69-20,869

HARRIS, Gail A lice, 1935AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PREPARATION
PATTERNS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
OF SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS IN
MICHIGAN.
Michigan State U niversity, Ed.D., 1969
Education, adm inistration
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

(c) Copyright by
GAIL ALICE HARRIS
1969

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PREPARATION PATTERNS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITI ES OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION DI REC TORS IN MICHIGAN

By

Gail Alice Harris

A THESIS

Submitted to
Mich ig an State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Admi nis tration and Higher Education

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGAT ION OP THE PREPARATION PATTERNS
AND AD MI NIS TRATIV E ACTIVITIES OF SPECIAL
EDUCATION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGA N
By
Gail Alice Harris

Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
present role and determine the specific administrative
activities

of directors of special education in Mic hi ga n

through the ut iliz ati on of a survey of all such personnel
who were employed full-time during the 1966-67 school
year.

Included was information regarding:
1.

The configuration of specific adm inistrative
activities

typically performed by special e d u ­

cation administrators,

and how this varies

from other administrators,
2.

The variation bet we en the administrative
activities of local school directors of
special education and intermediate school
directors of special education.

3.

Which majo r administrative areas are perceived
by the directors and other administrators
being of more importance than others,

and

which major areas consume the most time.

as

Gail Alice Harris

4.

How the academic preparati on and previous p r o ­
fessional experience patterns of special e du­
cation administrators differ from those of
other administrators.

5.

The number of supervisory personnel assisting
the special education administrators, and the
types of special education programs they serve.

Procedure of Study
A survey form was mailed to all local and inter­
mediate school district directors of special education who
were employed full-time during the 1966-67 school year.
The same survey form was sent to the local or interme di­
ate superintendent,

a local elementary and secondary

principal in each school district re pr ese nted by the
special education directors in the study population.

The

study po pul ation included one hundred eighty-two school
administrators.
The survey form consisted of three parts:
formation regardi ng the respondent,
administrative activities,

and

(a) in ­

(b) a check list of

(c) inform at ion regarding

the school district.
The survey information was collated by data p r o ­
cessing and hand tabulation techniques.

It was then

reviewed in terms of response numbers and percentages.

Gail Alice Harris

Ma.jor Findings of Study
The study res ulted in the following major findings:
1.

It was pos sible to define the general a d m i n i s ­
trative role and the depth administrative role
of directors of special education.

2.

The administr ati ve activities

of intermediate

directors of special educat ion were most

similar

to those of intermediate superintendents;
while the ad ministrative activities of local
directors

of special educati on were most

com­

parable to elementary and secondary principals.
3.

All groups agreed they should ideally spend most
of their time pe rform in g the activities in the
m a jor administ rat ive area of Cur ri culu m and
Instruction.

4.

In termediate and local directors of special
edu cation

reported they actually spend most

of their time perf or mi ng the activities in the
maj or adm inistrative areas of Staff Relations
and Personnel Administration.
5.

Directors

of special educat ion typically r e ­

ceived academic maj or prepar ation in special
edu ca tio n at the graduate level, thus differin g
from the other administrators

in the study, who

typical ly held graduate academic majors in
administration.

Gall Alice Harris

Of the administrators

in the study, the sho rt­

est tenure in their present positions was r e ­
ported by local and intermediate directors
special education„

of

They also had the least

previous number of years pro fessional experience.
Few special education curriculum supervisors
were employed at the time of the study.
school district
programs

Local

supervisors typically served

for the mentally handicapped, while

intermediate school district supervisors ty pi ­
cally served speech correction programs.

ACKNOWLED GME NTS

M a n y individuals have contributed to the finali­
zation of this dissertation.

The wri ter is sincerely

grateful and aware of those who have encouraged and
assisted beyond the limits of pr ofe ssional duty.
Specific thanks are extended to the following persons
and agencies:
To Dr. Fr e d Vescoloni,

for serving several years

as Ch air man of my doctoral committee.
To Dr. Charles Henley,

for his assistance as

Project D i re ctor for the dis ser ta ti on study,

and his

ent hu sia sm regard ing the potential professional contri­
buti on of the rese ar ch findings.
To Dr. Clyde Campbell, Dr,
Useem,

Carl Gross and Dr. Joh n

committee members, who provided sound professional

counsel and w er e outstanding examples of educational
leaders in their respective specialties.
To my employers during the course of the doctoral
p r ogr am and the agencies they represent are due special
thanks for their personal encouragement and pro fessional
assistance.

They include Dr.

Ira Polley,

tendent of Public Instruction,

iii

State Sup e ri n­

rep resenting the Mic higan

Department of Education;

and Dr.

Wilfred Webb,

Su p e r i n ­

tendent of Hazel Park Public Schools.
The Data Pro ce ssin g Divisions of the Mic higa n
Department of Ed uc a t i o n and Oakland Intermediate Schools
deserve special ap pre ci at ion for con sultation and ass is ­
tance in the survey form development and data processing.
The personal encouragement,

interest and prodding

of Dr. Jo h n Lee, Chairman, Div isi on of Special Ed uc ati on
and Vo cat io na l Rehabilitation, Wayne State University, has
been invaluable to the writer throughout the doctoral
program.
The patient,
my typists, Mrs.

careful and conscientious

efforts of

Carolyn Piersma and Mrs. Ann Brown are

appreciated.
And finally,

acknowledgment and ap prec ia ti on is

extended to all those Mi c h i g a n educators who parti cipate d
as members of the study population.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF T A B L E S ...........................................vii

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION.

..................

The Growth of Special Educ at ion
. . .
The Complexity of Special Educ a t i o n . .
The Need for Special Educ at io n
Coordination and Leadership.
. . .
A General Statement of the Purpose of
the S t u d y ................................
A Specific Statement of the Prob lem '
and Purpose of the S t u d y ..............
Del imi tations of the S t u d y ..............
Definitions of Terms .....................
Organizat ion of the Study
. . . . .
The Importance of the Study.
. . . .
S u m m a r y .................
II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Preparation Patterns for Special
Educ ati on A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ..............
Special Educati on Adm inis trati on
Role Studies.
. . . . . . . .
General Adminis tra tion Role Studies . .
Implications from the Litera ture for
Needed R e s e a r c h .........................
III.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Study Population .....................
Method of Collecting the Data . . . .
Developing the Survey F o r m ..............
Collection of the Data
. . . . . .

v

1
1
3
10
13
14
16
16
18
18
19
21

21
25
32
35
37
37
38
39

Chapter
IV.

Page
ANALYSIS OP I N F O R M A T I O N .................

*17

Information Regard ing the Subjects
. .
Information R ega rding the School
D i s t r i c t s ...........................
71
Ideal and Actual Time Ranking for
Major Administrative Areas . . . .
Specific Administrative Activities of
Directors of Special Education
Compared to Other Administrative
G r o u p s ...............................
91
S u m m a r y ................................. Ill
V.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEN DATIONS .

.

.

.

*17

78

112

C o n c l u s i o n s ............................. 112
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .......................... 130
S u m m a r y ................................. 135
BIBLIOGRAPHY

............................................

A P P E N D I X ........................................... 1*10
APPENDIX A.

Survey F o r m ................... 1*11

APP END IX B.

Raw Data T a b l e ............... 151

vi

I 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

The Study P o p u l a t i o n .........................

38

2.

The Numb er and Percentage of Returned
Survey Forms from the Six A d m i n i s ­
trative G r o u p s ............................

48

3.

D es cr ipti on of

Respondents by

Sex.

49

4.

Descri pti on of

Respondents by

Age Groups

5.

Des cr iptio n of

Respondents by

Salary Range.

6.

Salary Range.Variations of Directors of
Special Ed uca tion A cc or ding to Size
of District (More or Less Than 15,000
P u p i l s ) ...................................

54

Descr ip ti on of Respondents by Highest
Degrees H e l d ................................

56

Variatio ns in Highest Degree Held by
Directors of Special Edu cat io n A c c o r d ­
ing to Size of District (More or Less.
Than 15,000 P u p i l s ) .....................

57

Descrip tio n of Respondents by Teaching
Certificates H e l d .........................

59

De scr ipti on of Respondents by Their
Undergraduate Majors . . . . .

6l

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

. . .

.

.

.

50
52

Des cr ip ti on of Respondents by Their
Graduate M a j o r s ............................

62

Areas of Special Ed ucat ion Pre paration for
Which Directors of Special Education
Are Eligible for State Temporary
A p p r o v a l ...................................

64

vii

Table
13 -

m.

Page
Number of Special E ducat io n Areas for
Which Directors of Special E du ca ti on
Are Eligible for State Approval as
Cla ss roo m Teachers (Special Service
Areas Not I n c l u d e d ) .....................

66

Variations in Academic Pr epa rati on of
Directors of Special Edu ca ti on
Ac cor ding to Size of District (More
or Less Than 15,000 Pupils)
. . .

67

.

The Professional Experiences of the Six
Adm ini strati ve Groups
..................

68

Selected Pro fessional Experi enc e V a r i ­
ations Bet ween Directors Ac co r d i n g to
Size of District (More or Less Than
15 ,000 Pupils ) ............................

70

17.

Pupil Membership Size of School Districts.

72

18.

Len gth of Time District (A) Operated a
Special Educati on Program; (B) Emp loy ed
a Full-Time Special Educ at io n Director.

73

Number, Percent and Frequency Rank of
Professional Personnel in Each
Special Edu ca ti on Area . . . . . .

75

15.
16.

19.

20 . Range of Special Ed uca ti on Supervisors
Employed,

21 »
22.

23.

24.

77

.

Number of Programs Served by Supervisors
in Specific Special E ducat io n Areas,

77

.

Ideal (I) Versus Actual (A) Time Spent by
Majo r Admi nistra tiv e Areas with Rank
Difference (D) N o t e d ................

79

Rank Difference Between the Ideal Time
Ranking of Intermediate Directors and
Other Groups
.

83

Rank Difference Betw ee n the Actual Time
Rank ing of Inter mediat e Directors and
Other Groups
..................

84

viii

Table
25.

26.

27.

28,

29.

Page
Rank Difference Between the Ideal Time
Ranking of Local Directors and Other
Groups .

85

Rank Di fference Between the Actual Time
Rank ing of Local Directors and Other
............................
Groups

87

Ideal (I) and Actual (A) Rank Order of
Time Consumed by Directors of Special
Educatio n in Major Administ rat ive Areas
Accordin g to Size of School District
(More or Less than 15,000 Pupils).
Rank Difference (D) is Indicated
. . .

88

Ideal (I) and Actual (A) Rank Order of
Time Consumed by Directors of Special
Educatio n in Maj or Adm ini strative Areas
According to Length of Time District
Has Emp lo ye d a Director (More or Less
Than Four Years).
Rank Difference (D)
is I n d i c a t e d ............................

90

The Special Educat io n Admi nistrati ve Role
(50 Per Cent or More Positive Responses
of Directors of Special E du ca ti on for
Specific Adm inistrative Activities
Compared to the Responses of the Other
.................
Administr ati ve Groups).

93

30.

Rank Order of Involvement at the Depth Role
Level of Directors in Maj or A d m i n i s ­
trative Areas.
...................... 106

31.

Fifty Per Cent Negative Responses of
Directors of Special Ed uca tion for
Specific Administrative Activities
Compared to the Responses of the Other
Administrative Groups .

109

Survey Form Administrati ve Activity
Responses .

152

32.

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Growth of Special Edu ca ti on
Handi cap ped children,

as defined by Title VI of

Public Law 89-10, as amended,

include those describ ed as

. . . mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf,
speech impaired, visually handicapped, seriously
emotionally disturbed, crippled, or other health
impaired children, who by reason thereof require
special education.
The numbers

of these children have bee n estimated by

various sources and differ considerably.

The Mich ig an

Board of Ed uc a t i o n stated that for every one thousand
pupils one may generally find twen ty-three who are m e n ­
tally retarded,
hard of hearing,

ten physically handicapped,

six deaf or

one blind or partially-sighted,

emotionally or socially maladjusted,

twenty

ten with special

health problems and thirty-five with speech defects,

or

a total of 105 with handicapp ing conditions which may
require special educational provisions.'1'
Day classes and programs

for h an di ca pp ed children

first made their appearance in this country during the

"''State Board of Education, "Organizing Educational
Programs for Children with Handicaps," Circular No. ^ 8 ,
Revised, Lansing, Michigan, 1966.
1

2

latter part of the 19th century.

A class

for the deaf

was Instituted in Bost on in 1 8 6 9 , and was the first

of

the type of p r ovisi on for ha nd icapp ed children w hi c h is
today known as special education.

Other early classes

for additional types of handic ap ped chi ldren whi ch ap ­
peared in the years following included:
for the delinquent, New York,

1874,

the mentally retarded,

Providence,

for crippled,

1899, and

Chicago,

the blind, Chicago,

(1 ) first class

(2) first class for

1 8 9 6 , (3) first class

(4) the first class for

1 9 0 0 .3

These early beginnings,

however, were not followed

by a rapid general expansion of provisions
capped children throughout the country.

for h a n d i ­

In general the

movement rema ine d basically a part of large city e d u ­
cation programs with little movement

into the more rural

4
areas.
In 19^8, Martens estimated that the nation's entire
special educati on effort was re ach ing only 442,000 pupils
in 1,500 school districts.

These chi ldr en were served by

2

Calvin Grieder, Truma n Pierce, and W i ll ia m Rosenstengel, Public School Ad mi ni s t r a t i o n (2nd ed.; New York:
The Ronald Press Co., 1961).

3I b i d .
4
U. S. Department of Health, Ed ucat ion and Welfare,
Special E duc at io n for H a n d i ca pped C h i l d r e n , First Annual
Report of the National Advisory Committee on Ha ndic app ed
Children, Washington, D. C., 1968, p. 40.

3

some 16,000 teachers and other specialized personnel.
It was also estimated that this number of pupils const i­
tuted only approximately 10 per cent of those handica ppe d
5
children in need of special education services.
Since World War II, however, the growth pattern in
this field has changed rapidly.

The numbers

served from

1948 to 1958 increased at a rate which was three times
that of the rise in total public elementary and secondary
school enrollment

for the same period.^

By 1963, the

total national enrollment in special programs had risen
to 1 ,6 6 6 ,0 0 0 ,^ and in 1967 to .approximately 2 ,500,000
p u p i l s .®

The Complexity of Special Educati on
Accompanying this increase in numbers of han dicapped
pupils

served in the public school programs of the nation,

has been the development of a total pro gram which is not

^Elise H. Martens, "Statistics of Special Schools
and Classes for Exc eptional Children, 1947-48," Biennial
Survey of Ed uca tion in the United States, 1946-4H~
(Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing O f f i c e ,
1950).
^Romaine P. Mackie, Harold M. Williams, and
Patricia M. Robbins, "Special Edu cation En rollments in
Local School Systems:
A Directory," Bul letin OE-35027,
U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D. C., 1966.

7
Romaine P. Mackie, "Special Ed ucation Reaches
Nearly Two Mil lion Children," School L i f e , XLVII
(December, 1964), p. 8 .

0
United States Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, o p . c i t . , p. 2.

to be exceeded in complexity by any other area of public
education.

The special education program of a local

district may serve a wide variety of exceptional children,
including:

the blind, the partially sighted, deaf, hard

of hearing, mentally retarded,

crippled and otherwise

physically handicapped, the speech impaired,
with emotional problems,

children

children with specific learning

disabilities and various combinations of these types of
ha ndi capping conditions.
Besides m e e t i n g state and national standards as a
condition for rec eiv ing special grants, there are other
factors which add to the complexity of adminis tr at io n of
these programs.
range of pupils

Such factors include:
served,

conditions included,

(1) the wide age

(2 ) the variety of handic app ing

(3 ) rapid growth of the programs,

(4) the necessity for inter-agency coordination and
planning,

(5 ) plan ni ng and providing special tra nspo rt ation

arrangements for pupils,

(6 ) interpreting this atypical

program to general educators and the community,

and

(7 )

cooperating with other local school districts in operating
programs which serve non-resident pupils.
The educational programs needed by these children
will vary with the han dica pp in g condition,

and the types

of provisions which have been developed to meet their
needs encompass many

facets,

g

including diagnostic

g
Michigan Department of Education, "Annual R e p o r t —
Programs for the Mentally Ha n d i c a p p e d — 1965-66 School
Year," Lansing, Michigan, 1 9 6 6 .

5

evaluation, indivi du al ized educational planning,
prepared teachers,

specially

small teacher-pupil ratios, provisi on

for integr ation with regular classes, ancillary services
and counseling.

Adminis tra tive approaches to special

education, must,

therefore,

include w o r k i n g with many

individuals and groups, many types of pupils, ancillary
services and various related agencies.

Federal Involvement in
Special Educati on
Nationally,

large amounts of money are app ro priated

yearly for the ed ucation of handic ap ped pupils.

For fiscal

1968, the Congress approp riated $53,400,000 for educational
improvement

for the h a n d i c a p p e d .1*"1

It was distribut ed as

follows:
Research

$11,100,000

Tr aining of Professional Pe r­
sonnel (including a d mi ni s­
trators)
Medi a Services and Captioned
Films for the
Deaf
Title VI, Elementary and
Secondary E du catio n Act
In addition,

24,500,000

2,800,000

15,000,000

an estimated $15 to $24 million of the

total ap propriati on for Title I, E lem entary and Secondary
Edu ca tio n Act, will be available in 1968 for the Public
Law 89-313 pr og ram of support to the states for state

10 U. S. Office of Education, "Appropriations for
the Bureau of E ducat io n for the Handicapp ed ," Washington,
D. C., 1 9 6 8 .

6

operated and state supported schools for the handicapped.
The total amount of federal funds appropriated for the
Improvement of educational programs for the ha ndicapped
for fiscal year 1968, therefore, was $68.4 to $77.4
million.
The Bureau of Edu ca ti on for the H an dicapped was
established in the United States Office of E ducat io n on
January 12, 1967.

The purpose of the Bureau is to adm in ­

ister and carry out programs and projects, re lating to
the educat ion and trai ni ng of the handicapped,

including

research and development p r o j e c t s , 1^ as provided under
Public Law 89-750.

Also included under the provisions

of this Act was the establishment of a National Advisory
Committee on Handic app ed Children.
appointed in July,

This committee was

1967, and is composed of a group of

individuals repres enting broad interests in the education
of han dicapped children.

12

The purposes of the advisory

committee includes the review of the ad mi nistrati on of
the prog ram administered by the Commissioner of Educati on
with respect to handicapp ed children,

including their

effect in improvi ng the educational attainment

of such

X 1U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, o p . c l t . , p. 9 -

12 I b i d . , p. 1 .

7

children, and the development of rec ommendat ion s
improvement of such administration.

for the

13

The development of state special ed ucatio n plans
was required for those states req ues ting grants under
Title VI of Public Law 89-750.

These plans provide

assurance that any federal funds granted under this
title will be expended to initiate,
programs and projects,
and projects,

expand,

or improve

including pre-school programs

designed to meet the special needs of

handic app ed children throughout the state.
Since I960, as a result
lation,

of congr es sio nal legi s­

(Public Law 85-926, as amended)

32,000 p r o f e s ­

sional personnel have been trained to serve handi ca pp ed
children, resulti ng in over 70,000 persons pr epa red in
this field of education.

14

Thus, the federal government

has become increasingly involved in the stimulation of
special education programs,

and this pa rt icip at io n has

added new dimensions to the ad ministra tio n of such p r o ­
grams at state and local levels.

Samuel A. Kirk, "The National Adv isory Committee
on Han dicapped Children," A Richer Future for H an di ca pped
Children (Washington, D. C.:
Council for Exc ep ti onal
Children, March, 1968), p. 481.

14 U. S. Department of Health, E du ca tion and Welfare, o p . c i t . , p.

24.

8

State and Local Involvement
In Special Educ ati on
State and local school systems appropriate large
sums of mon ey annually for special educational programs
for the handicapped.

Act 21 of the Mi ch igan Public Acts

of 1968 approp ria ted $30 mi ll ion in state aid for the
reimbursement of local and intermediate special education
programs.

The involvement of state departments of ed u­

cation in stimulating special education program growth
is extensive and involves:

15

1.

Prepari ng the state budget for the education
of exceptional children.
2.
Help in g in the passage of sound legislation
and di sco uraging the passage of unsound
legislation.
3. Dis tr ibuti ng the ap pro priated state funds to
local school districts on an equitable and
legal basis.
4. Fos tering and improving local programs.
5. Es ta blis hi ng standards for eligibility of
children for special classes or services,
teacher certification, and quality of ed u­
cation.
6 . R ec ruiting teachers and cooperating in
teacher education.
7. En co ura ging in-service growth of teachers by
pro vi din g for state workshops, conferences,
and other in-service tra ini ng programs.
8 . Supervising educational programs in residential
schools for the mentally retarded, blind and
deaf.
9. M a i n t aini ng interagency relationships.
10. Preparing publications in a wide variety of
areas for the guidance of local school systems.
11. Selecti ng and directi ng a corps of specialized
assistants for the various programs of ex ­
ceptional children.

15

Samuel A. Kirk, Educ ati ng Except io nal Children
(Boston:
Hou gh ton M i f fl in Co., 1962), p. 369.

9

12.

En co ur a g i n g and sponsoring research on p r o ­
blems in the education of exceptional children.

The involvement of the state in the stimulation and
control of special education programs results in a c o m ­
plexity of administr ati ve activity at the intermediate
and local school district levels.
Local School District L e v e l .— Local school districts,
as the operati ng unit, are highly involved in the admi ni s­
tration of special education programs.

Ther e is, however,

a var ia tion in the offering of educational opportunity for
the handicapp ed among local school districts.

A recent

study of school finance and educational opportunity in
M ic hi gan uti lized the criteria of programs offered for
mentally and physically handicapped children as a factor
in judging educational op po rtunit y. 1^

In every Instance

it was found that as the size of the district increases
the likelihood of having these programs increases as well.
Similar relationships were found between geographical
regions and the availability of programs

for the h a n d i ­

capped, with the more densely populated areas providi ng
a larger numbe r of special education programs.
Local school districts throughout the nation have
consolidated Into larger units which provide a more sub­
stantial financial and pupil populat ion base for school

■^J. Alan Thomas, "School Finance and Educational
Opportunity in Michigan," Michigan School Finance Study
(Lansing, Michigan:
M i ch ig an Department of Education,
1968), p. 33.

10

programs.

One result of consolidation Is the con c e n ­

tration of individual districts, m a ki ng it possible to
develop more appropriate special educational programs
for ha ndi capped children.

