona, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,Pennsy1vania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Thirty-nine state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education were personally contacted by the researcher at the conference. Of the thirty-nine state supervisors contacted thirty of them volunteered to assist the researcher by serving on his Panel of Consultants. The Panel of Consultants reviewed tasks written by the researcher to be certain that the tasks were understandable the way they were written. The Panel of Consultants also checked the tasks to be certain that they were applicable to persons serving in a state supervisory role for business and office education and/or distribu- tive education. The Panel of Consultants made revisions to seventeen of the tasks that had been written and suggested that eighteen tasks be added to the survey instrument because they had been overlooked by the researcher. The Panel of Consultants also reviewed the layout of the rating scales and the instrument design. The Panel of Consultants made three suggestions for improving the instrument design. 32 Table I below represents the allocation of tasks by major classifications which were presented to the Panel of Consultants. The table shows the number of tasks that were allocated before and after the review by the Panel of Consultants. Table I The Addition of Tasks Provided by the Panel of Consultants V ,Number of Tasks: Major Vfi - Classifications of Tasks Used: Panel of Initial Consultants Finalized List Additions List Planning and Organizing 15 4 19 Developing Programs and Personnel 15 3 l8- Staffing 5 O 5 Compliance 6 2 I 8 Public Relations 15 l 16 Financing and Budgeting l3 2 15 Coordinating and Communicating 18 1 l9 Reviewing and Evaluating 24 5 29 Total 111 18 129 33 Instrumentation A list of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education was developed from a review of the researchers personal calendar of professional activities as a state staff member. Several state plans from the state of Michigan and other states were reviewed and found to be beneficial sources for identifying tasks. Also used was theMichigan annual program plan, monthly and annual objectives, and management-by-objective program materials developed by the Vocational-Technical Education service of the Michigan Department of Education. The Michigan Vocational-Technical Education Service, "Evaluation Pilot: A Prospectus," an evaluation model for vocational education administrators, was also reviewed for tasks performed by persons in administrative positions in vocational education.3 The review of the related literature and research set forth in Chapter II also identified many tasks performed by state supervisors and was used in the development of the list of tasks for the survey instrument. After an initial list of taSks was developed, the researcher took the opportunity of receiving additional assistance and input from profes- sionals in supervisory roles in the Vocational-Technical Education Service of the Michigan Department of Education. These persons included chiefs, supervisors, and specialists for business and office education, distributive education, home economics, health education, trade and 3State of Michigan, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational. Technical Education Service, Evaluation Pilot:‘ A Prospectus, Lansing, Michigan, 1975. 34 industrial education, and agricultural education. These personnel reviewed the task list and made suggestions for improvement and expansion of the list. Further input was received from three state supervisors, four teacher educators, and six consultants for business and distributive education who were in attendance at the Region V distributive education conference sponsored by the Region V office of the United States Office of Education in October, 1975.. Persons that assisted were representatives of the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The Survey Instrument. The survey instrument used in this study was designed from a survey instrument that had been used in three doctoral studies conducted at Wayne State University which dealt with teacher competencies for business education, distributive education, and trade and industrial education.4 The survey instrument used in this study incorporated two rating scales for delineating (1) the degree of frequency of performing the task, and (2) the degree of significance of performing the task. A cover page was attached to the survey instrument. The cover page requested demographic data about the respondent and his position in the state vocational education division. A sample of the survey instrument and the letter of transmittal used in this study are presented in Appendix A and B of this study. The tasks listed on the survey instrument were representative of the total spectrum of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office and distributive education. Valid sources such as the state plans, management-by-objective systems, annual program plans, monthly 4Cf. p. 105 (Broder, Graziano, and Popovich) 35 and annual objectives, the review 6f the literature and research, and other input from state supervisors and teacher educators of business and office education and distributive education, a panel of consultants review, and the pilot study verified and validated the list of tasks to be broad and comprehensive. The Pilot Study After all revisions of tasks and additional tasks suggested by the panel of consultants had been incorporated into the survey instru- ment a pilot study was initiated in January of 1976. The pilot study population consisted of a selection of twenty state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. The twenty state supervisors were selected by the researcher. The only criteria used were that the pilot study people had not been used on the panel of consultants and that they were spread throughout the country so that as representative a population as possible could be used. The twenty subjects used in the pilot study were requested to complete the survey instrument and identify any rating scale problems or items on the survey instrument which were believed to be (1) ambiguous, (2) impossible to answer, and/or (3) inappropriate. Each of the pilot study subjects was asked to record the amount of time it required to complete the survey instrument and were given the opportunity to add any tasks they felt should be included on the instrument. None of the tasks were reported by the pilot study subjects to be ambiguous, impossible to answer, or inappropriate, and the average length of time taken to complete the survey instrument was calculated to be a mean time of 'forty-two minutes. No additional tasks were listed by the pilot study 36 subjects and no rating scale problems were identified by the respondents. The pilot study was conducted with a sample of twenty subjects. Nineteen of the twenty pilot study subjects completed the survey instrument. This was a return rate of ninety percent. The survey instrument as piloted was proven to be valid and no further revisions were made to the instrument. Because the pilot study instruments were received with no changes needed, the survey instrument was printed and copies of it were sent to the remaining ninety-five state super- visors and the nineteen pilot study instruments were used to determine data for the study. Data Collection Information was returned by mail from state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. The infor- mation was a rating of the degree of frequency of performing the tasks, the degree of significance of performing the tasks, and demographic data such as (l) the organizational pattern of the state's vocational education division, (2) the number of state staff members for the vocational program of business and office education and/or distributive education, (3) where the state supervisors were assigned within the I vocational education division of the state department of education, (4) the titles of the state supervisors, and (5) the titles of subordinates to the state supervisors. When the survey instruments were mailed a self-addressed stamped return envelope was enclosed in the mailing of the survey instrument 37 and a two-week return date from the respondent was requested. At the completion of the third week after the survey instrument had been mailed a personal phone call was made to every non-respondent. Thirty-eight state supervisors received a phone call following up on the survey instrument status. At that time a request was made to the state supervisor to return the survey instrument within the next ten days. In cases where this telephone follow-up technique failed to receive a return of the survey instrument, a final request was made through a second follow-up phone call and a second mailing of the survey instrument with a follow-up letter. The researcher, in his follow-up letter, requested that the survey instrument be returned within the next ten days. At the closure of the research study an eighty-nine percent return rate had been reached. Completion of the survey instrument required that the respondent had a perception of how frequently the tasks would be performed over a period of a calendar year. This fact required that the state super- visor responding to the survey instrument would have been in his state supervisory position for at least one year or have been promoted to the supervisor's position from a subordinate position which allowed him to be knowledgeable of how frequently the tasks were performed. All of the respondents met this requirement. In addition to completing the eight-page survey instrument and demographic data the respondents *were requested to enclose, in the return envelope, (1) a copy of the state's vocational education division organizational chart, (2) a copy of the state supervisor's job description, and (3) a copy of the 38 state's policy manual for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. Two measures were used to analyze data, (1) the Frequency Choice Index, and (2) the Significance Choice Index. The Frequency Choice Index was calculated using the following formula: F. c. I. =(7xA) + (6x3) + (5xC) + (4x0) + LxE) + (2x5) + (le) Total Number of Respondents The method used in calculating the Frequency Choice Index was the 5 in his study of faculty mobility patterns. same method as used by Brown The respondents' total ratings for each task were added together and the total for each task was divided by the number of respondents to determine the Frequency Choice Index. The rating for the frequency of performing the task was done on a scale which had weights of seven through one. The choices and weights were as follows: Choice: Weight: A. Hourly 7 8. Daily 6 C. Weekly 5 0. Monthly 4 E. Twice Yearly 3 F. Once Yearly 2 G. Never 1 To determine the Significance Choice Index (importance in the inind of the respondent), the method used by Brown6 was used. For each task which was rated on the survey instrument the Significance Choice Index was calculated using the following formula: v 5David E. Brown, The Mobile Professor, Washington, D. C. , American Council on Education, 1967. 6 Op.Cit. '39 S.C.I. = (5xa) + (4xb) + (3xc) + (2xd) + (lxe) Total Number of Respondents The respondents' total ratings for each task were added and the total for each task was divided by the number of respondents to determine the Significance Choice Index. The rating for the significance of performing the task was done on a scale which had weights of five through one. The choices and weights were as follows: Choice: . Weight: Strongly agree - it should be done Agree - it should be done Disagree - it shouldn't be done Strongly disagree - it shouldn't be done No opinion (DD-DUO O O O O O de-DUI Analysis of the Data As survey instruments were received they were reviewed and checked to be sure that all items had been rated on both the frequency and the significance scales. Data sheets were kept on all respondents. The data sheets recorded the state supervisor's assignments and responsibilities within the state vocational education division, the number of state staff members for the vocational program, the organizational pattern of the state vocational education division, titles of the state supervisors, and titles of the subordinates. The data sheets were used to summarize findings of the demographic data. A maintenance record was completed for all of the respondents involved in the study. The maintenance forms listed phone calls made to non-respondents and showed whether the survey instrument, organization chart, job description, and policy manual had been received. The 40 maintenance form is not included in the study or appendix because it would identify the respondents and anonymity of the respondents of the study was guaranteed. After the data were received the ratings of the tasks for frequency and significance were coded for computor cards to be key-punched for each of the respondents. Two sorts of responses were made: for ratings on frequency and for ratings on significance for the state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. A latter sorting was made by one, two, or three or more staff members. A final sorting of the data was made according to the organizational pattern of the state vocational education division. The data were sorted by service, service and function, and other organizational patterns. Chapter IV FINDINGS Chapter IV is divided into five parts for ease of the reader. The five parts include: (1) Demographic Data, (2) the Relationship of Tasks to Business and Office Education and Distributive Education State Supervisors, (3) the Relationship of Tasks to the Type of State Department of Education Organization, (4) the Relationship of Tasks to the Size of the State Staff, and (5) the Discussion of the Findings. Demographic Data Prggram Responsibilities of the Respondents Every state supervisor works in a given organizational pattern and has program responsibilities. Table II shows the detailed responsibili- ties of each respondent. Of the respondents, over half (52 percent) said they were responsible for the program at the secondary, post-secondary, and adult levels. It is apparent that about half (48 percent) of the state supervisors are responsible for only one level of the total program. It is important to note that over two-thirds (68 percent) of the state supervisors were responsible for a vocational student organization. About one-fifth (19 percent) of the respondents were responsible for only secondary programs and 15 percent were responsible for adult and secondary programming. Only 3 percent of the respondents were responsible for post-secondary and adult programs while another four percent were responsible for secondary and post-secondary programs. 41 42 x x x F F x x x m m x x x m m x x x x x F F x x x N N x x F F x x x x x x x FF oF x x x x x x m m x x x x x x x F F x x x x x NF FF x x x x F F x x x x NF FF x x x FF oF x x N N x F F x x x x x N N x x x x F F x x x m m x x F F x x o o x m m coFu . n . meo mucmu cognac ummepcm> :onmusom eNch xgeucoumm mucmucoammm cmzpo . pcmnzum “F:u< ageucoomm icoammm Fo -Fucez cemFo cmguemF choFFmoo> upmoa pcmugmm Fo Lungs: em u z mpcmccoammm esp Fo mmeFFFachoammm Emcmoca FF anmF 43 N mN 0N mm we mm. mm em NooF cm x N N x x x x x x x F F x x x x F F x x x x x F F x x x F F x x N N x x x x x x e e x x x x x F F :oFu a -mNchmLo mucmu Locuo mwm:mn cwmmwwm> :mwwwwwmm ucmuzum pFau< zgmmmmmmm ageucoumm icoammm mo mucouconmma . . Feconmuo> pcmuema Fo amass: cm A z mucmucoammm ms» mo mmeFFFnchoqmmm seemoea AeeeeFeeeev HH eFeeF 44 The Organizational AsSignments of the Respondents From analysis of the data it appears that state vocational education divisions are organized in several different patterns. Over one-third (36 percent) of the state supervisors were assigned in a business education service. Another one-third (36 percent) were assigned in a distributive education service. Eleven percent of the state supervisors were assigned in a service for business and distributive education. The remaining seventeen percent were assigned to other units or divisions within the state vocational education division such as: secondary units, post-secondary units, adult units, area vocational-technical center units, curriculum units, research units, and personnel develOpment units. TableIII shows the specific assignments reported by the state supervisors responding to the survey instrument. Organizational Patterns of the State Vocational Education Divisions The organizational pattern of the state's vocational education division was a major consideration in analyzing the data for this study. Figure 1 indicates that 51 percent of the respondents worked in a state vocational education division that was organized according to service, while 32 percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized by both service and function. The third classification of the state vocational education division was other which included all organizational m F F N N m m FF we we NooF cm x Nm m x NF F x Ne w x x x x x x x x x NF F x x x NF F x x x NN N x x x NF F x x x Nm 0 x x NF F ”% x x NN N x New em x x NF F x Nam em gmucmu coneuzcu EzeoF . aceucoumm coFueozum . gumFioo> pF=u< . xcencoumm m>FF= pcmuema Lansaz Lexus chcomema gueemmmm Leno eme< “mom inFemeo mmmcFmsm cm A z :oFmF>Fo conwozum Feconmoo> macaw 6:» :ngF3 umcmme< mew: mpcmnconmmm we» «can: FFF anmF 46 patterns that did not comply to the definition of the service or the service and function classifications. It is apparent that in spite of a lack of ear-marked funding from federal legislation that state vocational education divisions are for the most part (51% of the times) currently organized by the traditional service organizational pattern. The Organization of the State's Vocational-Technical Education Division Service 51% (48) Service and Function Figure 2 47 The Size of the State Staffs Most states assigned only one person to state supervision of the business education or distributive education program. Forty-one percent of the state supervisors reported that they had no staff beside themself for the vocational program. About one-fourth (22 percent) of the state supervisors had two staff members including themselves while over a third (37 percent) of the state supervisors had three or more state staff members including themselves. Those states that had larger staffs (of three or more) for both business education and distributive education were: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tenessee, Texas, and Virginia. Six states reported large staffs for business education at the state level. They were: Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Three states reported staffs of three or more for the distributive education. They were: Kentucky, South Carolina, and Washington. Figure 2 summarizes these findings. Respondents Reporting "One," "Two," or "Three or More" Staff Members (including themselves) N = 94 48 Titles of State Supervisors The titles of the state supervisory personnel are reported in Figure13. About a third (31 percent) of the state supervisors were titled "state supervisor," twenty percent of the state supervisory persons were titled "consultant," sixteen percent were titled "specialist," and nineteen percent were titled "director." Only eight percent were titled "chief," and five percent were titled with other various titles. 6 It is apparent from the data gathered in the survey, that the title of the state supervisory person makes little difference in what the person does in his role. The tasks were performed by all of the state supervisory persons no matter what the person's title. It appears that the titles are reflective of the state supervisors' role of "persuasion" rather than of "direct control." Titles of State Supervisory Personnel N= 94 State Supervisor Consultant 20% Ch‘Ef Specialist 8% 16% (7) Other (15) 5% (5) Figure 3 49 Titles of Subordinates The titles of the subordinates to the state supervisory personnel vary throughout the United States. Figure 4 shows about a third (32 percent) of the subordinates were titled "consultant," a quarter of the subordinates were titled "supervisor," eighteen percent of the subordinates were titled "specialist," sixteen percent were titled "assistant supervisor," five percent were titled "associate," to a chief, and four percent were titled "executive director" for the state association of the Distributive Education Clubs of America. In 75 percent of the cases reported in this study the person who served in a subordinate role to the state supervisor was titled by some title other than "supervisor." Titles of Subordinates to the State Supervisory Personnel N = 56 Consultant upervisor 25% (14) Specialist Associate Assistant to 2%Ch19f upervisor Executive Director (3) 15% of D.E.C.A. (9) Figure 4 4% (2) 50 Table IV Number and Percentage of Job Descriptions, Organization Charts, and Policy Manuals Returned Returns: Item Requested: Number: Percent: Job Description N=105 39 37% Organization Chart of the State Vocational Education Division N=51 22 43% Policy Manual for State Supervisors of Business and Office Education and/or Distributive Education N=51 ' 2 4%- 51. mmFLouquFo :onwuscm mo moFFmo mwpmpm umchs k. Nam mm FF NF NF F wa Nm moF moF m4FpanLmeFo Nnm mm NmF o NN F New mm me meuz :oFueuzum muFFFo use mmmcFmsm N z N z N z N z «.m.o.m.: >5 mcezumm mpcmucoawmm mceauma mcespmm coFuerqoa umFFFucmuF Fequ 1:02 anem::: anmm: ummF>wm, :onszaoa chFmFLo mccaaom mo mmmacmucma use Lansaz > anwF 52 THE RELATIONSHIP OF TASKS T0 BUSINESS AND OFFICE EDUCATION AND DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION STATE SUPERVISORS The Most Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the most frequently performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive educa- tion are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the top ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Frequency Choice Index. } The task number, task, and rank-order were: Number: Iggk: B.& O.E. O.E. 7-7 Responding to telephone calls. 1 1 7-6 Responding to correSpondence. 2 2 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 3 7 7-11 Responding to requests and assignments made by the state director of vocational education. 4 3 1-17 Serving as the state advisor for the vocational student organization. 5 5 5-3 Oisseminating materials and information. 6 9 1-5 Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. 7 6 7-13 Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. 7 10 4-1 Reviewing reports and forms submitted by local educational agencies. 9 5-15 Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. 9 4 2-2 Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel. 11 5-10 Oisseminating information about the vocational student organization. 