INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I 75-20,846 HDDSON, M, Diane, 1941CCMPEIENCIES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS AS SEEN BY INTERMEDIATE AND LOCAL DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Education, administration Xerox University Microfilms, Ann A rbor, M ich ig an 4 8 1 06 COMPETENCIES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS AS SEEN BY INTERMEDIATE AND LOCAL DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By M. Diane Hodson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p a rtia l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1975 ABSTRACT COMPETENCIES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS AS SEEN BY INTERMEDIATE AND LOCAL DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By M. Diane Hodson The purpose of th is study was to generate competency areas and competency statements which would be appropriate fo r use as rules fo r approval o f Michigan special education d irectors and guidelines fo r the development of pre-service tr a in in g programs to q u a lify persons as special education directors in Michigan. The need fo r the study was indicated by the emphasis placed on competency-based tra in in g programs fo r professional educators by the State of Michigan and by the lack of research designed to e l i c i t from practicing administrators of special education th e ir views as to the appropriate means fo r the i n i t i a l development of s p ecific competencies and as to the crucial competencies fo r inclusion in pre-service tra in in g programs. The study proposed to develop the f i r s t two steps in a series of four leading to the v a lid a tio n o f competencies fo r inclusion in a pre-service tra in in g program fo r special education d ire c to rs . The review of the l i t e r a t u r e focused p rim a rily on two ma; topics: 1) standards and recommended content fo r special education administration training programs and 2) ro le , tasks, functions arXd / a c t i v i t i e s o f administrators of special education. This review in d i­ cated th a t i n i t i a l attempts have been made to describe through research t M. D ia n e Hodson the a c t i v i t i e s or tasks of administrators o f special education, but th a t l i t t l e has been done to describe through research the competencies needed in p re-service tra in in g programs fo r these adm inistrators. The 15 competency areas and 79 competency statements, which were f i n a l l y included in a questionnaire sent to the 144 approved d irectors o f special education in Michigan, were derived from the l i t e r a t u r e review and from a prelim inary study, conducted by th is author, of the a c t i v i t i e s of six intermediate and local directors of special education in Michigan. The questionnaire respondents were asked to in d ic a te fo r each competency statement: 1) whether the com­ petency should i n i t i a l l y be developed through a pre-service tra in in g program or on the job and 2) the importance of the competency to t h e ir functioning as a d ire c to r of special education. Intermediate and local d irec to rs were given equal weighting in the analysis and re p o rt­ ing o f the data. Out o f the 144 questionnaires sent, 105 (73 percent) were used in analyzing the data. A m ajo rity of d irec to rs recommended on the job i n i t i a l development fo r 57 (72 percent) o f the competencies and pre-service i n i t i a l development fo r 22 (28 percent) o f the compe­ tencies. No competency statements received an average ratin g of no importance ( 1 . 0 - 1 . 4 ) and l i t t l e importance ( 1 . 5 - 2 . 4 ) , 16 (20 percent) received an average ra tin g of some importance ( 2 . 5 - 3 . 4 ) , 62 (78 percent) received an average ra tin g o f very important ( 3 .5 - 4 .4 ) and 1 (1 percent) received an average ratin g of crucial (4 .5 -5 .0 ). There was some v a ria tio n between intermediate and local directors in preferences fo r i n i t i a l development of competency statements and in average ratings of competency statements. M. Diane Hodson Selection of competency areas and statements fo r inclusion in proposed rules and guidelines fo r special education d irectors was made on the basis of two c r i t e r i a : 1) average ratings of very impor­ ta n t to crucial ( 3 .5 - 5 .0 ) and 2) percentages o f preference fo r pre­ service tr a in in g of 41 percent - 100 percent. Of the 79 competency statements, 31 were id e n t ifie d fo r inclusion in the proposed guidelines fo r development of pre-service tr a in in g programs, and of the 15 compe­ tency areas, 11 were id e n t ifie d fo r inclusion in the proposed rules fo r approval of special education d irectors in Michigan To my fa th e r H. 0. Hodson Who provided the in s p ir a tio n and drive Which made th is possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the follow ing people, th is study would not have been possible: Dr. Charles Henley, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , my committee and d is s e rta tio n ad viser, who was always w illin g to lis t e n and to give his invaluable advice, assistance and support when most needed. Dr. J. Edwin K e lle r , Dr. W illiam Sweetland and Dr. Richard Featherstone, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , my committee members, who acted as real f a c i l i t a t o r s throughout my e n tir e doctoral program. Dr. David Haarer, Ingham Interm ediate; Dr. Nicholas Fridsma, Holland Public Schools; Mr. Elton Mahan, Tuscola Intermediate; Mr. Joseph Clemente, Grand Haven Public Schools; Mrs. Joan Haverkate, Ionia Intermediate; and Dr. Edward Birch, Grand Rapids Public Schools; who a l l gave a great deal o f time to my p i l o t study, without which e f f o r t , the competencies used in th is study could not have been w r itte n . The Michigan Special Education Directors who were w illi n g to in te r ru p t t h e ir very busy schedules to complete my questionnaire. Dr. Velma A lle n , Mr. Harold Weiner and Mr. W ill Johnson, Michigan State U n iv ersity fe llo w graduate assistants and good frie n d s , who gave tremendous moral support. Mrs. Andrea Mclnenly, Michigan State U niversity secretary, who helped me to meet impossible deadlines with her superior typing s k i l l s and w illingness to put fo rth a great deal o f extra e f f o r t . I wish to extend my h e a r t f e l t appreciation to a l l o f these beautiful people who gave so much in my behalf. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. IV . Page THE PROBLEM............................................................................................ 1 Statement o f Purpose ................................................................... Rationale ........................................................................................ Background ........................................................................................ History ........................................................................................ Theoretical vs. Practical ............................................ Competency-Based Training Programs ................................ Statement o f P ro b le m ................................. L i m i t a t i o n s ................. „ .............................................................. D e f i n i t i o n s .................................................................................... O v e rv ie w ............................................................................................ 1 1 3 3 8 12 15 16 17 17 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................... 19 Training Programs ....................................................................... Role, Tasks, Functions and A c t iv it ie s ............................. Summary ........................................................................................ 19 33 42 DESIGN OF STUDY................................................................................... 44 P r o c e d u r e ........................................................................................ Derivation of Competency Areas ...................................... Derivation of Competency Statements ............................. Questionnaire ........................................................................... P o p u la t io n ............................. Methods of Data Reporting and A n a l y s i s ............................. S u m m a ry .................... 44 44 46 47 49 51 52 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS........................................................................... 53 Questionnaire Returns ............................................................... Description of D a t a ................................................................... I n i t i a l Competency Development ...................................... Competency Ratings . . . ............................................ In te r re la tio n s h ip s ............................................................... R e s u l t s ......................... D is c u s s io n ...................................................... S u m m a ry ................................................. . 53 54 54 56 57 62 72 74 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 76 S u m m a ry............................................................................................ Recommendations ............................................................................ Proposed Rules fo r Approval .............................................. Proposed Guidelines f o r Pre-service Training Programs ........................................................... In -s e rv ic e Training.................................................................. General Discussion ........................................................................ Im plications fo r Future Research ............................................. 76 78 78 REFERENCES . . . . 78 86 86 88 .................................................................................... 89 APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 92 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Page D is trib u tio n o f competency statements according to the preference fo r i n i t i a l tr a in in g .......................................... 55 V ariation between intermediate and local directors according to preference f o r p re-service tra in in g . . . . 55 D is trib u tio n of competency statements according to t h e ir average r a t i n g s ........................................................................ 56 V ariation between intermediate and local d irectors according to ratings of in dividual competency s t a t e m e n t s ............................................................................................. 57 Rank order o f in dication of service v. on competenci e s 58 competency statements by ra tin g with percent o f respondents choosing pre­ the job fo r i n i t i a l development of ........................................................................................ Method used to p r i o r i t i z e competency statements fo r inclusion in proposed s ta te guidelines ................. . . . . vi 61 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement o f Purpose The major purpose o f th is study is to generate competency areas and competency statements which would be appropriate fo r use as rules fo r approval o f special education directors and guidelines fo r the development of pre-service tra in in g programs to q u a lify persons as special education d ire c to rs . The sub-purposes as re la te d to th is are: 1. to compile a l i s t of broad competency areas related to the position of special education d ir e c to r . 2. to fu rth e r define the competency areas by s p e c ific com­ petency statements re la te d to each area. 3. to determine the importance of each o f the competency statements as re la te d to the functioning o f the special education d ire c to r . 4. to determine the most appropriate means f o r the i n i t i a l tra in in g of the competencies. Rationale F i r s t , much has been said about the necessity of special edu­ cation administrators assuming a leadership ro le in education so th a t better programming fo r handicapped students can be accomplished. To produce competent special education ad m in istrative personnel, atten tio n has been focused on the pre-service tra in in g programs in the hope th a t 1 2 better tra in in g programs w i l l produce the leadership q u a litie s desired in these professional personnel. However, while national accreditation standards and standards fo r program content have been sp ecified by v a r i ­ ous groups, no attempt has been made, to date, to e l i c i t from practicing administrators o f special education t h e ir views as to the appropriate means fo r i n i t i a l l y a tta in in g the needed competencies and as to the crucial competencies fo r inclusion in a pre-service tra in in g program. Who, other than these practicing administrators as they face the day-today re s p o n s ib ilitie s of t h e i r p o s itio n , could b e tte r make these judgments? As Henley (1967) stated: I t is obvious . . . th a t we cannot hope to incorporate a l l of these valuable areas in to the required preparation program within a reasonable length o f time. The issue of the problem is not what is appropriate and of potential value. The issue is which o f these experiences are c r u c ia l—which are most valuable—which are most applicable to a v a rie ty o f s itu a tio n s . What is the "crucial core" whichwe feel must bea part of the preparation program. Although we have each made our major selection of the crucial core, we would a l l admit, I b e lie v e , th at th is is only te n ta tiv e — a place to begin— a point of departure. The real development and improvement must await the feedback from the fie ld . From those who have experienced our programs we must ask: What was not necessary? What was needed th at was not given? How can th is e f f o r t be improved? As these questions are answered, our selected "core" w i l l change and, ho pefully, improve. (p. H - 1 2 ) Second, the State of Michigan, as is true of other states around the nation, is attempting to define a set of competencies fo r each of the professional positions in education. These competencies are to be speci­ fied at two lev els on a state-w ide basis: 1. Broad competency areas, in s p e c ific areas o f ex p e rtis e , which w i l l become a part of the rules fo r s ta te approval o f professional personnel under each area of expertise. 