This trend toward con so li ­

dation in Mich ig an has resulted in a reduction of the
number of school districts

from 2,854 in 1956-57 to 7^3

in 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 .17
The special education pro gr am in M i ch ig an included
4,623 state approved special educati on teachers in the

1967-68 school year.

X8

This repres ent ed 3,071 special

education classr oom teachers and 1,652 special service
personnel

(school social workers,

or psychologists

school diagnosticians

and speech correctioriists) and il lu ­

strates the large number of pro fessional personnel in
special education in one state.

The Need for Special Educ ati on Coo rdination
and Leadership
The expanded federal,

state and local special ed u­

cation programs have undoubtedly been a maj or factor in
predicting an increased awareness of the need for app r o ­
priate special education leadership at the state and
local levels.

17 I b i d ., p. 304.
18

Letter, Jane Walline to Gail Harris, July 2,
1968, Mic h ig an Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan.

11

The United States Office of E d uc at ion officially
recognized the need for directors of special education,
interpreting Public Law 85 -926 in 1966 to include p r o ­
gram development grants and scholarship provisions

for

persons preparing to become special educati on a d m i n i s ­
tr a t o r s . 1 ^

In the 1968 fiscal year, a total of fifteen

special education administration program development
grants had been awarded to universities.

20

One example of state rec ognition of the need for
a special education director is found in the "Plan to
Combat Mental Retard ation in Michigan,"

21

which stated:

It is desirable that a requirement be est ab­
lished for acqu iring an appropriately trained
special education coordinator or supervisor when
a certain minimal number of special education pro­
grams exist in a local school district.
It is proposed that the Department of E d u ­
cation study local school special education p r o ­
grams in order to determine:
at what stage of development in the growth
of a special education prog ram a coordinator or
supervisor should be hired,
what would be an appropriate formula for
state and local pa rt ici pation for financial r e ­
imbursement for such a position,
what personal, professional, and academic
requirements would be desirable criteria for such
a position,
what rules and regulations would be n e c e s ­
sary in order to create such a position.
The Planning Committee proposes State Aid
for such a position.

^ u . S. Office of Education, Federal Listin g of
Expenditures of Funds, Washington, D. C., 1967.

20

James R. Tompkins, "Program Development Concept,"
A Richer Future for Handicapped Children (Washington,
fT cT i
Council for Exc eptional Children, 1968), p. 5^8.
“^ M i c h i g a n Department of Mental Health,

"Plan to

12

Also,

In April of 1966, a M ic higan Senate Ed uca tion

Committee Subco mmit tee recommended:

22

There should be reimbursement under the State
Aid Act of full-time intermediate and local school
district directors and coordinators of special e d u ­
cation and other supervisory and consultant p e r ­
sonnel for special edu ca tio n programs, subject to
general rules and regulations establ ished by the
Department of Education.
The M i ch ig an Legislature,
1966

(Public Act 271),

in the State Aid Act of

included a pro vi sion for r e i m b u r s e ­

ment for directors and other supervisory and consultant
personnel for special ed uca tion programs,

and authorized

the M ic hi ga n Depart men t of Edu ca ti on to esta bl is h standards
for such positions.

As a result of this action, Mich ig an

reimbursed seventy-two directo rs of special educati on in

1966-67 and eighty-nine and a half in 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 . ^

A copy

of the rules and regulations arti culating the M i ch ig an
standard is appended to this study
Similarly,

(see appendix).

other states have established standards

for

the reimbursement of directors of special education.
In summary,

it is seen that the need for c o o r d i ­

nation and leadership

for special edu cational programs

Combat Ment al Re tar da ti on in Michigan," Progress R e p o r t ,
Lansing, Michigan, 1 9 6 6 , p. 6 9 .
22

Mi ch iga n State Senate, "Report on Special E d u ­
cation in Michigan," Lansing, Michigan, 1966.

28

Letter, Jane Wal l in e to Gail Harris,

op.

clt.

13

has been recognized at all levels.

The national go ve r n ­

ment has provided leadership and funds to disseminate to
state and local school systems for the purpose of stimu ­
lating the development of special education programs.
Ac com panying such financial grants, are control factors
which add to the complexity of administration.

In add i­

tion, the United States Office of E duca ti on has provided
funds to universities

to develop prepar at ion programs

for

special education administrators, and to provide in di ­
vidual grants to such persons.
State school systems have set specific standards
for the operation of special education programs,

thus

further adding to the complexity of the admi nis tration of
such programs.

Logically, therefore, many states now p r o ­

vide reimbursement for local or intermediate school district
directors of special education who have specific prepar ati on
in the administra tio n of these growing,

complex programs.

Through the employment of increasing numbers of
directors of special education,

it is apparent that local

school systems have also recognized the increasing need
for improved ad mi nis tra tion of special education programs.

A General Statement of the
Purpose of the Study
Ac companyi ng the increased numbers of administrators
of special edu cation has been a growing concern regardi ng
the appropriate pr epar at io n patterns for this type of

14

position.

In a 1967 conference presentation, Dr. Kenneth

Blessing stated:

24

Current attenti on is now focusing upon the
del in eat io n of the major administra tiv e and su p e r ­
visory functions necessary for the effective op e r ­
ation of special education programs at the state,
reg ional or local levels and on the major areas of
knowledge necessary to competently carry out these
basic functions.
These are the current imperatives,
and they appear to rate top priority in our d e l i b e r ­
ations in light of the antici pate d impetus and
thrust Title Six of the Elemen tary and Secondary
Edu ca tio n Act of 1965 will be giving to special
ed uca tion across the nation.
It is the general purpose of this study to obtain
information with regard to the specific nature of the
position of dire ctor of special ed uca tion in the belief
that this type of data will be of value in the development
of better state certificatin g standards and better college
and university pre pa ra ti on programs

for such personnel.

A Specific Statement of the Problem
and Purpose of the Study
At this time, there has b e e n little research data
regarding the specific administrative activities of special
education administrators
other administrators.

in compari son to the activities of

Because of the a fo re ment ion ed fac­

tors which create a mu lt i- fa ceted complexity to the ad m i n i s ­
tration of special education programs,

24

and the increasing

Kenneth Blessing, "Preparation for State L e a d e r ­
ship Roles," Presentation, Ame rican Associ at io n on Mental
Deficiency Conference, March 29, 1967, St. Louis, Missouri.

15

numbers of administrators assigned full-time to such roles,
there is an increasing need for the in for ma tio n gained from
this investigation.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
present role and determine the specific administr ati ve
activities of directors of special edu cat ion in Mic higa n
through the uti liza ti on of a survey of all such per sonnel
who were emp loyed full-time duri ng the 1966-67 school
year.

Included was in formation regarding:
1.

The configura tio n of specific administrative
activities typically per for med by special ed u­
cation administrators,

and how this varies from

other administrators.
2.

The variation be tw een the admi nistra tiv e act ivi­
ties of local school directors of special ed u­
cation and intermediate school directors of
special education.

3.

Which major administra tiv e areas are pe rce ived
by the directors and other administr ato rs as
being of more importance than others, and which
maj or areas consume the most time.

.

How the academic p r ep ar at ion and previous p r o ­
fessional experience patterns of special e d u ­
cation administrators differ from those of
other administrators.

16

5.

The number of supervisory personnel assist ing
the special educati on administrators,

and the

types of special education programs they serve.

Delimitations of the Study
This study is del imited in the following ways:
The study was restri cted to the state of Mic h ig an
as the most practical meth od of m a ki ng a comprehensive
in-depth study of a total group w i thin a defined geo­
graphical area.

It may later serve as a compa ris on source

for similar studies, uti li zin g special education a d m i n i s ­
trative personnel from other states.
The mailed survey meth od of inv estigation was utilized
in gathering the study data.

Every effort was made to

construct the survey form and all individual questions as
clearly as possible through a careful refinement of the
survey form and through pre -te sting with a representative
group.

Definitions of Terms
For the purposes of this study,

the following d e f i n i ­

tions were employed:
Special Edu cation D i r e c t o r .

A person employed by a

local or intermediate school district to per fo rm such
duties as the development,

organization and ad mi nis tra tion

of special edu cation programs; the pla nni ng and conduc ti ng
of in-service educati on programs

for employees in special

17

education; the development and mai ntenance of continuous
evaluative procedures for special educati on programs; the
provis ion of liaison with the school staff and the com­
munity;

and the pr epa rat ion of reports concerning special

education p r o g r a m s . 2 ^
Special Ed uca tion S u p e r v i s o r .

A person employed by

a local or intermediate school district in a supervisory
or consultative capacity for the instructional phases of
a specific area or areas of special education.
Intermediate School D i s t r i c t .

26

A corporate body,

established by state school laws, which encompasses a
local school district or districts,
fied services to those districts.

27

and provides

speci-

The intermediate

district may also be known as the county school district.
Administrative R o l e .

General functions concerned

with the management of an educational pro gr am or area.
For the purposes of this study, the Special Education
Ad ministrative Role is inclusive of those specific a d mi ni s­
trative activities with in the ten major administrative
areas which are performe d by 50 per cent or more of the

2S

Department of Education, "State-Aid for Special
Educati on Directors and Supervisors," Mic hi ga n Board of
Education, Lansing, Michigan, 1967.
26 I b i d .
27

Mi chi gan State Board of Education, Michigan
General School Laws (Lansing, Michigan, 1966).

18
special ed uca tion directors who pa rti cipa ted in this study.
Role Depth includes the specific administrative ac ti v i ­
ties p er fo rmed by 75 per cent or more of those in the
responding g r o u p s .
Adm inistrative A c t i v i t i e s .
cerned with the management

Specific actions co n­

of an educational prog ram or

area.

O rg anizat ion of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters.
Two reviews the related literature;
the research procedures;

Chapter

Chapter Three details

Chapter Four presents

and sum­

marizes the survey responses; and Chapter Five provides
the conclusions,

implications and recommendations r e s u l t ­

ing from the investigation.

The Importance of the Study
This study was the most extensive inv est igation to
date of administrative activities with in an entire state,
utilizing all full-time special education administrators.
Its importance will be felt by its value and assistance
to:
1.

New directors in defining their roles.

2.

Persons preparing to be directors in developing
individual preparation patterns.

3.

State departments
standards

of education in setting

for the positio n of special edu­

cation director.

19

4.

School districts In det er mi ning what admi nis ­
trative activities are typically assigned to
the special education director.

5.

Superintendents and principals

in a better

understa ndi ng of the administrative activities
typically assigned to their positions and to
that of the director of special education.
6.

Universities in develop ing a pr epa rat ion pattern
for the pos ition of special educat ion director,
including appropriate prac ti cu m and internship
provisions

for those p r epa ri ng to be employed

at the federal,

state,

intermediate or local

school level.
The study also specifies typical additional special
education supervisory personnel who are employed to assist
the director.
The study may also serve as a comparison base for
other states where they do not have special education
millage in intermediate districts;

such millage having

been a special education growth stimulating factor in
Michigan,

Summary
This study was initiated in response to an urgent
and timely need to define the specific professional
activities of full-time special educati on administrators.

20

With the utilization of a survey which was sent to
all full-time special educati on administrators in Michigan,
it was possible to analyze these activities in comparison
with other school administrative positions.

The study

presented herein describes the research procedures,
analyzes the data and presents

conclusions and r e c o m ­

mendations which should be helpful to all school a d m i n i s ­
trators and others who have a pr ofessional relationship
to directors of special education,

such as state d e p a r t ­

ments of education and universities.

CHAPTER II

REVI EW OP LITERATURE

The literature was reviewed relative to:

(a) p r e p a r ­

ation patterns of special education administrators,
special education administrative role studies,

(b)

and (c)

general educational administration role studies.

At the

present time, there is a paucity of literature in the area
of special education a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

Pre paration Patterns for Special
Educatio n Administrators
Van Miller

28

stressed the need for a common b a c k ­

ground in three areas for all administrators:
of the

task and purpose of education,

controls of

education and of society,

standing of leadershi p— power,
communication,

(a) a sense

(b) the structure
and

influence,

and

(c) an u n d e r ­
group processes,

and political strategy.

Several writers have emphasized that special education
information should be included in pre parat io n programs for
special education administrators.

In 1955, the United

States Office of Ed uc ati on reported on a study of 1,625
PR

Van Miller, The Public Ad min is tr at ion of American
School Systems (New Y o r k :
The M a cMill an Co., 1 $ 6 5 ).

21

22
special educators regarding the competencies,

experiences,

professional p re paration and personal characteristics
which con tributed to the success of directors and supervisors of special educati on in local school systems.

29

It was concluded that the special education administrative
role required the professional to be cognizant of:

(a)

the physical, mental and emotional deviations of han d i ­
capped and gifted children;
on the family;

(c) the specific agencies and community

services available;
programs

(b) the effects of handicaps

(d) current trends in educational

for exceptional children;

and

(e) maj or studies

about each group of exceptional children.
Concern reg ard ing the special education prepa rat ion
of administrators was expressed by Mil azzo and B l e s s i n g ^ 0
after 23 per cent of 174 universities

surveyed indicated

they were offeri ng special edu cat ion administ rat ive and
supervisory pre pa ra tion programs with little contact in
special education.

It was possible for students

com­

pleting masters or specialists programs in special edu­
cation adm inis tratio n to have had no special education
teaching experience and but one year of training in the

29

U. S. Office of Education, Directors and Supe r­
visors of Special E ducat io n in Local School Systems
(Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Printing O f f i c e ,
1955) .
^ T o n y C. Mila zzo and Kenneth R. Blessing, "The
Training of Directors of Special Educa ti on Programs,"
Exceptional C h i l d r e n , Vol. XXXI, No. 3 (1964), 129-141.

23

total field of special education.

It was also found that

the emphasis in training at the masters

level tended to

concentrate in one area of exceptionality with little or
no training in administration.

It was generally con­

cluded that more attention should be given to providing
aspirants to leadership positions with a br oade r b a c k ­
ground of academic course work as well as tra ining and
internship experience in administration in special edu­
cation.

It was further reported that there should be

closer cooperation bet ween training institutions,

state

departments of education and local school systems

co nc er n­

ing certification,

internships, programs and needs in the

total area of adm inistration of special education.
Most sources reviewed recommended that the special
education ad ministrator be dually prepared in special e d u ­
cation and general education administration.
Association of School Administrators stated:

The American
31

Educational administrators . . . should be educated
in the same core curriculum and program, but with
provisions made to have specialized practical
experiences and special study in areas designed
to give them the specialized competencies peculiar
to their job.
An exploratory study of ten directors
education in I960 by Cli fford E. Howe

32

of special

recommended that

31

American Association of School Administrators,
Educational Administr ati on in a Changing Community
(Washington, D. C., 19^B), p. 185.
^ C l i f f o r d E. Howe, Roles of the Local Special
Education Director (Urbana, 1 1 1 . : University of Illinois,
I960).

24

graduate tra ining programs for directors of special ed u­
cation should provide some backgr oun d in general education
curriculum and administration, but that the majo r emphasis
might well be on pr ovidin g comprehensive knowledge of the
major ideas and techniques in each area of exceptionality,.
Howe specified that such a training program would require
a minimum of two years of graduate study.
Connor

has stated:

Special education administrators must be increasingly
prepared for and conversant with the body of facts,
attitudes and competencies that make up the field of
general educational administration.
Thus, the
commonalities of the educational efforts fundamental
to special education and regular educati on should at
least equal the emphasis placed upon the specialized
techniques, pre par at io n and pride of various ex­
ceptional specialities. . . . Wh ate ver their prior
preparation or profe ss ion al commitments, the in­
structional objectives and nature of the educational
program for exceptional children take precedence in
shaping administrative emphasis and decisions by all
who head special education programs.
Upon the base
of instruction must be built the theory of special
education administr atio n which is destined to best
meet the needs of exceptional children. . . . Thus,
general school administrators who are entering special
education must assimilate the complex methods and
materials which make schooling for exceptional chil­
dren so specialized.
Without the latter type of
preparation, general administrators are interlopers
in the field of special education; without the former,
special educators may be excellent teachers or other
professionals, but they are seldom competent admi ni s­
trators .
3O
Leo E. Connor, "Preliminaries to a Theory of
Administration for Special Education," Except ion al Children,
Vol. XXIX, No. 9 (May, 1963).

25

In referring to appropriate preparat ion relative to
the role of the special edu cat ion administrator, the
Qii

Michigan Senate Education Subco mmi ttee report

concluded:

Much of the special knowledge (of h an di ca pping
conditions) which is considered necessary for
special education per son nel involved in actual
daily contact wi th h a nd ic ap ped children and their
parents, appears to also be necessary for the
administr ato r of special education.
The cumulative implications of the literature is
that the academic pre pa ratio n of special education
directors

should include basic core information in general

educational a dm in istr ati on in concert with specialized
information re gar ding more than one type of exception alit y
and its effects.

There are, however, no comprehensive

listings of the administrative activities pe rfo rmed by
special educati on directors whi ch would specifically p r e ­
dicate the necessity of these required competencies.

Special Educ ation Ad ministr ati on
Role Studies
It Is generally agreed that the duties and r e s p o n s i ­
bilities of special educati on directors vary greatly.

In

a prese nta tion at a conference of the Council for Excep tio nal
Children, Dean Fogle,

3^
35

35

indicat ed a few factors which

Mi ch iga n State Senate,

o p . c l t . , pp. VII-B-1.

Dean Fogle, "Preparation of Adm inistrators and
Supervisors in Special E d u c a t i o n — the View from School
Administration" (presentation at Council for Exc eptional
Children Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, March 29, 1967).

26
contribute to the variati on of the responsibilities and
duties of special educati on administrators.

They in­

cluded :
1.

The philosophy of the program.

2.

The size of the program.

3.

The density of area population.

4.

The scope of the program.

5.

The economic factors of the community.

6.

The availability of supportive personnel.

7.

The previous training and experience of the
administrator.

8.

The state rules and regulations.

Leo Connor

concurred:

"An analysis of the duties

of leaders of special education programs will reveal a
diversity of time devoted to each of them."

However,

he

did indicate eight main function categories which appear
to be common to all school administrators.
gories were:
and buildings,

These cate­

planni ng and evaluation, personnel, business
auxiliary services,

coordination and direction,

information and advice,

ins truction and organization.

There have been a few studies withi n the last fifteen
years which have indicated the broad administrative roles
of directors of special education.
States Office of Educ ati on

Programs

37

In 1955, the United

study report concluded that

Leo Connor, Adm in istratio n of Special Education
(New York:
Teachers College, l£6l), p. T T .

37U. S. Office of Education,

op.

clt.

27

the functions of adm inistration and supervision each con­
sumed approximately one-thir d of the time of local dir ec ­
tors and supervisors.

The remaining third was divided

almost evenly among the functions of in-service e d u ­
cation, professional study and research, public relations,
and direct services to exceptional children.

Directors

and supervisors ranked the relative importance of thirtysix areas of competency as related to their role.

The

major area of competency indicated was the ability to
give leadership in directing and carrying on a special
education program in keeping with community needs and
resources.

qO
Clifford Howe

reported wide differences

among the

directors included in his study, both as to how they p e r ­
ceived their jobs and as to the duties they performed.
He classified them roughly into two groups,

according to

their attitudes regarding their positions.

The first

group felt there was nothing unique which would d i ff er en­
tiate their functions
trator.

from those of a regular a d m i n i s ­

The second group believed that the unique r e ­

quirement was something whi c h could probably best be
labeled "content competency in various areas of special
education."
with the most

He found in general, that those individuals
comprehensive backgr ou nd in special ed u­

cation, both by virtue of tra ining and experience, were
OQ

H o w e , op.

cit.

28
the ones who geared their work as directors to staff
development and improvement of the quality of instruction
within their system.

Others, who had minimal training,

seemed to confine themselves primarily to administrative
details and to quantitative expansion of services.
The preparatio n and work pe rfo rmed by sixty-four
directors and twenty-four supervisors of special edu­
cation in the Great Lakes
by Ellyn G. Lauber.

'

five state region was reviewed

She uti lized the survey method,

with the survey items for the main part dup licating the
items included in the 1955 study report by the United
States Office of Education.

She found a great gap b e ­

tween pro fessional prepar at io n and the work performed by
special education directors and supervisors.

Dr. Lauber

stressed the need for further research as to needed
special education administrative personnel and the re ­
sponsibilities and roles of such personnel.
A work publish ed by the Council for Exceptional
Children

40

recently stated:

The responsibilities of the administrator of
special edu cation will vary with the size and

^ E l l y n G. Lauber, "Special Edu ca ti on Ad m i n i s ­
tration and Supervisory Personnel in Selected States"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University,

1962) .
4o

Council for Exc eptional Children, Professional
Standards for Personnel in the E duc ation of Exceptional
Children (Washington, D. C .:
Council for Exceptional
Children, 1966).

29

type of program.
In some cases, the administra tor
may have total res ponsibility for the a d m i n i s ­
tration and supervision of all special education.
In others, he may be responsible for the a d m i n i s ­
tration of special education, but may delegate
all or part of the res ponsibilities for su pe r­
vision.
The same p ubl ication concluded that there are fifteen
major competency areas necessary for special education
administration.

They are:

1.

Under stan din g of total education process.

2.

Knowledge

of school org an ization and a d m i n i s ­

trative practices.
3.

Knowledge

of various admi nist rat ive provisions.

4.

Knowledge

of fiscal procedures.

5.

Knowledge

of curriculum development and

methodology.
6.

Knowledge

of supervisory practices

and techniques
7.

Knowledge

and theory

of staff development.

of psycho-educa tio nal and other

diagnostic procedures.
8.

Knowledge

of personnel practices.

9.

Knowledge

and u ti lization of community org an ­

izations and resources.
10.

Ability to identify, define,

and influence the

power structure both with in and outside e d u ­
cation.
11.

Knowledge

of public relations.

30

12.

Knowledge of school law and legislative p r o ­
cesses and their implementation.

13.

Knowledge of school plant planning and
utilization.

14.

Knowledge of research techniques and p r o ­
cedures , and

15.

Knowledge of professional responsibilities to
the field.

Two studies researched problems encountered by
directors of special education,

and thus have been in­

cluded in this revi ew as related to the role of special
education administrators.

Richard J. Kothera

in

request ed

eleven directors of special education in Kansas to re ­
cord graphically or orally all the problems they dealt
with in special education during four separate periods
of one week each.

A total of 815 problems were collected,

compiled and fitted to the competencies

as described in

the United States Office 1955 report and to the ten major
special education administrative problems as developed by
the Wi sla nd -V au ghan study.

1)2

The purpose of K o t h e r a ’s

l)i
Richard J. Kothera, "A Criterion and Set of
Reality Based Problems for Simulation in Special E d u ­
cation Administration" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Kansas, 1967).
lip
Milton V. Wisland and Tony D. Vaughan, "Ad min is­
trative Problems in Special Education," Exceptional
C h i l d r e n , Vol. XXXI, No. 2 (1964), 87-89.