11 8-2 Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 11 11 7-16 Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post-secondary, and adult education. 8 7-2 Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators . 12 6-4 Maintaining financial records for the vocational student organization. 13 53 The Most Significant Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the most significant to perform by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the tap ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Significance Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order were: Number: 1155: B.& O.E. O.E. 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 1 1 2-5 Attending in-service workshops and conferences for vocational education in your discipline. 2 1-6 Developing an annual plan of work for your unit, division, or service. 3 2-2 Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel. 4 5 8-2 Making recommendations about programs to local educational agencies. 4 8 7-6 Responding to correspondence 6 7 1-12 Planning and organizing workshops and conferences. 7 8 7-2 Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. 7 4 1-1 Assisting local educational agencies in designing new facilities. 10 7-7 Responding to telephone calls. 10 8 8-1 Evaluating programs at the local educational agency's site. 10 2-7 Attending professional development programs in vocational education. 13 5-1 Working with professional teacher organizations. 13 3 8-21 Reviewing and evaluating teacher certification standards. 13 8-29 Reviewing and updating the services your division can provide. 13 7-1 Meeting regularly with the teacher educators in your discipline. 5 5-3 Oisseminating materials and information. 8 5-1 Reviewing reports and forms submitted by the local educational agencies. 8 6-1 8-4 54 Assisting schools in meeting standards to qualify for funding. Reviewing follow-up data about students in your discipline- The Least Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least frequently performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank- order of the tasks by the Frequency Choice Index. The task number, task, and rank-order were: Number: 6-12 6-15 8-16 6-13 6-14 3-5 6-11 4.5 Task: Conducting cost-benefit studies- Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Preparing budgets and end-of—the-year reports. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Assisting with preparing the annual statistical report. Interviewing and hiring state staff employees. Planning the three-year and five-year plan. Evaluating professional staff members in your division. Conducting research projects. Preparing and assisting with the annual descriptive report. 8 8 B.& O.E. O.E. 129 125 128 129 127 122 126 128 125 126 124 122 122 120 122 122 121 117 120 121 118 119 118 115 115 115 2-12 2-17 1-9 55 Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Developing programs for handicapped students. Developing objectives for local educational agencies' programs. The Least Significant Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least significant by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education are listed below. ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Significance Choice Index. The task number, task, and rank-order were: Number: 6-15 6-13 8-16 6-14 6-12 4-7 6-7 4-5 6-10 7-12 6-11 8-26 6-5 8-23 Task: Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators- Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Preparing quarterly reports. Negotiating contracts with agencies- Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings- Preparing financial expenditure reports- Preparing reports to other agencies outside of the department of education. Preparing budgets and end-of-the-year reports- Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. Maintaining financial records for your discipline. Reviewing courses and programs that are non-approved. The tasks listed are the tasks that were 127 116 117 B.& O.E. O.E. 129 129 128 128 127 123 125 127 125 126 124 125 123 120 122 118 121 120 119 117 117 124 1-9 2-12 56 Developing objectives for local educational agency's programs. Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Reviewing contracted programs. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. 122 121 118 116 57 m eF .coFumuanm uFaum use .Feeucoummuumoa .zceucoumm "we gozm mchz Lmsuo :F mmzmmmFFou ssz mchLo: mF1N FF FF .xucmmm choFueosum quoF mgu op maeemoca onnm mcoFqucmEEoomL ochez N-w NF FF .coFFmNchmLo chusum chonmuo> mzu uaonm :oneEcoF:F mcFchFEmmmFo oF-m mN FF .chcomcmq smemocq LoF muF>meucF chz Fmmem op mFoogum op mFFmF> acFqumcou N-N e m .coFFeusum Fo FemeFeeamo mpeum mgu :Fchz mcoFmF>Fu Lucpo zsz mchcoz new mcFFszque< mF-m oF m .mmFucmmm choFumusvw quoF Fa uwFpFEnsm mace» new mucoamc mchmF>mm Fie oF N .mLOFeLFchFEum Lao» op uFmFF mgp EoLF xomnummF mcFuF>oLa mF1N o F .mmFFF>FFue Lao» mNFcemLo use :eFa cu mmcFmeE meum mcFucmuF< miF m o .coneELoF:F ucm mFmFemums mcFFecFemmmFo mum m m .coFumNFcemLo “covapm Feconeoo> ms» Low LomF>ue mumpm asp we mcF>me FFuF m a .coFFeuzum chonwoo> Fo LoFumLFu mumpm mgu Fa meme mucosammem use mummzcmc cu mcFucoammm FFim N m .msmcmoca mcFom-co Lo 3m: ch3 Fmmee op mFoo;Um op mFFmF> mcFuFamcou FiN N N .wucmecoammeeou op mcFucoamwN 01F F F .mFFeu mcocqmFmF op mcFucoamma mux .cm.FmFo .uu.m:m “xmmF ”Longs: meco xcem xmmF coFquzum m>FpanFLFmFo new :oFumozcm muFFFo use mmmcszm mo mcomF>Lmazm mumum Fa customema mxth mg» Fe xmncF muFocu Fucmacmeu an emuLo-x:ea sz ~>anmF 58 mm mm mm Fm mN Nm mN FN Fm FF mF NF sF mF 0N wF om mN FN FN mN FN FN FN FN FN ON mF mF 0F mF mF .mFermueE FesoFFussFmsF use EstoFsssu mstoFe>mo .mmusmsmesou use msosmxsoz msF~Fseoso use mstser .msFussw usmEstcm msF>Fooes sF mFoosom msFFmme< .merFFFeeF zes mstmFmeu sF meFuseme FesoFFeusue Fequ msFFmme< .mmFFFFFoeF soFFeuzum FesoFueoo> mstmF>em .mFereFeE FesonussumsF mstesFe>m use msFZeF>wm .eFFm Fequ ms» Fe FsmEstcm FesoFFeoo> msteF>mm .Fseusmpstmssm epepm esu Fa euee mesmEsmmee use mummsces op msFusosmem .msmsspuewssee useEstcm use msmsmFFsus FeFusmEEou sFFz mstsoz .soFFeNFsemLo Fsmuspm FesoFFeuo> esp Fo mseoFFFo eueum sow msosmxsoz muF>smmusF mstoFm>mo .soFueNFsemso useuspm Fesoneeo> esp sOF museums FeFosesFF mstFeusFez .msoueusue sesueep Leo» ssz mFeFLeFeE use sonessoFsF mstesm .msoFFeNFsemso smsuemu FesomeeFoss sFFz mstsoz .msFussw so» Ems» NFFFesc op museuseum msFummE sF mFoosum msFumme< .soFueueum Fo psmspseseu epeum see» so» museums mstersou .eFFm m.>usmae Fesoneusue FeooF msu Fe maesmoss msFuesFe>u NFuF 59 uN NN we Nu mm we we um mm Fm me vs Nm mN mF we we Fe Fe Fe oe mm mm Fm mm mm mm mm Nm om .soFFeusue Fo euFmpso mesosm sFFz soneusum FesoFFeuo> msFuoeoss .soFFeueum FesoFueuo> sF pseEo>Fo>sF use .soFuesFuFuses .psosssm xsumsusF use mmesFmsn usFuFoFFom .soFFeNFsemso Fsmuspm FesoFFeuo> ms» sow mmFFF>Fpue msoFueFms oFFsus msFNFseuso use mstoFe>es .mseuueszms osFuestemmFu use msteemss .mEesmoss .meFuseme FesoFFeueum Fequ soF FFFFese Fo museuseum Eesmoss mstseFe .msoFFessuuo msFmseEe use zes usose eueu mstesFe>m .euF>oss seu soFmF>Fu Lao» mouF>sem esp msteuss use mstmF>em .soFFeusum FesoFFeoo> sF maesmose pseEeoFe>mu FesomeeFose msFusmuu< .mFemososs mstmF>mm .msoFFeFuomme Lesoeep FesomemFoss op useFFsmsou e we msF>smm .esFFsFomFu Leo» sF soFFeusue FesoFueuo> soF meoseseesou use msosmxsoz ouF>sem-sF msFuseFu< .msouesmestue use msesoeeu Fequ so» maesmoss muF>smmusF mstoFe>eo .meFeFFFeee eeFemer msFquoEes sF mmFuseme FesoFueueue Fequ mstmme< .esFFsFumFu Leo» sF msopeueue sesueeu es» squ FFsermes msFFeez .soFueNFsemso pseusum Fesoneoo> as» Fo msoFFeseso use meFuF>FFue msFueaFe>m NFim Num mFiF mFim mNuw NiF Fun mum 60 mm ow mm on em FoF mN mm mm Fm ee Fm mN mm um um Ne FF ow No No No om om um um mm mm mm mm mm om om om me me Ne we .mEesmoss sow ermquo msFussm msFooFm>oo .moFosome ouquso sow sexeoom e we msF>smm .soFFeNFsemso usmuspm FesoFFeoo> esp LoF mososeesoo ooepm esp msFNFseoso use ostser .monFFFsFmsosmos son Loo» msFFeuos use mstoF>om .musmuspm uomeuse>uemFu so» maesmoso msFZmF>om .uo>ossoe-sos use peso maesmoso use momssoo mstoF>ma .mseseee Fmeum FesoFueoo> quFFuseo use quFFFeso osteooF sF meFosooe FesoFFeosuo FeooF osFomme< .msesmoso oFseusaF so» mosFFouFem use museusepm msFooFo>oo .mpsouepm ueooeoFuses soF maesoose osteF>mx .soFueosue sesmFs so .soFFeuFFFoesos FesoFFeoo> .soFFeosuo FeFoesm "we seem msoFmF>Fu Fesoneoeuo sesuo sFFz meFuF>Fpoe mstesFusooo .mseuqumzos osFLeooss .msopseo soFFeosue FeoFssoeuiFesoFueoo> eose Fo psoEsoFe>ou use mstseFo es» ssz msFomme< .soFueoeuo Fo euFmpeo moFoseme sesuo son moFFF>Fuoe mstesFusoou .soFFeoeuo FesoFFeoo> soF FFossoo xsomF>ue ooepm on» sFFz mstsoz .mFermFee use mmFuF>Fpoe usesooFo>ou seoseo mstseFo sF msFumme< .mmpeoFFFuseo mstoeeu Fesoneoo> sow msoneoFFooe mstoF>om .msesmoss ereusem zos sow msoFueoFFsoe mstoF>em .xsoz mo Eesooss seox sow me>Fuoeuoo FFspsoe ostoFo>oo .eueu posses soneF use sozoosee msteF>om mum mum MiF anm mam mNiw 61 ooF om em mF ooF mm eF FFF co em mF me me no Fm FF FF FF «F «F VF NF NF mm mm mm Fe Fe No No .Fosome FesoFFeosue FeooF use so usesm muss» FesoFueoo> sow mpsosms essuFuseoxe ostoF>oN .mosspFusooxe umpsooos use eueu FeFosest msFezFes< .soFueeremso useusum Fesoneoo> esp sow mFeropee use exooouses mstoFe>oo .soFFeosum Fo eoFFFo .m.: use sow mpsosos osteFeEou .mFoFsomFu Foosom Fese>em Fe uoueseso FFFsFon maesmoso Fo ostser es» squ msFFmme< .moosesemsoo soFFeosuo FesoFFeoo> Feesse ostseFo sF mstmmes .mosssooss msFoestemmFu use mstoFe>on .msesmoso m.aoseme Fesoneosuo FeooF so» me>Fpoowoo mstoFe>oo .soFueFmFmoF use mFFFo msFusos msFNFFese use msteF>em .eoF>som useeonoEe euepm so .sooeF so usoEpseseu eFeFm use "we seem soFFeoeuo Fo useEpsesou esp mo euquao moFosome ssz FmeoFo ostsoz .soFueNFsemso asmusum FesoFFeoo> esu Fo oososomsoo oueum use so» moFuF>Fuoe so Eesmoso use msFooFo>oo .soFFeosue Fo useoo mueum esp suF: mstsoz .uFoFF ssoz sow moFuFEEoo FsomF>ue Fo>oF oueum e ssz mstsoz .msesmoso aneusoF so» mesFFequm msFFesFe>e use osteF>em .ooFFFo sso» sF Fessomses Fereuosoem use FeoFsmFo osFueoFe>m mum ONiw FFum 62 Fm Fm mm oF oe mFF om ooF mF mF Fm Nm FoF mm mF Fm em em mm mm mm Fm mm mm mm om om ow .msosueeu opesuesm use opesuesmsous: Fo usoemoer es» squ msFumme< .ooF>sem so .soFmF>Fu .st: seox so» xsoz Fo seFo Feesse se mstoFe>eo .mEesmoss soFueosum sosoeou mstesFe>m use mstwF>em .mFemoooso osteFuomez .mpoeoseo oeFoFosousozoFoeo soFFeooue o>Fuesooooo Fe sexeeom e we msF>som .mpsousum ueoseoFuses sow maesmoss osFooFe>eo .soFueNFsemso pseusum Fesoneoo> esp Fo mseoFFFo euepm soF msosmxsoz ostosusou .xsoz Fo ser Fessse as» Foes op mussF osFuemuem .mFeoo mosestpsosm soF ser e>Fuoenso1FsupseEemeseE e ostoFe>eo .museuseum soFFeoFstseo sosoeop osFueeFe>e use msteF>em .soneusuo Fo usosuseoeu esp mo muFmaoo moFoseme sespo ou musosos msteoess .msoneFoomme so useoo e>FF=ooxo so msouoesFu Fo useoo esp Fo sesame e we msF>som .museusum uomeuse>uemFu sow maesooso mstoFo>eo .osFFsFomFu seoz so» musooms FeFosesFF mstFeusFez .meosesewsoo FesoFmos use FoFsmeu msFooFe>oo .eoF>som so soFmF>Fu seoa so» mo>Fuoeuso mosessowsos mstoFe>mo oth mFiN mum mFuN oFiF 63 FNF ooF FFF om mFF FF Fm ooF mm mm mm Fm Fm mF FoF mm FFF oFF moF moF FoF mcF moF moF moF NoF FoF mm mm Fm Fm um .FFepm Fereposoem use FeoFsoFo ssoz sos maesmoso eoF>semisF mstoFm>mu use mstmme< .moeonsEm FFepm epepm 3e: mstFs soF msoneusoEEooes ostez .mpsooes esspFusooxo FeFosesFF osteoess .soneosum Fesoneoo> sow seFo epepm esp mo pseEooFo>eu esp ssz mstmme< .mFeom easesumsoF soF seFo e>Fpoeuoo1Fo1psoEomeseE e msFooFo>oc .soneosuo Fesoneoo> Fo sonesmesFEue esp soF mesFFeuFeo osteooss .msoneoFFous use mFessoou sos meFonse mstFsz .wmepm Ferepmsoom use FeoFseFo mstFs use ssz mstmme< .mEesmoso aseFeono use .sonespmsoEou .poFFo msFooFo>mo .soneFmFmeF Fesones so epepm psooe soneEsoFsF ostesFEemmFo .mEesooso uepoespsoo mstoF>om .soneNFsemso psouspm Fesoneoo> esp Fo msomF>ue sopseso FeooF ooF>sem1sF op maesmoso msFooFo>mo .prmso>Fss so emoFFoo e pe Eesmoss epesuesm ssoz sow moosmxsoz use mommeFo msFusepp< .msFFsFomFu sso» sF mpsouepm poooe epeu sotzoFFoF msteF>mm .soneNFsemso psmuepm Fesoneoo> esp Fo oosmsomsoo Fesones esp pe sonesFonses m.opepm esp msFNFseoso use mstser .mEsoF mstsoses msteuo: use mstmF>om 64 mNF mNF NNF mNF oNF NNF ONF NNF FFF FNF mFF moF mFF eFF Fm FoF FFF mNF mNF FNF oNF mNF uNF NNF NNF FNF ONF mFF mFF mFF mFF eFF FFF FFF .meFuspm pFFesesipmoo mstosusou .Foseme Fesoneozue FeooF esp pe mpoonoso sonoespmsoo ostFues .msopesmesFEue soneosuo Fesoneoo> mstesFe>m .Foseme Fesoneouue FeooF esp pe musooos use mpemusn ostFus< .moFoseoe Fesoneoeum FeooF op mpsesm Fesoqu mstFuss .soFmF>Fu Fesoneoo> ssox sow msepm o>Fpesmestue mstFs use msteooF ssz mstmme< .mpsooes seexuespieouuse use mpemuso mstesoss .mmstems ser opepm ssz mstmmee use mstoeusou .meFosome ssz mpoespsoo msterommz cpsooos Feonmeepm _e:sse esp osteeeso spF; mstmmes .meo>oFsso Fmepm mpepm mstFs use osteF>sepsF .soFmF>Fu ssox sF msessee Fmepm FesomeeFoso msteeFe>N .mpoenoss soseemes mstosusoo .psoeos o>FpoFsomeu Fessse esp ssz ostmmee use msteooss .ooF>sem ssoz soF mpomuso mstser .sonooue soF exooopxep ostesFe>e use ostoF>em .mpsooos FFsopseso osteoess NFio mFim oFiw mFio «Flo Fth mic Flo wuu Nim mFim anm mFuF oNuw 65 me es .epsm m.»oseme Fesoneooue FeooF esp pe maesmoss mstesFe>m Fum m oF .mFFeo ososooFop op msFusoomem F-F oe oF .merFFFoes 3es mstmFmeu sF moFoseme Fesoneosue FeooF mstmme< F-F e F .msopeooue sesoeep ssoz ssz mFerepee use soneEsossF osssesm N-F N F .msesmoss ereusss sos mesFFequm use museusepm osFeoFe>oo uFiF N F .moosmsessoo use msosmxsoz msFNFsemso use mstser NFiF F o .eosousoomossoo op msFusoomom ouF m e .zosome Fesoneosuo FeooF esp op maesmoss poose msoneusoEEooes oste: N-m m e .Fessomses sesooss sos eoF>semisF ssz memme op mFoosom op mmeF> mstFsmsou F-N Fm m .moF>som so soFmF>Fu .st: sso» sos xsoz so ser Fessse se mstoFo>eo uiF NF N .esFFsFomFu ssoa sF soneooue Fesoneoo> sos moosesessoo use moosmxsoz eos>somusF osFusopp< muN F F .msesmoso msFomuso so km: ssz memme op mFoosom op mmeF> mstFemsou FIN .ee.pmse .eeemem ,1 r, A. , Ti. "ewes ”seesez seuso Fsem xmeF soneoeum o>szstmeo use soneoeum eoFsso use mmosFmsm so msomF>seo=m opepm Fa uessossos mxmeF esp so xeusF eoFosu eoseoFstoFm an seuso-xsem esF FF> aneF 66 NF MN Nm ow oe wF um oe FM FN mF mF Nm wF MN MN MN MN MN MN MN FN FN FF FF FF FF MF MF MF MF .msopesmesFEue use msesoeep FeooF sos maesmose eoF>sem1sF osssoFe>eo .mEesmoss m.xoseme Fesoneosuo FeooF sos MpFFeeo so museusepm Eesmoso mstser .msesmoss oFseusos sos mesFFeuFeo ostesFe>e use mstoF>em .msonessooo msFosoEo use 3os peooe epeu mstesFe>N .msopesmesFEue ssoz op uFmFs esp Eoss soesuees osFuF>oss .soneosue so pseEpseeou epepm esp stsz msoFmF>Fu sospo ssz mssxsoz use mssperons< .moososossoo soneosum Fesoneoo> Feosse mstseFo sF ostmsmm< .mEesmoso eFoeuses sos sos msoneoFFsse msszeF>om .sospeEsossF use mFerepeE msspesFEommFo .merFFFoFmsoomos sou ssox nsteuo: use msszms>em .osFFoFomFu sec» sF msopeoeue sesoeep esp ssz FFseFomos mstooz .monF>Fpoe sec» eNFsemso use seFo op mmstooE ssepm msFusmpp< .soneNFsemso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp sos eosmsessoo epepm esp msFNFsemso use mstser .eus>oss seo soFmF>Fu seoz moos>som esp msteuss use msssz>om .museusepm soneoFstseo sesoeop msteeFe>o use msszeF>om .msoneNFsemso sesoeop Fesomeesoss spsz mstsoz .soneosum Fesospeoo> sF mEesmoss pseEsoFe>ou Fesosmmososo mssusepp< MFiF ONim mFiw MFIF «FIF FFim FNim 67 FM FN FM FM em FM MF MF MM oe mm eM OF oe oe oe oe oe MM MM MM MM NM NM NM NM MN MN .epeu pesses soseF use sezoosee msszeF>es .uFer ssox sos eeppFEEoo Fsoms>ue Fe>eF epepm e spsz mssssoz .soneooue so psespseoeu epepm ssoz sos mpsoses msteFoEou .sospeNFseoso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp so eosesessoo Fesones esp pe sonesFerses mepepm esp msFNFsemso use ostser .mespsFFees eespmsxe osFFeuoEes sF meseseme Fesoneooue FeooF mstmme< .soneeeue stue use .Fseusooemupmos .xseusooem "we seem mpss: sespo sF mesoeeFFoo spsz mstsoz .sospeosue Fesospeoo> so sopoessu epepm esp as eues mpseEsosmme use mpmeeses op mssusosmem .meeonsse ssepm epepm 3e: mstFs sos msoneuseeeooes mstez .eoF>sem so soFmF>Fu sec» sos me>FpoeMso eosessosses osssoFe>eo .mssos ostsoses osteuos use msszeF>em .mFerepee FesonosspmsF msteoFe>e use msteF>em .eme FeooF esp pe pseeoszoe soneosue Fesoneoo> msszeF>em .merFFFoes soneosue Fesospeoo> msteF>eN .msFusos sos FsFFeee op museusepm osteeE sF mFoosom ostmmes .meFoseme Fesoneosue FeooF as uepstssm mEsos use mpsoses msteF>em MFtF FuM oFtF MNIM MNim MFiM NFIM FuM Fue 68 ow FM FM FM om em om MM moF MoF OM oe MF om MF MM mm NM OM OM MM MM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM Me Me Me Me Me Me .sospeNFsemso pseuspm Fesoneeo> esp sos soms>ue epepm esp me msF>sem .soneNFsemso pseuepm Fesoneoo> esp peose sonessossF mstesFEemmFo .meosesessoo Fesosmes use poFsmeu mstoFe>es .mseppeszes msspesFEemmFu use msteeess .mpseuepm uemepse>uemFu sos maesmoso mstoFe>eo .mFemoooso osszeF>es .esFFsFomFu seox sF mpseuspm peose epeu seizoFFos msteF>eN .mseppeszes mstesess .ssoz so seFo Feesse esp peeE op muses msspemusm .mseszpoesesee pse2ssuoe use msesmFFsss FeFoseEEoo ssz mstsoz .mpseuepm ueeeeoFuses sos maesmoss msssoFe>eo .msepseo soneosue FeersoepiFesoneoo> eese so psessoFe>eu use mstser esp ssz ostmme< .msesmoss soneosue sesoeep mstesFe>e use msszeF>em .eoFsso soc» sF Fessomses Ferepesoem use FeoFseFo osspesFe>u .meeFoFsEe ssepm epepm mstFs use msFZeF>sepsF .soneoeue Fesoneoo> sos ser epepm esp so psessoFe>eu esp ssz ostmme< .mEesmoss FserEexe use .sospespmsoeeu .poFFs mstoFe>eo .mFessepee FesonosspmsF use seroFsseo osssoFe>eo 69 MM ow MN oe eM em MN FM MFF eFF em oe ow FN MF MF MF MF MF MM MM MM MM NM NM NM NM NM .mposspmsu Foosom Fese>em as uepeseso MFpsFoM maesMoso so Msssser esp ssz mstmme< .MstseFo emsesimsoF sos ser e>FpoeMso1Fs1pseEeMeseE e msssoFe>eo .soneNFsemso pseuepm Fesoneoo> esp so msoneseso use merF>Fpoe MsspesFe>m .soneoeue Fesoneoo> sF pseEe>Fo>sF use .soneeFonses .psosssm aspmsusF use mmesFmes mstFeFFom .soneNFseMso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp so mseoFsso epepm sos msosmssoz ostoeusoo .meesMoso sos eresto MsFusss msFQoFe>eo .msFuses pseEsseoe msF>Feoes sF mFoosom msspmsmm< .eoF>sem sec» sos mpemuos Mstser .mFerepes use merF>Fpoe pseEsoFe>eu seeseo mstseFo sF Mstmme< .mpseuspm uesseosuses sos maesMoso msteF>em .mpseuspm uemepse>uemFu sos maesMoss msteF>em .pseusepssseeem epepm esp Ms euee mpseEsMmee use mpmesoes op mssusosmes .soneosue so eusmpso mseosM ssz sospeosue Fesospeoo> MstoEoss .msesses ssepm Fesoneeo> uerFpseo use uerFFeeo msteooF sF meFoseMe Fesospeosue FeooF Mstmme< .soneNFsemso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp so mseossso epepm esp sos msosmssoz eoF>semusF MsssoFe>eo 70 MM OM FM oF oF FM oF MM MF MM MF MF 0F MM eM NM OM OM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM MF MF MF .sospeoeum so eoFsso .m .: esp sos mpsoses MssperEou .mpesoses eezoFoEeiseFoFose soneosue e>Fpesesooo pe seseesm esp me MsF>sem .sospeNFsemso pseuspm Fesospeoo> esp so eosesessoo epepm esp sos merF>Fpoe so sesMoss esp MsFooFe>eo .mson -eFoomme seseeep Fesosmmesoss op psepFemsoo e we msF>sem .msospeNFseMso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp so msomF>ue sepseso FeooF eos>semuss op maesmoss MstoFe>eo .Fmese>Fs: so eMeFFoo e pe EesMose epesuesM ssoa sos msosmssoz use memmeFo msFusepp< .sospeFmFMeF use mFFFs MsFuses msFNFFese use osszes>ea .soneoeue Fesospeoo> so sospesmesFEue esp sos mesFFeuFeo msteeess .soneNFsemso pseuspm Fesoneoo> esp sos mFerepeE use msoosuses mstoFe>eM .messsooss mstesFEemmFu use MsssoFe>eo .meFeseMe euFmpso sos seseesm e we msF>sem .mFeoM emsesipsosm sos ser e>spoeusoizsupseseMeseE e MssooFe>eo .sospeosue Fesospeoo> sos Fsoseoo Msoms>ue epepm esp spsz mstsoz .msoneoFFses use mFesssoM sos meFonse mstFss .ssepm Fessepesoem use FeoFseFo mstFs use ssz mstmme< eFuM FFiM .MuM 71 MM FM FNF MoF MM MM NNF MoF eNF MM FoF FN MF MM NoF NoF NoF NoF NoF ooF ooF MM MM MM MM MM NM NM .soneNFsemso pseuspm Fesospeoo> esp sos musooes FeFosest mssssepssez .psooes Feonmeepm Feesse esp osssesess spsz mssmemms .ssepm Fessepesoem use FeoFseFo sec» sos msesmoso eoF>semisF osssoFe>eu use msspmsmm< .ssoz so EesMoso ssox sos me>FpeeMso FFspsoE msssoFe>eo .soneosue so euFmpso mesoseme sespo spsz merF>Fpee msspesFusoou .soneFmFMeF Fesospes use epepm psose sospeEsossF MstestemmFo .msesMoss .mzoseMe Fesoneosue Fequ sos me>FpeeMso osssoFe>eo .soneoeue sesMFs so .sospepFFFseses Fesospeeo> .soneosue Fesoesm ”we seem msoFmF>Fu Fesoneoeue sespo ssz merF>Fpoe mstesFusooM .ue>osose-sos ese pesp msesmoss use memsooo msteF>es .eoF>sem pseezoFsse epepm so soseF so psespseoeu esp ”me seem soneosue so pseEpseseu esp so euFmpoo mesoseme ssz FFemoFo mssssoz .msospeFoomme so useos e>Fp=eexe so esopoessu so useos esp so senses e we msF>seM .ser seeaie>ss use seexneessp esp mstser .soneNFsemso pseuspm Fesospeeo> esp sos mers>Fpoe msoneFes oFFsss msFeremso use MstoFe>es .psoses e>FpoFsomeu Fessse esp spsz mstmmee use msssesess FFiF MiF MtF MFiF MNnM 72 MNF MFF oFF oFF FoF MFF FoF MFF MFF MM MoF MM MFF FoF FM NFF ow MNF NNF FNF MNF MFF FFF FFF MFF MFF «FF MFF oFF oFF oFF MoF NoF NoF .mesoseme ssz mpoespsoo MsteroMez .mmstees ser epepm spsz asspmsmme use ossposusou .mpsoses esepFusesxe FeFosest osssesess .soneesue so pseEpseoeu esp so euFmpeo meFoseMe sespo op mpsooes Mssseoess .mpsoses seexiespusouuse use mpemuss mstesess .sonsoue sos msoospxep mstesFe>e use msteF>em .esFFsFomFu ssox sos musooes FeFesest ossssepssez .soFmF>Fu Fesospeoo> soc» sos ssepm e>FpesmesFEue Msssss use msteeoF ssz Mstmme< .mEesmoss uepoespsoo msteF>em .mesepFusesxe uepsoses use epeu Fesosesss MsFNFFes< .soneosue so useos epepm esp spsz mssssoz .mepeossspseo mstoeep Fesoneoo> sos msoneoFFsse msszes>em .soFmF>Fu ssoz sF msessee ssepm Fesosmmesoss msteeFe>N .mpoenoso soseemes Mstosusou .mFemososs MssperoMez .FoseMe Fesoneozue FeooF esp Ms psesm muses Fesospeoo> sos mpsoses esspsuseoxe msszes>em .msesoeep epeouesM use epesuesmseus: so pseeeoeFe esp spsz Mstmmes NFuF FFiM MNiM NNiM MFtM MFiM MiM MiF 73 MNF MNF MNF FNF MNF MNF MNF MNF FNF MNF MNF vNF .Foseme Fesoneosue FeooF esp pe mpoeuoss sonosspmsoo mstFues .FosemerFesoneoeue FeooF esp pe musooes use mpemuss mstFus< .msopespmsssaue soneozue Fesospeoo> mstesFe>M .meFoseMe Fesospeesue FeooF op mpsesM Feseues mstFus< .meFuspm stesesupmoo Mssposusou .mpsoses MFsepseoo msteoess MFiM MFiM vFiM NFaM 74 THE RELATIONSHIP OF TASKS TO THE TYPE OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION The Most Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the most frequently performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education who worked in a service, service and function, or an other organizational pattern are listed. The tasks below are those that were in the top ten percent based upon the rank-order by the Frequency Choice Index scores. The size of the state staff includes the state supervisor as a staff member. In the case of those vocational education divisions in the states that reported only one staff member, this would be the state supervisor. The task number, task, and rank-order are listed for the three optional kinds of organizational patterns. They are: Number Task: §_ §§f_ Other 7-7 Responding to telephone calls. 