3 2. S pecific competency statements, under each competency area, which w i l l become the guidelines f o r the develop­ ment of college and u n iv e rs ity p re-service tra in in g programs in each area of expertise. To define these sets o f competencies, special committees have been appointed by the Michigan Department of Education. However, while many hours have been expended by these committees, l i t t l e progress in the accomplishment o f t h e ir task has been made to date, p a r t ic u l a r ly by the committee designated to define the competencies fo r administrators of special education. The conclusion of th is author, a f t e r being the chairman of one of these committees and a member of two other committees, is th at the accomplishment of th is task is not fe a s ib le w ith in a committee structure. The lack of time fo r a thorough review o f the l i t e r a t u r e and a d escrip tive study of the type proposed by th is author, leaves committees in the position of "reinventing the wheel." Background History The concept of a f u l l - t i m e adm inistrator o f special education is s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y new, h i s t o r ic a lly . ". . . fo r a number o f years following the turn of th is present century, most of the school systems in the United States which made s p e c ific special educational provisions were able to administer and supervise these programs with a minimum of sp ecially tr a in e d , supervisory help (Gearheart, 1967, p. 7 0 )." As Kohl and Marro (1970) stated: The administrator of special education is a r e l a t i v e l y new position in education; in f a c t , many of the e a rly administrators are s t i l l p ra c tic in g . The Council of Administrators o f Special 4 Education (CASE), which is an organization of these leaders, is barely twenty years old. The development of th is position has, in some ways, emulated the development o f the position of the elementary school principal who began as a supervising teacher, then developed into a f u l l ­ time adm inistrator. Many of the ea rly special education adminis­ tra to rs were involved with d ire c t services to exceptional children before the position developed to it s current a d m in istra tive statu s; in f a c t , some special education administrators in smaller programs s t i l l provide p a rt-tim e d ire c t services, (p. x i) The slow recognition of the need fo r th is position can be found in the slow growth o f publicly-supported services fo r exceptional c h i l ­ dren. As Gearheart (1967) notes, . . p r io r to 1900, nearly a l l school programs fo r handicapped or g ifte d children were p riv a te in nature (p. 3 ) ." While public school programs were beginning to be developed between 1900 and 1930, with a substantial growth between 1930 and the la te 1960's, the real explosion in numbers o f exceptional children served has been as a re s u lt o f numerous court cases in the l a t e 1960's and ea rly 1970's . These cases, Wolf v. The Legislature of the State of Utah, Pennsylvania Association fo r Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, M ills v. The Board of Education of the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, e t c . , have focused on the denial of any educational services and/or of appropriate educational services fo r handicapped children by public school systems. As a re s u lt of these cases, many states have been directed by the courts to provide fre e public education to a ll handicapped chi 1d m ; and other states have passed mandatory special education laws to avoid s im ila r legal action. The recent rapid growth of special programs fo r exceptional children has refocused atten tio n on the need fo r know!edgable leadership of these programs. As Gearheart (1967) s ta te s , " . . . without f i r s t - r a t e local leadership, the system f a lt e r s and produces i n f e r i o r r e s u lts . 1 Good 5 special education programming does not 'ju s t h a p p e n '--it requires good leadership (p. 7 1 )." In 1966, the Michigan le g is la tu r e recognized th is need fo r special education leadership by a provision fo r reimbursement in the State Aid Act (Public Act 271) "for d irectors and other super­ visory personnel of special education programs," and by the authorization given to the Michigan Department of Education "to establish standards fo r such positions" (H a r r is , 1969, p. 22). The development of tra in in g programs, s p e c if ic a lly designed to prepare administrators of special education, has had an even slower growth. Henderson (1970) in his a r t i c l e "Preparation of Administrators and Supervisors of Special Education" summarized the ea rly history of train in g in special education adm inistration: The preparation of administrators and supervisors o f special education began with a course a t Teachers College, Columbia University in New York, in 1906. A few other u n iv e rs itie s followed s u i t , and added a sin gle course--usually to be taken as an e le c tiv e when something more s u ita b le was not a v a ila b le th at semester, (p. 381) Thus, we found ourselves a few years ago with the need and opportunity to prepare some administrators and supervisors, but lacking the programs to e f fe c t the pre-service preparation in even the strongest special education departments of our larg e st u n iv e rs itie s . Even with the impetus of PL 85-926, with each state having two graduate fellowships to prepare "leadership personnel fo r the mentally retarded," u n iv e rs ity programs ju s t did not change dram atically. However, with the extension of PL 85-926 to a ll areas of the handicapped by the amendments contained in PL 88-164, a separate category o f adm inistration and supervision programs was established, with a special ad hoc committee developed to evaluate proposals fo r funding. The f i r s t committee--wisely, I believe— took the stand th a t programs of preparation fo r administrators should not be