31

study was to est ablish 100 reality based problems In
major categories for si mu lat ion in special education
administration preparation.
Maj or categories under whi ch problems were listed
were:

inter-staff relations, placement procedures,

sultant to generalists,

d eve loping ind ividualized p r o ­

grams, tra nsp ortation problems,
and coordination,

con­

curriculum construction

inter-district relationships, budget

and finance, policy formation, public relations, pupil
identification and evaluation, pupil discipline, research,
classroom and pro gr am supply, recruitment, parent coun se l­
ing, general p r ogram development,

in-service training and

no category.
In a study of 263 special educatio n administrators,
Wisland and V a u gh an

43

developed a list of the ten most

significant problems encountered by special education
administrators.

They were:

obtaining adequately p r e ­

pared personnel,

adequately pro vi di ng for the multiply

handicapped, helping parents understand their children,
adequately provid in g for all types of exceptionality,
having adequate time for res earch activities,
parents,

developing various curriculas,

counseling

Initiating new

programs and services to expand existing programs,

ob­

taining adequate facilities and initiating n e w .p r o g r a m s .

32

In summary, a review of the literature regarding
special educ ation adminis tra tive roles reveals general
agreement that the role of directors varies greatly.
Certain factors have been pre sented which might account
for some of the variation.

A few studies wit h in the past

fifteen years have generally indicated the role of d i r e c ­
tors of special education.

However, there are no c om p r e ­

hensive studies of the specific adm inistrative activities
of this group of administrators.

General Ad mi nist ra ti on Role Studies
In May of 1967, W i l l i a m Southw ort h

MU

stated:

Constant change and increased w o rk lo ad are
the lot of the superintendent. . . . Moreover,
demands on the superintendent's time are incr eas­
ing, in part because there is no real job d e ­
scription for the position, and no universally
accepted limits to the demands that can be placed
on him.
Thus,

the lack of a specific job de scr ip tio n is ind i­

cated also in other areas of administration.

However,

there is much more literature regarding the role of general
education administrators than there is reg ard ing special
education administration.
It is widely accepted that the maj or function of
educational adm in is tr at ion is to provide the best possible

^ W i l l i a m Southworth, "The Superintendency:
A
Position in Flux," School Board Journal (May, 1 9 6 7 ).

33
pr og ra m of instruction for children and youth.
functions whi ch contribute
end have been indicated,
planning, organizing,

45

^

Other

to the achievement of this

and include:

communicating,

46

decision making,

influencing,

coor di­

nating and evaluating.
J47

Wil liam J, Early

conducted a survey study of

sixty administrators enrolled in a Mich iga n State U n i ­
versity educational administr ati on externship course to
evaluate the course and suggest areas

for improvement.

The externs responded wit h activity areas which indicate
a high degree of involvement.

Pro viding for instructional

leadership was the single activity which received the
highest point value for the specific activity experienced,
as well as for the effect of the experience by all externs.
The study Indicated that the general area of staff r e ­
lations yielded the highest percentage of experiences
for all externs.
was

The area of curriculum and instruction

of the greatest value to the extern whose professional

position encompassed the responsibilities of a specific

45

John A. Ham seyer et a l ., "Factors Affecting E d u ­
cational Adm in istration," School-Community Development
Study (Columbus, Ohio:
The Ohio State University Press.

T^5T, pp. 74-76.
46

Russell T. Gregg, "The Administrative Process,"
Administrative Beha vi or in E d u c a t i o n , Russell Gregg and
Roald Campbell (editors) (New York:
Harper and Brothers,

1957).
47

Wil li am J. Early, "An Evalua tion and Analysis
of the Extern Program in Edu cational Ad mi nis trat ion at
Michigan State University" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1963 ).

building or educational program, and the area of pupilpersonnel guidance had the greatest effect upon this
extern.

For externs with district-wide responsibilities

the area of school board relations had both the greatest
value and effect.
Current

literature emphasizes the leadership and

integrative nature of educational administration.

48

Miller argued that administration is first and foremost
communication.

Morphet

49

expanded on the need to make

an art of the process of mobilizing resources to work
through problems,

stating that the ad ministrator must

work eff ectively wi t h the staff, the board of education,
citizens committees,

the representatives of the mass

media of communication,

and with the representatives

the various power groups in the society.

of

Ac cordin g to

Morphet, the administr ator must be able to assist these
groups in develop ing a program that will lead to the
fuller achievement of the goals of education;
he must enlist,

energize,

in short,

facilitate, but not dominate.

School administrative roles have thus been broadly
defined by several writers.

E a r l y ’s study

50

attempted to

48

Van Miller, The Public Adm ini stration of American
School Systems (New Y o r k : The Mac Mil lan Co., 19&5), PP.
^73-5.
49

Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L.
Reller, Educational Administration (Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey!
tr'entice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 150.
50

Early, op.

cit.

35

define more precisely the adm inistrative activities of
educational administrators.

Implications from the Literature
for Need ed Research
The literature indicates that special edu cation
administrators should receive academic prepar at io n in
both special educatio n and general educational a d mi ni s­
tration.

A few role studies have been acc omplished

regard ing special educati on administration, and several
writers have pr esente d infor mat ion regardi ng the co m­
petencies required for general educational administration.
Yet there is no comprehensive specific

listing of the

administrative activities typically per fo rm ed by special
education administrators.

This study meets a distinct

need in special education adm ini st ra ti on research, by
providing:
1.

An examination of all currently employed full­
time directors of special education in a total
state,

for the purpose of determ ini ng specific

administ rat ive activities.
2.

A comparison of the administrative activities
of special education directors with those of
superintendents and principals employed in the
same school systems.

3.

A de te rmin ati on of the administrative activities
which special education administrators have
primary res ponsibility

for effectuating.

.

A definit ion of the number and variety of p r o ­
fessional persons supervised by special e d u ­
cation administrators.

5.

A specification of the supervisory positions
which typically assist the director of special
education.

6.

A comparison of the administrative activities
of directors of special education at the local
level with those of the director of special
education at the intermediate level.

7.

A comparison of the administrative activities
of directors of special education in larger
districts with those in smaller districts.

In addition, this study indicates

other areas of

special education admi nistrati on which require further
research.

The total study makes an important

contributi

to the field of special education administration.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The Study Population
In order to properly investigate the areas of con­
cern, the study populat ion was selected to include all
full-time directors of special education in the state of
Mic hig an who were employed in the public schools during
the 1966-67 school year.

In addition,

other administrative

personnel were selected from the school systems
these special education directors

served by

for the purpose of com­

paring differences in administrative roles and isolating
those activities which appeared to make up the expected
duties of a director o'

special education.

The a d mini s­

trative positions selec ed for comparison with the position
of director of special education were those of the superin­
tendent and principal.

Although it was recognized that

other types of administrative positions exist in most
school systems,

the positions of superintendent and p r in ci ­

pal were selected as being the most consistent in their
defined roles and therefore the most appropriate for com­
parison purposes.
level,

At the intermediate school district

the comparison position was limited to that of

37

38

the superintendent due to the fact that the pos iti on of
principal does not occur at that level.

In selecting

the partic ul ar pr incipa l for the study from each local
district, the deci si on was made to consistently survey
the elementary and secondary princip al hav ing the largest
number of staff in the district.
The total po pul ation selected for study is shown
in Table 1.

TABLE 1. — The study population.

Group

Number

Intermediate school district directors
of special ed ucat ion

26

Intermediate superintendents of
schools

26

Local school district directors of
special education

55

Local school district
of schools

55

superintendents

Local school district elementary
principals

55

Local school district
principals

55

secondary

Meth od of Collect ing the Data
The method of collecting the data uti lized a mailed
questionnaire to each of the individuals in the study
population.

The names of the local and intermediate

district directors of special education were obtained

39

from a mai li ng list of such persons developed by the
Mic hig an Department of Education.

The names of the p e r ­

sons in the four other administrative positions were
obtained from the Mich igan Ed uc atio n Directory.

Develop ing the Survey Form
When this study was initiated,

it was the theory of

the writer that while the administrative activities of
directors of special education were deemed by previous
writers

(indicated in Chapter II) to vary greatly,

it

would be possible, through careful investigation, to
identify a specific group of such activities which ty p i ­
cally are performed by these administrators.
Furthermore,

it was felt that certain identifiable

factors might account for the variation of administrative
activities among the directors of special education.
factors which might be responsible

The

for the variati on would

include those descriptive of the program to be ad m i n i s ­
tered, including age, size,
the program.

location and composition of

The other factors to be studied related

directly to the special education administrator,

including

his previous profe ss ion al experience and academic p r e p a r ­
ation .
In order to define the administrative activities of
directors of special education,

it was decided to include

37
'Mi chi ga n Edu cation Directory and Buyers G u i d e ,
1966-67 (Lansing, Michigan:
Mic hi gan Educ at io n A s s o c i ­
ation Directory, 1967).

40

in this survey study a broad and general check list of
known administrative activities in education with an
additional category labeled "Other" for the respondents
to write in any omitted areas.

In develo pin g the survey,

various materials were reviewed which listed administrative activities in education

rjfi

>->*>

40

and consultation

occurred with university personnel in the Mic higa n State
University College of Education.

Of the various a d m i n i s ­

trative activity lists, the mat erial developed by Early
(see appendix)

appeared to be the most inclusive.

Dr.

Early had reviewed several listings of administrative
activities in the process of developing his final doc u­
ment.

This listing was therefore selected as the basis

for the development

of the administrative activity items

utilized in this study.
reviewed,

Early's listing was carefully

some items omitted,

and other items were ad­

justed to more clearly develop the purpose of this study.
Several items were added as a result of consultation with
university personnel and other profe ssi onal colleagues,
the writer's experience and the review of the literature.
The items which were added to Early's listing of
administrative activities were as follows:
*3 Q

Council for Exceptional Children,
39

40

U. S. Office of Education,
Early,

op.

cit.

op.

op.

cit.

cit.

Area

Item

Curriculum and Instruction

Writ in g articles for p r o ­
fessional journals.
Initiating new programs.
Keeping aware of state school
laws.

Personnel Adminis tra tion

Recommend in g tenure a p poi nt ­
ments .

Finance

Requesti ng and administering
federal f u n d s .

Business Management &
Practices

A rr an ging to serve n o n ­
resident pupils.

School Plant

De te rm ining plant utiliz ati on
for non -educational p u r ­
poses .
De te rm ining re modeling needs
of school facilities.
De t e r mi ni ng physical location
of classes.

Auxiliary Services

Supervis in g or coordinating
school diagnostician
program.
Supervisin g or coordinating
school nurse program.
Supervisin g or coordinating
school social worker
program.
S up er vising or coordinating
speech correction program.

Pupil-Personnel Guidance

Counseling of students and
parents.

Community Relations

Making speeches at state and
national conferences.
Arranging student teaching
and internship experiences
with universities.
Meeting with legislators
regarding school issues.
Developi ng cooperative
agreements bet ween school
districts for programs.

42

Area

Item

Staff Relations

Repres ent ing school board
in profe ssi onal n e g o t i ­
ations wit h teachers.
Int erpreting specialized
educational programs to
other educators.

Thus, twenty items were added to the rev ision of
Early's listing of administrative activities.

Further

refinement of the survey form occurred after a pre-test
was administered to seven persons,

one in each of the

six groups studied, plus an additional intermediate
director of special education.

These refinements in­

cluded r ear ranging the order of survey form sections,
clarifying the language in a few instances,

and changing

the numerical significance in the rank order areas
”0" rep resented "least" rather than "most."

so that

No additional

items were added to the listing of pos sible administrative
activities as a result of the pre-test.
The data pr ocessing section of the Mic h i g a n D e pa rt­
ment of Edu ca ti on provided many valuable suggestions

in

the development of the final survey form reg ardi ng app r o ­
priate styling of the form for ease of tabulation and
summarization of the information through data pr ocessi ng
techniques.
The final survey form

(see appendix)

consisted of

three parts:
1.

Inf ormation re gar ding the r e s p o n d e n t — including
professional experiences,

academic preparation,

43

age,

sex,

salary and other relevant

factors,

was obtained in order to describe and compare
the administrators in each of the six groups.
A check list of adm inistrative activities

for

the purpose of specifying the constellation of
administrative activities per fo rme d by each of
the groups studied.

This section was divided

into ten major adm inistrative areas.

These

ten major areas were further divided into
specific administrative activities.

There was

a total of 113 specific adm inistrative a c t i v i ­
ties listed.

The ten major areas, number of

specific items under each, and an example of
a specific administrative activity are:
Maj or
Area

Number of
Specific
Activities

Example

Curriculum
& Instruc­
tion

15

Developi ng curricu lum for
total school or specialized
area

Personnel
Adminis­
tration

12

Preparing criteria for p e r ­
sonnel selection

Finance

12

Preparing a budget

Business
Management
& Practice

10

D ev el oping a systematic con­
trol of records and funds

School
Plant

15

Selecting a school architect

Auxiliary
Services

12

Evaluati ng transport ati on
needs

44

Number of
Specific
Activities

Maj or
Area

Example

Planning and evaluating a
guidance and testing prog ram

PupilPersonnel
Guidance
Community
Relations

14

Staff
Relations

9

Arranging for and/or co n­
ducting staff meetings

School
Board
Relations

8

Re com mendin g items for the
school board agenda

3.

Organizing lay and p r o f e s ­
sional groups for p a r t i c i ­
pation in educational
planning and other e d u c a ­
tional activities.

Information regarding the school d i s t r i c t —
including questions about the population size
of the district,

scope and age of the special

education program,

and tenure of a special

educati on director in the p a r t i c u l a r .district
The purpose of this section was to provide a
basis

for comparisons of administrative

activities in light of the school district
variations specified above.

Collect ion of the Data
After the refinement of the pre-test,

consultation

with the doctoral committee chairman, project director
and the data pr oc ess ing consultants,

the finalized survey

form was sent to the study populat ion in late June of
1967.

A cover letter

(see appendix)

requested the com­

pleted survey forms to be returned within ten days.

45
Pour weeks later,

follow-up letters and phone calls

were directed to those individuals who had not yet r e ­
turned the survey form.
The group of intermediate school district directors
of special education returned the forms more promptly and
in a higher percentage
other groups,

(100 per cent)

followed by the local school district

directors of special education.
pals,

than any of the

The elementary p r i n c i ­

followed by the secondary principals,

forms later than the others.

returned the

This is probably due to the

fact that most elementary principals are typically e m ­
ployed on a shorter yearly contract than the other a d m i n i s ­
trators studied.

Perhaps the faster return,

in higher

percentages, by both groups of directors of special ed u­
cation also indicated a greater degree of interest in the
results of this study, since it applies more directly to
them.
In order to obtain a clearer picture of the specific
administrative activities of directors of special education,
it was important to Include only administrators who were
assigned full-time to such a role,

and whose survey r e ­

sponses would not include those activities which were
necessitated by additional role assignments.

The survey

form requested them to check their full-time position.
When the survey forms were returned, the responses
of four local school district directors

of special

46

education indicated they were not assigned full-time to
that role, but were specifically assigned other r e ­
sponsibilities as well withi n the school system.

In

order to main ta in the invest igation procedure as de ­
scribed,

all forms from these four districts were di s­

carded.

Thus,

a total of sixteen from the original

study population were deleted,

leaving a re vised total

survey populat ion of 272 administrators.
All twenty-six or 100 per cent of the intermediate
school district directors of special education returned
the completed survey forms.

Ninety-three per cent or

fifty-one of the local school district directors of
special education responded.

The returned responses of

the four other administrative groups ranged from 49 to

69 per cent.

The investigation po pul ati on was judged

to be adequate, especially for the two groups of d i r e c ­
tors of special education.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSI S OF INFORMATION

Inform ati on Regarding the Subjects
The 182 returned surveys represented the groups and
numbers as indicated in Table

2.

The response from the total populatio n sample of
272 rep resented 100 per cent of the intermediate district
directors of special education;

93 per cent of the local

school directors of special education;

and other response

percentages ranging from 49 to 69 per cent.
Males rep resented 89 per cent of the total respondents,
with only 11 per cent females

(see Table

3).

The groups

with the highest percentage of females were the local
directors of special educati on
mentary principals

(20 per cent) and the e l e ­

(19 per cent).

There were no female

local superintendents in the study po pu lat ion and only
one female intermediate superintendent.
Since the female

constituency of the total study

population was so small,

it was not considered advisable

to make comparisons of any administrative groups by sex
differences.

47

TABLE 2.— The number and percentage of returned survey forms from the six administrative
groups.

Group

5

Total

Name of Group

Number of
Surveys
Sent

Number of
Surveys
Returned

Per Cent
Returned

Intermediate District Directors
of Special Education

26

26

100

Intermediate District Sup eri n­
tendents

26

18

69

Local School Directors of
Special Education

55

51

93

Local School Superintendents

55

29

53

Local District Elementary
Principals

55

27

56

Local District Secondary
Principals

55

31

**9

272

182

Six Groups

Average Sl%

49

TABLE 3.— De scr ip tio n of respondents by sex.

Group

Males

Total
Number

No.

Females
%

No.

%

Intermediate
Directors of
Special E d u ­
cation

26

23

88

3

12

Intermediate
Superinten­
dents

18

17

94

1

6

Local
Directors
of Special
Education

51

41

80

10

20

Local
Superin­
tendents

29'

29

100

0

0

Elementary
Principals

27

22

81

5

19

Secondary
Principals

31

29

93

2

7

182

161

Total

While most

8 9%

21

1135

(87 per cent) of the administrators were

over thirty- six years of age and primarily in the thirty-;
forty-five year age range,

the highest percentage

(31 per

cent) of administrators under thirty-six years of age were
intermediate directors of special education.

In contrast,

all but one of the intermediate superintendents were over
fifty years of age

(see Table 4).

TABLE 4.— Description of respondents by age groups.

Group

Total
Number

No.

%

Intermediate
Directors of
Special
Education

26

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

0

0

Local Directors
of Special
Education

51

8

15

Local
Superintendents

29

Elementary
Principals

27

Secondary
Principals

31
182

Total

116-50

36-115

Below 36

31

No.

No.

13

Over 50
No.

50

3

11

6

0

0

17

94

25

119

9

18

9

18

3

7

2H

2

7

19

66

22

9

33

3

11

9

3n

0

0

1H

45

9

29

8

26

23

13

69

38

25

65

35

51

Only one administ rat or
was under thirty years old.

(an intermediate director)
No intermediate sup eri n­

tendents or secondary principals checked the below thirtysix year age category.

The largest percentage of admi ni s­

trators in this category were intermediate directors of
special education
principals

(31 per cent),

followed by elementary

(22 per cent) and local directors of special

education (15 pe r cent).
The salary range for each of the groups studied was
varied, with the exception of local superintendents.
local superintendents received over $16,000.

All

The salary

was over $13,000 for a ma jor ity of each of the other
groups in the study po pul ation
More intermediate
(45 per cent)

(see Table 5).

(total of 54 per cent) and local

directors of special education reported a

salary range of $13,000 to $15,999 than any other range.
The total salary range reported by local directors was
more inclusive of the possible responses than that of the
intermediate directors.

No intermediate director checked

the $5,000 to $9,999 salary range, while 4 per cent of
the local directors checked this category.

Only one

other group in the study checked the $5,000 to $9,999
minimum salary range category, with one secondary p r in ci­
pal, representing 3 per cent.
age

(14 per cent)

directors

However,

a higher p e r c e n t ­

of local directors than intermediate

(11 per cent)

salary over $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 .

of special education reported a

TABLE 5-— Descri ption of respondents by salary range

Group

Intermediate
Directors of
Special
Education

Total
Number

$10,000
to
$12,999

$ 5,000
to
$9,999
No.

%

No.

26

%

35

$13,000
to
$15,999
No.

%

14

5 1*

Over
$16,000
No.

%

No
Response
No.

%

11

VJ1

ro

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

Local Directors
of Special
Education

51

Local S u per­
intendents

29

Elementary
Principals

27

0

Secondary
Principals

31

1

182

3

Total

17

19

0

3
1

37

50

27

23

45

7

14

29

100

12

44

14

52

4

13

15

50

10

32

1

2

47

24

71

38

59

35

2

2

53

Comparisons were made regarding the salary range of
intermediate and local directors according to school
districts with more or less than 15,000 pupils.

Local

and intermediate directors in smaller districts typically
received less salary than the directors
tricts

in larger d i s ­

(see Table 6).
A salary in the range of $10,000 to $12,999 was

reported by 50 per cent of the local directors and 83
per cent of the intermediate directors of special e d u ­
cation in districts with less than 15,000 pupil m e m b e r ­
ship.

A maj ority

(65 per cent)

of both groups of directors

in districts with more than 15,000 pupil membership r e ­
ported a salary in the $13,000 to $15,999 range.
The local directors

(6 per cent)

of special e d u ­

cation in districts with less than 15,000 pupil membership
were the only directors who reported a salary in the
$5,000 to $9,999 range.
The academic backgrounds
reviewed.

of the six groups were

Information was obtained regarding highest

degrees held

(with comparisons of directors in large and

small districts),

teaching certificates held, undergraduate

and graduate majors,

and the special education preparation

of directors of special education

(with comparisons

directors in large and small districts)
through 13).

(see Tables

of
7

TABLE 6.— Salary range variations of directors of special education according to size
of district (more or less than 15,000 pupils).

Districts

Total
Number

$10,000

$5,000
to
$9,999

to
$12,999

No,

No.

$13,000
to
$15,999
No

Over
$16,000
No.

Local
Under 15,000

34

2

6

17

50

12

35

3

9

Over 15,000

17

0

0

2

12

11

65

4

23

6

0

0

5

83

1

17

0

0

20

0

0

4

20

13

65

3

15

Intermediate
Under 15,000
Over 15,000

55

The highest degree held by most administrators was
at the m a s t e r ’s level.
of doctorates

The group with the largest number

(4l per cent) was the local superintendents.

All administrators had completed academic requirements
beyond the baccalaur eat e level.

The least variation in

highest degree held was reported by intermediate s u pe ri n­
tendents and elementary principals, with almost all r e ­
spondents having the master's degree.
The highest degrees held by local and intermediate
directors were very similar.

All directors held degrees

higher than the baccalaureate

level.

Most directors

(77 per cent intermediate and 78 pe r cent local)

reported

the master's degree as the highest degree held.