1 l 1 7-6 Responding to correspondence. 2 2 2 7-11 Responding to requests and assign- ments made by the state director of vocational education. 3 3 9 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 4 6 8 1-17 Serving as the state advisor for the vocational student organization. 5 6 5-4 Writing articles for journals and publications. 1-5 Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. 7 9 11 1-14 Assisting in planning annual vocational education conferences. 8 7-13 Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. 9 9 5 5-15 Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. 10 4 3 75 5-3 Oisseminating materials and information. 11 5 6 4-1 Reviewing reports and forms submitted by the local educa- tional agencies. 12 8-2 Making recommendations about programs to the local educa- tional agency. 13 9 7-16 Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post- secondary, and adult education. 8 4 4-2 Completing reports for your state department of education. 11 6-1 Assisting schools in meeting standards to qualify for funding. 12 6 7-2 Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. 13 12 5-1 Working with professional teacher organizations. 12 7-18 Coordinating activities with other educational divisions such as: special education, vocational rehabilitation, or higher education. 12 The Most Significant Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the most significant by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern are listed. The tasks below are those that were in the top ten percent based upon the rank-order by the Frequency Choice Index scores. The size of the state staff includes the state supervisor as a staff member. In the cases of those vocational educa- tion divisions in the states that reported only one staff member, this would be the state supervisor, 76 The task number, task, and rank-order are listed for the three optional kinds of organizational patterns. Number 2-1 2-5 7-2 7-6 1-16 1-6 7-1 5-1 8-2 l-12 7-7 8-11 1-5 7-11 8-1 1-8 Task Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Attending in-service workshops and conferences for vocational education in your discipline. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. Responding to correspondence. Developing standards and guide- lines for fundable programs. Developing an annual plan of work for your unit, division ‘or service. Meeting regularly with the teacher educators in your discipline. Working with professional teacher organizations. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. Planning and organizing work- shops and conferences. Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel. Responding to telephone calls. Reviewing applications for new fundable programs. Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. Responding to requests and assignments made by the state director of vocational education. Evaluating programs at the local educational site. Developing a management-by- objective plan for long-range planning. Developing performance objectives for your division or service. They are: III) e: 12 "Other 77 7-13 Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. 12 7-16 Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post- secondary, and adult education. 1 5-15 Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. 5 6-1 Assisting schools in meeting standards for funding. 9 The Least Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least frequently performed by state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Frequency Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number Task §_ S&F Other 6-15 Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. 129 129 125 6-14 Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. 128 122 114 6-12 Conducting cost-benefit studies. 127 127 122 6-13 Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. 126 128 8-16 Evaluating vocational education administrators. 125 126 3-5 Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. 124 123 127 2-12 Assisting and developing in- service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. 123 123 4-5 Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. 122 125 124 3-2 Interviewing and hiring state staff employees. 120 127 8-18 Evaluating professional staff members in your division. 120 78 6-7 Negotiating contracts with agencies. 119 119 6-11 Preparing budgets and end-of- the-year reports. 117 121 122 8-26 Reviewing and evaluating text- books for adoption. 117 4-8 Assisting with preparing the annual statistical report. 120 125 2-17 Developing programs for handi- capped students. 118 4 7 Preparing quarterly reports. 129 2-11 Conducting workshops for the state officers of the vocational student organization. 120 1-18 Planning the three-year and five- year plan. 118 1-4 Planning and organizing the state's participation at the national conference of the vocational student organization. 114 3-1 Making recommendations for hiring new state staff employees. 114 3-4 Assisting with and hiring clerical and secretarial staff. 114 5-4 Writing articles for journals and publications. 114 The Least Significant Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least significant by state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, and other organizational patterns are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Significance Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number Task §_ SBF Other 6-15 Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. 129 129 128 6-13 Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. 127 128 127 6-14 Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies, 127 126 124 8-16 6-12 4-5 4-7 6-7 8-26 1-9 8-18 3-5 8-22 8-23 2-12 6-11 2-13 2-14 6-4 6-5 79 Evaluating vocational education administrators. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Preparing quarterly reports. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Reviewing and evaluating text- books for adoption. Developing objectives for local educational agencys' programs. Evaluating professional staff members in your division. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Preparing reports for other agencies outside of the department of education. Reviewing contracted programs. Preparing financial expenditure reports. Reviewing applications for vocational teaching certificates. Reviewing courses and programs that are non-approved. Reviewing expenditure reports for vocational funds spent by the local educational agency. Assisting and developing in- service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Preparing budgets and end-of—the- year reports. Developing the program of activities for the state conference of the vocational student organization. Developing the program to in-service local chapter advisors of the vocational student organization. Maintaining financial records for the vocational student organization. Maintaining financial records for your discipline. Planning and organizing the state's participation at the national conference of the vocational student organization. 126 125 124 122 122 121 120 119 118 116 116 120 127 123 123 115 120 119 124 118 115 115 125 121 121 120 117 123 126 80 2-11 Conducting workshops for state officers of the vocational student organization. 117 7-14 Preparing newsletters. 117 THE RELATIONSHIP OF TASKS TO THE SIZE OF THE STATE STAFF The Most Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the most frequently performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education with one, two, or three or more staff members are listed. In the cases of those vocational education divisions in the states that reported only one staff member, that person would be the state supervisor. In two, or three or more, the state supervisor is also included in the count for the size of the state staff. The tasks below were those that were ranked in the top ten percent by a rank-order based upon use of the Frequency Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number Task 1_ .2 7-7 Responding to telephone calls. 1 1 7-6 Responding to correspondence. 2 2 1-17 Serving as the state advisor for the vocational student organization. 3 10 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 4 7 7-11 Responding to requests and assignments made by the state director of vocational education. 5 3 7-13 Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. 6 6 7-16 Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post-secondary, and adult education. 7 12 1-5 Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. 8 3 5-3 Oisseminating materials and information. 9 3 5-15 4-2 8-2 8-1 5-10 1-15 7-10 7-2 81 Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. Completing reports for your state department of education. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. Evaluating programs at the local educational agency site. Reviewing reports and forms submitted by local educational agencies. Oisseminating information about the vocational student organization. Assisting in planning career develop- ment activities and materials. Assisting schools to meet standards to qualify for funding. Responding to requests and assign- ! ments made by the state superinten- dent. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. Working with professional teacher organizations. The Most Significant Tasks 10 11 12 13 7 4 13 13 11 9 TO 5 9 1O 12 13 Tasks that were found from the data to be the most significant by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education with one, two, or three or more staff members are listed. In the cases of those vocational education divisions in the states that reported only one staff member, that person would be the state supervisor. included in the count for the size of the state staff. The tasks below were those that were ranked in the top ten In two, or three or more, the state supervisor is also percent by a rank-order based upon use of the Significance Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number 2-1 1-16 8-2 8-1 2-5 5-10 5-3 5-15 82 Task Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. DevelOping standards and guidelines for fundable programs. Making recommendations about programs to local educational agencies. Evaluating programs at the local educational agency's site. Attending in-service workshops and conferences for vocational educa- tion in your discipline. Working with professional teacher organizations. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. Attending professional development programs in vocational education. Meeting regularly with the teacher educators in your discipline. Responding to correspondence. Developing an annual plan of work for your unit, division, or service. Responding to telephone calls. Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. Planning and organizing workshops and conferences. Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel. Reviewing and updating the services your division can provide. Assisting in planning annual vocational education conferences. Assisting schools in meeting standards to qualify for funding. Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. Oisseminating information about the vocational student organization. Oisseminating materials and infor- mation. Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. l—a NNN mmmNU‘lU'l 11 11 IN 10 10 10 10 ll 11 11 11 83 The Least Frequently Performed Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least frequently performed by state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Frequency Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number Task 1_ ' g 3: 6-15 Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. 129 129 129 3-5 Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. 127 118 124 6-13 Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. 127 127 124 6-12 Conducting cost-benefit studies. 126 128 127 6-14 Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. 124 124 128 3-2 Interviewing and hiring state staff employees. 124 8-16 Evaluating vocational education administrators. 123 125 126 8-18 Evaluating professional staff members in your division. 122 4-5 Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. 120 125 123 6-11 Preparing budgets and end-of-the- year reports. 120 118 118 2-12 Assisting and developing in- service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. 123 122 3-1 Making recommendations for hiring new state staff employees. 117 6-7 Negotiating contracts with agencies. 117 4-8 Assisting with preparing the annual statistical report. 121 118 8-3 Reviewing expenditure reports for vocational funds spent by the local educational agency. 121 1-18 Planning the three-year and five- year plan. 118 84 8-26 Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 115 121 4-7 Preparing the quarterly reports. 120 4-6 Preparing and assisting with the annual descriptive report. 117 The Least Significant Tasks Tasks that were found from the data to be the least significant by state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members are listed below. The tasks listed are the tasks that were ranked in the lowest ten percent based on the rank-order of the tasks by the Significance Choice Index scores. The task number, task, and rank-order was: Number Task l_ 2_ .43: 6-13 Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. 129 127 127 6-15 Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. 129 129 129 6-14 Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. 127 124 128 6-12 Conducting cost-benefit studies. 126 127 125 4-7 Preparing quarterly reports. 125” 126 8-18 Evaluating professional staff members in your division. 124 3-5 Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. 123 1-9 Developing programs for local educational agency's programs. 122 8-16 Evaluating vocational education administrators. 120 125 124 4-5 Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. 120 119 6-7 Negotiating contracts with agencies. 119 123 2-12 Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. 8-26 Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 117 118 123 85 7-12 Preparing reports to other agencies outside of the department of education. 121 119 8-5 Reviewing contracted programs. 121 6-5 Maintaining financial records for your discipline. 118 6-10 Preparing financial expenditure reports. 118 8-3 Reviewing expenditure reports for vocational funds spent by the local educational agency. 115 8-23 Reviewing courses and programs that are non-approved. 115 122 7-8 Working with the state board of education. 121 8-15 Conducting research projects. 117 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS Analysis of the Most Frequent and/or Most Significant Tasks Only one task was ranked in the top ten percent of the tasks based on frequency and significance by all eight sorts of the data. State supervisors of busineSs and office education and distributive education, state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, and other organizational patterns, and state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members all ranked "consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going program (2-1)" as. the one task that was ranked in the top ten percent of the tasks on both scales. As cited in several previous studies reported in Chapter II, it is a major role of a state supervisor to assist in the development, maintenance, and improvement of programs in business and office educa- tion and distributive education. It is common practice that a state supervisor would be involved in planning new programs with local educational agencies, be asked to assist in improving an existing program, or solve programming problems that may arise, or evaluate 86 the program, and assist with future plans for program improvement. Therefore, it can be concluded that the state supervisors spend frequent time in this role and also they perceive the role to be an important one. State supervisors through federal legislation were to implement coordination, planning, and implementation of vocational education programs. This study shows that state supervisors are frequently consulting and assisting local educational agencies, so it appears that the intentions of the legislation are being met. Five tasks were ranked in the top ten percent of the frequent tasks by the state supervisors of business and office education, state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members. "Responding to telephone calls (7-7)". and "Responding to correspondence (7-6)" were performed very frequently. The state supervisor responds to policy questions and assists the local educational agencies by providing information relative to curriculum planning, funding policy, the completion of reports and forms that are returned to the state agency, and with long-range and short-range planning. Therefore, tasks 7-7 and 7-6 substantiate that the tasks are a major function of the state supervisor's role. The state director of vocational education is the person who serves as the administrator in charge of the program and services that are available from the state vocational education division. In his role, the state director develops plans and overall direction, and coordinates the activities of the division's staff. This was verified through the frequent ranking of "Responding to requests and assignments 87 made by the state director of vocational education (7-11)." As a result of the plans and coordinated effort of the director, delegated responsibilities may be made to state supervisors. It is apparent that this is why the task was performed very frequently by state supervisors. State supervisors are frequently spending a considerable amount of their time in the field consulting to local educational agencies. It is necessary that communications between staff in various vocational programs and administrative levels occurs. "Providing feedback from the field to your administrators (7-13)" related to this role and was one of the most frequently performed tasks. As problems arise and are solved, policy changes, and new thrusts are created and imple- mented, it is necessary for state staff to communicate with their superiors who are not in the field as frequently as state supervisors. It appears that through the frequency of this task (7-13) the state supervisors are performing a role frequently in the communications channel. "Articulating and working closely with other divisions in the state department of education (5-15)" was the fifth task that was performed frequently based on the eight sorts bf data. The high ranking of this task would indicate that independent of the disciplines, the number of staff members, or the organizational pattern of the state vocational education division, the task is performed frequently. Appar- ently state supervisors do spend a great deal of time working with other disciplines (such as: agriculture, home economics, health, and trade and industrial education) or with other units (such as: secondary, 88 post-secondary, or adult). In the researcher's opinion, the need for a higher degree of frequency for this task would occur as the number of staff members and complexity of the organization increases. Two tasks were ranked in the top ten percent by frequency of all tasks by seven of the eight sorts of the data. "Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities (1-5)" was one of the two tasks. Because state supervisors spend a frequent amount of their time in the field consulting to local educational agencies the high ranking of this task is understandable. To coordinate activities with objectives of the state plan and/or objectives of a unit whether it is by service or by service and function or any other organizational pattern, the state supervisor would need to periodically meet with his staff or other supervisors to discuss mutual problems and concerns and to plan for future activities for himself or his staff. Therefore, staff meetings are the common vehicle to accomplish this goal. The' researcher can attest to this fact by pointing out that he is committed to a two-hour staff meeting of his unit each week and a half-day staff meeting for the state vocational education division each month. In addition, other meetings are called for staff who are assigned to special committees that may be within the division, interdepartmental, or intradepartmental. The second task that was ranked high by seven of the eight sorts of the data was "Serving as the state advisor for the vocational student organization (1-17)." This task would involve activities such as: meeting and planning with an executive council, planning and 89 organizing regional, district, state, and national conferences for the vocational student organization, providing in-service to the state officers and chapter advisors of the vocational student organization, preparing handbooks and materials for use by teachers who are advisors for a local chapter, planning and organizing workshops, and over- seeing budgets and resources for the vocational student organization. Because the vocational student organizations are a co-curricular component of the vocational program, they would be frequently addressed and intergrated into the vocational program. Hence, this would be the reason why the task is performed very frequently. All states have a degree of involvement in the vocational student organizations. State supervisors of business and office education, and distrib- utive education, those state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and those state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members ranked only one task as a most significant task in their perception. "Develop- ing standards and guidelines for fundable programs (1-16)' was the task. It is common for state supervisors to develop program guidelines. The guidelines must be in conformity to legislative thrusts and the state plan for vocational education. Guidelines usually address criteria in specific terms and the details of the vocational program that will be complied to by a local educational agency. The guidelines will usually establish standards of quality for the program, a level of skill devel- opment which is expected to be attained by students enrolled in the program, follow-up procedures to be used to obtain data about program 9O completions, and funding criteria and conditions to be met by the local educational agency. It is apparent that the reviewing and updating of guidelines is a common