a stepchild of the in s t it u t io n 's program, but must represent an i d e n t if ia b le program of study at the advanced graduate level with a q u a lif ie d , exper­ ienced s t a f f member devoting his major e ffo r ts to th a t program exclusively, (pp. 382-383) 6 As was pointed out in the l a t t e r statements by Henderson, there was concern t h a t , not only should u n iv e rs ity tra in in g programs be i n i t i a t e d , but also th a t some type of standards fo r the development of these programs be established. The study by Mackie and Engel (1955) involved d irectors and supervisors o f special education in twenty-four states. These administrators were asked to ra te the r e la t iv e importance of various competencies contained in a l i s t compiled by the O ffic e of Education s t a f f . In a d d itio n , a committee of experts, persons exper­ ienced in teacher preparation and state and local ad m in istration , was also asked to produce a l i s t of competencies fo r special education administrators. F iftee n competencies were id e n t ifie d as extremely important as a r e s u lt o f the survey and eleven competency areas were id e n t ifie d by the committee o f experts. Both sets o f competencies derived were very broad in nature. Following the study by Mackie and Engel, Gallagher (1959) reported th a t: At the 1957 Council fo r Exceptional Children convention in Pittsburgh, P a., two important papers were presented . . . which brought into focus problems o f advanced graduate tra in in g in special education. The Division on Teacher Education established a committee to study th is problem, and James Gallagher was appointed chairman. This committee was directed to attack im­ portant questions such as What standards might be proposed fo r u n iv e rs itie s interested in developing advanced graduate tra in in g in special education? Should there be d i f f e r e n t i a l tr a in in g programs established to prepare students fo r positions in s p e c ific job areas of special education such as teacher tr a in in g , adm inistration and research. (p. 104) This committee reported some s p e c ific recommendations fo r curriculum content fo r a l l three areas; teacher tr a in in g , adm inistration and research, with much overlap between the three areas. A few 7 additional s p e c ific requirements fo r coursework in administration were recommended fo r those persons preparing in the area of special education administration. At the 1962 annual meeting o f the National Association of State Directors o f Special Education (NASDSE), a committee was appointed to study several questions, two o f which are of importance to th is study: 1) "What the tra in in g and experience of s ta te directors (o f special education) should include," and 2) "The extent to which these requ ire­ ments are being met in college and u n iv e rs ity programs accepting students under Public Law 85-926" (Milazzo and Blessing, 1964, p. 129). The com­ mittee f e l t th a t the guidelines proposed fo r special education tra in in g programs would apply to preparation of both s ta te and local adm inistrators. Their focus was p rim a rily on c r i t e r i a fo r accreditation and on levels of leadership tra in in g rath er than on s p e c ific content of the curriculum to be offered . In 1966, CEC published the work of a special committee which had been established to fu rth e r study the question of professional standards. The Professional Standards Project Report: "Professional Standards fo r Personnel in the Education of Exceptional Children" d e a lt s p e c ific a lly with curriculum content as well as other topics. I t in d i ­ cated f if t e e n areas of knowledge and the ad m inistrative and supervisory functions dependent upon these knowledges, which areas of knowledges were recommended fo r inclusion in programs fo r the preparation of admin­ is tra to rs and supervisors o f special education. This re p o rt, however, is seen by many as only a beginning. Some of the critic is m s leveled at the report of the standards committee 8 point to a few of the major issues s t i l l being debated in the development o f these tra in in g programs: The knowledges lis t e d in th is paper (Professional Standards Project Report) are too broad in scope fo r any one adm inistrator to be thoroughly p r o fic ie n t in ; however, i t is essential fo r a special education adm inistrator to be f a m ili a r with a l l the knowledges and to be able in a short time to r e fe r to the area in depth. (C a ta lin a , 1969, p. 20) I do not want to be u n fa ir , but maybe something has crept in there (Professional Standards Project Report) th a t is not intended, but I think i t might r e f l e c t a major p o licy . That i s , the repeated use of the word "knowledge" as i f knowledge pro­ duces adm inistrators. Knowledge per se, cognitive knowledge, very seldom does produce. I t does undergird. But, I think our studies in dicate rath er c le a r ly th a t i t does not produce adminis­ tr a to r s . (Haskew, 1969, p. 19) In such circumstances, programs of special education adminis­ tr a tio n are apt to be pedagogically orien ted ; the cirricu lum may consist simply of overviews of the several areas o f excep­ t i o n a l i t y and some e le c tiv e s , augmented by a few s it u a t io n a lly oriented courses in special education administration and an in ternship. In any case, i t is u n lik e ly th a t th is type of pro­ gram w i l l nurture the kind of research th a t could be generated from the perspectives of organization theory. (W illower, 1970, p. 592) The f i r s t two critic is m s are cle ar and need no fu r th e r d is­ cussion at th is point. However, the th ir d c r itic is m involves a major issue related to th is study which requires discussion in greater depth. Theoretical vs. Practical Despite W illower's feelings th a t management theory and theory of other d is c ip lin e s , so necessary to the development of educational leaders, has la rg e ly been l e f t out of tra in in g programs fo r special education adm inistrators, the prevalent cry heard in the h a lls and classrooms of in s titu tio n s fo r educators is "give me something p r a c t i­ c al— I c a n 't use a ll o f th is theory junk!" And nowhere is th is heard 9 more strongly than in preparation programs fo r special education administrators. These tra in e e s , who r e a liz e th a t they are about to be faced with a myriad o f complicated tasks, about which they know l i t t l e or nothing, often vent t h e i r extreme fr u s tr a tio n over having to s i t in classes dealing with social systems, management theory, decision-making processes and organizational clim ates. As Connor (1970) reported in his a r t i c l e on "Preparation Pro­ grams f o r Special Education Adm inistrators," "u n iv e rs itie s which prepare general school