However,

15 per cent of the intermediate and 16 per cent of the
local directors held degrees at the doctorate level.
In comparing the highest degrees held by local and
intermediate directors according to the size of the dis­
trict

(more or less than 15,000),

local

(33 per cent compared to 6 per cent)

mediate directors

it was

found that more

(20 per cent compared to 0 per cent)

the larger districts have doctorate degrees
A higher percentage of local
intermediate

and in t e r ­

(100 per cent)

in

(see Table 8).

(85 per cent)

and

directors of special e d u ­

cation in districts with less than 15,000 pupil m e m b e r ­
ship reported the master's degree as the highest degree
held, while the directors in larger districts held higher

TABLE 7.— Description of respondents by highest degrees held.

Highest Degree Held
Group

Total
Number
No.

Education
Specialist

MA

BA
%

No.

%

No.

%

Doctorate
No.

%

Intermediate Directors
of Special Education

26

20

77

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

16

89

Local Directors
of Special Education

51

0

0

40

78

8

16

Local
Superintendents

29

0

0

16

55

12

41

Elementary
Principals

27

0

0

26

96

Secondary
Principals

31

0

0

26

84

4

13

1

3

182

0

0

144

80

11

6

27

14

Total

4

1

15

5.5

5.5

0

TABLE 8.— Variations in highest degree held by directors
to size of district (more or less than 15,000 pupils).

Group

BA

Number

of special education according

MA

No.

%

No.

® d u c ft ^?n
bpeciaiist
%

No.

%

Doctorate
No.

%

Local Directors
Under 15,000

33

0

0

28

85

3

9

2

6

Over 15,000

18

0

0

12

67

0

0

6

33

6

0

0

6 100

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

14

70

2

10

4

20

77

0

0

.60

78

5

7

12

15

Intermediate
Directors
Under 15,000
Over 15,000
Total

58

percentages
directors

of degrees beyond the m a s t e r ’s level

33 per cent compared to 15 per cent;

mediate directors

(local

inter­

30 per cent compared to 0 per cent).

Only two groups contained any administrators who
did not possess a tea ching certificate:
per c e n t ) and two intermediate
special education.

(8 per cent) directors of

for which a teaching

certificate is not always required
(63 per cent)

(see Table 9).

Not

elementary principals

held elementary teaching certificates and most
cent)

(4

This is probably because some were

formerly school diagnosticians

surprisingly, most

two local

(74 per

secondary principals held secondary teaching

certificates.

Most

(83 per cent)

intermediate sup er in ­

tendents possessed a life teachin g certificate.

More

(58 per cent) of the intermediate directors of special
education held secondary rather than elementary
cent)

certificates.

More

(43 per cent)

(26 per

of the local

directors of special education held elementary rather
than secondary

(37 per cent)

certificates.

The range of

certificates held by local directors of special education
was greater than the range indicated by intermediate
di r e c t o r s .
Undergraduate majors in secondary education were
more prevalent
education

for intermediate directors of special

(40 per cent),

intermediate superintendents

(79 per cent), local superintendents

(73 per cent)

and

TABLE 9.— Description of respondents by teaching certificates held.

Group

Total
Number

No
Certificate

Special
or Life

Elementary

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Secondary
No.

%

Intermediate Directors
of Special Education

26

2

8

2

8

7

26

15

58

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

0

0

15

83

0

0

3

17

Local Directors
of Special Education

51

2

4

8

16

22

43

19

37

Local
Superintendents

29

0

0

16

55

5

17

8

28

Elementary
Principals

27

0

0

8

30

17

63

2

7

Secondary
Principals

31

0

0

8

26

0

0

23

74

182

4

Total
Average %

57
2

70

51
36

25

37

60

secondary principals

(8l per cent),

groups included in this study.

or four of the six

The greatest variation

in unde rgraduate majors was indicated by local directors
of special education.

Most

(6l per cent)

elementary

principals m a jo re d in elementary education at the u n d e r ­
graduate level as shown in Table 10.
Three of the four intermediate directors of special
education who rep orted undergraduate majors other than
education majors

specified the area of psychology, while

the fourth rep orted an undergraduate major in marketing.
This represented 12 per cent of the administrative group,
while a total of 28 per cent of the local directors of
special educati on reported undergraduate majors not in
the college of education.

However, this occurred where

they reported more than one major,
college of education.

including one in the

The other undergraduate major of

local directors of special education was most typically
in psychology or social studies.
Ad minist rat ion was the graduate majo r for 51 per cent
of the respondents, with the majority

(from 68 per cent to

83 per cent) of all groups except directors of special
education indicat ing this as their graduate major.
(47 per cent) and intermediate

Local

(53 per cent) directors of

special education tended to major in special education
at the graduate

level

(see Table 11).

TABLE 10 .— Description of respondents by their undergraduate majors.

Undergraduate Majors
Group
^

Total Number
In Group

Elementary
Education

Maj ors

No.

%

Special
Edu cation
No.

%

cL

Secondary
Education
No.

%

No.

Intermediate
Directors of
Special Education

26

33

5

15

11

33

13

40

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

19

3

16

1

5

15

79

.

Local Directors
of Special
Education

51

60

10

17

17

28

16

Local
Superintendents

29

34

6

18

0

0

Elementary
Principals

27

28-

17

61

1

Secondary
Principals

31

31

2

6

182

205

43

21

Total

cL

Some responses indicated more than one major.

%

4

12

0

0

27

17

28

25

73

3

9

4

6

21

4

14

1

3

25

81

3

10

31

15

100

49

31

15

TABLE 11.— Description of respondents by their graduate majors.

Total Number

Elementary
Education

cL

Special
Ed uca tion

Secondary
Education

Administration

No.

No.

Q .,
e

Group
In Group

Majors

No.

%

No.

Intermediate
Directors of
Special
Education

26

36

0

0

19

53

Intermediate
Superintendents

18

18

0

0

0

0

Local Directors
of Special
Education

51

64

30

47

Local
Superintendents

29

37

0

Elementary
Principals

27

31

6

Secondary
Principals

31

■ 36

0

0

0

0

7

19

27

75

2

6

182

222

10

5

51

23

20

9

114

51

27

12

Total

cl

2

5

%

8

22

11

15

83

7

18

13.5

19

Some responses indicated more than one major.

%

No.

%

8

22

28

10

15

25

68

5

21

68

13.5

63

It is apparent that specialization in their a d mi ni s­
trative area began at the undergraduate level for all
groups in this study except administrators of special
education, who tended to emphasize special education at
the graduate level.

Undergraduate special education

majors were held by 33 per cent of the intermediate
directors

of special education, but 53 per cent of this

group held graduate special education majors

(some had

majored in special education at both undergraduate and
graduate levels).
directors

This same pattern exists for local

of special education, with 28 per cent r e port­

ing undergraduate special education majors,

compared to

47 per cent indicating graduate special educati on m a j o r s .
The relatively recent growth of special educati on may
account

for the later pre par at io n in the basic area of

education to be administered.

The "other" graduate majors

reported by intermediate directors of special education
were typically guidance and counseling,

and for local

directors of special education, the "other" majors were
typically psychology.
The literature

41

presents a need for directors of

special education to be academically prepared in more
than one special education area in addition to a d mi ni s­
tration.

4l

Table 12 indicates the areas of special

U. S. Office of Education, "Directors and S u p e r ­
visors of Special Educati on in Local School Systems,"
op. cit.

64

TABLE 12.— Areas of special ed ucat ion prepar ati on for
which directors of special edu ca tion are eligible for
state temporary ap pr o v a l . &

Local
Directors
(Total-51)

Special E duca ti on
Area

Intermediate
Directors
(Total-26)

No

%

No.

Blind

3

6

3

12

Deaf

4

8

3

12

Orthopedically
Handicapped

6

12

2

8

Mentally
Handicapped

26

51

13

50

Emotionally
Disturbed

11

22

5

19

School Social
Work

6

12

4

15

School
Diagnostician
(Psychology)

18

35

10

38

Speech
Correction

11

22

5

19

aSome are pr epa red in more
cation area.

%

than one special edu-

education p rep ar at io n of directors of special education.
The highest percentages of local
mediate

(51 per cent)

and int er­

(50 per cent) directors were prepared in the area

of the men tally handicapped,
cian prepara tio n

followed by school d i a g n o s t i ­

(35 per cent and 38 per cent respectively).

65

The lowest per cent

(9 per cent)

of directors of special

education are those who were pre pared in the area of the
blind.
Local directors of special education were prepared
in an average of 1.6 areas of special education, while
intermediate directors were pre pared in an average of
1.7 areas of special education, neither group r e p r e ­
senting the amount of prep ar at io n rec ommended by the
literature.
Since many of the special educati on programs to be
ad min istered are classr oom programs, the directors were
asked to indicate the numb er of special ed uc ati on cla ss ­
room programs

for which they would be eligible for state

approval as teachers.

The largest percentage

(48 per cent)

of both local and intermediate directors were eligible
for approval in only one special educ ati on classroom
program.

A total of 10 per cent were not eligible for

state approval for any special education classroom t e a c h ­
ing and 8 per cent were eligible for more than three
special education areas of te aching

(see Table 13).

A total of 29 per cent of both groups of directors
held academic majors in special educati on plus a d m i n i s ­
tration as indicated in Table 14.

However, no int er ­

mediate directors in smaller districts

(under 15,000)

were dually prepared in special education and a d mi ni s­
tration.

There were no other major differences found

66

TABLE 13.— Number of special education areas for which
directors of special education are eligible for state
approval as classro om teachers (special service areas
not included).

Number of
Special
Education
Areas

Local
Directors

Total
No.

%

No.

%

Intermediate
Directors
No.

%

8

10

6

12

2

8

One

37

48

24

47

13

50

Two

13

18

8

16

5

19

Three

12

16

8

16

4

15

7

8

5

9

2

8

None

More Than
Three
Total
Number

77

26

51

in this area of inquiry according to comparisons of
large and small districts.

Most

(52 per cent) directors

had academic pre pa rat io n only in special education,

and

not in the area of administration.
The total average number of years of professional
experiences in education for all groups ranged from 14.6
to 32 years

(see Table 15).

Both groups of superintendents

had more average years of prof essional experience than the
other four groups
years).

(intermediate,

32 years;

local,

28.6

Both groups of directors of special education

had the fewest average number of years previous p r o ­
fessional experience and also the smallest average

TABLE 14.— Variations in academic preparation of directors of special education
according to size of district (more or less than 15,000 pupils).

Academic Major Preparation

Group

Number

Special
Education
Major, No
Administration
No.

%

Administration
Major, No
Special
Education
No.

%

Special
Education
Plus
Administration
No.

%

Other
(i.e.,
General
Education)
No.

%

Local
Directors
Under
15,000

33

17

51

4

12

10

31

2

6

Over
15,000

18

9

50

3

17

5

28

1

5

Under
15,000

6

4

66

1

17

0

0

1

17

Over
15,000

20

10

50

2

10

7

35

1

5

77

40

52

10

13

22

29

5

6

Intermediate
Directors

Total

TABLE 15-— The professional experiences of the six admini s t r a t i v e groups.

Intermediate
Directors of
FdPr a M o n
Education

Tot a l Years E m p l o y e d in E d u c a t i o n
Range
Av erage

T ,

.. ,
6

^endentl

Local
Directors
° r, Spe?ial

ten®ent;

E lementary

Secondary

Principals

Principals

Educa t i o n

6-35
15

20— if3
32

3-33
14.6

11-43
28.6

6-42
20. 3

12-41

Total Years E mpl oye d in M i c h i g a n
Range
Aver age

6-30

1'!

6-43
31

2-30
14

6-43
24

6-42
20.3

1-41
18.5

Total Years E m p l o y e d Out of M i c h i g a n
Range
Av erage

0-10

1-14

0-16

0-25
4.7

0-2

1

0-18
1.7

1-17
4

1-21
9

1-17
6.5

1-20
4.6

Nu m b e r of Years
Range
Average

in Present

Nu m b e r of Years
Ad min is t r a t o r
Range
Average

as a Ge neral E d u c a t i o n

1

1

0

20

Po sition
1-15
4

Num ber of Years as a Special Edu ca t i o n
Administrator
Range
Average
Nu m b e r o f Years as an Ele me n t a r y Te a c h e r
Range
Aver age
Nu m b e r of Years as a Seconda ry T ea c h e r
Range
Av erage
Nu m b e r of Years as a Spe cia l E d u c a t i o n Tea c h e r
Range
Average
Tota l Years E m p l o y e d in a Special Service
Range
Av erage

1-32
14

4-38
17

0-12
1.6

5-41
21

1-27

1-40

1-15

0-11

1-lE

0-28
4.6

0-6
.4

0-3

0-K

0-16
2

0-10

0-9
1.3

0-21
5

0-3

0-23
5

0-12

0-17
5

0-19
3

0-24

1
0-9
3

0-12
1/2

0-11
3

0-0

0-18
1.3

0-17
.6

0-13
3

0-0

0-30
2.3

0-0

0-0

0-17

0-9

i

9

0-7

0

2

1.7

0
0

0

0

0

on

oo

69

number of years in their present po sit ion and as a
general professional educati on administrator.

The

average number of years as a special education a d mi nis­
trator for both groups of directors was four years.
While the total average number of years of professional
employment for the four other groups ranged from 20 to
32, the average for intermediate directors was 15
years, and for local directors was 14.6 years,

Local

superintendents rep orted an average of *1.6 years as
special education administrators, which may be accounted
for by their role before a full-time dir ector of special
education was employed in their school district.
Selected pro fessional experiences were compared
among directors of special educati on in larger and smaller
districts

(with more/less than 15,000)

in Table 16.

Intermediate directors in smaller districts had a lesser
number of years in their present positions
half years),

in te aching in a special education class­

room (one year)
years).

(two and a

and in total years of employment

However,

they had,

in general,

(eleven

spent more years

in a special service area than the others.
Directors in larger local and intermediate districts
reported a greater average number of years total p r o ­
fessional employment than directors
(intermediate,

in smaller districts

sixteen years compared to eleven years;

and local, nin eteen years compared to fourteen years).

TABLE 16.— Selected professional experience variations between directors according to size of district (more or
less than 15,000 pupils).

Group

Number

Years
Teaching
Special
Education

Years in
Present
Position

Total
Years
Employed
Range

Average

Range

Average

Years
in a
Special
Service

Range

Average

Range

Average

0-11

3

0-15

2

0-9

3

0-30

3

Local Directors
Less than 15,000

18

5-33

1h

1-17

More than 15,000

33

8-3A

19

1-18

Less than 15,000

6

6-17

11

1-6

2 1/2

0-7

1

0-12

li

More than 15,000

20

7-35

16

1-15

^ 1/2

0-9

3

0-13

3

5

Intermediate
Directors

71

The typical admin istr ato r in this
male, with a master's degree,

study is a

over fourteen years p r o ­

fessional experience, with at least five years teaching
experience,

at least four years in his present position,

with a salary over $13,000, and is over thirty- six years
of age.

The und ergraduate majors of all but two groups

were in secondary education, wi th local directors having
majored in special educat ion and elementary principals
in elementary education.

The graduate majors of all of

the administrators except special educati on directors
were in administration, wit h special ed ucat ion directors
majorin g in special educ ation at the graduate level, more
typically in the area of the men tally handicapped.
The foregoing informa tio n has des cribed the study
popul ati on in terms of sex, age,
preparation and experience.

salary, pr ofe ssional

Other factors wil l now be

reviewed which are descriptive of the school districts
represented by the local and intermediate directors of
special education.

I nf ormati on Re gardin g the
School Districts
Data regarding the size of the school districts
served by the directors of special educati on is presented
in Table 17.

This inf ormation is arranged in six groups

according to total district pupil membership.

Thirty- six

per cent of the local directors were emp loyed in districts

72

TABLE 17.— Pupil me mbe rship size of school districts.
Group
Intermediate
Directors

Pupil
Size

Local
Directors

adnge
No.

%

No.

1- 5,000

0

0

5

10

5,001 to
10,000

2

8

18

36

10,001 to
15,000

4

15

11

22

15,001 to
25,000

5

19

10

20

25,001 to
40,000

5

19

4

8

Over
40,000

10

39

2

4

Total Number

26

%

50a

aOne respondent did not complete this item.

serving from 5,001 to 10,000 pupils, while 54 per cent
were employed in districts
pupils,

serving more than 10,000

including 4 per cent in districts over 40,000.

The median school size served was in the 10,001 to 15,000
range.
Intermediate directors generally tended to serve
larger populat ion groups as would be expected inasmuch
as intermediate districts are composed of several
districts.

local

Although 39 per cent of the intermediate

73

directors indicated they were employed by districts of
over 40,000 pupils,

53 per cent were serving districts

with from 10,001 to 40,000 in school membership.

The

median school size served by intermediate directors was
in the 15,001 to 25,000 pupil membership range.
A maj ority of both local
mediate

(80 per cent) and inte r­

(61 per cent) districts

indicated they had op e r ­

ated some type of special education program for over
seven years

(see Table 18).

All local districts had

operated a special educati on pro gram for over four y e a r s .
No districts had operated a program for one year only.

TABLE 18 .— Length of time district (A) operated a special
education program; (B) employed a full-time special e d u ­
cation director.

Program Operated
Time

Local

Director Employed

Intermediate

Local
%

No.

%

19.5

2

8

12

6

23

10

19.5

9

35

61

23

45

9

35

0

2

4

0

0

No.

%

No.

%

No.

One year
only

0

0

0

0

10

2-3
years

0

0

2

8

6

4-7
years

8

16

8

31

41

80

16

2

4

0

Over 7
years
No
Response

Intermediate

74

The length of time the district had employed a
director of special education repres ent ed a more recent
development than the initiation of the special education
program

as presented in Table 18.

A full-time director

was employed in 19.5 per cent of the local districts
one year only.

Almost one-third

(31 per cent)

for

of the

intermediate districts had employed a director for less
than four years, while over two-thirds

(70 per cent)

of

these districts had employed a director for four years
or more.

A higher pe rcentage of local districts

cent) than intermediate districts

(45 per

(35 per cent) had em ­

ployed a direct or for more than seven years.
The seventy- sev en local and intermediate districts
represented in this study employed a total of 2,966
special education profe ssi onal personnel, with 2,510 at
the local district
district level

level and 456 at the intermediate

(Table 19).

Thus, the local districts

employed five times as many professional personnel as
the intermediate districts.
In considering the programs served by the directors
of special education,

it is interesting to note the

similarity bet we en the rank order by percentage of p r o ­
fessional personn el in each special ed uca tion area as
found in the intermediate and local districts.
In the local districts surveyed,
of professionals was

the largest group

found to be in the area of mental

TABLE 19.— Number, percent and frequency rank of professional personnel in each
special education area.

District

Total

Local

Intermediate

Area
No.

%

Rank

No.

%

Rank

No.

%

Rank

97

3

7.5

84

3

•8

13

3

6 .5

Deaf

163

5

6

148

6

5.5

15

3

6.5

Orthopedic

218

7

5

191

8

4

27

6

5

1191

34

1

1077

43

1

114

25

2

Disturbed

117

3

7.5

109

4

7

8

2

8

Social Work

337

13

3

258

10

3

79

17

3

Diagnostic

215

11

4

142

6

5.5

73

16

4

Speech Correction

628

24

2

501

20

127

28

1

456

1005S

Blind

Retarded

Total

29 66

1005S

2510

1005s

2

76

retardation

(^3 per cent) with speech correction second

(20 per cent).

These areas are just revers ed in the

intermediate district programs with speech correction
first with 28 per cent of the personnel and ment al r e ­
tardation second with 25 per cent.

School social workers

ranked third in both groups

(local,

10 per cent and

intermediate 17 per cent).

Diagnosticians ranked fourth

in the intermediate districts
the local districts

(16 per cent) and 5.5 in

(6 per cent).

The re mai ning areas

are all with in one rank for both types of districts with
the exception of the area of the blind which was ranked
6.5 in the intermediate districts and eight in the local
districts.
It appears that the rank order of frequency of
these various personnel types reveals more similarity in
the configuration of pro fessional persons in these two
types of settings than might have been expected.
The number of special education supervisors employed
was reviewed,

and is presen ted in Tables 20 and 21.

majority of the local
per cent)
percentage

A

(75 per cent) and intermediate

districts emp loyed no supervisors.

(65

A larger

(3^ per cent compared to 20 per cent)

of the

supervisors were employed at the intermediate district
level.

No intermediate and only one local district em ­

ployed more than six supervisors.
the local district
rection programs

Most

(62 pe r cent)

supervisors served the speech c o r ­

(3^ per cent),

and programs

for the

of

77
TABLE 20.— Range of special ed ucat ion supervisors
employed.

Local
Districts

Total

Intermediate
Districts

Number Range
No.

#

No.

#

No.

#

Zero

55

71

38

75

17

65

One to Three

12

16

7

14

5

19

Four to Six

6

8

2

4

4

16

Seven to Ten

1

1

1

2

0

0

Over Ten

0

0

0

0

0

0

No Response

3

4

3

5

0

0

Total

77

100#

48

100#

26

10 0#

TABLE 2 1 . — Number of programs served by supervisors in
specific special education areas.

Type of
Program

Local
Districts

Total
No.

#

No

#

Intermediate
Districts
No.

#

Mentally
Handicapped

14

27

8

28

6

27

Speech
Correction

13

25

10

34

3

14

Physically
Handicapped

10

20

5

17

5

23

Emotionally
Disturbed

7

14

3

11

4

18

School Social
Work

4

8

2

7

2

9

Psychological
Services

3

6

1

3

2

9

Total

51

100#

29

100#

22

100#

78

me ntally ha ndi capped

(28 per cent).

The intermediate

district supervisors served primarily the programs for
the mentally handi cap ped
cally handicapp ed

(27 per cent) and the ph y s i ­

(23 per cent).

Pew supervisors were

employed for psychologica l services
or school social worke r programs

(6 per cent total)

(8 per cent total).

Ideal and Actual Time Ranking
for Ma jo r Administr ative
Areas
In obtaining information re ga rdi ng the specific
nature of the position of director of special education,
two general approaches were utilized.

The first was to

determine the actual ranking of time consumed versus an
ideal ranking by the directors as compared to the other
administrative groups in each of ten maj o r areas
cational administration.

of e d u ­

The second approach was to

determine which specific administrative activities with in
the ten major areas were usually per formed by each of the
groups of directors of special education.
The administrators were asked to respond to the ten
major administrative areas in terms of a rank order
nine to zero, with nine equivalent to "most")

(from

of the ideal

amount of their time which should be consumed in each
area as opposed to the actual time est imated as being
spent in each area.

Table 22 represents the responses

each of the six administrative groups.

of

This section was

TABLE 22.— Ideal (I) versus actual

(A) time spent by major administrative areas with rank difference (D) noted.