practice among state supervisors. To avoid arbitrary decisions guidelines are established in writing and all local educational agencies then are dealt with on the same criteria. Four tasks were ranked as most significant by seven of the eight sorts of the data. "Responding to correspondence (7-6)" which was explained when it was previously listed as one of the most frequent tasks was one of the tasks. "Making recommendations about programs to local educational agencies (8-2)" was a very significant task. It is apparent that this task would be closely affiliated with consulting to new or on-going programs. Recommendations back to the local educational agency would be the result of the program visitation. Since state supervisors are curriculum and program specialists it would be expected that there would be feedback that would include suggestions for improving the programior the state supervisor would be considered as a high-priced tourist on the state's payroll. State supervisors (in seven out of the eight sorts of the data) perceived "Sharing information and materials with teacher educators (7-2)" as a highly significant task. The high perception of this task is indicative of the respect that state staff has for teacher educators. At one time many teacher educators were on a contract with the state vocational education divisions and teacher education was considered to be an extension or part of state supervision. In some states this is still true. The importance of this task is that state supervisors feel 91 that they should share important materials and information with teacher educators. Apparently state staff want to keep the communications channels open and view teacher educators as a support group to their efforts. There is a concern for in-service education by state supervisors. Seven of the eight sorts of the data ranked "Attending in-service workshops and conferences for vocational education in your discipline (2-5)" as a very significant task. The researcher interprets this high significance to be two pronged: (1) state supervisors have a~ concern for their own in-service, and (2) for the personnel whom they work with in their leadership roles. Therefore, adequate updating and training for local personnel and state personnel is perceived highly significant if programs are to be improved and developed to the maximum potential of the personnel. A high degree of professional competency must be reached. Four tasks were ranked highly significant by six of the eight sorts of the data. The first task was previously mentioned and explained when it was also reported as a most frequently performed task. It was "Responding to telephone calls (7-7)." "Consulting visits to schools to assist with in-service for program personnel (2-2)" was the Second significant task ranked high by six of the eight sorts of the data. The researcher interprets this task to be closely related to task 2-5 (attending in-service workshops and conferences for vocational education in your discipline) and task 1-12 (planning and organizing workshops and conferences). Obviously, the state supervisor places a high degree of significance in in-service 92 and views himself as a resource to be used in these efforts, The third significant task was "planning and organizing workshops and conferences (1-12)" which relates closely with the mentioned in-service efforts. The fourth very significant task ranked high by six of the eight sorts of the data was "working with professional teacher organizations (5-1)." Because state supervisors operate under restraints that are dictated by the number of man-hours and time-management, priorities must be set. Therefore one significant means of having impact on programs and personnel would be through appealing to the masses through professional organizations. Apparently state staff are aware of this means and perceive it as a way of "keeping a finger on the pulse" and addressing a broad representative selection of the state's teachers. Analysis of the Least Frequent gnd]or LeastTSiggjficant Tasks Only two tasks were rankedas least frequently performed and least significantly perceived by state supervisors of business and office eduCation, state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members. Both of these tasks dealt with auditing activities at the local educational agency level. "Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies (6-14)" and "auditing construction projects at the local educational agency (6-15)N were the two tasks. Although several respondents repOrted some auditing through their compliance activities, it is a difficult role for the state supervisor to perform. There is a conflict on the one 93 side in the role of serving as a resource person and helper in program development and on the other side serving as an auditor of the program in the opinion of the researcher. In addition, the researcher feels that these tasks have not been given a high priority by state voca- tional education divisions and state supervisors may lack the . necessary skills to perform the task. In the current mode of accountability, states are addressing these issues through such efforts as expenditure revenue reporting, program audit trails, and construction management systems. Four tasks were found to be ranked least frequently performed by state supervisors of business and office education, state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational patterns, and state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members. The first task was "conducting cost-benefit studies (6-12)." The task relates closely to efforts that justify, from a financial base, the value of programs. Efforts are made to determine the exact costs that went into programs and then the end results are reviewed. Many times comparisons are made to academic programs, projected tax dollars returned to the system after the students are employed, and projected costs if trainees were unemployed and drawing aid from other state agencies. Such a system is nebulous to education because we don't turn out a product that is for sale and profits and losses can not be easily calculated. To implement such an approach would require a detailed amount of accounting and specialized training. Therefore, there are few state supervisors performing this task in any frequency. 94 "Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for the vocational education division (3-5)" was the second least frequently performed task for all eight sorts of the data. State supervisors are spending little time on this task for several reasons. There are only fifty state directors in the United States and the rate of turn-over, as observed by the researcher, is not high. Secondly, internal promotional policies may be a critical factor. Many organizations today have to post positions and notify current staff of vacancies and allow for possible promotion internally. Finally, when vacancies do occur today many organizations establish national search committees to locate candidates. Therefore, the task is not one that is a common role of the state supervisor and is verified by the data. The "preparation of budgets and end-of-the-year reports (6-11)" was the third task that was selected as a least frequently performed task. Because state agencies Operate on a fiscal year basis this is an annual task. Several states, from observations made by the researcher, receive quarterly reports to assist in pacing and planning the annual status of the budgets. This task is usually performed by an accounting section and therefore it is not a task that is performed frequently by state supervisors. State supervisors would be most knowledgeable of the state plan in the specific areas where it was applicable to their program respon- sibilities. It would be unusual for a state vocational education division to expect a state supervisor to have an understanding of all of the parts or details of a state plan since it is a comprehensive plan of how every dollar granted by the federal government would be 95 spent. Based upon the knowledge of the researcher, an administrative council would work toward developing the state plan and it would be a team effort to write, edit, and submit the state plan. State plans are submitted on an annual basis in response to federal guidelines. Hence, it is common practice for this task to be done once a year. Two tasks were ranked as least significant by seven of the eight sorts of the data. The first task was "auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency (6-13)." Traditionally state agencies have been known to allocate funds to local educational agencies with little auditing occurring. In some cases the researcher has even heard the accusation of "setting the money on a stump and looking the other way" as being described as the state's role in auditing. With an increasing effort for accountability for programs and funds this is a position that is changing in a positive direction but it still is not a frequent role performed by state supervisors. "Evaluating vocational education administrators (7-16)" is the second task that was rated least significant by seven of the eight sorts of the data. Most states have certification standards for vocational administrators. This allows them to be elligible to direct vocational education at the local level. In addition, the evaluation of specific personnel has traditionally been a "local control" issue and state vocational education divisions have made little effort to challenge this philosophy. With efforts that are under way in several states, the researcher believes that in future years performance based evaluation will start to take place but currently it is not a frequently performed role of state supervisors. 96 One task was ranked as performed of least frequency.by six of the eight sorts of data. Because the annual statistical report is an analysis of the fiscal year programming it is done once a year. Hence, "assisting with preparing the annual statistical report (4-8)" was a least frequently performed task. Only one task was perceived to be a least significant task by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education, state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors with one, two, or three or more staff members. "Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency (6-13)" which was previously discussed was that one task. Three tasks were previously discussed and are now listed again as ranked least significant by seven of the eight sorts of the data. The three tasks were: "Conducting cost-benefit studies (6-12), Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency (6-15), and Evaluating vocational education administrators (8-16)." "Preparing the quarterly reports (4-7)" was one of the three tasks ranked least significant by six of the eight sorts of the data. Because many of the states have a compliance and reporting unit, the researcher believes that this task is performed by other personnel in the state vocational education division. Therefore, it is not perceived as a highly significant task with all of the other priorities placed on a state supervisor. 97 "Negotiating contracts with agencies (6-7)" was the second task perceived as least significant by six of the eight data sorts. Because several states have converted to a request for proposal system or an allocated amount of dollars made available for contracted arrangements institutions and other agencies are notified of contract requirements and budget restraints prior to proposing a bid on a project. Hence, the role of the state supervisor in negotiating contract cost has diminished to the point where it has become an insignificant task. Because of local educational agencies and teacher preferences, the selection of textbooks has been left to the local educational agency's discretion. Few states, to the knowledge of the researcher, have adopted any kind of a state adoption policy for textbooks. Therefore, "reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption (8-26)" was perceived to be a least significant task. Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Problem The problem of this study was the identification and analysis of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. An assessment was conducted using a task analysis approach to determine: (1) how frequently tasks were performed, and (2) how significant tasks were perceived by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. Tasks were ranked on the basis of frequency and significance scores and comparisons were made to ascertain if there was a difference in the frequency and significance of the tasks for: (1) business and office education and distributive education state supervisors, (2) state supervisors who worked in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern of the state vocational education division, and (3) state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members. Program responsibilities, assignments within the state vocational education division, organizational patterns of the state vocational education division, the number of staff members, titles of state supervisors, and titles of subordinates to the state supervisors provided data that were anlayzed in the study. 98 99 Research Questions The following research questions were the focus of this study: 1. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education, distri- butive education, and those who served in a dual role for both vocational programs? 2. What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education, distri- butive education, and those state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs? 3. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members for the vocational program? 4. What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members for the vocational program? 5. What was the frequency of tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a state vocational education division that was organized by a service, service and function, or other oragnizational pattern? 6. -What was the significance of tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a state vocational education division that was organized by a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern? Background of the Problem There were in 1975 forty-five chief state supervisors of business and office education, forty-nine chief state supervisors of distributive education, and eleven chief state supervisors who were in charge of both vocational programs. Of these persons, some were entitled state supervisors while others were entitled consultants, specialists, assistant directors, and other various titles. Some were assigned to a business education division, distributive education division, business and distributive education division, while others worked in 100. divisions determined by curriculum level or functions. It appeared from personal contacts by the researcher before the study was under- taken that state supervisors played different roles and performed different tasks based on the organization of the state vocational education division and the number of professional persons employed by the division. State supervisors without other subordinates were able to do only the barest essentials, others had support staffs to perform additional functions, and a few state supervisors had large enough staff to undertake a comprehensive program. Need for the Study_ This study responded to needs expressed by state supervisors of business and office education, state supervisors of distributive education, the United States Office of Education, teacher educators of business and office education and distributive education, and state directors of vocational education. There is need to provide a compre- hensive list of tasks performed by state supervisors including the frequency and significance of the tasks . The results of this study will assist state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education to review their roles so that tasks may be addressed which will assist state supervisors in improving their coverage of responsibilities. Limitations of the ResearchVStudy This study was completed with the following limitations: 101 l. The study was based upon the results of tasks rated by state supervisors based upon their self-perceptions, No diary was kept by the respondents. 2. The results of the study were based upon data provided by only the state supervisors of the vocational program not by any subordinates. 3. The study did not attempt to determine, evaluate, or predict the state supervisor's degree of current or future success in his role. 4. No attempt was made to compare various states or state supervisors. Review of Related Literature The review of the related literature and research revealed a number of research studies and numerous articles written about state supervision that the researcher considered to be related and relevant to the present study. Articles, research reports, and legislation reported about the history and development of state supervision although the vast majority of the literature reported on the role of the state supervisor, his responsibilities, leadership function, and efficiency and effectiveness of state supervisors. The review of related literature and research was found to be useful for the development of a list of tasks that are performed by state supervisors. An E.R.I.C. (educational research information center) search was conducted by the researcher to determine if any research studies of a similar nature had been conducted. The results of the E.R.I.C. search listed twenty-three studies about state supere vision. After a review of all the studies, the researcher found that none of the studies in the E.R.I.C, system were similar to the pr0posed study. 102 The Population The population used in this study was the total number of state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education in the United States and the District of Columbia (N = 105), The population consisted of forty-five state supervisors of business and office education, forty-nine state supervisors of distributive education, and eleven state supervisors who served in a dual role for both vocational programs. The state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education were indentified from directories of state supervisors that were available from the United States Office of Education. The Panel of Consultants The panel of consultants consisted of state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education who were attending a national conference. The thirty state supervisors were representatives of twenty-two different states. The thirty state supervisors were personally contacted by the researcher at the national conference and they were asked to serve on the researcher's panel of consultants. Their role was to review a list of tasks written by the researcher. The panel of consultants reviewed the tasks to be certain they were understandable as written, applicable to persons serving in state supervisory roles for business and office education and distributive.education, edit and revise tasks, add tasks that were needed, and review the survey instrument layout and the two rating scales. 103 Instrumentation A list of tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education was developed from a review of the researcher's personal calendar of professional activities as a state staff member. Several state plans from the State of Michigan and other states were reviewed and found to be beneficial sources for identifying tasks. The researcher also used the Michigan annual program plan, monthly and annual objectives, and management-by-objective programs developed by the Vocational-Technical Education Service of the Michigan Department of Education. An evaluation model for vocational education administrators was also reviewed for tasks performed by persons working in administrative positions in vocational education. The review of related literature and research also identi- fied many tasks performed by state supervisors and was used in develOpe ment of the list of tasks for the survey instrument. After the initial list of tasks was developed, the researcher took the opportunity of receiving additional assistance and input from professionals in supervisory roles in the Vocational-Technical Educa- tion Service of the Michigan Department of Education. Those persons reviewed the task list and made suggestions for improving and expanding the task list. Further input was recieved from three state super- visors, four teacher educators, and six consultants for business and office and distributive education who were in attendance at a United States Office of Education regional conference. These persons were representatives from the states of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, ' Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 104 The Survey Instrument. The survey instrument used in this study was designed from a survey instrument that had been used in three doctoral studies that dealt with teacher competencies. The survey instrument used in this study incorporated two rating scales for delineating the frequency and significance of tasks. A cover page was used to collect demographic data about the respondents, their positions, the organ- ization of their state vocational education division, and the number of staff members they had working for them. The Pilot Study After the panel of consultants review, the survey instrument was tested in.a pilot study. The pilot study population consisted of a selection of twenty state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. The pilot study population was selected so that a representative spread of state supervisors throughout the country was used. The twenty subjects used in the pilot study were requested to complete the survey instrument and identify any rating scale problems or items on the survey instrument which were believed to be ambiguous, impossible to answer, and/or inappropriate. None of the tasks were reported by the pilot study subjects to be of those classifications. No additional tasks were listed by the subjects, and no rating scale problems were identified by the respondents. The survey instrument as piloted was proven to be valid through the results of a ninety percent return rate. Because no changes were needed in the survey instrument the pilot study results were used to determine data for the study and survey instruments were sent to the remaining ninety- five state supervisors who were part of the total population. 