administrators have rece n tly sh ifte d from the study of how to be an adm inistrator to the study of ad m inistration. The science, the technology and the research findings concerning administration are being stressed, with a consequent de-emphasis on the a r t , tr a d itio n a l functions, and recognized c h a ra c te ris tic s and practices of successful administrators. The emerging trend is the su b stitu tio n of scholarship fo r know how (p. 370)." I t is th is apparent de-emphasis of the a r t of administration which is so fr u s tr a tin g fo r trainees of special education adm inistration. Gearheart (1967) reported th a t: I t is l i k e l y th a t a m ajo rity o f special education adminis­ tra to rs spend one-fourth to on e-h alf o f t h e i r time on what might be ca lled general ad m in is tra tiv e duties and r e s p o n s ib ili­ t ie s . Among the tasks involved here we might fin d the d ire c to r o f special education reviewing req u is itio n s fo r curriculum m aterial or equipment, preparing the budget f o r the following ye ar, g e ttin g the wheels in motion f o r preparation o f reimburse­ ment claims, meeting with the superintendent's cabinet, meeting with the d ire c to r of elementary education regarding additional class space needs fo r next y e a r, consulting with parents or with v is it in g educators, meeting with the arch itects r e la t iv e to special education needs in a building being planned, meeting with u n iv e rs ity o f f i c i a l s regarding s t a f f needs or the under­ graduate tra in in g programs, interview ing teacher applicants, 10 meeting with s ta te o f f i c i a l s about proposed le g is la t io n , determining class placement fo r children or any of a hundred s im ila r day-to-day r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , (p. 73) The question th a t must u ltim a te ly arise is "why does the d ire c to r spend so much of his time in these kinds of tasks?" (And this author believes th a t Gearheart is being conservative in his estimates of time involvement in these kinds o f ta s k s .) Is i t because of the qu antity o f the tasks or is i t because the special education adminis­ tra to r has never been trained to do the tasks, much less do them e f f e c t iv e ly and e f f i c i e n t l y w ithin a given th eo retical framework. This author is not proposing the elim ination of adm inistrative theory in the tr a in in g of special education adm inistrators, but is rath er asking fo r the teaching of the p rac tica l ap plication of theory to the d a ily ad m in istrative tasks to produce a more e f fe c tiv e and e f f i c i e n t adm inistrator. As is ty p ic a l with a l l fads in education, we tend to see a pendulum e f f e c t . Various concepts or approaches are set up on a b i-p o la r basis and when one is i n , the other is out. Seldom do we t r y to see how the two concepts or approaches might work together to provide a b e tte r program. C ertain ly we recognize the need fo r the application of scien­ t i f i c method to adm inistration problems. "The d ire c to r which we prepare today w ill need to provide leadership in ob jective study of tomorrow's problems (Henderson, 1970, p. 399)." Or as Ackerman and Geer (1968) s ta te i t : The fu tu re depends upon the adm inistrator who is able to break away from the present. This person might -be called the "c re a tiv e administrator"- one who is able to see the present status only in re la tio n s h ip to it s p rim itiv e base fo r the fu tu re. This person must plan and develop emergent programs. He must n take the germ of an idea, put i t in a p i l o t project form, e f fe c t the adm inistrative innovation, evaluate i t , r e je c t i t , accept or change i t , and demonstrate whatever effectiveness there is in i t to his colleagues. A c re a tiv e adm inistrator must design an organization and administer i t . He must be an a c tiv a to r , a synthesizer, a dreamer, and a r is k - t a k e r . He must take the fu ture and t r y i t today, (p. 16) The "Guidelines fo r Wisconsin's D ire c to rs , Coordinators and Supervisors o f Special Education" (1969) have the following as one of t h e ir opening statements: The function o f the special education adm inistrator or supervisor is to bring fo rth achievement through a d iv e r s ity of human e f f o r t . Since special education i t s e l f is one of the most diverse fie ld s o f human endeavor, sound administration of the m u lti-fa c e te d programs fo r the handicapped is both an a r t and a science. I t is a science in th a t i t requires the optimum u t i l i ­ zation of both human and physical resources, the following of a systematic and methodical program, the te stin g of theory and s tru ctu re against facts and the changing of theory and structure when and where the facts warrant. I t is an a r t in it s demand fo r individual in s ig h t, c r e a t i v i t y and innovation and in the sense th a t highly important s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s can be learned only in the crucible o f experience and not from administration courses or textbooks, (p. i i i ) The question i s , do these s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s have to be learned through experience on the job or can we provide a tra in in g pro­ gram w ithin the u n iv e rs ity stru ctu re th a t w i l l build these a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s p r io r to completion o f the tra in in g program? How can we expect our special education adm inistrator to provide leadership and to be an a p p lie r o f science i f we do not give him the necessary s k i l l s and techniques to e f f i c i e n t l y and e f f e c t iv e ly perform what Gearheart referred to as the "general ad m in istrative duties and re s p o n s ib ilitie s " ? Without these s k i l l s , he becomes so bogged down in the day-to-day tasks th a t he never has time to see the overall pictu re or plan fo r the fu tu re . One of the ways to build in to tra in in g programs these neces­ sary s k i l l s and techniques, based upon applied theory, is through the 12 development of competency-based tra in in g programs fo r special education administrators. Competency-Based Training Programs Competency-based programs f o r the preparation o f professional school personnel have become the la t e s t bandwagon e f f o r t in education. This concept is based on the idea o f specifying the minimal performances th a t must be displayed by a teacher or ad m in istrative tra in e e before he/she is approved to seek a s p e c ific professional position in education. The o rig in o f the concept in education can be a ttrib u te d to a number of events and developments in the la s t ten to f i f t e e n years. Some of these include: 1. the increasing awareness th a t the present educational process is not meeting the needs o f various r a c i a l , ethnic and socio-economic m inority groups, but rath er is geared toward the average m idd le-class, white student. 