Average Rank

M a j o r Area

l

Int ermediate
S u p er int end ent

Local
Director

Local
Sup eri n t e n d e n t

Eleme nta ry
Principal

Secondary
Principal

i erenctr

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

5

4

9

5

4

9

3

1

9

7

2

9

9

0

9

9

0

0

Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

1.3

8

8

0

3

7

1

8

9

1

5

8

3

8

6

2

8

7

1

Finance

2.0

3

7

4

3

6

3

2

4

2

4

4

0

0

2

2

0

1

1

Bu siness Managem ent

1.2

2

4

2

5

3

2

1

2

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

2

2

0

School

0.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

Au xiliary Services

CO
o

I
CO

u±

Int erm edi ate
Director

1

2

1

2

2

0

5

6

1

0

1

1

4

3

1

4

3

1

Pu pil -P e r s o n n e l Gui dance

1.3

4

1

3

1

1

0

6

5

1

3

0

3

6

7

1

6

6

0

Community Relat ion s

1.0

5

6

1

7

4

3

4

3

1

7

6

1

5

5

0

5

5

0

Staff Relations

1.5

7

9

2

4

8

4

7

7

0

8

9

1

7

8

1

7

3

1

School Boa rd Relations

2.0

6

3

3

6

9

3

3

0

3

6

5

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

C ur ri c u l u m and I n str uct ion

Plant

Average Rank D iff ere nce

Note:

9 equals

"most," and 0 "least."

2

2

-d

1.2

1.4

1

.6

VO

80

pl ac ed after the listing of specific administrative act iv i­
ties in the survey form to facilitate an und erstanding of
the specific content of the ma jo r area on the part of the
respondents.
With the exception of both groups of principals,
range of responses
great

of ideal and actual rank order was

(often from 0-9)

groups.

the

The responses

among the respondents within the
of elementary and secondary p r i n c i ­

pals indicated general role interpretation agreement.

All

groups agreed that ideally most of their time should be
spent in the major area of Curric ulum and Instruction.
However, only two groups

(elementary and secondary p r i n c i ­

pals) were actually spending most of their time
sented by a "9 ” ranking)
Two groups only

(repre­

in Curriculum and Instruction.

(intermediate directors and superintendents)

were spending the least amount of actual time in the ideal
area of least time,

for both, the area of School Plant.

The least difference between ideal and actual time
rankings was expressed by secondary principals
and the greatest average difference
intermediate directors

(.6 average),

(2.0) was reported by

of special education and inter­

mediate superintendents.
The intermediate directors and intermediate super ­
intendents ideally would like to spend much more time in
Curriculum and Ins truction

(4 rank difference).

superintendents would like to spend less time

Local

(3 rank

81

difference)

in the major adm inistrative area of Personnel

Administration.

Intermediate directors and intermediate

superintendents would like to spend less time in Finance
(4 and 3 point rank difference respectively).

Inter ­

mediate directors and local superintendents would ideally
spend more time in the area of Pupil-Pe rsonnel Guidance
(3 rank difference each).

Intermediate superintendents

would ideally spend more time in Community Relations
rank difference)
difference).

and less time in Staff Relations

(3

(4 rank

Intermediate and local directors would both

ideally spend more time in the area of School Board R e ­
lations, while intermediate superintendents wou l d ideally
spend less time in this area

(3 point rank difference for

all) .
Three and four point rank differences betw een ideal
and actual were indicated by intermediate superintendents
in five areas, and by intermediate directors

in four areas,

representing the highest vari ati on between ideal and actual
time spent in each of the majo r administrative areas

of

all of the groups.
The ideal and actual time rankings of local directors
were compared with those of intermediate directors.
greatest

The

"ideal" ranking variation occurred in the area

of Auxiliary Services, wit h the local directors ranking
it higher by 4 ranks.

The greatest variation in "actual"

time rankings of intermediate and local directors occurred

82

in the areas of Auxiliary Services and Pup il-Personnel
Guidance, with local directors ranking both higher

(4

ranks e a c h ) .
There were no "ideal" time ranking variations b e ­
tween local and intermediate directors in the areas
of Curriculum and Instruction,

Personnel Ad ministrat ion

and Staff Relations; while in "actual" time rankings,
one point rank variations

occurred in Personnel A d m i n i s ­

tration and School Plant.
The "ideal" time ranking responses of intermediate
directors were more like those of local superintendents
(with a 10 point rank difference)
mentary and secondary principals
difference for each)

and least like el e­
(with a 16 point rank

(see Table 23).

The "actual" time

rankings of intermediate directors were more like int er­
mediate and local superintendents
ence with each)

(12 point rank d i f f e r ­

and least like elementary

difference)

and secondary principals

difference)

(see Table 24).

Moreover,

(30 point rank

(28 point rank

the "ideal" time ranking responses of

local directors were more like elementary and secondary
principals

(10 point rank difference

for each)

like intermediate and local superintendents
point rank difference for each in Table 25).
time ranking responses

and least

(note 22
The

"actual"

for local directors were most

like secondary principals

(16 point rank difference) and

83

Total

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

TABLE 23.— Rank difference between the ideal time ranking
of intermediate directors and other groups.

Curriculum and
Instruction

0

0

0

0

0

0

Personnel
Administration

3

0

0

3

0

0

Finance

8

0

1

1

3

3

Business
Management

H

3

1

0

0

0

School Plant

7

0

0

1

3

3

Auxiliary
Services

12

1

4

1

3

3

Pupil-Personnel
Guidance

10

3

2

1

2

2

5

2

1

2

0

0

3

0

1

0

0

Area

Community
Relations
Staff
Relations
School Board
Relations

13

_0

_3

_0

_5

_5

Total

66

12

12

10

16

16

84

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

0

3

2

4

4

5

1

1

0

2

1

18

1

3

3

5

6

Business
Management

9

1

2

1

3

2

School Plant

11

0

1

2

4

4

7

0

4

1

1

1

16

0

4

1

' 6

5

Community
Relations

7

2

3

0

1

1

Staff
Relations

5

1

2

0

1

1

11

_6

_3

_2

_3

_3

108

12

26

12

30

28

Curriculum and
Instruction
Personnel
Administ rat ion
Finance

Auxiliary
Services
Pupil-Personnel
Guidance

School Board
Relations
Total

Secondary
Principals

Intermediate
Superintendents

13

Area

Local
Directors

Total

TABLE 24.— Rank difference between the actual time ranking
of intermediate directors and other g r o u p s .

85
TABLE 25.— Rank difference between the ideal time ranking
of local directors and other groups.
ra
-P
G

•P

G

0)
-P

d)
•P
cd
•H
nd
CD
e

cd
•H to

Area

n G
CD O

Curriculum and
Instruction

0)
T3

0)
Td
G
Cl)
-P

>1 m

G
a>
■p
G

G

cn

G iH

>i r—1

cd cd

G cd
cd a
Td >H

-p a
G -H
0) 0
6 G

1
—1

S -p
G O

cd

0) O

-P
0
Eh

-P G
G -H
H Q

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

2

2

1

1

Personnel
Administration

3

Finance

8

•H

-h

u g

rH G

CD CD
-p
a

cd CD

0 a

G G
H CO

1

1

O

C 0
O G
0 *H
CD G
co a

CD -H
G

1— 1

G

t-3 CO

w a

2

Business
Management

8

1

4

1

School Plant

7

0

0

1

Auxiliary
Services

14

4

3

5

1

1

Pupil-Personnel
Guidance

10

2

5

3

0

0

Community
Relations

9

3

1

Staff
Relations

1

3

3

3

0

1

4

0

3

1

0

School Board
Relations

13

_3

_3

_3

_2

_2

Total

76

12

22

22

10

10

86

least like intermediate directors

(26 point rank d i f f e r ­

ence) and intermediate superintendents
difference,

see Table 26).

(28 point rank

The actual time ran kin g for

the adm inistrative activities of local directors differed
more than did the intermediate directors ranking from
other administr ative roles and dramatizes the difference
between the actual role of the intermediate and local
director of special education.
The ideal and actual rank order of time which the
directors consumed in the ten major areas was reviewed
according to the size of the school district
less than 15>000 pupils)

(more or

and the length of time the

district had employed a full-time director of special
education

(more or less than four years).

Greater di ff e r ­

ences in the rankings occurred among intermediate directors
in large and small districts than among their counterparts
in the local district

(Table 27).

The largest rank difference

(22 rank points)

be­

tween ideal and actual time consumed in the major a d mini s­
trative areas was reported by directors
intermediate districts,

followed by directors in the

larger intermediate districts
The least variation

in the smaller

(10 point difference).

(*J rank points) bet we en ideal and

actual time ranking was indicated by local directors of
special education in districts with less than 15,000 pupil
membership,

indicating the least frustration betwe en ideal

87

TABLE 2 6 .— Rank difference between the actual time ranking
of local directors and other groups.

a>
-p
aJ
•H
•d
<U
e

CO
G
O
p

rH

U o

+3
O

o
p
C
H

a>
G
*H
Q

Area

Eh

Curri cul um and
Instruction

9

9

Finance

10

3

5

2

1

CA

c d

3

1

1

1
2

1

2
2

1

1

3

0

Auxiliary
Services

19

4

4

Pupil-Personnel
Guidance

16

4

4

5

'2

1

Community
Relations

11

3

1

3

2

2

Staff
Relations

7

2

Total

112

26

1

U

9

_3

1

O £
O *H
<D
C O P-i

3

0

1

G o

c

CO

2

a

a

C

o

M CO

CO
>» rH
G cd
cd
TJ *H

>s CO
Sh rH
ccJ a)
p
*H
CD O
e
0) *H
rH G
w a

School Plant

School Board
Relations

1

H

CO
p
c
<d
-d
C
<1)
P
G
•H
G
Q)

a
od

3

Personnel
A dm ini st rat ion

Business
Management

CO
p
C
<1> <D
p
-d
ri C
•H CD
r) p
<u a
G -H
G G
<D CD
P
a

1

_9

28

3

5

2

3

3

1

-

3

1

_5

_0

_0

24

18

16

TABLE 27.— Ideal (I) and actual (A) rank order of time consumed by directors of
special education in major administrative areas according to size of school district
(more or less than 15,000 pupils).
Rank difference (D) is indicated.
Local District
Total
Rank
Difference

Maj or
Area

-15,000

Intermediate District

15 ,000+

-15,000

15 ,000+

Pupils_____ Pupils___________Pupils____ Pupils
D

A

D

D

D

Curriculum and
Instruction

6

9

9

0

9

8

1

9

6

3

7

5

2

Personnel
Administration

2

8

8

0

8

9

1

8

9

1

9

9

0

Finance

8

3

4

1

3

2

1

2

5

3

4

7

3

Business
Management

11

1

2

1

2

3

1

1

8

7

1

3

2

School Plant

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Auxiliary
Services

2

5

5

0

6

6

0

3

2

1

3

2

1

Pupil-Personnel
. Guidance

7

6

6

0

5

4

1

6

1

5

2

1

1

Community
Relations

3

4

3

1

4

5

1

5

4

1

6

6

0

Staff Relations

0

7

7

0

7

7

0

7

7

0

8

8

0

School Board
Relations

4

2

1

1

1

0

1

4

3

1

5

4

1

44

Total

Note:

9 equals

"most” and 0 "least."

4

8

22

10

89

and actual use of time.

Intermediate directors in large

and small districts would Ideally spend less time
points)

in the area of Finance.

(3 rank

Intermediate directors

in smaller districts wou ld ideally spend much less time
(7 rank points)

in the area of Business Management, more

time in Pu pil -Personnel Guidance
and Curriculum and Ins truction

(5 point rank difference)

(3 point rank difference).

Directors in larger local and intermediate districts
spent more actual time

(2 rank points more each)

in

Community Relations than did directors rep resenting
smaller districts.

Intermediate directors in larger

districts ranked ideally and actually the amount of time
in Curriculum and Instruction two or more points below
the other groups.
Directors in both local and intermediate districts
which have employed a director for more than four years
expressed greater agreement between ideal and actual time
spent in the major administrative areas, with a total of
only 8 point rank differences noted.
The greatest difference between ideal and actual
amounts of time consumed was expressed by intermediate
directors

in districts where a director was employed less

than four years in the area of Business Management, with
ideal being 6 rank points less
group had the largest

(Table 28).

This same

(1 6 ) rank point difference between

ideal and actual amounts of time spent in the maj or
administrative areas.

TABLE 28.— Ideal (I) and actual (A) rank order of time consumed by directors of
special education in major administrative areas according to length of time district
has employed a director (more or less than four years).
Rank difference (D) is
indicated.

Local District Director
Intermediate Director
-4 Years
4+ Years
-4 Years
4+ Years
__________________________________________________________

M .
.
Major Area

I

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

I

A

D

Curriculum and Instruction

9

8

1

9

8

1

9

8

1

8

5

3

Personnel Administration

8

9

1

8

9

1

8

9

1

9

9

0

Finance

3

3

0

3

3

0

4

2

2

6

7

1

Business Management

0

2

2

2

4

2

1

7

6

2

3

1

School Plant

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Auxiliary Services

4

6

2

6

6

0

2

3

1

3

2

1

Pupil-Personnel Guidance

6

5

1

5

5

0

3

1

2

1

1

0

Community Relations

5

4

1

4

2

2

6

4

2

5

6

1

Staff Relations

7

7

0

7

7

0

7

6

1

7

8

1

School Board Relations

2

1

1

1

0

1

5

5

0

4

4

0

10

Total

Note:

9 equals

"most" and 0 "least."

8

16

8

91

Specific Administrative Activities of
Directors of Special Educat ion
Compared to Other
Administrative
Groups
The respondents were asked to indicate if they p e r ­
form, delegate or have no res ponsibility

for per fo rming

specific administrative activities within the ten major
administrative a r e a s .
The special educati on administrative role was de ­
fined for the purposes of this study as those specific
items within the ten majo r administrative categories,
which were perform ed by 50 per cent or more of the special
education directors who participated in this study.

A

second criterion entitled "Role Depth," was defined as
those items which were reported as bein g p er fo rm ed by
75 per cent or more of those in the res po ndin g groups.
Some seventy-two specific administr ative activities
out of a total possible 113 are usually perform ed by 50
per cent or more of the local and/or intermediate directors
of special education,

and therefore meet the criterion for

special education adm inistrative roles.
Fifty-eight

(51 per cent)

of the items met the

administrative role criterion for local directors and
sixty-nine

(61 per cent) met this criterion for inter ­

mediate directors.

92

These specific administrative activities of
directors of special education encompass all ten major
administrative areas.
Table 29 presents those items which meet the
special ed uca tion administrative role criterion for
directors of special education,

and the percentage of

participation by each administrative group with regard
to these specific administrative activities.

A dis­

cussion of each major administrative area follows the
table.

Area of Curricul um
and InstructiolT
The special education administrative role in this
area includes twelve of the possible fifteen specific
administrative activities

(80 per cent).

The percentage

of these items at the administrative role level
cent or more)
more)

and the role depth level

(50 per

(75 per cent or

of partic ip at io n for the various groups are as

follows :

TABLE 29. The special education administrative role (50 per cent or more positive responses of directors of special education
for specific administrative activities compared to the responses of the other administrative groups).

Major Area

Intermediate
Directors of
Special
Education

Intermediate
Superin­
tendents

Local Directors
of Special
Education

Local
Superin­
tendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

CURRICULUM AMD INSTRUCTION
Developing curriculum for total school or
specialised area.
Improving and changing curriculum
Selecting textbooks and instructional
material.
Providing for instructional supervision
and consultation
Providing leadership at staff meetings.
Consulting with classroom teachers.
Evaluating the instructional program.
Evaluating individual teaching.
Developing an Inservice education program
for teachers.
Promoting the use of community resources
in the Instructional program.
11. Initiating new programs.
Keeping
aware of state school laws.
12.

69
69

11

21

17

34

78
93

87
87

63

17

67

42

86a
92a

89

100

87
97
94
94
87

46
28

86a
86a

11

75

31
62
14
55
7

62a

33
56

62
69

22

100

5t
77a
69a
100a
100a

100
100

96

33

86a

24

78

58

22

76a

67
94

96

45
79
90

85
85
67

48
84
84

69
45
52
48

41
67
63
96

71
84
84
84

31

89

74

63
96
67
48
48
92

39
90

83

10
14
3
90
45
69

88a
90
39

66
62
31

44
59
7

55

9£a

PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

Preparing criteria for personnel selection.
Conducting personnel interviews.
Selecting personnel for employment.
Orienting personnel.
Developing schedules and work loads for
professional personnel
Developing schedules and work loads for
non-professional personnel.
Evaluating teaching personnel
Evaluating nonteaching personnel.
Suspending or dismissing employees.
Assigning personnel to a specific facility.
Recommending tenure appointments.

Preparing a budget.
Administering a budget.
Preparing financial statements for the board.
Preparing financial data for citizens
advisory groups
Formulating and evaluating salary schedules.
Preparing and completing state reports.
Computing per pupil costs and other
statistical data.
Requesting and administering federal funds.

9
2l
92

61
67
72
33

81 a

28

100“

10 0 “

65a
88a

77a
81*
88

65

44
39
44
83
50
67

83
78
39

90“
96a
92a

86
8Ha
5
588
61

59a

68
58
55
90

68
13

73

61

8la
85

89
56

28a
90

79
28

12
23

13
45

50
58

33
33

44
34

21
38

4

12

3
16

50
85
65a
77

50
28
78
39

34.
78
10
72

10

12

14
66
17

73

58

15

16

38

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICES
32.
33.
34.
35-

Organising and coordinating purchase
practices
Studying equipment and supply needs
Analysing school district expenditures.
Arranging to serve non-resident pupils.

8

6
0

SCHOOL PLANT
36.
37.
38.
39.

Planning for buildings and equipment
with the architect.
Planning for buildings and equipment
with the staff.
Determining remodeling needs of school
facilities.
Determining physical location of classes.

62

44

42

55

46

55

73

44

58

62

62

74

50
54

22

50

50
54

41
24

69
81

71
74

VO

uo

AUXILIARY SERVICES

40. Evaluating transportation needs.
41. Developing transportation plans.
42. Supervising or coordinating school
diagnostician program.
43. Supervising or coordinating school social
worker program.
44. Supervising or coordinating speech
correction program.

62
46

33
17
a

77

6
a

6
0

78a
58
86
a
80
88

31
7

19
15

3

19

6

3

31

23

3

27

16

34
10

85
92

74

77

6

73

6

5“
31

11
11

6“
60

67

56

PUPIL-PERSONNEL GUIDANCE
45. Developing procedures for reporting
to parents
46. Counseling of students and parents.

61

COMMUNITY BKI..ATIQMS
47.
46.
49.
50.

51.

52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

Organising lay and professional groups for
participation In educational planning and
other educational activities.
Interpreting and presenting school policies
to the community.
Developing and administering a community
relations program.
Preparing news releases.
Conducting and utilising research concerning
educational problems of the school and
community.
Using community resources In the school
program.
Participating in parent school organisations.
Making speeches at state and national
conferences.
Conducting individual parent conferences.
Arranging student teaching and internship
experiences with universities.
Meeting with legislators regarding school
issues.
Developing cooperative agreements between
school districts for programs.

.
92

93

62

68

84

97

100

87

62

a
92

94

7392

83
89

52
42

69

62

58

39
48

69

50

50

55

58

48

31

81
100

68

48

65.
77

11
50

|4a
82

62
50

44
11

66fl
84

86

35

42

31

88

81

22

68

41

77

65

93

19

19

76

12

26

88

66

fi
85

94

42
a

96

89

80

STAFF RELATIONS
59. Arranging for and/or conducting staff

meetings.

Encouraging staff participation in
professional organisations.
61.
Encouraging staff participation in community
activities.
other fringe benefits Tor staff.
63. Defining the duties and responsibilities
of the starf.
64. Developing and utilizing a staff newsletter.
6 6 . Interpreting specialized educational
programs to other educators.
.

92

61

72

100

94

94

62

77

74

98

60.

a
100

78

96
88a

67

92d

72

89

38

62

23

29

100a
65

72
39

96a
22

76
28

100
62

90
45

100a

78

98a

79

46

55

06a

94

64

97

19

55

90a

97

54

71

61

78a

93
97

30
89

48
77

87

SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.

Recommending items for the school board
agenda.
Preparing written and oral reports for the
board of education.
Recommending policy to the board of
education.
Administering board policy.
Aiding the board to distinguish between
policy and executive function.
Developing and providing opportunities for
the board to meet and work with the staff.
Developing and providing opportunities for
the board to appear before the public.

100

94

96a
100a

100

65

94

ICO

24

97

11

32

8la

89

39

86

19

45

50

78

10

86

37

19

aDepth role level (with 75 per cent or more participation).

VO

95

50 Per Cent
Participation
(Adm. Role)

Group

75 Per Cent
Participation
(Depth Role)

Intermediate
Directors
Intermediate
Superintendents
Local
Directors

33#

25#

100%

Local
Superintendents

91#

33%

Elementary
Principals

100%

83#

Secondary
Principals

83#

75#

It is apparent that in this area, the special ed u­
cation administrative role is much more like that of a
principal than that of a superintendent.

It is also

apparent that the local director is considerably more
involved in this area in depth than is the intermediate
director.

The local director is involved with 91 per cent

of these items on the role depth criterion

(75 per cent)

as compared with 33 per cent for the intermediate director,

Area of Personnel
Administration
The special education administrative role included
eleven of the twelve possible items in this area
cent).

(91 per

The percentage of these eleven items at the

administrative role and the depth role levels
administrative groups w a s :

for all

96

50 Per Cent
Par tic ipation
(Adm. Role)

Group

Intermediate
Directors
Intermediate
Superintendents
Local
Directors

75 Per Cent
Participa tio n
(Depth Role)

10 0 %

55%

9%

100%

73%

Local
Superintendents
Elementary
Principals

73%

Secondary
Principals

Both intermediate and local directors met the
administrative role criterion on all items in this area.
Secondary principals were most like the directors with
91 per cent followed by elementary principals with 73
per c e n t .
On the depth role criterion,

the directors

con­

tinued to compare more favorably w i t h the principals than
with the superintendents.

The only item with whi ch the

intermediate and local superintendents reached the depth
role criterion was that of "suspending or dismissing
e m p l o y e e s ."

Area of Finance
The special education administra tiv e role included
eight of the thirte en possible items in this area
cent).

The p erc entage of these eight items at the

(61 per

97
administrative role and the depth role criterion levels
for all administrative groups w a s :

50 Per Cent
Part icipation
(Adm. Role)

Group

Intermediate
Directors

75 Per Cent
Pa rt icipatio n
(Depth Role)

100#

50#

Intermediate
Superintendents

63%

31%

Local
Directors

38#

37#

Local
Superintendents

38#

12#

Elementary'
Principals

13#

0#

Secondary
Principals

13#

0#

The intermediate directors met the administrative
role criterion for 100 per cent of the eight items, while
the local directors met the criterion for only 63 per cent
of the items.