105 Data Collection Survey instruments were returned in selfeaddressed stamped envelopes from state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. One hundred and twenty-nine tasks were rated for the degree of frequency of performing the tasks and the degree of significance of performing the tasks. Demographic data was also received regarding: (l) the organizational pattern of the state vocational education division, (2) the number of state staff members for the vocational program of business and office education and/or distributive education, (3) where the state supervisor was assigned within the vocational education division of the state department of education, (4) the titles of state supervisors, and (5) the titles of subordinates to the state supervisor. In addition, state supervisors were asked to return a copy of (1) the state's vocational education division organization chart, (2) the state supervisor's job description, and (3) the state's policy manual for state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education. Respondents were given two weeks to return the survey instrument and after three weeks the researcher followed up with personal phone calls to all non- respondents to request the return of the survey instrument. At the close of the study an eighty-nine percent rate of return had been reached. Two measures were used to analyze data, (1) the Frequency Choice Index, and (2) the Significance Choice Index. The Frequency Choice Index was calculated using the following formula: 106 F.C.I. = lZXA) + (6x5) + (5xC) + (4x0) + (3xE) + (2xF) f (le) Total Number of Respondents The respondents' total ratings for each task were added together and the total for each task was divided by the number of respondents to determine the Frequency Choice Index. The ratings for the frequency of performing the tasks were done on a scale of seven through one. The rating choices and weights were: A. Hourly = 7 E. Twice Yearly = 3 8. Daily = 6 F. Once Yearly = 2 C. Weekly = 5 G. Never = l 0. Monthly = 4 To determine the Significance Choice Index (importance in the mind of the respondent) calculations were made using the following formula: S.C.I. = (5xa) + (4xb) + (3xc) + (2xd) + (lxe) Total Number of Respondents The respondents' total ratings for each task were added together and the total for each task was divided by the number of respondents to determine the Significance Choice Index. The ratings for the significance of performing the tasks were done on a scale of five through one. The rating choices and weights were: Strongly Agree - it should be done. Agree - it should be done. Disagree - it shouldn't be done. Strongly Disagree - it shouldn't be done. No Opinion (DD-0U“ O O O C 0 ll 11 II II II de-Dm Analysis 9f the Data As survey instruments were received they were reviewed and checked to be sure all items had been rated on both the frequency and the significance scales. Data sheets containing demographic data were summarized for the findings. 107 After data were recieved computor cards were key-punched which included the ratings of each task for frequency and significance for each of the respondents. Sorts of the data for ratings of frequency and significance were made for: (1) business and office education state supervisors, (2) distributive education state supervisors, (3) the organizational patterns of the state vocational education division, and (4) the number of state staff members for the vocational programs. A special computor program had to be written to calculate the data by frequency and significance for the mentioned sorts. The computor analysis of the data was completed at the Computor Science Center at Michigan State University. FINDINGS Based on the problem of the study and its assumptions and limitations the following were the findings: 1. Approximately half of the respondents were responsible for programming at all levels (secondary, post-secondary, and adult). About half of the state supervisors were responsible for only one level of programming. 2. Over one-third of the state supervisors were assigned in a business education service and another one-third were assigned in a distributive education service. Approximately eleven percent were assigned in a service for both business and distributive education, while the remaining seventeen percent of the state supervisors were assigned to other units or divisions within the state vocational education division such as: secondary units, post-secondary units, adult units, area vocational-technical center units, curriculum units, research units, and personnel development units, 3. Fifty-one percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized according to service such as: agriculture, business and office, distributive, health, home economics, and trade and industrial education. Thirty-two percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education 10. 108 division that was organized by both service and function. Seventeen percent of the state supervisors worked in a state vocational education division that was organized in some other organizational pattern, Forty-one percent of the state supervisors reported that they had no staff besides themself. About one-fourth of the state supervisors had two staff members including themselves. Over a third of the states had larger staffs which consisted of three or more staff members. About a third of the state supervisors were titled "state supervisor." Twenty percent of the state supervisory persons were titled “consultant." Sixteen percent were titled "specialist." Nineteen percent were titled "director." Eight percent were titled “chief," and five percent were titled with other various titles. One third of the subordinates to state supervisory personnel were titled "consultant," a quarter of the subordinates were titled "supervisor," eighteen percent were titled "specialist," sixteen percent were titled "assistant supervisor,“ five percent were titled "associate" to a chief, and four percent were titled "executive director" for the state association of the distributive education clubs of America. Job descriptions returned by thirty-seven percent of the respondents were similar. Responsibilities and tasks were broadly defined for the state supervisors. Forty-three percent of the respondents returned capies of the state vocational education division organization chart. Organizational patterns varied except for those states (51%) which were organized by service. Policy manuals for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education do not exist as a separate document. Only two respondents (4%) returned a policy manual as requested. Nine state supervisors noted that a copy of the state plan for vocational education could be sent because it is the operational document for vocational education. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors of distributive education were : 109 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Oisseminating materials and information. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations to local educational agencies about programs. '11. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed .~ by state supervisors of distributive education were: Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Oisseminating materials and information. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations to local educational agencies about programs. 12. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education were: 2-12 4-5 6-7 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-11 8-16 Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Preparing budgets and end-of—the-vear reports. Evaluating Vocational education administrators. 13. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of distributive education were: 2-12 3-5 4-5 6-7 6-12 6e13 6-14 Developing objectives for local educational agency's programs. ‘.Assiting and developing in-service programs for i"y0ur clerical and secretarial staff. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. 110 6-15 Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. 8-16 Evaluating vocational education administrators. 14. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service organization were: 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Making recommendations about programs to local educational agencies. .- mNN NVOS p 15. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service and function organization were: 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 7-6 Responding to correspondence. 1-5 Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. 7-11 Responding to requests and assignments made by the . state director of vocational education. 16. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in an other organizational pattern were: 2-1 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. 7-6 Responding to correspondence. 7-7 Responding to telephone calls. 5-15 Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. 7-16 Working with colleagues in other units such as: secondary, post-secondary, and adult education. 6-1 Assisting school districts in meeting standards to qualify for funding. 8-2 Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 5-1 Working with professional teacher organizations. 7-2 Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. 17. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service organization were: 3-5 Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational service. 4-5 Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. 6-7 Negotiating contracts with agencies. 6-12 Conducting cost-benefit studies. 6-13 6-14 6-15 8-16 8-18 8-26 111 Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency, Evaluating vocational education administrators. Evaluating professional staff members in your division.v Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 18. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in a service and function organization were: 2-12 6-7 6—11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6—15 a-is Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Preparing budgets and end-ofethe-year reports, Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. 19. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors who worked in other organizational patterns were: 1-4 2-11 4-7 6-14 6-15 8-26 Planning and organizing the state's participation at the national conference of the vocational student organization. Conducting workshops for the state officers of the vocational student organization. Preparing quarterly reports. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 20. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with one staff member were: 2-1 7-6 7-7 7-13 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs, Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. Providing feedback from the field to your administrators. 8-1 8-2 112 Evaluating programs at the local educational agency site. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 21. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with two staff members were: 1-5 5-10 7-6 7 7 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. ‘ Attending staff meetings to plan and organize your activities. Oisseminating information about the vocational student organization. Responding to correspondence. Responding to telephone calls. 22. The most frequent and the most significant tasks performed by state supervisors with three or more staff members were: 5-1 5-3 5-15 7-2 8-2 Consulting visits to schools to assist with new or on-going programs. Working with professional teacher organizations. Oisseminating materials and information. Articulating and working closely with other divisions within the state department of education. Sharing information and materials with your teacher educators. Making recommendations about programs to the local educational agency. 23. The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors with one staff member were: 2-12 3-5 4-5 6-7 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 8-16 8-18 Assisting and developing in-service programs for your clerical and secretarial staff. Assisting with locating and hiring administrative staff for your vocational division. Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Negotiating contracts with agencies. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Evaluating professional staff members in your division. 24. 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 8-3 8-16 8-26 113 The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors with two staff members were: Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. ' . Reviewing expenditure reports for vocational funds spent by the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 25. -The least frequent and the least significant tasks performed 4-7 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 by state supervisors with three or more staff members were: Conducting and assisting with state plan hearings. Preparing quarterly reports. Conducting cost-benefit studies. Auditing budgets and records at the local educational agency. Auditing federal grants to local educational agencies. Auditing construction projects at the local educational agency. Evaluating vocational education administrators. Reviewing and evaluating textbooks for adoption. 8-16 8-26 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made: 1. Only seven of the top ten percent of the most frequently performed tasks by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most frequently performed tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the most frequently performed tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the top ten percent of the most significant tasks by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most 114 significant tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the most significant tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the top ten percent of the most frequent and the most significant tasks selected by the state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as most frequently performed and most significant tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that state super- visors view different tasks to be most significant than those that they are performing most frequently. Only five of the lowest ten percent of the least frequent tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutaully selected as least frequently performed tasks. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the least frequently performed tasks for the eight groups. Only three of the lowest ten percent of the least significant tasks performed by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organ- izational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected as least significant. Therefore, it has been concluded that there is a difference in the least significant tasks for the eight groups. Only two of the lowest ten percent of the least frequent and least significant tasks selected by state supervisors of business and office education and/or distributive education, state supervisors working in a service, service and function, or other organizational pattern, and state supervisors who had one, two, or three or more staff members were mutually selected. Therefore, it has been concluded that state super- visors view different tasks to be least significant than those that are least frequently performed. The number of staff members, vocational program, and/or organizational pattern of the state vocational education division do have an impact on the frequency and the signi- ficance of the tasks, 115 RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the review of the literature and the findings of this study, the following recommendations for action and further study are made: 1. The task analysis should be used by state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education, professional associations, and state vocational education divisions to review, analyze, and up-grade the job descrip- tions of state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. A policy manual for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education should be developed because only one policy manual was returned to the researcher as requested. It has been interpreted that policy manuals do not exist for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. Regional workshops for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education should be planned to review and discuss the findings and conclusions of this study. ° The decision-making process for developing the priorities for the state's goals and objectives should be reviewed by the state vocational education director because state supervisors are performing most frequently tasks that they do not perceive to be the most significant tasks. The tasks in this study should be reviewed by teacher educators of business and office education and distributive education to assist them in planning in-service programs for state supervisors of business and office education and distributive education. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Brain, George 8., Increasing Your Administration Skills in Dealing with the Instructional Program. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice- Hall, Inc. 1—1966. Hawkins, Layton S. and Charles A Prosser, and John C. Wright, Development of Vocational Education. (Chicago, Illinois: American Technical Society) 1965. Klecka, William R. Norman H. Nie, and C. Hadlai Hull, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences- Primer. (New York: New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company) 1975. Leedy, Paul 0., Practical Research: Planning and Desggp_, (New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.) 1 Walpole, Ronald E., Introduction to Statistics. (New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.) 1974. Roberts, Roy W., Vocational and Practical Arts Education. (New York, New York: Harper andiRowe Publishers,71nc{) 19652 Wilson, Robert E., Education Administration. (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Book, Inc.)’1966. T—‘ B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Ashmun, Richard D. and Roger A. Larson, Review and Synthesis of Research on Distributive Education, E.R.I.C. Clearing-house on Vocational and Technical Education, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University) 1970. Biddle, James, Selected Criteria on State Supervision for Distributive. Education. (Indianapolis, Indiana: National Association of State Supervisors for Distributive Education) 1972. Brown, David E., The Mobile Professor (Washington, D.C. American Council on Education) 1967. Campbell, William G. and Stephen V. Ballou, Form and Style: Thesis, Reports,_Term Papers, Fourth Edition, (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton-Mifflin Company) 1974. 116 117 Crawford, Lucy C. A Philosophy of Distributive Education: A Competency_ Pattern Approach to Curriculum ConStructibn in‘Distributivell" “ Teacher EduEatibn.f (Blackaurg,lVirgihia: Virginia Polytechnic Institutelll967. Hansen, Kenneth J. and Parker Liles. gdministration and Supervisi9p_ in Business Education. (Washington, D.C.: National Business Education Association) 1964. Kliever, Douglas E. Vocational Education Act of 1963. (Washington D.C.: American Vocational Associationl—l965. Koenig, Adolph J. Principles of Educational Administration. (New York, New York: Eastern Business Teachers Association Yearbook, New York University Campus Store) 1966. Kozelka, R. F. The State Consultant in Business Education. (New York, New York: Eastern BuSihess Teachers Association Yearbook, New York University Campus Store) 1966. Lanham, Frank and J. M. Trytten. Review and Synthesis of Research in Business and Office Education. The Center for Research and Leadership Development in Vocational and Technical Education, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University) 1966. Logan, K. Otto. The History of the National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education: 1945-1973. Tlhdianapolis, Indiana: National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education) 1973. Price, Ray G. and Charles R. Hopkins. Review and Synthesis of Research in Business and Office Education. E.R.I.C. Clearing-house oh‘ Vocational and TechnicalTEducation, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University) 1970. Rice, Dick C. and Powell E. Toth. The EmergingRole of §tate Education Departments with Specific Implications for DiVisions of Vppatibnal- Technical Education, Report of a National Conference on State Department Leadership in Vocational Education, Center for Vocational- TeEhnical EdUEation (Colfimbus, Ohio: The—Ohio Staté’University) 1967. State of Michigan. Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service. Expected Funotions and Tasks of Reimbursed WV—fifi if ‘f‘ Vpcational Administratorsli PilOt PrOJeCt. (lah51ng, Michigahl 1975. State of Michigan. Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service. Evaluation Pilot: _A_Prospeotus. (Lan51ng, Michigan) 1975. 118 Swanson, Chester J. A Nationwide Study of‘the Administration of Vocational-Technical Edhcatioh‘at the State Level. (Berkley, California,*Vblume One, volume TwB) 1967} United States Congress. Vocational Education Amendments ofil968, Public Law 90-576, 90th Congress, October 16, lQ68‘(WaShington: Government Printing Office) 1968. Weatherford, John W. Identification and Analyeis of Issues in Distributive Education. Monograph 127, (Cincihhati, OhiO: Southwestern Publishing Company) 1974. Wenrich, Ralph C. Review and Synthesis of Research on the Administration of Vocational and Technical Educatibh. E.R.I.C. Clearing-house on Vocational ahd Techhical Education, The Center for Vocational and Technical Education (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University) 1970. C. PERIODICALS Andrews, Margaret E. "Supervision in Business Education in the Northern States," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, Number 4, May, 1968, pp. 35-41. Barkley, Joseph R. "Supervision in Business Education in the Southern States," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, Number 4, May 1968, pp. 28-34. Byrnside, O. J., Jr., "Proposed Vocational Legislation: Challenging Opportunity for Business Education," Business Education Forum, Volume 28, Number 8, May, 1974. pp. 5-8. ‘ Chrismer, John N. "The Characteristics of a Good State Supervisor of Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 4, Summer} 1963, pp.20-27. I ' Forkner, Hamden L. "Vocational Business Education under the Vocational Education Act of 1963," The Balance Sheet, Volume XLV, February, 1964, pp. 256-2581 Gratz, J. E. and Lucy Robinson. "Introduction," NationalBusiness Education Quarterly, Volume 36, Number 4, May,71968, p, 3. Herndon, Frank M. I'State Supervision through Leadershi and Service," National Business Education Quarterly, olume 33, Number 4, SUmmer, 1965, pp. 20-27, Huffman, Harry. ”Responsibilities of the State Department of Education for the Administration and Supervision of Business Education,‘i National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 4, Summer, 1963, pp. 16-19. 