2. the development of programmed in s tru c tio n a l m aterials which focus on every individ ual achieving the same knowledge and s k i l l s at d if f e r in g rates of speed. 3. contractual arrangements by schools with p riv a te agen­ cies who guarantee a s p e c if ic , measurable gain in student learning. 4. demands by taxpayers th a t the ra p id ly increasing amounts of federal and s ta te monies poured into educa­ tio n produce v is a b le , measurable re s u lts . 5. the introduction o f business and in d u s tria l management concepts, e s p ec ially the systems approach, in to educa­ tio n with emphasis on producing the best product fo r the le a s t cost. 6. the increasing emphasis on individual teacher account­ a b i l i t y f o r the progress of h is /h e r students. 7. state and national assessments of student achievement which have shown wide descrepancies in lev els of a t t a i n ­ ment o f s p e c ific knowledge and s k i l l s . 13 8. the accumulation of evidence, through research and data c o lle c tio n from employers, colleges and u n iv e r s itie s , in d ic a tin g the large number of students graduating from secondary programs with l i t t l e or no proficiency in the basic s k i l l s . 9. technological advances and job shortages which require increasingly higher levels o f educational achievement f o r successful competition in the job market. A great deal of controversy has arisen over the development of competency-based programs. The most vocal supporters are those whose philosophical base lie s in systems analysis and/or behavioral psychology or are those whose primary re s p o n s ib ility is the h irin g and/or management of professional school personnel. Other groups who support competency- based programming are the professional school personnel themselves who feel th at t h e i r tr a in in g has not adequately prepared them to carry out t h e ir on-the-job r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . Some o f the arguments offered fo r the development o f competency-based in s tru c tio n are: 1. the employer has the r ig h t to expect c e rta in common minimal competencies from any person who has completed a tr a in in g program ir re s p e c tiv e of where and by whom th a t tr a in in g program was administered. 2. the pre-evaluation component of a competency-based program decreases re p e titio n of knowledge and s k i l l s already mastered; thereby speeding up the completion o f the program fo r many tra in e e s . 3. competency-based programming provides a means of in d i­ v id u a liz in g in s tru c tio n so th a t the tra in e e can meet the requirements at h is /h e r own rate of learning. 4. the tra in e e has the r ig h t to be evaluated on o b je c tiv e based c r i t e r i a which are the same fo r a l l trainees in th a t p a r t ic u la r program and which are known to the tra in e e in advance. 5. development of competency-based programs forces the tra in in g in s tit u tio n s to i d e n t i f y , on the basis of research, what, in f a c t , are the knowledges and s k i l l s needed by various professionals fo r successful p e rfo r­ mance on the job. 14 The most vocal opponents of competency-based programs are those whose philosophical base lie s in humanism and/or s e l f ac tu a liza tio n or are those whose primary r e s p o n s ib ility is the tra in in g of professional school personnel. Some o f the arguments against the competency model are: 1. the emphasis on specifying performance objectives lim its the education of the tra in e e to only those performances which can be measured. This may produce a technician who lacks the basic th e o re tic a l knowledge to create or take advantage of a lt e r n a t iv e modes of functioning. 2. education should be fo r the broadening o f perspectives, enrichment o f l i f e and understanding of s e l f as well as fo r the preparation fo r a p a r t ic u la r career. 3. d e f in it e lim it s are placed on the academic freedom of fa c u lty through external determination of curriculum, through minimizing time fo r individual fa c u lty c r e a t iv ­ i t y and through lim it in g the a b i l i t y to introduce new discoveries, knowledge and techniques u n til they are proven through research. 4. i t is impossible to develop and measure performance objectives f o r outcomes th a t are complex and subtle in nature, p a r t ic u l a r ly those th a t are re la te d to a ffe c t and a ttitu d e s . The major problem with a controversy of th is type is the "a ll or nothing" view o f the concept. ments on both sides. As can be seen, there are good argu­ Hopefully, educational in s tit u tio n s w i l l not turn into fa c to rie s producing uniform products, f i t t i n g r ig id s p e c ific a tio n s , which can perform only very lim ite d functions. On the other hand, through the e f f o r t of try in g to specify what, in f a c t , the train ee should be able to do at the end of his tr a in in g program, educational i n s t i t u ­ tions w i l l have to take a closer look a t the relation ship s between theory and p ra c tic e , the content, the in s tru c tio n a l s t ra te g ie s , the requirements and the evaluation procedures presently being used which 15 do not maximize the po tential of individual trainees and meet the requirements o f fu tu re positions. I t is to th is end, "the determination of competencies fo r special education adm in istrators," th at th is study is directed . Statement of Problem The purpose o f th is study is to generate competency areas and competency statements which would be appropriate fo r use as rules fo r approval o f special education d irectors and as guidelines f o r the development of pre-service tra in in g programs to q u a lify persons as special education d ire c to rs . The i n i t i a l problem was to assemble a ll of the l i t e r a t u r e re la te d to curriculum content f o r pre-service tra in in g programs and a l l o f the studies o f ad m in istrative functions and tasks and to obtain an updated l i s t of a c t i v i t i e s performed by Michigan spe­ c ia l education d irectors in order to generate a comprehensive set of competency areas, with t h e i r more s p e c ific , d e sc rip tiv e competency statements. The resu ltin g competency areas and statements were the basis fo r e l i c i t i n g s p e c ific information from practicing directors of special education in Michigan as to (1) the competencies which are very impor­ ta n t or crucial to the functioning o f the special education d ire c to r and (2) the most appropriate means fo r i n i t i a l l y developing these competencies. 