In this area, the interm ediate directors

were more like intermediate superintendents,
directors more like local superintendents.
of principals

and the local
Both groups

showed very little involvement in the area

of Finance.
The intermediate directors met depth role criterion
for half of the items, while both local directors and
intermediate superintendents reached only the 37 per cent
level.

Both groups of principals

showed 0 per cent of

participation at the depth role level.

98

Area of Business Management
and Practices
The special education administrative role included
four of the ten possible items in this area

(40 per cent).

The percentage of these four items at the administrative
role and the depth role criterion levels for all a d mi ni s­
trative groups w a s :

50 Per Cent
Participation
(Adm. Role)

Group

Intermediate
Directors

75 Per Cent
Participa tio n
(Depth Role)

100#

50#

Intermediate
Superintendents

50#

25#

Local
Directors

50#

25#

Local
Superintendents

25#

0#

Elementary
Principals

25#

0#

Secondary
Principals

25#

0#

The intermediate directors met the administrative
role criterion for 100 per cent of the four items, while
the local directors reported only 50 per cent, as did the
intermediate superintendents.
At the depth role criterion,

the intermediate

directors rep resented the highest percentage for all of
the groups with 50 per cent.

The intermediate supe ri n­

tendents and local directors both reached 25 per cent,

99

but for different items, while the three other groups did
not reach the depth criterion at all.

Area of School Plant
The special education administrative role included
four of the fifteen possible items in this area
cent).

(26 per

The percentage of these four items at the a d min is ­

trative role and the depth role criterion levels for all
administrative groups w a s :

.50 Per Cent
Participation
(Adm. Role)

Group

Intermediate
Directors

75 Per Cent
Participation
(Depth Role)

100 $

Intermediate
Superintendents

25$

Local
Directors

75$

Local
Superintendents

50$

Elementary
Principals

75$

Secondary
Principals

100$

25%

The intermediate directors met the administrative
role criterion for 100 per cent of the four items, while
the local directors met the criterion for 75 per cent of
the items.

On this criterion,

the intermediate directors

appeared more like secondary principals,

and the local

directors compared with elementary principals.

100

On the depth role criterion,

the only group which

was included was the elementary principals because of
their high involvement with one item:

"Determining

physical location of classes."

Area of Auxiliary Services
The special educati on administrative role included
five of the twelve possible items in this area
cent).

(42 per

The percentage of these five items at the admi nis ­

trative role and the depth role criterion levels for all
administrative groups was:

Group

Intermediate
Superintendents

o
CO

Intermediate
Directors

50 Per Cent
Pa rti cipation
(Adm. Role)

75 Per Cent
Participa tio n
(Depth Role)

40$

0%

0%

100%

80%

Local
Superintendents

0%

0%

Elementary
Principals

0%

0%

Secondary
Principals

0%

0%

Local
Directors

The intermediate directors met the administrative
role criterion for only 80 per cent of the items, while
the local directors reported 100 per cent.

This area is

101

more unique to the special edu cat ion directors than any
of the other m a j o r areas since all other groups re ported
0 per cent par ticip at io n at this level.
On the depth role criterion, the local directors
appeared highly involved with 80 pe r cent participation,
while the intermediate directors drop ped to 40 per cent.

Area of Pup il-Personnel
Guidance
The special education administr ativ e role included
two of the six possible items in this area

(33 per cent).

The percentage of these items at the administrative role
and the depth role criterion levels

for all adm inistrative

groups w a s :

Group

Intermediate
Directors
Intermediate
Superintendents
Local
Directors
Local
Superintendents

50 Per Cent
Participation
(Adm. Role)

75 Per Cent
Par tic ipation
(Depth Hole)

50#

0#

0#

0#

100#

0#

0#

Elementary
Principals

100#

10 0#

Secondary
Principals

100#

0#

102

The administrative role criterion was met by 100
per cent of the local directors, and only 50 per cent of
the intermediate d i r e c t o r s .

The high Involvement of the

principals should be noted.
On the depth role criterion,

the only group to be

included was the elementary principals, again with 100
per cent participation.

Area of Community Relations
The special education administrative role included
twelve of the fourteen possible items in this area
per cent).

(85

The percentage of these twelve items at the

administrative role and the depth role criterion levels
for all administrative groups was:

Group

Intermediate
Directors

50 Per Cent
Participation
(Adm. Role)

75 Per Cent
Participation
(Depth Role)

100 #

Intermediate
Superintendents

67$

42$

Local
Directors

83$

33$

Local
Superintendents

75$

42$

Elementary
Principals

75$

42$

Secondary
Principals

42$

17$

103

The administrative role criterion was met by 100
per cent of the intermediate directors and 83 per cent
of the local directors.

Secondary principals reported

the least involvement in this area.
On the depth role criterion, the intermediate
directors reported the highest depth involvement wi th
58 per cent.

The local director reported only 33 per

cent depth involvement, a lower pe rcentage than all but
one of the other g r o u p s .

Area of Staff Relations
The special educati on administrative role included
seven of the nine possible items in this area
cent).

(89 per

The percentage of these items at the a d min is ­

trative role and the depth role criterion levels for all
administrative groups w a s :

Group

Intermediate
Directors

50 Per Cent
Par ticipation
(Adm. Role)

75 Per Cent
Participation
(Depth Role)

100#

85#

Intermediate
Superintendents

86#

43#

Local
Directors

71#

71#

Local
Superintendents

86#

28#

Elementary
Principals

71#

57#

Secondary
Principals

71#

43#

104

The administrative role criterion was met by 100
per cent of the intermediate directors of special e d u ­
cation, with both groups of superintendents being the
next highest with 86 per cent.

At this level of i n vo lv e­

ment, the local director, with 71 per cent appeared most
like both groups of prinicpals.
On the depth role criterion level, however,

the

local and intermediate directors reported higher i n v o l v e ­
ment than the other groups

(71 per cent and 85 per cent

re spec ti ve ly ).

Area of School Board Relations
The special education administrative role included
seven of the nine possible items in this area (89 per
cent).

The percentage of these items at the administrative

role and the depth role criterion levels for all a d m i n i s ­
trative groups w a s :

Group

50 Per Cent
Pa rti cipation
(Adm. Role)

75 Per Cent
Particip ati on
(Depth Role)

Intermediate
Directors

100 #

712

Intermediate
Superintendents

100 #

100 #

Local
Directors
Local
Superintendents

572

100 #

100 #

Elementary
Principals

29 %

14#

Secondary
Principals

432

14#

105

The administrative role criterion was met by 100
per cent of the intermediate directors and both groups
of superintendents.

Lowest pa rt ici pation was reported

by elementary principals.
On the depth role criterion, both groups of
superintendents reported 100 per cent, while the inter­
mediate directors m ainta in ed a high partic ipa tion level
of 71 per cent.

The local directors appear more like

both groups of principals on the depth role criterion
level.
Table 30 clearly indicates that the roles of
intermediate and local directors vary considerably from
each other.

At the depth criterion level, the local

directors are much more involved

(58 per cent more)

the area of Curricu lum and Instruction.

in

There is also a

40 per cent difference in the area of Auxiliary Services,
with local directors being more highly involved than
intermediate directors at the depth role criterion level.
Another great contrast in roles is apparent in the area
of School Board Relations, with intermediate directors
reporting a ^3 per cent greater depth involvement.
Ref err ing again to Table 29 on page 93, two items
at the depth role level for both intermediate and local
directors of special education were performed by less
than 50 per cent of all other groups in the study.
were:

They

106

TABLE 30.— Rank order of Involvement at the depth role
level of directors In m a jo r administrative areas.

Depth Criterion Level
%
Intermediate
Director

%
Local
Director

Curriculum and
Instruction

33

91

58

Personnel
Administration

91

73

18

Finance

50

37

13

Business
Management

50

25

25

School Plant

0

0

0

40

80

40

0

0

0

Community
Relations

58

33

25

Staff Relations

85

71

14

School Board
Relations

71

28

43

Major Area

Auxiliary
Services
Pupi1-Personnel

%
Difference

107

1.

S up ervising or co ordinatin g school diagn ostician
programs.

2.

S up ervising or coordinating school social worker
programs.

Both of the above items were in the maj o r area of Auxiliary
Services.
Five items at the depth role level for both i n te r­
mediate and local directors of special education were p e r ­
formed by less than 50 per cent of bo t h intermediate and
local superintendents:
1.

Dev el op in g an inservice education pro gram for
teachers

(major area of C ur ricu lu m and Instruction).

2.

Orie nt in g personnel.

3.

Devel op in g schedules and wor k loads for n o n ­
professional personnel.

4.

Evalu at in g teaching personnel.

(The above three items were in the area of Personnel
Ad m in is tr at ion.)
5.

Studying equipment and supply needs

(major area

of Business Management and Practices).
The following two items at the depth role level for
the directors were performed by less than 50 per cent of
both groups of principals:
1.

Pre paring and completing state reports

(major

area of Finance).
2.

D ev el oping cooperative agreements betw ee n school
districts

for programs

R e l a t i o n s ).

(major area of Community

108

The adm inistrators were request ed to res pond to
those administrative items which were not usually p e r ­
formed in the course of their responsibilities.

Forty-

two of the 113 possible administrative activities were
not usually perform ed by 50 per cent or more of the local
or intermediate directors of special education.

They

were as noted in Table 31.
There was only one negative response by the directors
at the 50 per cent or more level in the major area of
Curriculum and Instruction,
Personnel Administration,

and none in the major area of

as rep orted in Table 31.

Local directors of special educat ion rep orted higher
percentages of negative responses than intermediate directors
in the major area of Finance, with three items at the 75 per
cent or more level compared to none at this negative r e ­
sponse

level for intermediate directors.

This was also

true in the major area of Business Management, with four
items listed at the 75 per cent or more level of negative
response for local directors and no items reported at this
level for intermediate directors.
(Finance and Business Management)

Both of these areas
received a low negative

response from the superintendents.
Both groups of directors of special educatio n r e ­
sponded at the 75 per cent

or more negative level to only

six items, as indicated by

the asterisks in Table 31.

In

addition, intermediate directors res pon ded at this negative

TABLE 31.— Fifty per cent negative responses of directors of special education for specific administrative activities compared
to the responses of the other administrative groups.
Groups (In percent)
N &1 o p Ar*cfl

J

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

33

37

lit

63

52

55

3

81

65

19

0
0

63

3

85

71

50

6

88a

7

89

9A

15
50

0

62
76

7

85

6

10

62

81
81

50

6

8Aa

10

92

9A

35

11

60

88

74

38

6

6A

85

65

27

6

76a

85

87

27

6

56

85

8A

50
58

17
17

78'
9U a

85
92

77

86a

92

94

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Writing articles for professional
Journals.

50

FINANCE
2.

Preparing financial statements
for the board.
3. Preparing financial data for
citizens advisory groups.
A. Investigating insurance rates
and coverage
5- Formulating and evaluating salary
schedules.
6 . Preparing a payroll.
7- Designating a system of financial
accounting.
8 . Requesting and administering
federal funds.

19

0

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICES

10.

11

.

12.
13.
1A.

Developing a systematic control
of records and funds
Developing a system of Inventory
of fixed assets and appraisal
Organizing and coordinating purchase
practices.
Preparing specifications for
bids and for purchasing.
Processing of bids
Analyzing school district
expenditures.

27'

8A

SCHOOL PLANT

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2A.
25.

Selecting a school architect.
Evaluating existing sites and facilities.
Determining the specifications of the
new building.
Planning for buildings and equipment
with the architect.
Planning for buildings and equipment
with the students.
Planning for buildings and equipment
with the community.
Evaluating building and site plans.
Consulting during construction.
Supervising building maintenance program.
Recommending the amount of Insurance
coverage.
Determining plant utilization for
non-educatlonal purposes.

9A
7A

92a

22

9Aa

50

17

60

7

100
88

A6

22

52

7

85

15

31

28

52

0

54

39

62

45

0

54

A8

7
7

73
73

52

8la

56

72

5^
54

28

72

17

62

1A

17

A2

62
62

28

33

88s

10

A6

35

8la

28

9Aa

1A

100

97

69

28

10

A2

A8

109

9.

AUXILIARY SERVICES

73.
85

80®
86®

81

7A

92
92

97
97

81

9A

85
.88

88®

10

96

92

lA

62

97
55

88

5A

65

68

81

52

38

81

58

23

62

50

27

<d (d

26. Employing transportation personnel.
27. Operating and maintaining school buses.
28. Developing regulations governing
school bus operation.
29. Preparing bids for purchasing of
school buses.
30. Administering cafeteria program.
31. Supervising or coordinating school
nurse program.
PUPIL-PERSONNEL GUIDANCE
32. Planning and evaluating a guidance
and testing program.
33. Administering a guidance and
testing program.
3*1. Determining the content of pupil
cumulative records
COMMUNITY RELATIONS

77

82®

81

61

15

52

81

77

12

60

73

61

19

60

31

A8

65

82®

85

58

31 ■

69

81

68

19

53

70

55

50

8A®

52

81

STAFF RELATIONS
37. Recommending sick leave provisions
and other fringe benefits for
staff.
38. Developing and utilizing a
staff newsletter.
39- Representing school board in
professional negotiations
with teachers.
SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS
AO. Aiding the board to distinguish
between policy and executive
function.
Al. Developing and providing opportunities
for the board to meet and work with
the staff.
A2. Developing and providing opportunities
for the board to appear before the
public.

aNegatlve responses at the 75 per cent or higher level.

110

35- Providing for an adult education
program.
36. Meeting with legislators regarding
school issues.

Ill

level to five more items, and local directors to five
more separate items.

Summary
Much in formation has been reported herein as a result
of the survey which was sent to the six groups of a d m i n i s ­
trators in school districts which employ a full-time
director of special education in Michigan.

This chapter

presented facts descriptive of the popu la ti on sample, the
school districts and programs repr esented and the a d m i n i s ­
trative activities of local and intermediate directors
special education,

of

local and intermediate superintendents,

and elementary and secondary principals.

Va riat ion s b e ­

tween the adm inistrative activities of the six groups
were noted.
The ten major administrative areas were described
by each of the six groups in terms of ideal and actual
rankings of time ascribed to each.
Chapter Five will present inferences, r e c o m m e n d ­
ations and conclusions resulting from the summary and
analysis of the information gained in this investigation.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND REC OM MEN DATIONS

The major purpose of this study was to obtain i n ­
formation regardi ng the specific nature of the positio n
of director of special educati on in the belief that this
type of data would be of value in the development

of

better state cert ificating standards and better college
and university pre pa ra tion programs for such personnel.
Information was also obtained regarding the nature of the
six administrative groups studied and the school districts
they represented.

Conclusions

The Respondents
1.

The typical intermediate director of special
education in this study population may be
described as a male, betw ee n 36-45 years of
age, receivin g a salary in the $13>000 to
$15,999 range, with a secondary teachi ng cer ti ­
ficate, a master's degree, a secondary

112

113

education und ergraduate major, a special e d u ­
cation graduate maj or in the area of the mentally
handicapped, no major in administration, with
four years experience in his present position,
five years tea ching experience and with a total
of fifteen years professional employment.

He

was a memb er of the youngest adm inistrative
group repres ent ed in the study.
2.

The typical intermediate superintendent of
schools in the study popula tion may be d e ­
scribed as a male,

over 50 years of age, receiving

a salary over $ 1 6 ,0 0 0 , with a master's degree,
a life teachin g certificate,
cation undergraduat e major,

a secondary e d u ­
a graduate major in

administration, wit h fourteen years in his pre­
sent position,

seven and one-hal f years teaching

experience and with a total of thirty-two years
professional experience.
3.

The typical local director of special education
was a male, b e tw ee n 36-45 years of age, receiving
a salary be tw een $13,000 and $ 1 5 ,9 9 9 , with a
master's degree,

an elementary teaching certifi­

cate, with both und ergraduate and graduate majors
in special ed uca tion

(the area of the mentally

handicapped), with no major in administration,
with four years experience in his present

114

position,

six and one -half years tea ching

experience, and with a total of fourteen and
one-half years profe ssional employment.
4.

The typical local school district s u p er in ­
tendent in this study may be des crib ed as a
male,

over fifty years of age,

rec eiv ing over

$ 16,000 in salary, wit h a m aster' s degree,
life teaching certificate,

a

a secondary e d u ­

cation undergradua te major, a graduate majo r
in administration, with nine years
sent position,

in his p r e ­

6.3 years tea chin g experience

and with a total of twenty-eight and on e-half
years pro fessional employment.
5.

The typical elementary principal in this study
was a male,

over fifty years of age, receiving

a salary be tw ee n $13,000 and $15,999, wit h a
master's degree,

an elementary teaching c e rt if i­

cate, an elementary education under graduate
major,

a graduate major in administration, with

6.5 years in his present position,

9.3 years

teaching experience and 20.3 years of p r o ­
fessional experience.
6.

The typical secondary principal in this study
was a male, between thirty-six and forty-five
years of age, rec eiving a salary bet ween $13,000
and $15,999, with a mas ter's degree, a secondary

115

teaching certificate, an und ergraduate major
in secondary education,

a graduate major in

administration, wit h four and one -half years
in his present position,

eight and one-half

years tea chi ng experience and twenty years of
professional experience.

The Schools and Programs
Represented
1.

The medi an school district size served by
intermediate directors of special education in
Mich ig an was in the 15,001 to 25*000 pupil
membership range.

2.

The med ian school district size served by local
directors of special education in Mi c h i g a n was
in the 10,001 to 15,000 pupil mem be rs hip range.

3.

Seventy-five per cent of the local school di s­
tricts did not employ any special education super­
visors, while 65 per cent of the intermediate
districts employed none.

4.

The intermediate district supervisors served
primarily the programs
capped,

for the mental ly ha n d i ­

followed by services to programs for

the physically handicapped;

while local district

supervisors served primarily speech correction
programs,

followed by services to programs

the mentally handicapped.

for

116

5.

Five times as many special ed ucat ion personnel
p r ovi di ng direct

services to students were

empl oye d at the local school district

level

than at the intermediate district level.
6.

More teachers of the me ntally han dicapped
(43 per cent) were employed in local schools
than any other type of special education p e r ­
sonnel,

followed by speech correction personnel.

The order of most frequently employed personnel
was simply rev er sed at the intermediate district
level.
7.

Most districts

(80 per cent at the local district

level and 6l per cent at the intermediate district
level)

had ope rated a special education program

for more than seven years.
8.

Most districts

(64.5 per cent of the local districts

and 70 per cent of the intermediate districts)
had emp lo ye d a director of special education
for over four y e a r s .

Ideal Versus Actual
Time Rankings
Inf ormation was obtained regard ing the ideal and
actual amounts of time spent by each of the six a d m i n i s ­
trative groups in the ten major adm inistrative areas
under which the 113 specific adm inistrative activities
were classified.

117

1.

All groups agreed they should ideally spend most
of their time pe rformi ng the activities in the
majo r administrative area of Cu rri culum and
Instruction.

2.

The ideal time ranking responses of int er­
mediate directors were more like those of local
superintendents and least like those of e l e ­
me ntary and secondary p r i n c i p a l s .

3.

The ideal time ranking responses of local
directors of special education were more like
elementary and secondary principals,

and least

like intermediate and local superintendents.
k.

Intermediate directors

in smaller districts

showed much more variation between ideal and
actual roles than did the other directors.
5.

Intermediate directors who had been in their
present position for less than four years
showed much more difference between ideal and
actual role rankings than did the other directors.

6.

Local directors showed less difference betw ee n
ideal and actual roles than did intermediate
directors.

7.

All groups considered the least variation between
actual and ideal time spent was in the major
area of School P l a n t .

118

8.

All groups considered the most var iation b e ­
tween actual and Ideal time spent was in the
major areas of Finance and School Board R e ­
lations .

9.

The actual time ranking responses of int er­
mediate directors were more like those of
intermediate and local superintendents and
least like those of elementary and secondary
principals.

10.

The actual time ranking responses of local
directors of special education were more like
those of secondary principals and least like
those of intermediate directors of special
education and intermediate

superintendents.

The Special Education
Administrative Role
The following administrative activities were p e r ­
formed by 50 per cent or more of the special education
administrators and are therefore considered to be a part
of the special education administrative role:
Maj or Area:
1.

Curricu lum and Instruction

Devel opi ng curric ulu m for total school or
specialized area.

2.

Improving and changing curriculum.

3.

Selecting textbooks and instructional material.

119

4.

Providing for instructional supervision and
consultation.

5.

Providing leadership at staff meetings.

6.

Consulting with classroom teachers.

7.

Evaluat ing the instructional program.

8.

Evalua ting individual teaching.

9.

Develo ping an inservice education pro gr am
for teachers.

10.

Pr omoting the use of community resources in
the instructional program.

11.

Initiating new programs.

12.

Keeping aware of state school laws.

Major Area:

Personnel Administr ati on

13.

Preparing criteria for personnel selection.

14.

Conducting personnel interviews.

15.

Selecting personn el for employment..

16.

Orienting personnel.

17.

Develo pi ng schedules and work loads for p r o ­
fessional personnel.

18.

Developing schedules and work loads for nonpro fessional personnel.

19.

Ev alu ating teaching personnel.

20.

Ev alu ating no n-t eaching personnel.

21.

Suspendin g or dis mi ss ing employees.

22.

Assigning personnel to a specific

23.

Recommending tenure appointments.

facility.

120

M aj o r Area:

Finance

24.

Preparing a budget.

25.

Administerin g a budget.

26.

Preparing financial statements for the board.

27.

Preparing financial data for citizens advisory
groups.

28.

Formul at ing and eva lu atin g salary schedules.

29.

Preparing and completing state reports.

30.

Computing per pupil costs and other statistical
data.

31.

Requesting and admini st ering federal funds.

Major Area:

Business Management and Practices

32.

Or gan izing and coor dinating purchase practices.

33.

Studying equipment and supply needs.

34.

Analyzing school district expenditures.

35.

Arranging to serve non-resident pupils. .

Major Area:

36.

School Plant

Planning for buildings and equipment with the
architect.

37.

Planning for buildings and equipment with the
staff.

38.

Det ermining re modeling needs of school facilities.

39.

Determ ining physical location of classes.

121

Major Area:

Auxiliary Services

40.

Evaluat ing tran sporta tio n

needs.

41.

Developing tran sporta tio n

plans.

42.

Sup ervising or coo rdinating school diagnosti cia n
program.