119 Mercer, Russell and Patsy C. Smith, "Administrative and Supervisory Activities of State Supervisors." Business Education Forum, May, 1975. PP. 25-28. Musselman, Vernon A. "Administration and Supervision of Vocational Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Vol- ume 33, No. 4, Summer, 1965, pp.5-11. Musselman, Vernon A. "Vocational Business Education...What the States are Doing," Business Education Forum, Volume 19, N0. 4. JBOUHFY. 1965. pp. 7-8. Pair, Paul M. "The Impact of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 on Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Vol- ume 34, No. 4, May, 1966, pp. 54-59. Plevyak, Paul P. "Supervision in Business Education in the Eastern States," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 36, No. 3, March 1968, pp. 16-27. Replogle, Vernon L. "What Help 00 Teachers Want," Educational Leadership, Volume VII, April, 1950, pp. 445-449. Satlow, J. David. "General Aims and Objectives of Supervision and Administration in Business Education," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 25, No.3, May, 1957, pp. 7-14. Selden, William. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Business Education Supervision and Administration on the National, State, and Local Levels," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 30, No. 4, May, 1962, pp. 18—22. Selden, William and Kenneth A. Swatt. "Ethics in State Supervision of Business Education," Business Education Forum, Volume 25, No. 8, May, 1971, pp. 38-40. Selden, William. State Department of Education Responsibilities Relative to Business Education Certification." National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 34, No._4, May, 1966, pp. 5-7. Smith, Wesley P. "Leadership Development-Role of the State Department," American Vocational Journal, Volume 4, No. 9, December,1966. pp. 28-29. Stirewalt, Bruce E. “Profile of a State Supervisor," Business Education Forum, May, 1973, pp. 46-47. Van Hook, Victor. "Supervision in Business Education...at the State Level," National Business Education Quarterly, Volume 35. N0. 4. Summer, 1968, pp. 45-50. Witherow, Mary. "The Evolving Role of Supervision." National Business Education Quarterly. Volume 36, No. 4, May 1968, p. 3. 120 D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Achilles, Charles M. "The Perceived and Expected Role(s) of the State Division of Vocational Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1967. Broder, Thomas N. "An Identification of Teaching Competencies for Office Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1974. Byrnside, O. J. "Evaluating the Business and Office Education Service at the state Level." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation The Ohio State University, 1968. DeMille, Stanford D. "A Study of Business Education Supervisory Functions." Unpublished Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1960. Graziano, Louis R. "The Identification and Validation of a List of Teaching Competencies Utilized by Distributive Education Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1974. Herndon, Frank M. "A Study of Supervisory Services in Business Education as Rendered by Departments of Education in Twelve Southern States." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953. Magisos, Joel H. "An Analysis of Factors Associated with Perceptions of Role by State Supervisors of Vocational Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1968. Popovich, Nova J. "The Identification and Validation of a list of Teaching Competencies Utilized by Trade and Industrial Education Teaghers." Unpublished dactoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 9 . Rice, Dick C. "Professional Personnel in State Divisions of Vocational Education: Policies, Practices, and Requirements." The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1968. Rice, Dick C. "Role Perceptions in the Supervision of State Vocational Education in Ohio in Relation to Change." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1966. Smith, James W. "Critical Requirements for an Effective State Consultant of Business Education as Determined by Analysis of Critical Incidents. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1965. 121 Thomas, Ellis R. "An Analysis of State Supervision and Leadership of Business and Office Education with Implications for and Recommendations to the State of New Jersey," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY INSTRUMENT January 8, 1976 Dear Fellow State Supervisor: As a part of my professional development, I am writing my doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. Because of my interest and concern about state supervision, I am attempting To determine the frequency and significance of tasks performed by state super- visors of business/office and distributive education in the United States. If is believed the results of this study will be a useful contribution to our profession. Your cooperation in participating in this research effort will be sincerely appreciated. In December, 1975, the tasks of this study were piloted and reviewed by many of our associates at the American Vocational Association conference. There was a high degree of co- operation and a fine willingness to assist by those who were asked to pilot the study. . Will you please fake time to provide your responses to the personal data sheet and questionnaire attached. Will you, also, please forward to me a copy of your organization chart for your vocational-technical education division, a copy of your policy manual for state supervisors, and a copy of your job description for my review as a part of this study. After reading the instructions carefully, please supply the ratings in the two columns on the questionnaire. This should not take more than twenty minutes and should be mailed to me by Friday, January 23, I976. A self-addressed stamped envelope ls enclosed for your conven- ience. Naturally, your responses will be kept in strict professional confidence. No state or individual will be identified in the study. Permit me to thank you in advance for your cooperation and mutual interest in state supervision. You will be advised of the results of this study. Sincerely yours, John A. Daenzer, State Supervisor Distributive Education Vocational-Technical Education Service Michigan Department of Education 123 APPENDIX B SAMPLE SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX B SAMPLE SURVEY INSTRUMENT "THE FREQUENCY MID SIQEEFICANCE 01" TASKS mm BY STATE SUPERVLSCRS 01' BUSINESS AND DISTRIBIl'l'Igg EDUCATIM E THE UNITED STATES" BY John A. Daenzer State Superviaor, Diatributivc Education Vocational-Technical Education Service Michigan Department of Education Lansing, Michigan 1.8906 125 126 I N S T R U C T I O N S I would like to determine how frequently you, as a State Supervisor, perform the listed tasks and how significant you perceive the performing of each of these tasks. You can provide this information by performing the following two steps for each of the tasks on the survey questionnaire: 1. Check ggg_box on the left aide of the questionnaire for each task listed. The left aide is the FREQUENCY aide of the questionnaire. 2. Check ggg_box on the right side of the questionnaire for each task listed. The right side is the SLGNIPICANCE side of the questionnaire. I would like you to rate each task on the two scales provided. I will go through the first task with you. The first one -- "Assisting local educational agencies in designing new facilities." Do you perform this task frequently? Check the column on the left side that best indicates how frequently you perform this task: "hourly, Daily, weekly, Monthly, Twice Yearly, Once Yearly, or Never?" Now, how significant do you perceive your performing of this task? Check the column on the right side that best indicates how significant you feel the performing of this task is to you: "Strongly Agree-it should be done, Agree-it should be done, Disagree-it shouldn't be done, Strongly Disagree-it shouldn't be done, or No Opinion?" On the last page there is space for you to fill-in any tasks that you feel should be added to the list. Please proceed down the list of tasks; it will take about twenty minutes of your time. 127 M lame: State: l. I am responsible for: Secondary Programs Only Post-Secondary Programs Only Adult Programs Only Secondary, Post-Secondary and Adult Programs Secondary and Post-Secondary Programs Secondary and Adult Programs Post-Secondary and Adult Programs Teacher Education Programs Disadvantaged Programs Handicapped Programs A Vocational Student Organization Other - Please Explain: 2. I work in the State Dept. of Education, Vochech. Education Division in a: Business/Office Education Service Business and Distributive Education Service Distributive Education Service Secondary Unit Post-Secondary Unit Adult Unit Area Vac-Tech. Education Center Unit Curriculum Unit Research Unit Personnel Unit Other - Please Explain: 3. I have (number) professional staff members including myself. 4. The title for my position is: 5. My subordinates (if any) have the title of: 6. Our state's Vocationaldrechnical Education Division is organised by: Services (such as: agriculture, business/office, distributive, health, home economics, trade 8 industrial) Function (such as: personnel, administration, in-service, curriculum, certification, etc.) Curriculum Level (such as: secondary, post-secondary, adult) Both Service and Punction Other - Please Explain: 7. I am enclosing copies of the following documents for your review: A copy of the organization chart of our vac-tech. education division. A copy of our policy manual for state supervisors. A copy of my job description. 128 seats a .- ' m—x mass: = I :- a I 3 § 3 p. .. ' '3 A I ts E a p. H a .. .. .5 '9 : a s . '- " E ' 5 E 5 a ‘1 B 3 5 a .. a E E . s a 1. PLANNING : ORGANIZING: 1'1. ASSISTING WAL NATIGAL AGENCIES IN DESImNG NU FACILITIES. 1-1. ASSISTING HEAL mUCATIWAL AGENCIES IN RMELING msrmc FACILITIES. 1'3. mmnc m CGANIZIW I'NE STATE mm rm TNE VCEATICM' AL STDEN'T CGANIZATIG. 14. PIANNING AU “GANIZING THE STATES PARTICIPATIW AT TIE IATI‘IAL m or TIE TWATIGAL mm QGANIEATIW. 1.5.. AI'TEDING STA" NEETIWS TO "AN AID “GANIEE m ACTIVITIES. 14. m AN ANNUAL FUN 0? "all m YOUR UNIT, DIVISIW, on SERVICE. 1-7. DEVELOPING A NANAGEHENT-DY-OEJEC'TIVE HAN PM SNOlT-RANGE (DALS. l-D. DEVELOPING A HANAGEHENT-DY-ODJ'ECTIVE ELAN PM INC-RANGE GOALS. 1'9. DEVELOPING OBJECTIVES rm HEAL EDWATIONAL AGENCY'S "MEANS. 1'10. DEVELOPING PREGNANCE “JEC'TIVES m I” DIVISICNI OI SERVICE. 1'11. DEVEIDPING ML? OBJECTIVES r0! TM PROGRAM OF ME. 1-17. HANNING All) “GANIZING “MOPS AND CWENENCES. 1-13. PIANNING "MAN STADARDS (I QUALITY roa MAL DUCATIMAL AGENCIES "MEATS. l I I 1'16. ASSISTING IN MINING ANNUAL VMATIWAL EDDCATIM GWENENCES. I 1'15. ASSISTING IN PLANNING CAIEEI DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND MATERIALS. 1°16. DEVEIDPINC STAWARDS AND GUIDELINES roa EWDAELE PIOGRAPB. 1'17. SERVING AS THE STATE ADVISG PM THE VMATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZATIW. 1 1°18. PLANNIIN} TIIE THREE-YEAR AD PIVEeYEAl MN. I 1'19. PIANNING BUDGETS an I” SERVICE. L 129 NI IIOURLT 0:] DAILY HEEET "TILT TWICE q ONCETEARLT :3} TASK AQEE‘IT m RE m DISACEE'IT W'T IE ”I 01 mm-umum & 01 N ant-cu swan-n lama-'2 as mas —-l 2. DEVELOPING PROGRAMS 8 PERSONNEL: dawns VISITS TO saoou TO ASSIST "III In! cm “W!” nouns r 2-2. CMSULTIN VISITS T0 saoou TO ASSIST NITN IN'SERVICE m noon»: PERML. 2-3. ASSISTING NIT! TIE W AD am a AREA VNA‘TIMAL‘ TECRNICAL MIT“ CENTERS. Z-A. ASSIST“ NITN TIE manna: or nouns ”INTI! OPERATE IT SEVERAL ”ML DISTRICTS. . 2-5. ATTENDING IN-SE'RVICE CMERENCES Am wants-m m vocmcmn. EDUCATIN IN TOW DISCIPLINE. 2-6. ATTENDIN CLASSES an MOPS m ram “ADUATE "MAN AT A COLLEGE in UNIVERSI‘TT. 2-7. ammo PROFESSIGAL DEVELOTNENT Rm IN VOCATINAL EDUCATIN. Z-S. ”VELOFIK CURRICULUN AND INSTRUCTIMAL MATERIALS. 2-9. DEVEWFING IN-SERVICE TIM NI ML TEAGERS AND ADHINISTRATGS. 2-10. DEVELOPING III-SERVICE “MOPS Pm STATE OFFICERS 0? THE VOCATINAL STUDENT “GANIZATIN. 2-11. CONDUCTING HGESNOPS PM STATE OFFICERS OF THE VOCATIGIAL STUDENT (IGANIZATIW. 2-12. ASSISTIM AND DEVELOFI” IN'SERVICE “MAB roe YWR CIIRICAL AND SECRETARIAL STATE. 2-13. DEVELOP!” TNE ”MAN W ACTIVITIES Fm TNE STATE CWERENCE OF THE vocnmuu. STUDENT “GANIZATIM. 2-16. DEVEDOFING TIMES TO IN°SERVICE WAL CHAPTER AWIS‘IS or TIE VWATIGAL STUDENT “GANIZATICM. D 245. DEVMIW FIIDT, DWS‘TRATIM AND EMRT FROGRAPB. 2-16. DEVELMING “WIS m DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS. 2-17. DEVEIDPI” ram m RADICATPED STUDENTS. DEVELOPING DISTRICT AD REGIML CWFERENCES. T30 “LT "TILT TWICE TEARLT 0) DAILY U‘I NEEILT N m TRARLT TASK DISAQEE-IT WN'T IE ”I N0 OPINIII Ul STRMLTACEE-ITWIEME .p. Adan-n sum u mm: w N STRmLI DISACEE-IT W'T RE nus Im—l 3 I STAFFING: J-l. NARI” REMATIWS PC HIRING NEH STATE STAFF WES. INTERVIENING AD RIRING STATE STAFF ENPLOTEES. ASSISTING LOCAL EDUCATINAL AGENCIES IN HEATING QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED VOCATIMAL STAFF MERS. 34. ASSISTIN "III A” IIRING CLERICAL AND SEQETARIAL STAFF. 3'5. ASSISTIM H111! WATING AD NIRING AMINISTRATIVE STAFF PC TM VOCATIUAL DIVISIU. COMPLIANCE: REVIEUIM REMTS AND F“ SUBMITTED IT IDCAL EDUCATIGAL AGENCIES. CGIFLE'TING arms roe rm STATE DEPARTNEN'T N DUCATION. COIPLETING REMTS M TNE U. S. OFFICE OF .UCATICNI. ASSISTING "III THE DEVEIDPHENT OF THE STATE FUN m VWATION‘ AL EDUCATIG. CONDUCTING AND ASSISTING NITN STATE PLAN HEARINGS. PREPARING AND ASSISTING NITN THE ANNUAL DESCRIPTIVE REPORT. PREPARING QUARTERLY REPOTS. ASSIST!” um PREPARING 111E ANNUAL STATISTICAL REMT. PUBLIC RELATIONS: “KING NI‘TN PROPESSIWAL UGANIZATIONS. PREPARING AND DISSDIINATING NEVSLETTERS. DISSENINATIM MATERIALS AND INFGNATIM. s-‘O HRITING ARTICLES m .MURNALS AND PUELICATIWS. 5'5. SERVIM AS A SPEAKER AT MPERATIVE EDUCATIW WER‘ ENFLOTEE RAMS. 131 ma ummzm 5» H 5 s 3 5 a “HES; 2 TASK mvm-nmum ACNE-IT snwm IE DUE DISAQEE-IT SNWLII'T IE but no OFINIW S-VIN AS A SPEAK! Fa ”SIDE AGHCIES. Io mam mucus-n snoum’r u m [I‘ SOLICITING BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY SUFPCIT. PARTICIPATIW AD INVOLVDWT IN VWATIWL EDUCATIW. 5'8. “KIM NITN A STATE LEVEL AWISM WEE m TWR FIELD. 5". ”KING HIT! MCIAL PUBLISHERS AND EWIPNENT NANUFACIIRERS. S-IO. DISSENINATING INFGNATICI ADM TIE VNATINAL STUDENT (IGANIZATIN. S-ll. DEVEWING AID ntssmu‘rm IROGIURES. 5-12. DEVELOPING AND CIGANIZIN PUBLIC REUTIUS ACTIVITIES you TEE VOCATIG‘AL STUDENT (RCANIZATIG'. 5'13. "mm VNATIMAL EDUCATIG NITN “MIPS OUTSIDE OF EDUCATIGL S-l‘. DEVELOPM NADINJIS AND MTERIALS r0! TNE VIXZATIQIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATIMS. 5°15. ARTICUIATING AND MRI” OOOPERATIVELY UITN OTNER DIVISIONS UITNIN THE STATE DEPARTNENT OF EDUCATIGI. 5°16. SERVING AS A man OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTQS on EXECUTIVE BOARD OF ASNCIATINS. C.FIHANCING zBUDGETING: 6'1. ASSISTING SGIWLS IN MEETING STANDARDS TO QUALIFY rm FUNDING. 6-2. ASSISTING swoon IN RECEIVING EQUINE“ FUNDING. 6'3. BUDGETING ms TO NEET TNE ANNUAL PLAN OF HORN. 6%. NAINTAINING FINANCIAL RECQDS you THE VWATICIAL STUDENT ORGANIZATIW. 6'5. NAINTAINIM FINANCIAL REWS PW TM DISCIFLINE. 6-6. DEVEIOPING MING GITERIA m PRMAIB. 6-7. mm CG'I'RACI'S U'ITN AGENCIES. 6'8. NEGOTIATIM PROPOSALS. 6.9- ANALYZIN FINANCIAL DATA AND REMTED EXPENDITURES. 132 "GEE a _: “GILT DAILY UEEELT "11L! NICE TIARLT En m .5) N CCETEARLI TASK AQEE'IT sum IE but DISAGREE'IT W'T IE ”I STRWLI DISAQEE'IT W'T IE ”E NO OFINIG m nmnuAauqruanllmu F3 I. 6‘10. PREPARm FINANCIAL EXPENDITIIE REFCITS. 6.1!. PREPARIR EMT! AD --U'TNE'TEAR REMS 6’l20 moans COST-IENEFIT STUDIES . 6‘13. murmur; EUDGTS AND REMS AT TNE LOCAL EDUCATIWAL AGENCY. 6-16. AUDITING FEDERAL CANTS TO MAL EDUCATIMAL AGEMIES. 6-15. AIDITIM ”STEM“ PROJECTS AT TNE MAL EDUCATIWAL AGENCY. COORDINATINGECONMUNICATING: | mum REGIMRLT NIT. TIE TEAGER EDUCATGS IN m DISCIPLINEJ SRARIK WTIG AID MTERIALS NITN TM TEACRER EDUCATGS. ASSISTIINB m TNE PUCENENT (I UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE TEACHERS. HOREING CLOSELY NITN AGENCIES OUTSIDE OF THE DEPARTNENT OF EDUCATIG‘ SUCH AS THE STATE DEPT. OF LAM 0:: STATE ENPLOYNENT SERVICE. DISSENINATIN WTIG now STATE a NATINAL LEGISIATIW. "mm TO CMESPONDENCE. RESFGGDING TO TELEPNNE CALLS. 7-E. “RING NITN TNE STATE IOARD W EDUCATIW. F... ”RING NITN TNE STATE ADVISGY COUNCIL rm VNATIWL EDUCATIM. 7'10. RESPMDIN TO REQUESTS AD ASIIMNTS MDE IT TRE STATE IUPERINTENDENT. ,.EEO RESMDIM TO REQUESTS AND ASSIGNNENTS NADE IT TNR STATE DIRECT“ OF VOCATIMAL EDUCATIM. ,TEzo PREPARING RRMTE TO OTHER AGEKIEI MIIDR W TNR DEPAW OF DUCATIM. 7.!!! PROVIDIN PREDIACE PRINT TNR FIRID TO I” ADNINIETRATNE. T-IA. PREPARING NWELl'HlRl. 133 m a m " am: mm: H Q E .- .. § g . h E 5 " a p. ' I: = g .'. F a v- . g g 5 3 0-3 D- : .. . e: I; s 3 .- :3 g r 2: r. :- ~ .. a a B = . 3 § .. a H a .. g I: 3 1 I: 3 < S In E 7.15. PREPARE” WIDELINES m TIE MISTRATIW OF vocmaw. EDUCATIU. 7-I6. ”RING NITN COLLEAGUES IN OTNER "ITS SUG AS: SEMARY, POST' SECMART AD ADULT "ATE“. 7'17. WIMTING ACTIVITIES NIT‘II OI'NER AGENCIES OUTSIDE (I EDUCATI 7'10. CwRDINATING ACTIVITIES NITN OTNER EDUCATICIAL DIVISIN SUCN A51 SPECIAL .uca‘nm, VOCATImAL RDIAEILITATIM on NIGNER ED. 7'19. SERVI” AS A “SILTANT TO FROFESSIWAL TEAOIER ASSWIATIGS. 8. REVILHIHGEEVALUATING: E'I. EVALUATIM Hm AT THE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCT'S SITE. 3'2. MRING RECMNDATIONS ABOUT PROCIANS TO THE LCXZAL EDUCATIONAL AGENQ . 8'3. REVIENINC EXPENDITURE REMTS Fm VOCATICNIAL FUNDS SPENT ET TNE LOCAL EDUCATIWAL AGENCY. 3'6. REVIEVING FOLW'UF DATA ABOUT STUDENTS IN YOUR DISCIPLINE. E-S. REVIEWING CWTRACTED PRGSRAHS. 8'6. REVIEVIM PRWRAIB to: DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS. 3‘7 REVIENING PRNRANS Fm NANDICAPPED STUDENTS. E-E. EVALUATING ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIWS OF THE VOCATIONAL STUDENT ORGANIZATION. 0-9 REVIENING AND ANALYZING PENDING IILLS AND LFGISIATION. E-IO. REVIEWING PROPOSALS. E-II. REVIEWING APPLICATIWS Fm NEH FUNDAILE PRWRANS. E-l? REVIWING VOCATImAL EDUCATIM FACILITIES. E‘I'l. REVIEUING VOCATIGIAL EDUCATIU EQUIPNEN‘T AT THE WAL SITE. -- Ln- '4 #- E-llo. REVIENING NANPWER AND MEG NAREET DATA. 0-”. CMUCTING RESEAROI PROJECTS. 134 ROURLT DAILT NICE TEARLT “CE TEARLT OS 0'! UEEELT 4:, mm TASK E AGREE-IT SRWID IE on DISAGREE-IT W'T IE but NO OPINIW PT STRCGLT AGE‘E'IT noun: IE m p L.) N STRMLT DISAOEE-IT W'T IE DUE H .-16 o EVALUATIN VWATIGAL EDWATIN AMNISTRATGS. E-U. EVALUATIN CLERICAL AD SEQETARIAL PERSMEL IN T” OFFICE. E-IE. EVAIDATIN HOFESSINAI. STAFF NENIERS IN TOUR DIVISIDI. 8'19. EVALUATING DATA now NW A” MRGING OCCUPATICNIS. E-ZO. REVIENIE AND EVALUATIK GUIDELINES m FUNDAILE PROGRANS. 8-21 0 REVIENIM Am EVALUATING TEACHER CERTIFICATIM STANDARDS. .‘22 o REVIENIN APPLICATIONS Fa VOCATICAL TEACNING CERTIFICATES. REVIEUIN NURSES A” m TNAT ARE M-AFPROVED. REVIWING AND EVAIBATING TEAGIER EDUCATIM PRWRAFS. REVIEUIN AD EVALUATI” INSTRUCTINAL MATERIALS. REVIEWING AND EVALUATIM TEXTENES Fm ADOPTIN. 8-27. REVIEHIK AND UPDATING TOUR JOE RESPCNTSIEILITIES. S-ZE. REVIEWING AND UPDATING REPUTING PM. 8-2,. REVIEWING AND UPDATING INF SERVICES VWR DIVISIOI CAN PRWIDE. PLEASE ADD TO THE SEW COLIRUS ANT TAR” TNAT YOU PERFORN TNAT IIAVE NOT EEEN LISTED. TWR SCWING OF TNEN IN THE SAN! moo HILL IE AFPRECIATED. S-I. 9-2 . 9". 9-5. 9-6. APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX C FOLLOW-UP LETTER February 25, I976 On January 9, I976, I senf a survey insirumenf fo every chief supervisory person of business and disfribufive educafion in The UniTed Sfafes and: ifs ferrifories. To dafe, i have received 8l% of The survey insfrumenfs by refurn mail. I am sfill hoping for a higher percenfage of refurn. I know fhaf This is a busy Time of fhe year for many of us, buf I am hopeful Thaf I may receive The survey insfrumenf from you. If you did nof receive my original mailing, would you please complefe The enclosed survey insfrumenf and refurn if af The firsf opporfunify you have. I would like fo finalize my resulfs and analyze my dafa by March 5, I976. A sfudy of This nafure has never been underfaken and we will all benefif from The resulfs. I hope fhaf you will assisI me by faking Thirfy minufes of your Time To complefe fhis quesfionnaire and refurn if To me. Once fhe sfudy is complefed, an absfracf of The resulfs, summary, and conclusions will be senf fo you. Thank you for This cooperafion. Sincerely, John A. Daenzer Sfafe Supervisor Disfribufive Educafion JAD/ds PS If your insfrumenf has been mailed, kindly disregard fhis requesf. 136 APPENDIX D RESPONSE DATA APPENDIX D RESPONSE DATA STATE: BUS. ED: DIST. ED: DUAL ROLE: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado ConnecTicuT Delaware DisT. of Col. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas KenTucky Louisiana Maine Maryland MassachuseTTs Michigan MinnesoTa MisSissippi Missouri MonTana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York NorTh Carolina NorTh DakoTa Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island SouTh Carolina SouTh DakoTa Tennessee Texas UTah VermonT Virginia WashingTon WesT Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming OXXXXX XX XXX XXX X 0 XXOXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXO X XXXXX X XX XXXXX X 0 ><>< T><><>< X 0 XXXXXXXXXOXXO X X XXX XXXXX X X X XXXXX = RespondenT Non-respondenT ‘8’! X X X 0 APPENDIX E F.C.I. AND S.C.I. SCORES Appendix E FREQUENCY CHOICE INDEX SCORES TASKS: Three Service 8.0. O.E. 33?; One Two (N‘ Service or. OTher ' More FuncTion I-I 3.63 3.|6 2.93 3.23 3.47 3.29 3.38 3.30 3.07 I-2 3.3l 2.95 2.47 2.90 3.26 3.00 2.94 3.|3 3.00 I-3 2.7I 2.86 2.27 2.83 2.79 2.53 2.56 3.03 2.53 I04 2.37 2.I9 I.80 2.28 2.26 2.06 2.25 2.20 2.00 I-5 4.34 4.42 4.40 4.40 4.47 4.32 4.40 4.40 4.33 I-6 2.40 2.35 2.67 2.38 2.26 2.56 2.52 2.27 2.40 I-7 2.46 2.56 2.93 2.48 2.53 2.74 2.73 2.47 2.33 I-8 2.23 2.I2 2.53 2.08 2.2l 2.4l 2.29 2.20 2.07 I-9 2.63 2.02 2.07 2.03 2.42 2.44 2.25 2.23 2.33 I-IO 2.5I 2.35 2.40 2.28 2.47 2.56 2.48 2.87 2.33 I-II 2.9I 2.65 3.40 2.73 2.84 3.06 2.92 2.87 2.73 I-I2 3.54 3.42 3.53 3.23 3.53 3.76 3.38 3.67 3.47 I-I3 2.97 2.77 2.73 2.70 3.|6 2.82 2.73 2.97 2.93 I-I4 2.60 2.40 2.I3 2.38 2.42 2.50 4.24 2.47 2.40 I-I5 2.83 2.58 2.87 2.75 2.74 2.68 2.60 2.63 3.27 I-I6 2.77 2.58 2.53 2.60 2.37 2.86 2.65 2.53 2.87 I-I7 4.43 4.44 3.93 4.78 4.I6 3.97 4.54 4.47 3.53 I-I8 I.87 2.26 2.00 2.05 I.89 2.I8 2.04 2.I7 I.93 I.|9 2.03 2.35 2.47 2.I3 2.