16 Limitations The purpose of th is study is to develop the f i r s t and second steps in a series o f four which would lead to the v a lid a tio n o f a set of competencies fo r inclusion in a pre-service tr a in in g program fo r special education d ire c to rs . The four steps needed f o r competency v a l i ­ dation are: 1. d e riv atio n o f a set of competencies f o r d irectors of special education based upon recommended curriculum content f o r tra in in g programs and upon the administra­ t i v e tasks these administrators are required to perform on the job. 2. s p e c ific a tio n of a set of "c ru cial" competencies fo r special education directors and s p e c ific a tio n of the best means fo r i n i t i a l development o f these competencies. 3. development of pre-service tr a in in g programs designed to ensure the attainment o f specified minimal proficiency in each of the crucial competencies id e n t if ie d as i n i ­ t i a l l y being developed in the p re-service program. 4. determination of the a b i l i t y o f th is type of pre-service tra in in g program to produce more e f f e c t iv e and e f f i c i e n t special education d ire c to r s , who devote more time to broader and more crea tive leadership tasks, through f i e l d research comparing graduates o f programs which include these crucial competencies with graduates of programs which do not include these competencies. I t is not w ithin the scope of resources a v a ila b le to th is author to attempt to accomplish more than the f i r s t two steps o f the va lid a tio n process. However, i t is hoped th a t through the completion of these f i r s t two steps, s u f f ic ie n t in te r e s t w i l l be aroused on the part o f some tra in in g in s titu tio n s to carry out the t h ir d and fourth steps o f th is process. 17 D efinitions Directors o f Special Education. Those persons in a d m in istra tive positions in Michigan who have e ith e r temporary or f u l l s ta te approval as a d ire c to r of special education under R 340.1771 o f the Michigan Special Education Code and receive state reimbursement as a f u l l - t i m e d ir e c to r o f special education. Training I n s t it u t io n s . Those colleges or u n iv e rs itie s who have a na­ t io n a lly accredited and state-approved program fo r the preparation of special education d irec to rs. Intermediate School D i s t r i c t s . Those Michigan public school d i s t r ic t s which are organized on a county or multi-county wide basis as described in Public Act 190 of 1957. Local School D i s t r i c t s . Those Michigan public school d i s t r i c t s which are not designated as intermediate school d i s t r i c t s . Competency Areas. Broad areas of adm in istrative functioning to which competency statements are re la te d . Competency Statements. Broad statements of expected performances stated in behavioral terms which fu rth e r define and re fin e "competency areas." Competency-Based Training Programs. A tra in in g program designed to in clude a set of competencies wnich are considered necessary fo r e f fe c tiv e on-the-job functioning o f the persons completing the program. Overview Chapter I I contains a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to recommended content fo r tra in in g programs in special education adminis­ tr a tio n and a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to the r o le , tasks and functions o f administrators of special education. In Chapter I I I , descriptions of the population surveyed, the method f o r deriving com­ petency areas and statements and the means of analyzing and comparing the findings of the survey are discussed. Chapter IV sp ecifies the findings of the survey and the analysis o f the data c o lle c te d . Chapter V presents the findings of the survey in the form o f proposed rules fo r 18 approval of d irec to rs o f special education and proposed guidelines fo r the development of tr a in in g programs f o r the State of Michigan based on the survey findings. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The basic review o f the l i t e r a t u r e fo r th is study focused p rim arily on two major topics: 1. standards and recommended content f o r special education a d m in istra tive tra in in g programs; 2. r o le , tasks, functions and a c t i v i t i e s o f administrators of special education. This chapter presents a synopsis o f the l i t e r a t u r e a v a ila b le concerning these two to p ic s , which information has been used not only fo r the purpose of w ritin g th is chapter but also as a basis fo r the derivation of competency areas and competency statements, as w i l l be explained in Chapter I I I , Design of the Study. Training Programs As e a rly as 1955, an attempt was made to id e n t if y competencies fo r special education d ire c to rs . Mackie and Engle u t iliz e d two approaches to the id e n t if ic a t io n of these competencies. F i r s t they asked 153 d i­ rectors in twenty-four states to ra te the competencies contained in a l i s t composed by the O ffic e of Education s t a f f . Through th is process, the following competency areas were id e n t if ie d by the directors as extremely important: 1. a b i l i t y to give leadership in d ire c tin g and carrying on a special education program in keeping with community needs and resources; 19 20 2. a b i l i t y to evaluate and select s t a f f ; 3. a knowledge or understanding o f the services provided by psychologists, medical personnel, social workers and others interested in exceptional children; 4. a b i l i t y to r e la t e special education to the general school program through organizing procedures and securing the cooperation of other members of the education s t a f f ; 5. a knowledge or understanding of the functions of various types o f special educational f a c i l i t i e s such as: special classes, special schools, the services of it in e r a n t teachers and t h e i r advantages and lim ita tio n s ; 6. a knowledge or understanding of the types and locations o f various community organizations concerned with excep­ tio n a l children and t h e ir services; 7. a b i l i t y to work as a member of a professional team; 8. a knowledge or understanding of the physical, mental and emotional c h a ra c te ris tic s of the types o f exceptional children fo r which he is responsible; 9. a b i l i t y to work cooperatively with parent groups concerned with the general welfare of exceptional ch ildren ; 10. a knowledge or understanding o f the legal provisions and regulations governing the education o f exceptional c h i l ­ dren, including those under which grants f o r transporta­ t io n , special equipment, special classes are given; 11. a knowledge or understanding of the services av a ila b le to exceptional children through such public agencies as departments of w elfare and health; 12. a knowledge or understanding of the types of specialized educational m a te ria ls , equipment, and