43.

Supervising or coordinating school social worker
program.

44.

Supervising or coordinating speech correction
program.

Ma jo r Area:

Pupil-Per son nel Guidance

45.

Developin g procedures for

46.

Counseling of students and parents.

Major Area:
47.

reporting to parents.

Community Relations

Organizi ng lay and profes sion al groups for
part ici pation in educational planni ng and
other educational activities.

48.

Interpreting and present ing school policies to
the c o m m u n i t y .

49.

Develop ing and administering a community
relations program.

50.

Preparing news releases.

51.

Conducting and utilizing research concerning
educational problems of the school and
community.

52.

Using community resources in the school program.

122

53.

Parti cipati ng in parent school organizations.

54.

Mak in g speeches at state and national c o n ­
ferences .

55.

Conducting individual parent

conferences.

5 6 . Arranging student teaching and internship
experiences with universities.
57.

Mee tin g wit h legislators reg ard ing school
issues.

5 8 . Developing cooperative agreements bet we en
school districts for programs.

Major Area:

Staff Relations

59.

Arranging for and/or conducting staff meetings.

60.

Enc ou ragi ng staff part ic ipat io n in pr ofession al
organizations.

61.

E nc ou ra ging staff partic ip ation in community
activities.

62.

Re com me ndi ng sick leave provisions and other
fringe benefits for staff.

6 3 . Defining the duties and responsi bili tie s of
the staff.
64.

Dev el op ing and utilizing a staff newsletter.

6 5 . Interpreting specialized educational programs
to other educators.

Major Area:
66.

School Board Relations

Recomm en ding items

for the school board agenda.

123

67.

Preparing wri tt en and oral reports for the board
of education.

68.

R ec ommendin g policy to the board of education.

69.

A dm ini ster ing board policy.

70.

Aiding the board to distinguish be tw een policy
and executive function.

71.

Dev el op ing and p rov iding opportunities for the
board to meet and work with the staff.

72.

Devel opi ng and pr ovi ding opportunities for the
board to appear before the public.

The following items were marked negatively by 50
per cent or more of both local and intermediate directors
of special education, and are, therefore,

definitely not

considered a part of the special education administrative
role:
Major Area;

Finance

1.

Investiga tin g insurance rates and coverage.

2.

Prepari ng a payroll.

3.

Des ign at in g a system of financial accounting.

Major Area:
4.

Business Management and Practices

Preparing specifications for bids and for
purchasing.

5.

Processing of bids.

Maj or Area;

School Plant

6.

Selecting a school architect.

7.

Eva lu atin g existing sites and facilities.

124

8.

Planning for buildings and equipment with the
students.

9.

Pla nning for buildings and equipment with the
community.

10.

Evalua ti ng building and site plans.

11.

Consulting during construction.

12.

Superv isi ng building maintenance program.

13.
14.

Reco mme nding the amount of insurance coverage.
D et er mi ning plant utilization for noneducational purposes.

Major Area:

Auxiliary Services

15.

Employi ng tran sportati on personnel.

16.

Ope rat ing and m ai nt ai ning school buses.

17.

Dev el opin g regulations governing school bus
operation.

18.
19.
20.

Preparing bids for pur cha sing of school buses.
Adm ini st er ing cafeteria program.
Supervisi ng or coordinating school nurse program.

Major Area:
21.

Pupil-Personnel Guidance

Planning and evaluat ing a guidance and testing
program.

22.

Admini st erin g a guidance and testing program.

23.

Dete rm in in g the content of pupil cumulative
records .

125

Ma j o r Area:
24.

Providing for an adult educati on program.

Major Area;
25.

Community Relations

Staff Relations

Re pr esenting school board in professional
negotiations with teachers.

Major Area:
26.

School Board Relations

De vel opin g and providi ng opportunities for the
board to appear before the public.

Special Ed ucatio n Depth
Role
Using the role depth criterion, which refers to
those administrative activities perform ed by 75 per cent
or more of the administrators,

the following list of

activities from Table 29 show high involvement by both
intermediate and local directors of special education.

Major Area;

Cu rriculum and Instruction

1.

Providing leadership at staff meetings.

2.

Developing an inservice education progr am
teachers.

3.

Initiating new programs.

4.

Keeping aware of state school laws.

Major Area:

Personnel Administr ati on

5.

Preparing criteria for personnel selection.

6.

Conducting personnel interviews.

for

126
7.

Selecting personnel for employment.

8.

Orienti ng personnel.

9.

Dev el op ing schedules and work loads for
profes si on al personnel.

10.

Ev al ua ting teaching personnel.

11.

Assigning personnel to a specific

12.

Rec omme nd in g tenure appointments.

Maj o r Area:

Finance

13.

Preparing a budget.

14.

Admi ni ster in g a budget.

15.

Prepari ng and completing state reports.

Major Area:
16.

Business Manageme nt and Practices

Stu dying equipment and supply needs.

Major Area;
17.

facility.

Auxiliary Services

Superv isin g or coo rdinating school diagnosticia n
program.

18.

Superv isi ng or co ord in ati ng school social
worker program.

Major Area;
19.

Community Relations

Inte rpr eting and pre se ntin g school policies
to the community.

20.

Partici pat ing in parent school organizations.

21.

Dev el op ing cooperative agreements between
school districts for programs.

127

Major Area:

Staff Relations

22.

Arr anging for and/or conducting staff meetings.

23.

Enc our ag in g staff participatio n in pr ofe ssional
organizations >

24.

Encour ag ing staff pa rt icipatio n in community
activities.

25.

Def ini ng the duties and respon sibilities

of

the staff.
26.

Interpreting specialized educational programs
to other educators.

Major Area:
27.

School Board Relations

Preparing w r itte n and oral reports for the
board of education.

28.

Ad mi nisterin g board policy.

29.

Develo pi ng and pr ovi ding opportunities

for the

board to meet and work with the staff.
In addition to the pre ceding list, the following
items show role depth involvement by the local directors
only:

Majo r Area:
1.

Cur ri cu lu m and Instruction

Developin g curri cul um for total school or
specialized area.

2.

Improving and changing curriculum.

3.

Providing for instructional supervision and
consultation.

128

4.

Consulting with classroom, t e a c h e r s .

5.

Ev aluati ng the instructional program.

6.

Evaluat ing individual teaching.

7.

Promoting the use of community resources

in

the instructional program.

Major Area:

Auxiliary Services

8.

Ev al uat ing tra ns po rt at ion needs.

9.

Supervising or coordinating speech correction
program.

Major Area:
10.

Community Relations

Conducting individual parent conferences.

In addition to the combined list for both groups of
directors,

the following items show role depth involvement

by intermediate directors only:

Major Area:

Personnel Administ rat ion

1.

Ev aluating nontea ching personnel.

2.

Suspending or dismissing employees

Major Area:
3.

Formulating and evaluating salary schedules

Major Area:
4.

Finance

Business Management

Arranging to serve non-resident pupils.

129

Maj or Area:
5.

Community Relations

Organ izi ng lay and profes sio nal groups for
par tic ip at ion in educational pla nn in g and
other education al activities.

6.

Preparing news releases.

7.

Arrangi ng student te aching and internship
experiences with universities.

8.

Meet in g with legislators regarding school
issues.

Major Area:
9.

Staff Relations

R ec ommendin g sick leave provisions and other
fringe benefits for staff.

Major Area:

School Board Relations

10.

Recommending items for the school board agenda.

11.

Re commending policy to the board of education.

Two items at the depth role level
Auxiliary Services)

(major area of

for both intermediate and local directors

of special education were performed by less than 50 per cent
of all other groups in the study.
1.

They were:

Supervising or coo rdinating school dia gn ostician
programs.

2.

Superv isin g or coordinating school social
worker p r o g r a m s .

130

Five Items at the depth role level for both Inter ­
mediate and local directors of special education were
performed by less than 50 per cent of both intermediate
and local superintendents.
1.

They were:

Dev elo ping an inservice edu cation pro gram for
teachers.

2.

Orie nti ng personnel.

3.

Developing schedules and work loads for n o n ­
professional personnel.

4.

Ev al uat ing teaching personnel.

5.

Studying equipment and supply needs.

The following two items at the depth role level for
the directors were perform ed by less than 50 per cent of
the elementary and secondary principals:
1.

Preparing and completing state reports.

2.

Developin g cooperative agreements betw ee n school
districts for programs.

Recommendations

For School Districts
1.

Since larger districts appear to be able to
hire better qualified directors of special
education,

this may have some implications

whic h would encourage the conso lid ation of
school districts.

131
2.

If the director of special ed ucation is not
prepared in special education classroom areas,
an app ropriately prepared supervisor should be
employed to coordinate curriculum development.
More supervisors, whose primary function is
curriculum coordination and enrichment,

should

be employed at the local district level since
the larger number of special educati on class­
rooms are operated locally.
3.

Since the bui l di ng principals were not highly
involved in interpreting specialized educational
programs to other educators,

an inservice e d u ­

cation progra m for principals is recommended.
The purpose of the inservice education program
would be to familiarize principals with special
education so they might pa rticipate more fully
in the int erpretation process.
4.

The inservice education of local school directors
of special education should stress greater skills
in the activities in the major administrative
area of Community Relations.

5.

Since there are more male administrators than
females, the selection may be partly based on
society's image of the male in the dominant
role.

It is recommended that recruitment p r o ­

cedures for administrative positions be reviewed
in terms of seeking the most highly qualified
personnel for the role, regardless of sex.

132

For State Departments
of Ed uc ati on
1.

State approved special educati on administrators
at both the local and intermediate district
levels should be prepared in general p r o f e s ­
sional educ ation admi nist rat ion and in more
than one area of special education.
administ rat ive activities

Since the

cover both classr oom

programs and itinerant special service programs,
the special prepar at ion should include at least
one classroom area and one special service area,
in add ition to administration.
2.

An ad mi nistration internship supervised exper ­
ience is particularly important for intermediate
directors of special education, due to the high
level of fru stration betw ee n their actual and
ideal ranking of time spent in the major a d m i n i s ­
trative areas.

3.

The pos ition of assistant director of special
education should be developed on an experimental
basis with intensive role analysis at both local
and intermediate district levels.

This may help

to alleviate the frustration of directors r e ­
garding actual and ideal amounts of time spent
in major administ rat ive areas.

133

For Universities
1.

Prepara tio n programs for special educati on
administr ato rs should emphasize the development
of skills related to the per formance of those
activities includ ed in the special edu cation
administ rat ive role.

Intensive pre paration

should occur in those areas included in the
depth role.
2.

An appropriate supervised internship should be
re qui red for special education administrators.
Persons prepari ng to be intermediate
directors of special education should intern
wi th ou tstandin g intermediate directors
special education.

of

Potential local directors

should intern wit h outsta nding local directors
of special education.
Included in the special education int er n­
ship placement should be contact with su p e r i n ­
tendents for intermediate directors and with
principals and su per intendents

for local directors.

It is suggested that a related university
seminar be prov id ed during the internship
experience.
3.

An introductory special ed uc ati on course should
be required for all t e a c h e r s .
assist all educators

This would

in an u nd er st andin g of

special education and lead to earlier sp eciali­
zation for some in a special educ at ion area.

134

This could then result In more special education
directors maj or in g at the graduate level In
administration,

If their special education

p re parati on were completed at the undergradu ate
level.
4.

Special education pr eparatio n programs should
include more than one special education area.
Special education administrators should also
be required to complete a majo r in pro fessional
educational administration.

For Further Research
Any maj or investigat ion usually discovers additional
areas which might require further research,
no exception.

this one being

There are three major areas for additional

research and one minor area.
1.

A study of the pos it io n of special education
supervisor is needed to explore:

(a) the number

of classes which should have the services of
full-time supervisor,

a

(b) the role of the

supervisor at the intermediate district and
local district levels,

and also at the e l e ­

men tar y and secondary levels.
2.

A study of the possible role of an assistant
director of special education,

since there was

considerable variation bet ween actual and ideal

135

amounts of time spent by the directors in the
major administrative areas.
3.

A study of the reasons for the d i s p r op or ti on­
ately large amount of actual and ideal time
spent by the intermediate superintendents in
the area of School Board Relations is needed.

H.

A mi no r area which would require further i n ­
v es tigati on is the reason why only 10 per cent
of the secondary principals are pro vid ing for
an adult education program, and why this group
is not highly involved in the pr omo tion of
community resources in the instructional
program.

Summary
This study has presented inf ormation which will
assist school districts, universities and state, d e p a r t ­
ments of education in a concerted effort to achieve
better directors

of special education.

BIB LIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Associat ion of School Administrators.
Edu­
cational Adm inis tr at io n in a Changing C o m m u n i t y .
Washington, D. C.:
American A s s o c ia ti on of School
Administrators, 1958.
Blessing, Kenneth.
"Preparation for State Leadership
Roles."
Prese nta tion at America n Ass oci at io n on
Ment al Deficiency Conference, St. Louis, Missouri,
1967.
Connor, Leo.
Ad mi ni st ra tion of Special Edu ca tio n P r o g r a m s .
New York!
Teachers College, 1 9 6 1 .
Connor, Leo E.
"Preliminaries to a Theory of A d min is ­
tration for Special Education."
Except ional
C h i l d r e n , Vol. XXIX, No. 9 (May, l ^ y !
Council for Excep tio nal Children.
Professional Standards
for Personnel in the Edu ca ti on of Except ional
C h i l d r e n ! Washington, D. C.:
Council for fexceptional Children, 1 9 6 6 .
Department of Education.
"State-Aid for Special E d u ­
cation Directors and Supervisors."
Lansing,
Michigan:
M i ch igan Board of Education, 1967.
Early, W i l l i a m J.
"An Ev alu ation and Analysis of the
Extern Pro gram in Educational A d m i ni stra ti on at
Mic hig an State University."
Unp ub li sh ed Ph.D.
Dissertation, M ichig an State University, 1963Fogle, Dean.
"Preparation of Administrators and S u p e r ­
visors in Special E d u c a t i o n — the Vi ew from School
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ." Pre se ntation at Council for
Except ion al Children Conference, St. Louis,
Missouri, 1967.
Grieder, Calvin; Pierce, Truman; and R o s e n s t e n g e l ,
William.
Public School A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 2nd Ed.
New York:
The Ronald Press Co., 1961.

137

138

Howe, Clifford E.
"Roles of the Local Special Education
Director."
Urbana, Illinois:
University of
Illinois, I960.
Kirk, Samuel A.
Ed ucatin g Exc eptional Children.
Houghton M i f f l i n CoT, 1 9 6 2 .

Boston:

Kirk, Samuel A.
"The National Advisory Committee on
Handicap pe d Children."
A Richer Future for H a n d i ­
capped C h i l d r e n . Washington, D. C.:
Council for
Exceptional Children, March, 19 6 8 .
Kothera, Richard J.
"A Criterion and Set of Reality
Based Problems for Simulation in Special Educati on
Ad ministration."
Unpubl ish ed Ph.D. Dissertation,
Univer sit y of Kansas, 1967.
Lauber, Ellyn G.
"Special Edu ca ti on Adminis tr at io n and
Supervisory Personnel in Selected States."
Unpub­
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University,

1962.
Mackie, Romaine P.
"Special Education Reaches Nearly
Two M i ll io n Children."
School L i f e , XLVII
(December, 196*0.
Mackie, Romaine P.; Williams, Haro ld M.; and Robbins,
Patricia M.
"Special Educ at ion Enrollments in
Local School Systems:
A Directory."
U. S. Office
of Education, Bul letin OE-35027, Washington, D. C.,

1966.
Martens, Elise H.
"Statistics of Special Schools and
Classes for Exceptional Children, 1947-48."
Biennial Survey of Edu c at io n in the U. S., 19464 8 . Washington, D. CT:
Government Printing
Office, 1950.
Michigan Department of Education.
"Annual R e p o r t —
Programs for the Mentally H a n d i c a p p e d — 1965-66
School Year."
Lansing, Michigan, 1966.
Michigan Department of Mental Health.
Mental Retarda tio n in Michigan."
Lansing, Michigan, 1 9 6 6 .

"Plan to Combat
Progress R e p o r t .

Michigan State Board of Education.
M i ch ig an General
School Laws.
Lansing, Michigan, 1966.

139

Mic h i g a n State Senate.
"Report on Special Educati on in
Michigan."
Lansing, Michigan, 1966.
Milazzo, Tony C.; and Blessing, Ken neth R.
"The Tr ain ing
of Directors of Special Edu cat io n Programs."
Exceptional Children, Vol. XXXI, No. 3 (1964),
129-141.
Miller, Van.
The Public Adm in istratio n of American
School Systems.
New York:
The MacMill an Co.,

Morphet, Edgar L.; Johns, Roe L.; and Reller, Theodore
L.
Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Englewo od Cliffs,
New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959.
Southworth, William.
"The Superintendency:
A Position
in Flux."
School Board Journal (1967)•
State Board of Education.
"Organizing Educational
Programs for Children with Handicaps."
Circular
No. 48, Revised.
Lansing, Michigan, 1966.
Thomas, J. Alan.
"School Finance and Edu cational Op p o r ­
tunity in Michigan."
Mich ig an School Finance
S t u d y . Lansing, Michigan:
Mic h ig an Department
of Education, 1968.
Tompkins, James R.
"Program Development Concept."
A
Rich er Future for Handicapped C h i l d r e n . Washington,
D. C.:
Council for Except io nal Children, 1968.
U. S. Department of Health, Edu ca tion and Welfare.
Special
Ed uc ati on for Handic appe d C h i l d r e n . First Annual
Report of the National Advisory Committee on H a n d i ­
capped Children, Washington, D. C., 1968.
U. S. Office of Education.
"Appropriations for the Bureau
of Edu ca tio n for the Ha ndicapped."
Washington,
D. C., 1968.
U. S. Office of Education.
"Directors and Supervisors
of Special Ed uca tion in Local School Systems."
Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office,
1955.
Wisland, Mi lt o n V.; and Vaughan, Tony D.
"A dm inis ­
trative Problems in Special Education."
Exceptional
C h i l d r e n , Vol. XXXI, No. 2 (1964), 87 - 8 9 .

APPENDI X

APP END IX A

June 20, 1967

Dear Administrator,
Your assistance is requested in a careful review
of the administrative activities of directors of
special education.
In order to determine which admini­
strative activities are performed by special education
directors, the enclosed survey is being sent to selected
administrators in local and intermediate school systems
where special education directors are employed.
The
results will be utilized in my doctoral dissertation
and generally shared wherever possible with professional
groups, while still maintaining confidentiality of
individual information.
The Michigan Department of Education has indicated an
interest in this study.
I personally hope you will complete the survey and
return it to me at the Michigan Department of Education
within ten days if at all possible.
It is imperative for
the study that you respond regarding your own role in the
school system.

Thank you for your cooperation and help.
Sincerely,

Miss Gail A. Harris
GAH/sdo
Enclosure

Survey Form

Respondent // __________
(1-3)
(Do not fill in)

Please return within ten days to:

Miss Gail A. Harris, Special Education Consultant
Michigan Department of Education, Lansing

Name of Person Completing Form ____________________________________________________________
Official Title ______ _______________ ____________ .
___________________________________________
School District _____________________________________________________________________________
Please check your full-time position:
4.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Intermediate School District Superintendent
Intermediate District Director of Special Education
Local School District Superintendent
Local School Director of Special Education
Elementary Principal
Secondary Principal

Please check:
Sex:
5.

(1) Male
(2) Female

Age:
6.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Under
30-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
over

30 years
years
years
years
years
50 years

PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF COMPLETED SCHOOL YEARS IN EACH SECTION BELOW.
COUNT THE 1966-67 SCHOOL YEAR AS ONE COMPLETED YEAR.
INDICATE FULL-TIME
ROLES ONLY.
IF A ONE DIGIT ANSWER IS GIVEN, PRECEDE BY "0" IN THIS SECTION.
PLACE ONE DIGIT ONLY IN EACH SPACE.
7- 8
9-10
11-12
13-14
15-16

/
/
/
/
/

17-18
19-20
21-22
23-24
25-26

/
/
/
/
/

/
V
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/

a.
b.
c.
d.

/
/
/
/
/

f.

a.

gh.
i.
j-

in present position
in administration of general education
in administration of special education
in teaching regular elementary grades
in teaching a special education class (Please indicate
areas of handicapped taught, i.e. mentally handicappedin teaching secondary level regular classes.
in a special education service area, i.e. diagnostic services
total years employed in education in Michigan
total years employed in education out of Michigan
total years employment in professional education, both
in-state and out-of-state.

Page two
Please check only highest degree held:
27

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

BA
MA
ED.S.
ED.D.

or PH.D.

Please check teaching certificate presently held:
28

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Special
Life
Elementary Provisional
Secondary Provisional
Elementary Permanent
Secondary Permanent
None

Please check your undergraduate majors:
29

30.
31
32

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Elementary Education
Special Education or Special Services - Major Area:
Secondary Education - Subject Area: _________________
Other, please indicate _________ -_____________________

Please check your graduate majors:

33
34
35
36
37

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Elementary Education
Special Education or Special Services - Major Area:
Secondary Education - Subject Area:_________________
Administration
Other - Please indicate

Please check your salary range:

38

___ (1)'
(2)~
(3)
(4)

$5,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $12,999
$13,000 to $15,999
Over $16,000

INTERMEDIATE AND LOCAL DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ONLY ARE TO RESPOND TO THIS
NEXT ITEM.
(#’s 39-46).
ALL OTHERS PROCEED TO ITEM #47.
Please check all special education or special service area(s) for which you would
be eligible for temporary or full approval from the Michigan Department of
Education:
3'J
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

(1)
(2)
(3)

W
<5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Blind and Partially Sighted
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Orthopedically Handicapped
Mentally Handicapped
Emotionally Disturbed
School Social Worker
School Diagnostician for the Mentally Handicapped
Speech Correctionist

Page three
ALL PERSONS SHOULD COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES WITHIN MAJOR AREAS.
THE ONE APPROPRIATE BEST ANSWER AS FOLLOWS:

PLEASE CHECK

"1" = If you have responsibility for the activity.
Responsibility would refer to an
activity in which you are actually directly involved, even if it is a shared
responsibility.
"2" - If you have delegated this activity to a Consultant or Supervisor and are not
directly involved.
"3" - If you have no responsibility for this activity.
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION * (MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE AREA)
Check (/) if you have responsibility for doing each:
I
do:

I
delegate:

I have no
responsibility for:

(3)

47

(1)

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

.. (2).

_ J 2 ) ...
.. ..(2J. .
(2)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

58
59
60
61

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)
...... (2).
(2)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

ill
(2)
.

m

.