|| 2.47 2.I9 2.40 2.I3 I40 I41 .77 .09 .80 .60 .29 .34 .03 .40 .3I .7I .43 .06 .66 .34 .26 .49 .43 .5I .09 .86 .77 .26 .57 .23 .00 .60 .20 .40 .42 .35 .28 .98 .72 .9I .88 .05 .65 .33 .47 .60 .49 .30 .05 .56 .28 .00 .40 .28 .67 .9I .77 .56 .33 .53 .67 .33 .40 .33 .00 .80 .67 .93 .33 .73 .07 .27 .33 .87 .27 .27 .53 .87 .73 .33 .93 .53 .73 .40 .33 .73 .65 4.37 .70 3.58 .30 .37 .35 .42 .I8 II .45 .2I .93 .I6 .35 .05 .I3 .ZI .63 .74 .23 .37 .85 .79 .78 .42 .40 .26 .35 .2I .28 .I6 .I5 .I6 .30 .53 .90 .32 .63 .OO .00 .2| .05 .63 .45 .89 .98 .2| .l5 .53 .68 .26 .35 .26 .56 .79 .85 .50 .62 .80 .09 .56 .26 .7I .4l .50 .50 .44 .35 .82 .32 .65 .9I .97 .53 .38 .50 .65 .60 .56 .08 .44 .85 .33 .00 .7I .38 .77 .56 .48 .33 .38 .3! .50 .92 .83 .67 .06 .92 .60 .38 .47 .67 .30 .27 .53 .87 .87 .20 .63 .30 .57 .67 .23 .07 .07 .00 .53 .37 .57 .97 .53 .28 .60 .OO .67 .60 .47 .40 .33 .47 .40 .33 .87 .27 .40 .53 .60 .40 .67 .00 .53 .OO .53 .87 .73 .33 .40 I42 6-l 6-2 6-3 6-5 6—6 6-7 |.69 2.05 I.83 3.86 2.97 4.37 2-26 2.43 2.7I 2.94 2.69 3.7l 4.09 2.63 2.97 2.94 2.54 4.23 2.49 4.00 3.63 2.46 3.74 2.5I 2.7l l.74 2.09 2.I4 I.9I 3.98 3.09 4.33 2.35 2.84 3.60 2.98 2.86 3.88 2.63 3.02 3.5I 2.53 4.63 2.95 3.93 3.|9 2.28 4.02 2.88 2.56 2.02 .80 .27 .40 .33 .73 .07 .40 .27 .27 .20 .37 .87 .00 .67 .47 .33 .53 .27 .53 .53 .33 .47 .87 .80 .67 .47 .53 .75 .23 .95 .88 .78 .38 .25 .63 .78 .08 .78 .38 .95 .63 .85 .23 .48 .30 .75 .95 .38 .25 .73 .63 .60 .90 |.63 2.05 2.32 3.79 3.05 4.47 2.37 2.74 2.84 3.53 2.00 2.58 3.05 3.37 2.53 4.37 2.84 3.95 3.68 2.74 3.63 2.32 2.53 2.00 .68 .03 .97 .OO .97 .9I .26 .32 .85 .94 .44 .76 .76 .58 .85 .35 .50 .7I .59 .26 .50 .76 .03 .65 2.3l 3.85 2.96 4.42 2.8I 2.96 3.25 2.7! 3.96 2.56 2.98 3.23 2.56 2.63 3.77 3.38 2.23 2.75 2.67 2.44 .53 .27 .87 .83 .03 .50 .60 .73 .03 .80 .20 .97 .63 .97 .60 .67 .97 .07 .70 .90 .70 .73 .90 |.4O l.60 2.33 4.73 2.20 2.73 2.73 4.00 3.40 3.27 3.73 2.67 2.47 5.00 2.47 4.73 3.93 2.60 3.27 2.80 2.87 2.40 I43 6-8 6-IO 6-ll 6-l2 6-I3 6-l4 6-I5 7-IO 2.43 2.54 l.20 I.49 |.54 l.23 3.37 3.80 2.40 2.66 2.29 6.57 2.69 2.83 3.7I 4.54 2.49 4.34 2.80 2.26 4.06 2.83 2.80 3.|4 3.2I 2.74 6.09 6.53 2.98 2.79 3.72 4.88 2.86 3.05 2.65 4.37 3.40 3.37. .00 .47 .33 .07 .73 .80 .40 .67 .80 .33 .00 .87 .07 .53 .33 .73 .93 .67 .00 .07 .20 .60 .47 .33 .07 .48 .73 .20 .75 .48 .45 .63 .23 .73 .95 .58 .OO .60 .08 .43 .25 .85 .50 .58 .88 .43 .68 .58 .40 .20 .35 .84 .63 .95 .89 .42 .53 .68 .32 .37 .84 .89 .74 .58 .89 .53 .37 .32 .68 .47 .26 .42 .95 .32 .89 .00 2.7I 3.06 2.74 2.00 3.29 4.00 2.85 3.06 2.59 6.26 6.7l 2.29 2.84 4.09 5.03 2.85 4.32 2.9I 2.65 4.26 3.24 3.06 3.24 .54 .67 .29 .00 .46 .48 .40 .23 .60 .83 .58 .94 .52 .54 .73 .77 .7I .7I .67 .23 .77 .60 .00 .08 .92 .08 .80 .23 .70 .37 .33 .60 .33 .03 .87 .73 .37 .03 .53 .87 .90 .87 .77 .40 .07 .50 .43 .97 .03 .07 3.47 3.00 3.53 3.27 6.l3 6.60 3.07 2.73 3.60 4.47 2.93 4.87 2.47 2.47 4.93 4.00 3.47 144 8-9 8-l0 8-Il 8-I2 8-l3 8-l4 8-I5 8-I6 8-l7 8-l8 8-l9 8-20 8-2l 8—22 8-23 8-24 8-25 8-26 8-27 8—28 8-29 .03 .09 .54 .37 .3I .74 .80 .40 .66 .9I .66 .7I .94 .97 .43 .7I .97 .00 .7I .49 .89 .77 .43 .7I .06 .74 .40 .03 .79 .28 .60 .5I .53 .40 .79 .84 .23 .09 .42 .42 .07 .67 .72 .23 .02 .79 .56 .2l .40 .35 .70 .33 .00 .67 .87 .67 .40 .80 .93 .00 .27 .00 .00 .53 .07 .60 .00 .33 .OO .27 .73 .OO .07 .87 .OO .53 .73 .73 .67 .00 .03 .55 .50 .43 .63 .58 .63 .70 .05 .80 .43 .48 .95 .20 .65 .75 .68 .88 .33 .80 .60 .28 .70 .38 .93 .43 .90 2.95 .347 3.26 3.37 I.95 I.63 2.42 2.37 3.05 2.68 2.53 2.89 2.2l 2.79 3.32 I.95 2.42 .79 .06 .65 .50 .76 .7I .65 .85 .89 .2l .38 .59 .00 .62 .68 .40 .97 .65 .53 .03 .59 .4I .76 .65 .35 .85 .02 .48 .54 .44 .63 .54 .44 .60 .2l .00 .46 .48 .85 .06 .56 .58 .92 .85 .75 .56 .52 .44 .3I .OO .73 .50 .93 .00 .20 .43 .30 .40 .47 .53 .97 .20 .07 .30 .50 .33 .47 .43 .40 .57 .43 .57 .37 .33 .63 .23 .33 .73 .73 .47 .80 .40 .00 .60 .47 .67 .07 .93 .67 .87 .33 .02 .33 .07 .53 .40 .80 .80 .07 .93 .93 .47 .60 .00 I45 TASK: SIGNIFICANCE CHOICE INDEX SCORES: Dual Three Service B.E. D.E. Role One Two or . Service or. OTher More Funchon I-I 4.5I 4.47 4.33 4.45 4.47 4.47 4.55 4.53 4.00 l-2 4.29 4.40 4.27 4.40 4.2l 4.32 4.40 4.40 4.40 I-3 4.46 4.63 3.67 4.30 4.53 4.47 4.45 4.60 4.60 l-4 4.29 4.49 3.47 4.08 4.47 4.32 4.38 4.40 3.53 I-5 4.46 4.53 4.60 4.33 4.63 4.68 4.48 4.70 4.27 I-6 4.7l 4.49 4.80 4.50 4.58 4.79 4.65 4.67 4.47 I-7 4.400 4.28 4.67 4.05 4.Il 4.53 4.I0 4.53 4.07 l-8 4.03 4.47 4.67 4.I0 4.32 4.62 4.2l 4.67 4.07 I—9 3.80 3.5I 3.l8 3.35 3.58 3.79 3.50 3.87 3.l3 l-IO 4.3l 4.33 4.33 4.I5 4.37 4.50 4.I7 4.63 4.20 I-Il 3.74 3.93 3.87 3.85 3.53 4.03 3.75 4.03 3.80 l-l2 4.57 4.65 4.07 4.45 4.74 4.76 4.63 4.70 4.40 l-I3‘ 4.37 4.58 4.40 4.33 4.47 4.65 4.46 4.47 4.53 l-I4 4.40 4.40 4.00 4.I5 4.63 4.38 4.35 4.40 4.I3 I-I5 4.09 4.I2 4.20 3.98 4.32 4.I8 4.I3 4.IO 4.I3 l-I6 4.54 4.79 4.80 4.70 4.63 4.74 4.67 4.67 4.87 l-I7' 4.ll 4.47 4.00 4.I8 4.32 4.32 4.27 4.50 3.73 I.l8 3.86 4.53 4.27 4.33 4.Il 4.2l 4.IO 4.43 4.27 l-I9 4.09 4.58 4.20 4.23 4.00 4.65 4.27 4.43 4.33 I46 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6' 2-7 2-I3 4.74 4.63 4.20 4.03 4.74 3.97 4.49 4.26 4.37 4.06 3.74 3.94 3.97 4.26 4.I7 4.20 4.3l 4.23 4.II 4.03 3.5l 4.37 3.9l 4.26 .88 .7O .23 .02 .60 .60 .37 .60 .53 .35 .53 .5I .30 .2l .47 .85 .65 .65 .5I .37 .63 .84 .53 .47 .00 .80 .73 .53 .67 .33 .93 .73 .67 .40 .67 .27 .20 .20 .80 .00 .60 .87 .80 .60 .40 .40 .80 .47 .83 .45 .78 .85 .60 .55 .28 .40 .00 .53 .98 .95 .05 .08 .95 .85 .68 .33 .48 .35 .IO 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.63 4.37 4.47 4.53 4.2! 3.58 4.32 4.26 4.2l 4.05 3.68 4.32 3.84 3.58 4.53 .45 4.42 4.9I 4.82 4.47 4.29 4.76 3.88 4.50 4.50 4.56 4.29 4.26 3.79 4.29 4.29 4.65 4.59 4.29 4.35 3.9l 4.53 4.4l 4.2l 4.50 .8I .60 .96 .69 .OO .52 .29 .42 .27 .23 .65 .k3 .2! .23 .08 .04 .08 .96 .25 .98 .58 .52 .46 .06 .42 .87 .67 .00 .83 .63 .53 .43 .57 .60 .30 .60 .33 .20 .07 .OO .30 .20 .37 .40 .33 .53 .40 .30 .53 .87 .73 .20 .60 .80 .93 .67 .53 .47 .67 .53 .67 .40 .53 .53 .20 .20 .60 .27 .93 .40 .27 .87 .47 I47 4-6 4-7 4-8 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 .26 .9I .20 .74 .49 .43 .03 .94 .00 .06 .29 .20 .00 .9I .00 .40 .86 .37 .09 .20 .74 .46 .09 .23 .63 .35 .77 .5| .65 .23 .28 .47 .53 .86 .49 .26 .47 .28 .60 .OO .65 .40 .83 .9I .44 .56 .67 .20 .27 .OO .73 .73 .60 .60 .47 .07 .40 .53 .33 .73 .73 .60 .80 .67 .OO .67 .47 .27 .60 .27 .93 3.40 3.93 4.60 4.48 3.98 4.00 4.08 4.38 3.98 4.28 4.03 3.90 4.38 4.00 4.48 4.05 4.48 4.23 3.80 3.58 .32 .37 .42 .95 .53 .42 .53 .26 .53 .42 .05 .63 .84 .26 .2I .32 .42 .OO .63 .47 .37 .32 .05 .05 .7! .09 .OO .79 .32 .68 .9I .94 .26 .47 .82 .24 .09 .4I .00 .68 .79 .59 .35 .26 .9I .88 .38 .82 .3| .2| .33 .92 .63 .3I .56 .04 .02 .46 .83 .29 .96 .96 .27 .46 .90 .52 .33 .33 .94 .65 .38 .67 .23 .20 .60 .20 .50 .83 .97 .97 .43 .02 .30 .33 .33 .63 .43 .30 .73 .87 .67 .73 .87 .20 .67 .27 .00 .20 .73 .67 .20 .27 .20 .80 .67 .60 .83 .80 .73 .60 .40 .40 .47 .53 .27 I48 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-ll 7-l2 7-I3 7-I4 .7l .57 .3I .40 .94 .80 .94 .63 .46 .54 .74 .86 .80 .60 .5I .60 .03 .3I .37 .40 .20 .00 .3I .77 .83 .97 .79 .00 .05 .42 .63 .70 .72 .47 .37 .3I .67 .65 .95 .30 .40 .60 .79 .47 .37 .5| .2l .95 .30 .33 .67 .07 .27 .00 .33 .87 .80 .80 .73 .33 .93 .67 .73 .47 .33 .27 .67 .87 .73 .27 .80 .53 .47 .53 .95 .58 .70 .55 .95 .45 .55 .95 .55 .50 .45 .85 .50 .90 .25 .43 .00 .47 .2l .74 .63 .63 .95 .37 .68 .79 .2l .2l .89 .84 .79 .2I .42 .32 .26 .00 .47 .05 .68 .97 .82 .9I .79 .7I .47 .68 .7I .88 .OO .62 .62 .65 .50 .62 .7I .56 .86 .24 .56 ..O6 .97 .24 .94 .65 .67 .83 .2l .88 .88 .56 .65 .67 .04 .02 .00 .67 .60 .8I .27 .23 .50 .60 .35 .23 .23 .33 .60 .47 .20 .67 .57 .60 .33 .23 .97 .67 .53 .93 .30 .67 .63 .63 .97 .33 .87 .83 .20 .87 .00 .67 .87 .20 .67 .67 .80 .67 .53 .72 .80 .20 .33 .20 .80 .60 .53 .60 .87 .53 .53 .47 I49 8-I0 8-II 8-l2 8-l3 8-I4 8-l5 8-l6 8—I7 8-I8 8-I9 8-20 8-2I 8-22 8-23 8-24 8—25 8-26 8-27 8-28 8-29 .5I .63 .74 '.2o .54 .06 .oo .20 .43 .34 .34 .29 .69 .9I .23 .69 .40 .40 .49 .69 .86 .23 .34 .46 .46 .34 .49 .56 .65 .77 .64 .63 .72 .70 .56 .30 .40 .47 .30 .35 .5I .9I .40 .2l .74 .23 .42 .42 .02 .I9 .47 .37 .65 .5I .47 .63 .73 .73 .27 .60 .40 .87 .87 .07 .20 .47 .47 .40 .27 .47 .67 .67 .OO .93 .53 .53 .47 .67 .93 .63 .63 .oo .38 .65 .95 .95 .33 .20 .28 .48 .40. .35 .33 .aa .40 .20 .38 .48 .43 .88 .60 .33 .35 .53 .48 .25 .38 .47 .53 .37 .47 .58 .53 .26 .32 .58 .58 .37 .37 .42 .68 .84 .84 .32 .32 .47 .84 .37 .37 .42 .2I .42 .58 .68 .56 .76 .9I .59 .OO .00 .26 .06 .26 .35 .24 .29 .53 .74 .32 .24 .35 .32 .44 .47 .79 .62 .24 .24 .56 .62 .38 .7I .56 .63 .94 .46 .60 .90 .88 .25 .44 .58 .44 .44 .38 .79 .92 .54 .3I .42 .46 .06 .67 .35 .38 .40 .48 .42 .56 .67 .67 .53 .47 .60 .83 .77 .37 .30 .27 .27 .23 .43 .70 .33 .20 .OO .33 .40 .43 .43 .23 .30 .70 .50 .33 .53 .40 .73 .53 .33 .00 .27 .33 .07 .40 .20 .53 .93 .20 .33 .93 .47 .53 .47 .93 .87 .53 .20 .27 .67 .27 .60 APPENDIX F Appendix F RANK ORDER OF TASKS BY FCI AND SCI SCORES FOR BUSINESS EDUCATION, DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION AND DUAL ROLE STATE SUPERVISORS BuSiness DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI PLANNING AND ORGANIZING: Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank l-I. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in designing new 7 I0 37 38 48 43 faciliTies. l—2. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in remodeling exisT- 33 40 53 56 78 50 ing faciliTies. I-3. Planning and organizing The sTaTe conference for The voca- 62 I7 57 I4 95 IOO TionaI sTudenT organizaTion. I-4. Planning and organizing The sTaTes parTicipaTion aT The 97 4O IIO 36 I20 II3 naTional conference of The voca- Tional sTudenT organizaTion. I-5. ATTending sTaff meeTings To plan and organize your acTiviTies. 7 l7 6 26 8 22 l-6. Developing an annual plan of work for your uniT, division, 94 3 9| 36 68 2 or service. ' I-7. Developing a managemenT-by- objecTive plan for shorT- 87 8| 79 73 48 I3 range goals. I-8. Developing a managemenT—by- objecTive plan for long-range I07 75 II3 38 73 I3 goals. I-9. Developing objecTives for local educaTional agency's 72 IO |I6 I22 l07 l26 programs. l-IO. Developing performance objec- Tives for your division or 80 36 9| 66 82 43 services. I-Il. Developing monTth objecTives for your program of work. 47 I03 72 IO4 29 85 I-I2. Planning and organizing work- shops and conferences. 29 7 25 8 22 I3 I5I I52 Business DisTribuTive ' Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank I-l3. Planning program sTandards of quaIiTy for local educaTionaI 4| 28 65 22 62 38 agencies programs. l-I4. AssisTing in planning annual vocaTional educaTion confer— 74 23 88 52 I03 73 ences. I-I5. AssisTing in planning career developmenT acTiviTies and 50 69 78 96 53 58 maTerials. l-I6. Developing sTandards and guidelines for fundable 57 8 78 2 73 2 programs. l-l7 Serving as The sTaTe advisor for The vocaTional sTudenT 5 62 5 38 I2 73 organizaTion. I-l8. Planning The Three year and five-year plan. I|8 95 I05 26 II2 50 I-l9. Planning budgeTs for your service. Il4 69 9| 22 78 58 DEVELOPING PROGRAMS & PERSONNEL 2—I. ConsulTing visiTs To schools To assisT wiTh new or on-going 3 I 7 l 6 | programs. 2—2. ConsulTing visiTs To schools To assisT wiTh in—service for || 4 25 5 I7 23 program personnel. 2-3. AssisTing wiTh The planning and developmenT of area 53 5| 9| 78 86 30 vocaTionaI—Technical educa- Tion cenTers. 2-4. AssisTing wiTh The planning of programs joinle operaTed by 74 75 I00 98 82 73 several school disTricTs. 2—5. ATTending in-service confer- ences and workshops for voc- 35 I 49 I7 30 2 aTIonal educaTion In your discipline. I53 Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 2—6. ATTending classes and workshops for your graduaTe program aT a 99 87 67 85 ||2 94 college or universiTy. 2—7. ATTending professional devel- opmenT programs in vocaTionaI 38 I3 54 I7 59 23 educaTion. 2-8. Developing curriculum and insTrucTional maTerials. 3O 45 55 57 I7 l3 2-9. Developing in-service programs I for local Teachers and admin- 33 28 44 I7 48 43 isTraTors. 2-l0. Developing in-service workshops for sTaTe officers of The voc- 2| 62 7| 26 86 8O aTional sTudenT organizaTion. 2-Il. ConducTing workshops for sTaTe officers of The vocaTional 89 73 96 62 l23 94 sTudenT organizaTion. 2-l2. AssisTing and developing in- service programs for your III I03 I27 I20 IO7 IOO clerical and secreTariaI sTaff 2-I3. Developing The program of acTiviTies for The sTaTe con- 69 9O 75 3O 95 ll6 ference of The vocaTional sTu- denT organizaTion. 2-I4. Developing programs To in- service local chapTer advisors of The vocaTional sTudenT organ- 99 87 87 68 86 '00 izaTion. 2-l5. Developing piloT, demonsTraTor and exemplary programs. IO3 45 99 8| 53 50 2—l6. Developing programs for dis- advanTaged sTudenTs. 80 58 IO7 89 IOO 58 2-l7. Developing programs for handicapped sTudenTs. 89 5| I|8 IO4 IOO 58 2—l8. Developing disTricT and regional conferences. 8O 6O 78 85 73 90 I54 Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI STAFFING: Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank '3él. Making recommendafions for hiring new sTaTe sTaff llO 36 IOO 76 ll9 73 employees. 3-2. InTerviewing and hiring sTaTe sTaff employees. |I9 48 ll9 84 I23 IO8 3—3 AssisTing local educaTional agencies in locaTing quali- 57 62 29 38 86 85 fied and cerTified vocaTionaI sTaff members. 3—4. AssisTing wiTh and hiring clerical and secreTarial IO3 75 IOO 62 Il8 90 sTaff. 3—5. AssisTing wiTh locaTing and hiring adminisTraTive sTaff l24 ||6 I24 l|5 l28 IO8 for your vocaTional division. COMPLIANCE: 4—I. Reviewing reporTs and forms submiTTed by local educaTional 9 28 I6 8 I6 38 agencies. 4—2. CompleTing reporTs for your sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. I6 40 20 30 8 38 4-3. CompleTing reporTs for The U. S. Office of EducaTion. 74 92 79 57 86 90 4-4. AssisTing wiTh The developmenT of The sTaTe plan for vocaTion I08 45 96 I4 62 30 educaTion. ' 4—5. ConducTing and assisTing wiTh sTaTe plan hearings. l22 I22 l22 Il7 l20 IOO 4—6. Preparing and assisTing wiTh The annual descripTive reporT. ll5 92 ll4 62 95 58 4-7. Preparing quarTerly reporTs. lll l24 III I25 82 l25 4—8. AssisTing wiTh preparing The annual sTaTisTical reporT. l20 IO3 I2I 96 86 73 I55 Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: PUBLIC REALTIQNS: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 5-l. Working wiTh professional organizaTions. l8 l3 l4 3 62 8 5-2. Preparing and disseminaTing newsleTTers. 4| 58 42 30 IO7 94 5-3. DisseminaTing maTeriaIs and informaTion. 6 2| 9 8 8 22 5-4. WriTing arTicIes for journals and publicaTions. I03 75 9| 92 95 IO8 5-5. Serving as a speaker aT coop- eraTive educaTion employer- 89 9O 40 78 95 II3 employee banqueTs. 5-6. Serving as a speaker for ouT— side agencies. 62 8| 6| 73 27 62 5-7. SoliciTing business and indus—r Try supporT, parTucnpaTion and 49 73 22 38 34 68 involvemenf in vocaTionaI ed- ucaTion. 5—8. Working wiTh a sTaTe level advisory commiTTee for your field. 67 4O 49 26 53 38 5—9 Working wiTh commercial publishers and equipmenT 2| 5| 57 l08 40 I22 manufacTurers. 5-I0 DisseminaTing informaTion abouT The vocaTional sTudenT II 60 I7 36 I7 43 organizaTion. 5—II Developing and disseminaTing brochures. 72 8| 74 92 78 94 5-I2 Developing and organizing public relaTions acTiviTies 4| 92 46 76 86 94 for The vocaTional sTudenT 5-l3 PromoTing vocaTionaI educaTion wiTh groups ouTside of educa— 44 62 24 38 22 22 Tion. 5-l5. 6—2. 6-3. 6-4. 6-5. 6-6. 6-7. 6—8. 6-9. I56 Developing handbooks and maTerials for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTions. ArTiculaTing and working wiTh oTher divisions wiThin The sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. Serving as a member of The board of direcTors or execu- Tive board of associaTions. FINANCING & BUDGETING: AssisTing schools in meeTing sTandards To qualify for funding. AssisTing schools in receiving equipmenT funding. BudgeTing funds To meeT The annual plan of work. MainTaining financial records for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion. MainTaining financial records for your discipline. Developing funding criTeria for programs. NegoTiaTing conTracTs wiTh agencies. NegoTiaTing proposals. Analyzing financial daTa and reporTed expendiTures. Preparing financial expend- iTure reporTs Preparing budgeTs and end—of- The year reporTs. Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 77 8| 84 73 IOO 9O 9 23 4 l7 6 I3 83 95 52 IOO 73 73 I6 28 IS 8 III I3 27 69 36 52 26 3O 87 5| IOO 66 53 50 20 IO3 I3 92 59 I08 80 ll7 55 I06 68 I26 62 69 77 49 78 50 l2l |23 llO ll9 73 8O 89 l09 67 85 40 43 77 Il4 6| 92 26 62 |O9 l2l Ill l09 3O IOO l22 |l9 I20 IOO IO7 68 I57 Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 6-l2. ConducTing cosT-benefiT sTudies. I29 I25 l25 l26 I23 I25 6—l3. AudiTing budgeTs and records aT The local educaTional |26 I28 I28 I28 I03 l28 agency. 6—l4. AudiTing federal granTs To local educaTional agencies. I25 l25 I26 I27 l20 I24 6-I5. AudiTing consTrucTion projecTs aT The local educaTional l28 I29 l29 I29 l29 I29 agency. COORDINATING & COMMUNICATING: 7+I. MeeTing regularly wiTh The Teacher educaTors in your 32 I7 23 5 I7 2 discipline. 7—2. Sharing informaTion and maTer- iaIs wiTh your Teacher educa— I9 8 l2 4 l5 2 Tors. 7—3. AssisTing wiTh The placemenT of undergraduaTe and graduaTe 94 IO3 37 38 86. 94 Teachers. 7—4. Working closely wiTh agencies ouTside of The deparTmenT of educaTion, such as: The sTaTe 69 95 34 57 40 43 depT. of labor or sTaTe employ- menT service. 7-5. DisseminaTing informaTion abouT sTaTe or naTional IegislaTion. l02 I00 60 8| 53 80 7-6. Responding To correspondence. 2 6 2 7 2 l3 7-7. Responding To Telephone calls. I l0 | 8 I 8 7-8. Working wiTh The sTaTe board of educaTion. 67 II3 49 I02 30 30 7—9. Working wiTh The sTaTe advisory council for vocaTional educa- 50 75 63 68 62 43 Tion. 7el0. Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe 2| 62 2| 52 l2 50 superinTendenT. 7-I3. 7-I4. 7"5. 7-I7. 7-l8. 7-I9. 158 Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe direcTor of vocaTional educa- Tion. Preparing reporTs To oTher agencies ouTside of The deparT- menT of educaTion. Providing feedback from The field To your adminisTraTors. Preparing newsleTTers. Preparing guidelines for The adminisTraTion of vocaTional educaTion. Working wiTh colleagues in oTher uniTs such as: secondary, posT-secondary and aduIT educa- Tion. CoordinaTing acTiVlTies wiTh oTher agencies ouTside of educaTion. CoordinaTing acTiviTies wiTh oTher educaTionaI divisions such as: special educaTion, vocaTional rehabiliTaTion, or higher educaTion. Serving as a consuITanT To professional Teacher assoc— iaTions. REVIEWING & EVALUATING: EvalbaTing programs aT The local educaTional agency's Making recommendaTions abouT programs To The local educa- ' Tional agency. Reviewing expendiTure reporTs for vocaTionaI funds spenT by The local educaTionaI agency. Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 4 36 3 l8 4 I3 83 l20 57 IO9 4O 85 7 23 IO 38 3 8 53 5| 44 89 |02 l25 I03 8| 7| 57 48 62 I4 36 8 30 5 2 50 l02 29 8| 26 23 53 99 3| I02 30 3O 36 87 37 68 38 23 IS IO I8 24 I7 8 ll 4 II 8 I4 8 77 IO3 IOO III 68 50 I59 I Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 8-4. Reviewing follow-up daTa abouT sTudenTs in your discipline. 97 5| 75 8 82 22 8-5. Reviewing conTracTed programs. IOI Il5 86 ll7 59 38 8-6. Reviewing programs for dis- advanTaged sTudenTs. 6O 62 84 II3 I03 85 8-7. Reviewing programs for handi- capped sTudenTs. 53 62 88 ll4 03 85 8-8. EvaluaTIng acTiviTies and operaTions of The vocaTional 3O 73 I8 24 48 68 sTudenT organizaTion. 8-9. Reviewing and analyzing pend- ing bills and IegislaTion. 69 8| 6| 68 4O 58 8—IO. Reviewing proposals. 37 5| 33 52 34 3O 8—II. Reviewing applicaTions for new fundable programs. 47 2| 42 38 40 30 8-l2. Reviewing vocaTional educa- Tion faciliTies. 26 32 25 68 4O 38 8-l3. Reviewing vocaTional educa- Tion equipmenT aT The local 2| 32 25 62 22 50 siTe. 8—I4. Reviewing manpower and labor markeT daTa. 49 40 4O 30 38 3O 8—I5. ConducTing research projecTs. II5 IIO II5 I06 72 IOO 8-I6. EvaluaTing vocaTionaI educa- Tion adminisTraTors. l27 |27 l22 l23 |l2 IOO 8-l7. EvaluaTIng clerical and secre- Tarial personnel in your office. 62 48 67 8| 86 73 8-l8. EvaluaTIng professional sTaff members in your division. II5 IIO I06 Il2 II2 80 8-l9. EvaluaTIng daTa abouT new and emerging occupaTions. 4O 23 46 78 24 23 8-20. Reviewing and evaluaTing guidelines for fundable 62 23 64 50 62 23 programs. 8-2l. 8-22. 8-23. 8-24. 8-25. 5-25 {3-27. 8r28. 8—29. Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher cerTificaTion sTand— ards. Reviewing applicaTions for . vocaTionaI Teaching cerTifi— caTes. Reviewing courses and programs ThaT are non-approved. Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher educaTion programs. Reviewing and evaluaTing insTrucTional maTerials. Reviewing and evaluaTing Tebeooks for adopTion. Reviewing and updaTing your job responsibiliTies. Reviewing and updaTing reporTing forms. Reviewing and updaTing The services your division can provide. I60 Business DisTribuTive Dual EducaTion: EducaTion: Role: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 83 I3 79 50 ll2 30 49 llO 34 98 I07 IOO 57 95 IO7 l24 53 80 89 48 88 38 Il2 62 2| 32 32 57 22 62 III Il7 IO7 II5 I23 l28 60 I7 67 3O 62 I3 94 32 96 38 68 62 38 I3 48 I4 40 43 APPENDIX G Appendix G Rank Order of Tasks by FCI and SCI One, Two, and Three or more STaff Members Three or One Two More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank PLANNING & ORGANIZING: l—l. AssisTing local educaTionaI agencies in designing new 32 20 28 28 28 28 faciliTies. I-2. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in remodeling exisT— 47 27 36 67 46 54 ing faciliTies. I-3. Planning and organizing The sTaTe conference for The 53 45 6| 20 86 38 vocaTionaI sTudenT organi- zaTion. l-4. Planning and organizing The sTaTes parTicipaTion aT The naTional conference of The 99 77 96 28 ll6 54 vocaTional sTudenT organi- ' zaTion. I-5. ATTending sTaff meeTings To plan and organize your 8 38 3 IO 5 ll acTiviTies. l-6. Developing an annual plan of work for your uniT, division, 90 IO 96 I6 82 3 or service. - - l-7. Developing a managemenT-by- objecTive plan for shorT- 83 BI 73 72 65 26 range goals. I—8. Developing a managemenT-by- objecTive plan for long-range Il2 72 l02 52 IOI l8 goals. l-9. Developing objecTives for local educaTional agency's Il5 I22 80 IO7 97 I4 programs. I-IO. Developing performance objec- Tives for your division or 99 66 78 45 82 33 services. l-ll. Developing monThly objecTives for your program of work. 63 IO4 57 Ill 40 93 I-l2. Planning and organizing work- shops and conferences. 32 20 24 4 l9 5 I62 163 Three or One Two More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank I-l3. Planning program sTandards of qualiTy for local educaTionaI 64 38 4O 28 59 I5 agencies programs. I-l4. AssisTing in planning annual vocaTional educaTion confer- 9O 66 80 IO 89 47 ences. I-l5. AssisTing in planning career developmenT acTiviTies and 60 89 63 52 69 79 maTerials. I-l6. Developing sTandards and guidelines for fundable 74 2 87 I0 52 8 programs. I-l7. Serving as The sTaTe advisor for The vocaTional sTudenT 3 56 I0 52 I3 54 organizaTion. l-l8. Planning The Three-year and five-year plan. II3 38 II8 77 IIO 79 l-I9. Planning budgeTs for your service. IIO 52 l|4 9| 96 IS DEVELOPING PROGRAMS & PERSONNEL 2-l. ConsulTing visiTs To schools To assisT wiTh new or on-going 4 I 7 4 5 I programs. 2-2. ConsulTing visiTs To schools To assisT wiTh in-service for 2| 20 22 4 l7 2 program personnel. 2-3. AssisTing wiTh The planning and developmenT of area 97 '09 87 77 52 38 vocaTIonaI-Technical educa- Tion cenTers. 2-4. AssisTing wiTh The planning of programs joinle operaTed by 93 IO4 80 97 89 58 several school disTricTs. 2-5. ATTending in-service confer- ences and workshops for voc— 36 4 43 4 35 5 aTional educaTion In your discipline. 2-7. 2-8. 2-l0. 2-II. I64 ATTending classes and workshops for your graduaTe program aT a college or universiTy. ATTending professional devel- OpmenT programs In vocaTional educaTion. Developing curriculum and insTrucTionaI maTerials. Developing in-service programs for local Teachers and admin- isTraTors. Developing in-service workshops for sTaTe officers of The voc- aTional sTudenT organizaTion. ConducTing workshops for sTaTe officers of The vocaTionaI sTudenT organizaTion. AssisTing and developing in- service programs for your clerical and secreTariaI sTaff Developing The program of acTiviTies for The sTaTe con- ference of The vocaTlonal sTu- denT organizaTion. Developing programs To in- service local chapTer advisors of The vocaTional sTudenT org- anizaTion. Developing piloT, demonsTraTion and exemplary programs. Developing programs for dis- advanTaged sTudenTs. Developing programs for handicapped sTudenTs. Developing disTricT and regional conferences. One Two Three or More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 86 69 l02 77 77 l08 45 7 40 IO 59 33 29 47 45 45 36 33 37 27 38 28 39 26 69 66 63 20 82 58 I05 86 87 67 IO9 65 ll9 ll7 l23 IO7 |22 I4 56 89 80 52 IOI 79 89 93 96 62 89 86 93 8| I02 67 89 38 99 69 ll2 87 97 58 I09 77 l|2 IO4 IO4 59 97 93 73 77 59 58 3-3. 3-4 3-5. 4-2. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. 4-6. 4-7. 4-8. I65 STAFFING: Making recommendaTions for hiring new sTaTe sTaff employees. InTerviewing and hiring sTaTe sTaff employees. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in locaTing qual- ified and cerTified vocaTion- al sTaff members. AssisTing wiTh and hiring clerical and secreTarial sTaff. AssisTing wiTh locaTing and hiring adminisTraTive sTaff for your vocaTionaI division. COMPLIANCE: Reviewing reporTs and forms submiTTed by local educaTional agencies. CompleTing reporTs for your sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. CompleTing reporTs for The U. S. Office of EducaTion. AssisTing wiTh The developmenT of The sTaTe plan for vocaTion educaTion. ConducTing and assisTing wiTh sTaTe plan hearings. Preparing and assisTing wiTh The annual descripTive reporT. Preparing quarTerly reporTs. AssisTing wiTh preparing The annual sTaTisTical reporT. Three or One Two More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Il7 I04 92 52 IO6 l5 I24 II2 II3 77 IIO 23 42 66 38 52 52 58 II3 72 69 98 IIO 50 I27 l23 II8 IO7 l24 l02 I4 l3 9 20 I6 26 ll 35 24 20 I3 45 67 72 96 95 86 79 93 20 96 37 IO3 33 I20 l20 I25 ll7 I23 ll9 IIO 77 l|2 45 II? 83 l05 I25 92 Il4 l20 l26 ll6 99 l2| 95 II8 94 5-3. 5-4. 5-5. 5-6. 5-8. 5-l3. I66 PUBLIC RELATIONS: Working wiTh professional organizaTions. Preparing and disseminaTing newsleTTers. DisseminaTing maTerials and informaTion. WriTing arTicIes for journals and publicaTions. Serving as a speaker aT coop- eraTive educaTion employer- employee banqueTs. Serving as a speaker for ouT- side agencies. SoliciTing business and indus- Try supporT, parTicipaTion and involvemenT in vocaTional ed- ucaTion. Working wiTh a sTaTe level advisory commiTTee for your field. Working wiTh commercial publishers and equipmenT manufacTurers. DisseminaTing informaTion abouT The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion. Developing and disseminaTing brochures. Developing and organizing public relaTions acTiviTies for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion. PromoTing vocaTionaI educaTion wiTh groups ouTside of educa- Tion. One Two Three or More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank I8 4 I6 20' I3 3 56 69 45 37 50 54 9 I3 3 20 7 II I03 89 87 62 IO6 l02 69 86 '63 77 52 IOI_ 56 77 57 7| 49 65 4o 56 24 20 '23 79 56 3o 40 37 63 38 27 89 49 87 36 III IS 47 IO IO I9 70 69 85 7| 98 8| 86 5| IOO 45 62 52 89 32 3o 30 67 26 45 5-I4. 6-5. 6-6. I67 Developing handbooks and maTerials for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTions. ArTiculaTing and working wiTh oTher divisions wiThin The sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. Serving as a member of The board of direcTors or execu- Tive board of associaTions. FINANCING & BUDGETING: AssisTing schools in meeTing sTandards To qualify for funding. AssisTing schools in receiving equipmenT funding. BudgeTing funds To meeT The annual plan of work. MainTaining financial records for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion. MainTaining financial records for your discipline. Developing funding criTeria for programs. NegoTiaTing conTracTs wiTh agencies. NegoTiaTing proposals. Analyzing financial daTa and reporTed expendiTures. Preparing financial expend- iTure reporTs. Preparing budgeTs and end—of- The-year reporTs. One Two Three or More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 83 77 73 52 89 94 IO I3 7 37 4 ll 60 8| 57 9| 78‘ I4 I5 I3 l4 IO 9 23 27 66 I7 28 3O 50 IO3 52 63 45 89 65 I9 I08 I9 77 I9 I02 69 II5 92 ll8 44 IO8 74 45 73 87 7| 47 ll7 ll9 II3 I23 ll4 Ill 83 72 57 9| 67 99 63 93 69 II3 40 83 IO7 ll ll5 II8 65 III |20 IIO II8 I03 II8 l02 I68 Three or One Two More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 6642. COnducTing'cosT-benefiT sTudies I26 l26 l28 I27 l27 l25 6-l3. AudiTing budgeTs and records aT The local educaTional |27 I29 I27 l27 l24 |27 agency. 6-I4. AudiTing federal granTs To local educaTional_agencies. l24 I27 l24 l24 l28 I28 6-l5. AudiTing consTrucTion projecTs aT The local educaTional l29 l29 l29 l29 l29 l29 agency. COORDINATING & COMMUNICATING: 7-I. MeeTing regularly wiTh The Teacher educaTors in your I9 7 3O 8 29 ll discipline. 7-2. Sharing InformaTion and maTer- ials wiTh your Teacher educa- l5 6 l5 3 l2 9 Tors. 7-3. AssisTing wiTh The placemenT of undergraduaTe and graduaTe 78 56 54 67 52 l08 Teachers. 7-4. Working closely wiTh agencies ouTside of The deparTmenT of educaTion, such as: The sTaTe 42 66 63 67 40 79 depT. of IabOr Or sTaTe employ- menT service. 7-5. DisseminaTing informaTion abouT sTaTe or naTionaI IegislaTion. 74 93 7I 74 78 94 7-6. Responding To correspondence. 2 7 2 l 2 l8 7-7. Responding To Telephone calls. I IO l 2 I IS 7-8. Working wiTh The sTaTe board of educaTion. 3| 56 30 IOI l08 l2| 7—9. Working wiTh The sTaTe advisory council for vocaTional educa- 5| 38 34 77 97 86 Tion. 7-IO. Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe 24 72 I7 67 I0 33 superinTendenT. I69 Three or More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank One Two 7-ll. Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe direcTor of vocaTionaI educa- 5 20 3 37 3 '8 Tion. 7-I2. Preparing reporTs To oTher agencies ouTside of The deparT- menT of educaTion. 49 I04 96 l2l 52 ll9 7-I3. Providing feedback from The field To your adminisTraTors. 6 IO 6 52 6 26 7-l4. Preparing newsleTTers. 67 IOO 5| 62 50 90 7-I5. Preparing guidelines for The adminisTraTion of vocaTional 78 50 92 9| 7| 7O educaTion. 7-l6. Working wiTh colleagues in oTher uniTs such as: secondary, 7 25 l2 28 7 26 posT-secondary and adulT educaTion. 7-I7. CoordinaTing acTiviTies wiTh oTher agencies ouTside of 35 66 43 87 3| 9O educaTion. 7-l8. CoordinaTing acTiviTies wiTh oTher educaTional divisions such as: special educaTion, 29 66 54 IO4 4O 99 vocaTional rehabiliTaTion, or higher educaTion. 7-l9. Serving as a consulTanT To professional Teacher assoc- 37 52 49 74 3| 7O iaTions. REVIEWING & EVALUATING: 8-l. EvaluaTIng programs aT The local educaTional agency's l3 2 I9 28 I7 26 siTe. 8-2. Making recommendaTions abouT programs To The local educa- l2 2 I3 20 II 5 Tional agency. 8-3. Reviewing expendiTure reporTs for vocaTionaI funds spenT by 8| 86 l2l II5 7| I02 The local educaTional agency. I70 One Two Three or More FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 8-4. Reviewing follow-up daTa abouT sTudenTs in your discipline. 82 3O 8O 28 89 23 8-5. Reviewing conTracTed pro-rams. 87 II3 llI I2I 63 83 8—6. Reviewing programs for dis- advanTaged sTudenTs. 69 93 Ill I07 67 94 8-7. Reviewing programs for handi- capped sTudenTs. 78 93 III III 7| 94 8-8. EvaluaTing acTiviTies and operaTions of The vocaTionaI 23 38 24 62 26 65 sTudenT organizaTion. 8-9. Reviewing and analyzing pend- ing bills and IegislaTion. 62 55 5| 52 59 9O 8-l0. Reviewing proposals. 4| 47 28 I6 33 65 8-ll. Reviewing applicaTions for ‘ new fundable programs. 54 I3 36 I6 36 50 8-l2. Reviewing vocaTional educa- Tion faciliTies. 26 27_ 22 45 25 ‘ 7O 8-I3. Reviewing vocaTional educaTion equipmenT aT The local 25 35 I9 45 22 58 8-l4. Reviewing manpower and labor markeT daTa. 44 38 3O 37 46 3O 8-l5. ConducTing research projecTs. I07 I02 Il5 IO4 II4 Il7 8-l6. EvaluaTing vocaTionaI educa- Tion adminisTraTors. l23 I20 l25 l25 l26 l24 8-I7. EvaluaTing clerical and secre- Tarial personnel in your office. 60 66 8O 74 69 '70 8-I8. EvaluaTing professional sTaff members in your division. I22 l24 87 98 97 50 8-I9. EvaluaTing daTa abouT new and emerging occupaTions. 37 3O 45 52 98 54 8—20. Reviewing and evaluaTing guidelines for fundable 49 I3 68 52 7| 44 programs. 8-2l. 8-22. 8-23. 8-24. 8-25. 8-26. 8-27. 8-28. 8-29. I7I Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher cerTificaTion sTand- ards. Reviewing applicaTions for vocaTional Teaching cerTifi- Reviewing courses and programs ThaT are non-approved. Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher educaTion programs. Reviewing and evaluaTing insTrucTional maTerials. Reviewing and evaluaTing Tebeooks for adopTion. Reviewing and updaTing your job responsibiliTies. Reviewing and updaTing reporTing forms. Reviewing and updaTing The services your division can provide. One Two Thggieor FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 96 25 73 28 86 , 38 54 |02 54 98 44 I4 74 II4 l02 II5 78 I22 99 38 6| 45 IIO 70 2| 35 34 37 24 '70 9O Il7 Il5 lI8 l2I l23 45 I3 80 37 7| I8 87 50 78 I6 IO4 47 47 30 5| 8 34 9 APPENDIX H I-IO. l-l2. Appendix H Rank Order of Tasks by FCI and SCI Scores for Service, Service and FuncTion, and OTher OrganizaTlonal PaTTerns of The STaTe VocaTional EducaTion Division Service and PLANNING & ORGANIZING: AssisTing local educaTional agencies in designing new faciliTies. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in remodeling exisT- ing faciliTies. Planning and organizing The sTaTe conference for The vocaTional sTudenT organi- zaTion. Planning and organizing The sTaTes parTicipaTion aT The naTionaI conference of The vocaTionaI sTudenT organi- zaTion. ATTending sTaff meeTings To plan and organize your acTiviTies. Developing an annual plan of work for your uniT, division, or service. Developing a managemenT-by- objecTive plan for shorT- range goals. Developing a managemenT-by- objecTive plan for long-range Developing objecTives for local educaTional agency's programs. Developing performance objec- Tives for your division or services. Developing monTth objecTives for your program of work. Planning and organizing work- shops and conferences. I73 Service FuncTion: OTher FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 28 I4 28 2| 5| 9| 47 39 37 42 54 9| 78 3| 43 IS 82 20 IO7 4O l05 42 II4 ll7 7 22 9 2 II 55 85 6 98 4 89 39 59 76 79 2| 98 88 l05 63 l05 ‘4 IIO 88 IO7 I20 IOI IO3 98 I26 90 66 88 l2 98 64 49 llO 52 93 67 I05 29 8 2| 2 32 45 I74 Service and Service: FuncTion: OTher: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank l-l3 Planning program sTandards of qualiTy for local educaTional agencies programs. 59 24 47 33 58 27 l-l4 AssisTing in planning annual vocaTional educaTion confer- - 8 43 79 42 ‘ 89 78 ences. l-I5. AssisTing in planning career developmenT acTiviTies and 7| 7O 67 25 42 78 maTerials. l-I6. Developing sTandards and guidelines for fundable programs. 68 3 74 4 6| I l—l7. Serving as The sTaTe advisro for The vocaTional sTudenT 5 52 6 29 29 IO9 organizaTion. I-l8. Planning The Three-year and five-year plan. ll6 76 I08 35 l|8 55 l-l9. Planning budgeTs for your service. IIO 52 85 35 I08 50 DEVELOPING PROGRAMS & PERSONNEL 27l. ConsulTing visiTs To schools To assisT wiTh new or on-going 4 I 6 I 8 l programs. 2-2. ConsulTing visiTs To schools * To assisT wiTh in-service for 23 II 2| 4 l5 9 program personnel. 2-3. AssisTing wiTh The planning and developmenT of area 7' 7O 94 95 72 64 vocaTionaI-Technical educa- Tion cenTers. 2-4 AssisTing wiTh The planning of programs joinTIy operaTed by 93 94 98 I05 76 20 several school disTricTs. 2-5. ATTending in-service confer~ ences and workshops for voc- aTional educaTion in your discipline. 39 2 4O l2 32 6 I75 Service and SerVIce: FuncTion OTher: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 2-6. ATTending classes and workshops for your graduaTe program aT a 95 9| 74 80 89 96 college or universiTy. 2-7. ATTending professional devel— 0pmenT programs in vocaTional 5| l8 52 2| 40 I4 educaTion. 2-8. Developing curriculum and insTrucTional maTerials. 3| 50 52 35 32 27 2-9. Developing in-service programs for local Teachers and admin- 42 35 30 I9 38 39 isTraTors. 2-l0. Developing in-service workshops for sTaTe officers of The voc- 63 52 67 IS 98 ll2 aTional sTudenT organizaTion. 2-II. ConducTing workshops for sTaTe officers of The vocaTionaI 99 59 94 57 l20 ll7 sTudenT organizaTion. 2-I2. AssisTing and developing in- service programs for your l23 II3 l23 ll5 l05 lI2 2-l3. Developing The program of acTIVITIes for The sTaTe con- 78 7O 66 50 89 '25 ference of The vocaTIonal sTu- denT organizaTion. 2-I4. Developing programs To in- service local chapTer advisors 90 63 IOI 7| 82 |2l of The vocaTional sTudenT org- anizaTion. 2-l5. Developing piloT, demonsTraTion and exemplary programs. l02 59 II4 85 46 27 2-I6. Developing programs for dis- - advanTaged sTudenTs. 99 70 II4 9| 76 27 2-I7. Developing programs for handicapped sTudenTs. I03 82 Il8 95 89 64 2-l8. Developing disTricT and regional conferences. 88 86 74 75 72 64 3-2. 3-3. 3-4 4-2. 4-3. 4-4. 4-7. 4-8. I76 STAFFING: Making recommendaTions for hiring new sTaTe sTaff employees. InTerviewing and hiring sTaTe sTaff employees. AssisTing local educaTional agencies in locaTing qual- ified and cerTified vocaTional sTaff members. AssisTing wiTh and hiring clerical and secreTarial sTaff. AssisTing wiTh locaTing and hiring adminisTraTive sTaff for your vocaTionaI division. COMPLIANCE: Reviewing reporTs and forms submiTTed by local educaTion- al agencies. CompleTing reporTs for your sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. CompleTing reporTs for The U.S. Office of EducaTion. AssisTing wiTh The developmenT of The sTaTe plan for vocaTion educaTion. ConducTing and assisTing wiTh sTaTe plan hearings. Preparing and assisTing wiTh The annual descripTive reporT. Preparing quarTerly reporTs. AssisTing wiTh preparing The annual sTaTisTical reporT. Service and Service: . OTher: FuncTIon: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank ll2 82 I08 57 II4 20 I20 94 II4 7| I27 55 54 57 33 48 46 96 IIO 93 88 42 II4 78 I24 II8 l23 5O l27 78 I2 l8 I5 2| 20 45 I6 24 II 42 23 55 7| 84 74 57 98 IOI 99 35 97 2| 89 39 I22 I24 l25 Il2 l24 IO9 II3 63 Il2 66 l20 IOl IO3 l23 98 I25 I29 l28 II4 IOI l20 80 l25 IO9 5-l. 5-2. 5-3. 5-4. 5-5. 5-7. 5-8 5-I3. I77 Service and PUBLIC RELATIONS: Working wiTh professional organizaTions. Preparing and disseminaTing newsleTTers. DisseminaTing maTerials and informaTion. WriTing arTicIes for journals and publicaTions. Serving as a speaker aT coop- eraTive educaTion employer- employee banqueTs. Serving as a speaker for ouT- side agencies. SoliciTing business and indusTry supporT, parTicipaTion and involvemenT in vocaTionaI educa- Tion. Working wiTh a sTaTe level advisory commiTTee for your field. Working wiTh commercial publishers and equipmenT manufacTurers. DisseminaTing informaTion abouT The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion. Developing and disseminaTing brochures. Developing and organizing public relaTions acTiviTies for The vocaTional sTudenT organizaTion PromoTing vocaTional educaTion wiTh groups ouTside of educa- Tion. Service: FuncTIon: OTher: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank l7 8 20 l5 l2 I 45 48 43 7| 98 64 II I4 5 29 6 l4 6 86 IO8 l05 II4 55 55 89 7O 98 67 9| 45 68 60 80 67 64 33 68 43 75 IS 9 63 24 57 66 38 I4 36 IO6 30 98 42 64 IS 50 IS 35 23 55 78 94 67 94 72 64 44 94 47 57 84 l05 34 52 37 50 20 I4 I78 . Service and SerVIce. FuncTIon: OTher. FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 5-l4. Developing handbooks and maTerials for The vocaTional 78 76 7O 50 IIO ll6 sTudenT organizaTions. 5-l5. ArTiculaTing and working wiTh oTher divisions wiThin The I0 24 4 2| 3 5 sTaTe deparTmenT of educaTion. 5-l6. Serving as a member of The board of direcTors or execu- 69 IO3 47 85 84 l05 -Tive board of associaTions. FINANCING 6 BUDGETING: 6-l. AssisTing schools in meeTing sTandards To qualify for 20 I8 l2 29 6 9 funding. 6-2. AssisTing schools in receiving equipmenT funding. 28 46 33 9| I8 20 6-3. BudgeTing funds To meeT The annual plan of work. IO9 46 64 85 76 45 6-4. MainTaining financial records for The vocaTional sTudenT 2| 98 I8 85 42 l2l organizaTion. 6-5. MainTaining financial records for your discipline. 65 II3 64 II3 63 l20 6-6. Developing funding criTeria for programs. 95 76 6O 35 6| 27 6-7. NegoTiaTing conTracTs wiTh agencies. |I9 l22 Il9 l23 89 55 6-8. NegoTiaTing proposals. _ 82 98 57 80 76 78 6-9. Analyzing financial daTa and reporTed expendiTures. 65 II3 33 66 72 64 6-lO. Preparing financial expend- iTure reporTs. l05 Ill IOI |20 67 IOI 6-Il. Preparing budgeTs and end-of- The-year reporTs. ll7 l06 I2l ll5 I22 9| 6-I2. 6-I3. 6-I4. 6-I5. 7-2. 7-4. 7-5. 7-6. 7-IO. I79 ConducTing cosT-benefiT sTudies. AudiTing budgeTs and records aT The local educaTional agency. AudiTing federal granTs To local educaTional agencies. AudiTing consTrucTion projecTs aT The local educaTional agency. COORDINATING & COMMUNICATINT: MeeTing regularly wiTh The Teacher educaTors in your discipline. Sharing informaTion and maTer- ials wiTh your Teacher educa- Tors. AssisTing wiTh The placemenT of undergraduaTe and graduaTe Teachers. Working closely wiTh agencies ouTside of The deparTmenT of educaTion, such as: The sTaTe deparTmenT of labor or sTaTe employmenT service. DisseminaTing informaTion abouT sTaTe or naTional IegislaTion. Responding To correspondence. Responding To Telephone calls. Working wiTh The sTaTe board of educaTion. Working wiTh The sTaTe advisory council for vocaTional educa- Tion. Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe superinTendenT. Service and Service: . OTher: FuncTIon: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank l27 l25 l27 l27 l22 ll2 l26 I27 l28 l28 IO8 l27 l28 l27 l22 l26 II4 I24 I29 l29 l29 l29 l25 I28 24 6 26 I9 32 I4 I9 3 l3 I5 I2 6 76 86 52 50 54 ll2 47 89 6O 66 29 27 85 9| 88 98 42 78 2 3 2 4 2 9 I II I 2| I 6 59 I08 33 l02 5| 78 56 52 52 85 67 64 22 59 I8 57 28 50 180 Service and Service. FuncTIon: OTher FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 7-Il. Responding To requesTs and assignmenTs made by The sTaTe 3 2| 3 4 9 64 direcTor of vocaTionaI educa- Tion. 7-l2. Preparing reporTs To oTher agencies ouTside of The deparT- 65 ll6 59 II3 58 I05 menT of educaTion. 7-I3. Providing feedback from The field To your adminisTraTors. 9 43 9 l2 5 20 7-I4. Preparing newsleTTers. 56 59 II4 98 84 ll7 7-l5. Preparing guidelines for The adminisTraTion of vocaTional 7| 76 78 80 84 20 educaTion. 7-I6. Working wiTh colleagues in oTheruniTs such as: secondary, posT-secondary and adulT educa- Tion. 7-I7. CoordinaTing acTiviTies wiTh oTher agencies ouTside of 39 76 47 IO3 I5 27 educaTion. 7-l8. CoordinaTing acTiviTies wiTh oTher educaTional divisions such as: special educaTion, 49 IOI 43 l05 l2 27 vocaTional rehabiliTaTion, or higher educaTion. 7-I9. Serving as a consulTaTn To professional Teacher assoc- 39 66 4| 75 32 39 iaTions. l REVIEWING & EVALUATING: 8-I. EvaluaTIng programs aT The local educaTional agency's l7 l4 l7 4 23 45 siTe. 8-2. Making recommendaTions abouT programs To The local educa- l3 8 I4 4 9 9 Tional agency. 8-3. Reviewing expendiTure reporTs for vocaTional funds spenT by 90 98 l05 Il8 63 78 The local educaTional agency. 8-4. 8-5. 8-6. ‘8-7. 8-8 8-9. 8-I0. 8-II. 8-I2. 8-I3. 8-I4. 8-I5. 8-I6. 8-I7. 8-I8. 8-l9 8-20. I8I Reviewing foil-up daTa abouT sTudenT in your discipline. Reviewing conTracTed programs. Reviewing programs for dis- advanTaged sTudenTs. Reviewing programs for handi- capped sTudenTs. EvaluaTing acTiviTies and operaTions of The vocaTionaI sTudenT organizaTion. Reviewing and analyzing pend- ing bills and IegislaTion. Reviewing proposals. Reviewing applicaTions for new fundable programs. Reviewing vocaTional educaTion faciliTies. Reviewing vocaTional educa- Tion equipmenT aT The local siTe. Reviewing manpower and labor markeT daTa. ConducTing research projecTs. EvaluaTing vocaTional educa- Tion adminisTraTors. EvaluaTing clerical and secre- Tarial personnel in your office EvlauaTing professional sTaff members in your division. EvaluaTing daTa abouT new and emerging occupaTions. Reviewing and evaluaTing guidelines for fundable programs. Service and Service: . OTher: FuncTIon: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 82 24 82 33 89 27 95 ll6 94 II5 54 5O 69 IO3 85 l05 76 9| 82 l05 79 Ill 84 78 27 57 24 48 26 55 7| 7O 47 75 5| 50 42 I3 4| 64 58 45 26 32 28 64 26 78 25 32 25 66 20 64 5| 4O 26 35 46 27 ll5 IO9 ll2 IO9 98 96 |25 I26 l26 I20 I06 64 76 7O 82 7| 40 50 I20 ll9 85 95 IIO 96 5| 48 37 50 29 39 58 35 72 42 46 27 I82 Service: SerVIce and OTher: FuncTIon: FCI SCI FCI SCI FCI SCI Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank 8—2l. Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher cerTificaTion sTand- 93 24 82 35 89 39 ards. 8—22. Reviewing applicaTions for vocaTional Teaching cerTi- 38 84 72 ll9 63 96 ficaTes. 8-23. Reviewing courses and programs ThaT are non-approved. 85 Ill 88 l24 63 IOI 8-24. Reviewing and evaluaTing Teacher educaTion programs. 95 43 92 75 IIO 27 8-25. Reviewing and evaluaTing insTrucTional maTerials. 32 40 23 57 IB 64 8-26. Reviewing and evaluaTing Tebeooks for adopTion. ll7 l2l IOI IO9 Il8 |23 8—27. Reviewing and updaTing your job responsibiliTies. 59 22 92 29 32 I4 8-28. Reviewing and updaTing reporTing forms. 88 35 I08 50 76 55 8-29. Reviewing and updaTing The services your division can 36 I4 60 2| 54 20 provide. ,,.44444.3