(2)
(2)
_ (2)

...(21

Developing curriculum for total school or specialized
area.
Improving and changing curriculum
Selecting textbooks and instructional material
Providing for instructional supervision or consultation
Providing leadership at staff meetings
Consulting with classroom teachers
Evaluating the instructional program
Evaluating individual teaching
Developing an inservice education program for teachers
Develpping an effective class scheduling plan
Promoting the use of community resources in the
instructional program.
writing articles for professional journals
Iniating new programs
Keeping aware of state school laws
Other please indicate

PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (Major Administrative Area)
I
do:

I lave no
responsibility for:

I
delegate:

62
63
64
65
66

(1)
(1)
(1)

(21
i2 l
.......(21
.12).
_. ..121

67

(1)

_._121

(3)

68
69
70
71
72
73

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1?

...... (2).
..,(2.1
(2)
(2)
.. _(il

(1)

...

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

U) _
(1)

m.

_

.

.

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

Preparing criteria for personnel selection
Conducting personnel interviews
Selecting personnel for employment
Orienting Personnel
Developing schedules and work loads for professional
personnel
Developing schedules and work loads for non-professional
personnel
Evaluating teaching personnel
Evaluating non-teaching personnel
Suspending or dismissing employees
Assigning personnel to a specific facility
Recommending tenure appointments.
Other please indicate

Page four
FINANCE (Major Administrative Area)
I
do:
/4
75
76
77
78
80
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

I
delegate:

I have no
responsibility for:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(Card One Complete)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)

Preparing a budget
Administering a budget
Preparing financial statements for the board
Preparing financial data for citizens advisory groups.
Investigating insurance rates and coverage
Formulating and evaluating salary schedules
Preparing and completing state reports
Computing per pupil costs and other statistical data
Preparing a payroll
Designating a system of financial accounting.
Requesting & administering federal funds
Other please indicate ______________________________ ______

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICES
I
do:
11

12
18
14

15
15

7
0
c
7
''

I
delegate:

I have no
responsibilities for:

(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)

(3)
(3)

(1)
(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)
(2)

(3)
(3)
(3)

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

(Major Administrative Area)

(2)
(3)
(2) ___ (3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)

Developing a systematic control of records and funds
Developing a system of inventory of fixed assets and
appraisal
Organizing and coordinating purchase practices
Studying equipment and supply needs
Storing, receiving, distributing & inventorying of
supplies.
Preparing specifications for bids and for purchasing
processing of bids
Analyzing school district expenditures
Arranging to serve non-resident pupils
Other please Indicate __________________________________

:'CH00L PLANT ( Major Administrative Area)
I
do:
1
12

I
delegate:

31
32

(1)
(1)_
(1)_
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1).
(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)

33
34
35

(1)
(1)
(1)

(2)
(2)
(2)

23
24
25
26
^7
28

29
J0

I have no
responsibilities for:
(3) Selecting a school architect
Evaluating existing sites and facilities
(3) Determining the specifications of the new bldg.
(3) Planning for buildings and equipment with the architect
( 3 > Planning for buildings and equipment with the staff
(3) Planning
for buildings and equipment with the students
(3.< Planning for buildings and equipment with the community.
(3) Evaluating building ard site plans
(3) Consulting during construction
(3) Supervising building maintenance program
(3) Recommending the amount of insurance coverage
(3) Determining plant utilization for non-educational
purposes
(3) Determining remodeling needs of school facilities
(3) Determining physical location of classes
(3)
Other please indicate _____________________________________

fZ')

Page five

AUXILIARY SERVICES
I
do:
36
37
38
39

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)

40

u>

41
42
43
44
45
46
47

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1'
(1)
(1)
(1)

(Major Administrative Area)

I
delegate :
..

m
<2>.
_(21

. .,(21
..(21
(2).
.Ill

(2).
,.(2.1
.
(21
(2)
.... (2)

I have no
responsibility for:
(3)
....(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
,(3?
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

PUPIL * PERSONNEL GUIDANCE

I
do:
48
49
50
51
52
53

<1>
(1)
(1)
(1)
<1>
(1)

I
delegate:
. ..(22
..(22
_(21
.. (21
.
(2).
(2)

COMMUNITY DELATIONS
I
do:

I

delegate:

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3?
(3)

I have no
responsibility for:

..... (2.1

(3)

55

(1)

.

(3)

56

(1)

... (2)

(3)

57
58

<1>
(1)

(2)
121

(3)
(3)

59
60
61
62
63
64

(1)

(2)
_ (22
....(?2
... (2)
... (2.1
122

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)

(1)
(1)

(1)
(1)

Planning & evaluating a guidance & testing program
Administering a guidance and testing program
Determining the content of pupil cumulative records
Developing procedures for reporting to parents
Counseling of students A parents
Other Please indicate

(Major Administrative Area)

(1)

(1)

(Major Administrative Area)

I have no
responsibility for:

54

(.21

Evaluating transportation needs
Developing transportation plans
Employing transportation personnel
Operating and maintaining school buses
Developing regulations governing school bus operation
Preparing bids for purchasing of school buses
Administering cafeteria program
Supervising or coordinating school diagnostician program
Supervising or coordinating school nurse program
Supervising or coordinating school social worker program
Supervising or coordinating speech correction program
Other please indicate

65
66

U)

(1)

122
.. (21

(3)
(3)

67

(1)

(22

(3)

Organizing lay and professional groups for parti­
cipation in educational planning and other educational
activities
Interpreting and presenting school policies to the
community
Developing and administering a community relations
program
Preparing news releases
Conducting and utilizing research concerning educational
problems of the school and community
Providing for an adult education program
Using community resources in the school program
Participating in parent school organizations
Making speeches at state and national conferences
Conducting individual parent conferences
Arranging student teaching and internship experiences
with universities
Meeting with legislators regarding school issues
Developing cooperative agreements between school
districts for programs
Other please indicate

Page six
STAFF RELATIONS

(Major Administrative Area)

i
delegate:

I
do:

I have no
responsibility for:

68
69

(1)
(1)

. (2)

.

(3)
(3?

70

(1)

,J 2 1

..

(3)

71

(i)

. (2)

72
73
74

(1)
(1)

..121
....(2),

(2)

.

(3)
(3)
(3)

.

(3)

..

(3)

*.— 1 2 1

w

75

.....121.

76

(3)

,1 2 )

(i)

SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS

i

I
do:

o

CO

77
78

5

, .,

(Major Administrative Area)
I have no
.
i.
responsibility for:

(3)
(3)

Ill ____ (21
(2)

.. .1 1 1

Recommending items for the school board agenda
Preparing written and oral reports for the board
of education

(Card Two Complete)

. .,..(11 ._J3)... (3)
(3)
11.).. __ (2).

6
7

delegate:

Arranging for and/or conducting staff meetings
Encouraging staff participation in professional
organizations
Encouraging staff participation in community
activities
Recommending sick leave provisions and other fringe
benefits for staff
Defining the duties and responsibilities of the staff
Developing and utilizing a staff newsletter
Representing school board in professional
negotiations with teachets
Interpreting specialized ediicatiottal programs to
other educators
Other please indicate

...

(i)

8

.

11).

9

.

CD

(3)

Ol

..l.i).
..

.1 2 )

...

(3)

.Ill

_...

(3)

.....

(3)

______(2).

Recommending policy to the board of education
Administering board policy
Aiding the board to distinguish between policy and
executive function
Developing and providing opportunities for the board
to meet and work with the staff
Developing and providing opportunities for the board
to appear before the public
Other please indicate

PLEASE RANK FROM ZERO TO NINE THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES IN IDEAL
ORDER OF TIME THEY SHOULD CONSUME.
"9" IS THE ACTIVITY WHICH SHOULD CONSUME
THE MOST TIME, AND "0" IS THE ACTIVITY WHICH SHOULD CONSUME THE LEAST OF YOUR TIME.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

... Rh.
i.
_. ,. ,i•

Curriculum and Instruction
Personnel Administration
Finance
Business Management and Practices
School Plant
Auxiliary services
Pupil-Personnel Guidance
Community Relations
Staff relations
School board relations

Page seven
PLEASE RANK FROM ZERO TO NINE THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES IN ORDER
OF THE TIME THEY ACTUALLY CONSUME. WITH "9" BEING THE ACTIVITY WHICH CONSUMES
THE MOST TIME. AND "0" ACTUALLY CONStJMlNG THE LEAST OF YOUR TIME.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

cl *

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
fi­
ll.
i.
.1-

Curriculum and Instruction
Personnel Administration
Finance
Business Management and Practices
School Plant
Auxiliary Services
Pupil-Personncl Guidance
Community Relations
Staff relations
School board relations

THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS FORM ARE TO BE COMPLETED ONLY BY THE
SPECIAL EDUCATION.
Please check the size of your school district, regarding public school membership:
30

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

1 to 5,000 school membership
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 25,000
25,001 to 40,000
40,001 and up

Indicate the number of professional personnel directly employed by your school system
during the 1966-67 school year in the following areas.
Fill in blanks to left of
your response with "0", and put one digit only in each space.
31-33
34-36
37-39
40-42
43-45
46-48
49-51
52-54

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

L
i
/
/
/
/
/
/

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

Blind and Partially Sighted
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Orthopedically Handicapped
Mentally Handicapped
Emotionally disturbed
School Social Worker
School Diagnostician for the Mentally Handicapped
Speech Correctionist

Please check regarding
supervisors who are employed by you
55

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Zero
One to three
four to six
seven to ten
more than ten

Please list special education areas
they supervise:
____________________
_______________________________________
_______________________ ________________

chuck the number of years state approved special education and special services have
been operated by your school district.
56

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

One year
two to three years
four to seven years
more than seven years

Page eight

Check the number of years a director of special education has been employed
full-time by your school system:
57

58

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

One year
two to three years
four to seven years
more than seven years

Card Three Complete
Thank you for completing this form.

APPENDIX B

152

TABLE 32.— Survey form administrative activity responses.
Items
From
Survey

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

1
2
3

18

5
3

2
12
3

45
4
1

6
23
0

21
2
3

27
3
0

48

1
2
3

18
7
1

3
15
0

45
3
2

10
19
0

25
1
1

27
1
1

49

1
2
3

12
9
5

2
12
3

32
13
3

5
23
1

18

6
3

13
15
1

1
2
3

16

10
0

6
11
0

44
5
0

9
20
1

24
2
1

27
1
2

18

Response

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 1
Item:
47

50

1
2
3

26

0
0

10
8
0

47
2
1

11
0

27
0
■0

30
0
0

52

1
2
3

16
7
3

4
13
1

43
6
1

4
25
0

27
0
0

29
1
0

53

1
2
3

18

5
11
2

44
4
2

16

26

5
3

13
0

1
0

29
1
0

1
2
3

14
4
8

2
12
4

38
8
3

2
26

1

27
0
0

27
1
2

1
2
3

20
6
0

6
11
0

44
6
0

7
22
0

21
1
4

18

56

1
2
3

4
8
12

3
8
5

23
20
5

0
26
3

24
2
1

22
7
1

57

1
2
3

18

4
11
3

39
6
2

13

7
1

23
3
1

15
13
2

1
2
3

10
1
13

6
3
6

22
3
19

18

4
4

8
1
17

9
2

1
2
3

26
0
0

12
6
0

49
1
0

23
5
0

23
1
3

26

1
2
3

26
0
0

17
1
0

49
0
0

26

3
0

18
3
6

26
1
3

6l

1
2
3

4
0
2

1
0
0

3
0
0

1
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

62

1
2
3

26

0
0

11'
6
T

46
1
1

20
9
0

11
1
14

22
3
5

1
2
3

26
0
0

12
6
0

49
0
0

13
16
0

18
1
6

26
1
3

51

5^

55

58

59

60

63

16

0

5
7

16

3
1

153

TABLE 32.— Continued.
Items
From
Survey

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superlntendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

1
o
3

2A
1
1

13
5
0

A7
2
1

15
12
1

17
2
6

26
0
A

2

1

2b
2

3

0

6
12
0

AA
5
0

1A
15
0

26
0
0

26
3
1

1
0

21
5
0

5
13
0

A3
7
0

9
19
0

2A
0
2

23
5
2

8
10
0

28

3

17
6
3

12
9

3
25
1

17
A
5

12
9
9

68

1
2
3

23
1
n

7
11
0

A5
2
•3

A
2A
1

26
•0
0

28
1
1

69

1
2
3

20
3
3

8
9
0

31
7
11

1
26
1

18
2

21
6
3

1

15

30
2

26
1
1

13
2
11

18

. 1

3

21
0
A

71

1
2
3

23
2
1

9
8
0

A7
1
1

13
15
1

13
3
9

17
2
10

72

1
2
3

23
0
3

12
5
0

A2
1
5

20
8
1

25
0
0

28

73

1
2
3

2
0
1

0
0
0

1
0
0

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

7b

1
2
3

23
0
3

15
3
0

A5
2
3

19
8
2

12
0
1A

17
A
9

75

1
2
3

23
1
2

1A
A
0

A6
1
3

18

9
2

16
0
10

21
2
7

1
2
3

17
A
5

7
11
0

20
1
28

9
19
1

2
2
22

A
5
20

77

1
2
3

19
2
5

11
7
0

1A
2
32

11
17
1

1
2
23

3
5
22

78

1
2
3

9
A
13

9
8
1

2
2
A5

2
25
2

1
1
2A

0
1
29

Card 1
Item:
6A

65

66

3
67

70

76

1
n

2

0

17

6

2
10

0
2

154

TABLE 32.— Continued.
Items
From
Survey

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

'1

1
2
3

21
1
9

16
2
0

19
2

5

1
2
3

22
3
1

10
8
0

1
2
3

13
9

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 2
Item:

6

9

31

23
9
2

3
1
22

9
1
25

95
9
0

8
20
1

6
9
16

19
9
7

6
12
0

22
5
19

6
20
2

1
0
25

1
2
27
3
2
25

1
2
3

13
13

5
12
1

7
3
38

1
25
3

6
9
16

1
2
3

1
12
13

15
2
1

5
0
92

6
. . 20
3

1
1
29

1
2
3

15
2
9

6
9
2

17
0
30

11
18

0

3
0
23

5
2
23

10

1
2
3

2
0
2

0
1
0

0
0
0

0
1
0

1
0
1

0
0
2

11

1
2
3

9
7
10

9
8
' 1

16
l
32

9
23
2

9
0
22

8
2
20

12

1
2
3

10
8
7

9
7
1

10
1
38

2
25
2

3
1
22

1
2
27

13

1
2
3

13
6
7

9
8
1

17
2

3
1
22

2
2

28

3
29
2

1
2
3

22
3
1

'1
13
1

39
9
6

9
23
2

19
1
6

18

15

1
2
3

9
13
i|

1
16
1

19
15
15

1
26
2

19
5
2

8
15
6

16

1
2
3

9
i|
13

7
V
3

9
1
39

3
29
2

1
2
22

1
5
29

17

1
2
3

8
3
15

8
6
3

1
0
97

3
22
2

0
0
29

1
2
26

18

1
2
3

17
2
7

19
9
0

5
0
93

19
8
2

2
0
29

0
1
29

19

1
2
3

20
ll
2

7
9
2

36
2
11

5
19
3

9
0

5
2
23

7

8

9

1*1

0

■

22

.

0
1
29

26

6
5

155

TABLE 32.--Continued.
Items
From
Survey

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 2
Item:
20

21

22

23

2D

0
0
0

0
0
1

0
2
0

0
0
3

0
0
1

1
0

19
5
U

0
0
26

0
1

2A

10
1
It
13
1
3

20
7

3
0

3

10
1
13

1
2
3

11
2
12

9
3
It

1

16

16

2

8
J

21

2

1

5

8

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
p

3
25

26

1
2
3
1
2

3
27

1
0
1
1
0

8
10
0
7
U
1
21

10
0

3
5
3
3
10

8

1
2
3

14

3
5

1
2
3

10
1
111

1
2
3

8

'17
18
30

2

23

7
0
23

20

13

1

ID
2

D
0
22

ID
2
ID

26

13
0

12
■ 0
ID

17
1
12

29
1

18

16

23

11

0

26

18

7
it
36
12

0

0
10

16

18

11

15

ID

15

7

ID

19

16

9

10
3
3

17

19
Q
2

9

lit

16

5

1
2
3

7
3
1C

it
7

6

1
2
3

5
0
21

11
1
5

1
2
3

7
0

33

31

0

7
15
1
ID

0

0

0
10

11
5

36

28

29

9

0

0
0

0
0

7

16

■ 3D

12
ID
2

19

1
13

2
2
DU

U
22
3

ID
0
12

9
11

0

7
17
U

0

0

0

1
D7

26

30

18

8
3
5

2
1
UU

10
15
3

ID
1
11

9
6
15

1
2
3

13
2
11

9
2
5

25
2
22

12
ID
3

18
0
8

22
2
5

34

1
2
3

11)
0
12

H
H
7

27
3
17

7
19
3

21
0
5

23
D
3

35

1
2
3

1
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
2

2
0
0

0
0
1

0
0
0

29

30

31

32

2

2

0

0

10

0

156
t

Items
From
Survey

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 2
Item:
36

37

38

39

1
2

16

6

4

3

6

7
4

1
2

12

41

43

44

45

49

50

51

52

2

4

25

12

2

1
21

0
2
28

3

8
0

1
1

0
0

24

30

1
1

0
0

24

30

4

1
0

3

19
3

1

3

1
22

3

1

11

43

1
26
2

2
21

3
4
9

10
0

'3
23

37

2

3

2

o

2
1

11

44

o

2
0

1

Oc
3
1
2

3

1
22

1
2

1
2

3

23

1

40

1
12

46

20

1

44

15

0

3

4
o

1

5

1
2

2
0

0

19

9

2

3

23

8

27

1
2

20

1

40

3
3

14

0
10

P

1
2

1
2

3
48

29
7

6
6

3
47

3
9
5

6
1

3
46

8

1
20

1
2

3
42

5

3

3
40

9
18
n

5
9

1
2

2

3
0
2

14

44
4

2

2

0
0
■0

10
0
1

1
6
10

20

1
6
10

13
29

1

19
4
3

'

1
2

2

3

21

1
2

1

3

21

1
2

4
5

2

7

3

16

8

1
2

14

2

8

5

3

3

10

1
2

8
12

2
8

3

5

7

3

3

2
0
28

39

2

25
o

0
21

29

0
1

0
0

25

30

8
2
16

7

24
4
1
28
0

2

2

24
3
1

6

17

19

2
6
22

7

6

5

0
28
1

2

3

17

21

1
28
0

8
2
16

7
3

1
28
0

7

1

4
0

20

2

5
4

17

21

2
1
2

0
0
1

5
24

11

19

4

0

10

11
1

1
26
1

15
4

21

5

3
25

22
1

18
1

7

21
10
0

32
4
14

10
18
0

22
1

23
7

3

1

30

3
25

24

19

1
1

11
1

4
25
6

12
8

0

6

9
21
1

157
»
TABLE 32.— Continued.
Items
From
Survey

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superintendents

Local
Directors

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 2
Item:
53

1
■
;

1
0

p

1
0
0

0
0
1

1
0
0

1
0
0

12
4
2

28
2
17

27
2
0

16
2
8

21
2
8

.

.

0
0
0

3

24
1
1

,,

1
2
3

24
0
2

17
1
0

42
0
7

28
1
0

26
0
0

27
2
2

56

1
2
3

19
2
5

15
2
1

26
1
22

20
6
2

16
1
8

12
7
11

57

1
2
3

24
1
1

16
2
0

21
5
23

18
10
1

15
2
9

17
8
6

58

1
2
3

18
5
3

9
6
1

25
2
20

16
12
0

15
3
8

15
8
8

59

1
2
3

3
2
20

2
5
9

4
1
41

5
23
1

3
1
21

3
9
19

60

1
2
3

17
6
3

2
7
6

32
6
11

9
20
0

21
4
1

15
13
3

61

1
2
3

20
2
3

9
4
4

41
4
4

19
10
0

26
0
0

21
4
5

62

1
2
3

16
0
7

8
5
4

33
0
14

25
0
3

9
0
17

13
0
16

63

1
2
3

13
8
5

2
6
9

42
6
2

9
19
1

23
3
0

25
5
1

64

1
2
3

23
1
2

4
10
3

34
2
11

12
13
3

20
0
6

20
6
5

65

1
2
3

22
0
4

17
1
0

21
0
26

27
1
1

5
0
21

6
0
24

66

1
2
3

25
0
1

16
2
0

40
0
10

22
4
1

3
0
23

8
3
20

67

1
2
3

1
0
1

1
0
0

1
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

68

1
2
3

24
2
0

11
7
0

49
0
1

21
6
2

26
0
0

29
1
1

1:

1

n

158

TABLE 32.— Continued.
Local
Directors

Response

Intermediate
Directors

Intermediate
Superin­
tendents

69

1
2
3

26
0
0

14
2
1

47
0
3

18
7
4

20
2
4

23
1
7

70

1
2
3

25
0
1

12
3
1

46
1
2

21
4
3

23
1
2

27
2
2

71

1
2
3

23
0
3

16
2
0

19
0
30

18
8
2

6
1
19

9
3
19

72

1
2
3

26
0
0

13
5
0

48
0
1

22
4
1

26
0
0

28
1
2

73

1
9
3

17
3
5

7
7
2

11
5
30

8
17
2

16
2
3

14
2
15

7 *4

1
2
3

9
0
17

8
2
6

7
0
.41

20
7
1

4
0
22

12
1
18

75

1
p
3

26
0
0

14
4
0

49
0
D

23
6
0

12
1
13

17
3
11

76

1
2
3

0
0
1

0
0
n

1
0
1

1
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

77

1
o
3

25
0
1

17
0
0

32
0
16

28
0
1

5
1
19

17
0
14

78

1
2
3

26
0
0

17
1
0

45
0
5

28
1
0

14
1
11

22
0
9

4

1
2
3

25
0
1

18
0
0

31
1
17

27
1
1

8
1
16

15
0
16

5

1
2
3

26
0
0

17
1
0

40
0
8

28
1
0

24
0
2

24
1
6

6

1
2
3

17
0
8

18
0
0

12
1
35

28
0
1

3
1
22

10
0
21

7

1
2
3

21
0
5

16
l
0

20
1
27

25
3
1

5
2
19

14
0
17

8

1
2
3

13
0
13

14
1
1

5
0
43

25
3
1

10
2
14

6
25

1
2
3

0
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
3

0
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

Items
From
Survey

Local
Superintendents

Elementary
Principals

Secondary
Principals

Card 2
It e m :

.

Card 3
Item:

9

a (l'"I Do," 2 = "I Delegate," 3= "I Have No Responsibility For.")

0