supplies and t h e ir sources of procurement in the areas of ex cep tio n ality f o r which he is responsible; 13. a knowledge or understanding of current trends in l i t e r a ­ ture on education of exceptional children in the areas of r e s p o n s ib ility ; 14. a b i l i t y to serve as a consultant to general educators on education of exceptional children in areas fo r which he ' is responsible; 21 15. a b i l i t y to recognize acceptable and unacceptable teaching and teacher-pupil relation ship s in the areas of excep­ t i o n a l i t y fo r which he is responsible, and to give con­ s tru c tiv e suggestions to his s t a f f , (p. 14) Second, Mackie and Engel u t i l i z e d the services o f a committee of twelve leaders in the f i e l d . This committee perceived the special education leader as engaging in tasks in eleven d i f f e r e n t competency areas including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. personal competencies; adm inistration and leadership; evaluation and development o f programs; teacher recruitment and se lec tio n ; motivating professional development o f s t a f f ; supervision; budget and finance; research; coordination with community agencies; l e g is la t iv e procedures; public re la tio n s (pp. 20-27), In 1959, Gallagher reported on the work of a special committee established by the Division on Teacher Education a t the 1957 CEC conven­ tion in Pittsburgh. This committee made the following recommendations: S k ill Area Requirements--Minimal Requirements f o r Doctoral Students in Special Education: 1. Special Education a„ knowledge o f p e rs o n a lity , social and academic c h a ra c te ris tic s of exceptional ch ildren ; b. two or three courses discussing the special prob­ lems of c e rta in areas o f exceptional children; c. knowledge of adm in istrative and curriculum ad just­ ments of exceptional ch ildren . 2. Educational Psychology a. knowledge of the normal c h ild and his development; b. a b i l i t y to r e la t e psychological theory to educa­ tional problems. 3. Curriculum Development a. understanding of the general prin ciples o f c u r r i ­ culum development; 22 b. c. understanding o f curriculum problems in s p ecific subject areas; a b i l i t y to design a curriculum fo r one or more types o f exceptional c h ild re n . 4. S t a t is t ic s and Research Design a. a b i l i t y to understand common measures o f central tendency v a r ia tio n ; b. a b i l i t y to understand methods fo r comparing groups; c. a b i l i t y to read and in t e r p r e t research in areas of special education. 5. Administration a. knowledge of s k i l l s in supervision of elementary or secondary schools; b. understanding of theory and practice of American Educational Adm inistration; c. legal basis of school adm in istration ; d. school finance and business management. 6. Counseling a. a b i l i t y to counsel exceptional children and t h e ir parents, (p. 107) Gallagher went on to point out th a t "the amount of required practical experience . . . generally would consist of a period of one year supervised practice in the area of t h e i r job s p e c ia lty . . . by im p lic atio n , the committee has suggested th a t the doctoral tra in in g pro­ gram fo r Administration and Teacher Training are very s im ila r and d i f f e r mainly in the character o f the practicum experience obtained." (p. 109) In a 1964 a r t i c l e , "Administration o f Special Education: Aspects of a Professional Problem," Willenberg proposed the following areas fo r study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. nature and scope of programs and services; s tru c tu re , organization and re la tio n s h ip of in s tru c tio n a l services fo r exceptional ch ild ren ; in s tru m e n ta litie s fo r program planning, development and coordination; provisions fo r recruitm ent, development and in -s e rv ic e tra in in g o f personnel; supervision of in s tru c tio n including horizontal and v e r t i ­ cal a r t ic u la t io n of pupil personnel; 23 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. financing of special education, preparation of budgets and the control o f expenditures; planning of f a c i l i t i e s and use o f supplies and equipment; provision of tra n s p o rta tio n , food and other a u x ilia r y services; evaluation and in te r p r e ta tio n of the special program fo r purposes of pupil guidance and public information; areas of adm in istrative research a c t i v i t y and applicatio n o f research fin d in g s, (pp. 194-195) In 1966, a f t e r an extensive study o f the problem of profes­ sional standards f o r a ll professional personnel in special education, the Council fo r Exceptional Children published a report of the findings of th is study, the "Professional Standards fo r Personnel in the Educa­ tion o f Exceptional C hildren." The report had th is to say regarding the train in g of special education adm inistrators: The re s p o n s ib ilitie s of the adm inistrator of special educa­ tio n w i l l vary with the size and type of program. In some cases, the administrator may have to ta l r e s p o n s ib ility fo r the adminis­ tr a tio n and supervision o f a l l of special education. In others, he may be responsible fo r the adm inistration of special education, but may delegate a ll or p a rt o f the r e s p o n s ib ilitie s fo r super­ vision . In these instances, persons with only supervisory re­ s p o n s ib ilitie s should have the professional competencies required of those in the area(s) served. At the s ta te le v e l , the adminis­ t r a t o r of special education may have to ta l r e s p o n s ib ility fo r a l l of special education and, in a d d itio n , may have d ire c t or in d ir e c t re s p o n s ib ilitie s fo r state-operated re s id e n tia l and special day school f a c i l i t i e s . The functions of administrators and supervisors, though complementary, are d i f f e r e n t . We are ju s t entering a period when recognition is given to the need fo r specialized preparation of such leadership personnel. The trend is given impetus by increased school d i s t r i c t reorganization, new s ta te le g is la t io n encouraging the employment of adm in istrative and supervisory personnel, e tc . These have increased the need f o r a d e f in it io n of separate func­ tions and related competencies of ad m in istra tive and supervisory positions and/or the ac creditation of in s tit u tio n s preparing persons fo r each o f these positions. Although l a t e r i t may be possible to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the s p ecific tra in in g requirements of special education adminis­ tra to rs and supervisors, th is i n i t i a l e f f o r t attempts to fo s te r leadership preparation of value to the individual who has both adm inistrative and supervisory assignments, (p. 48) 24 Broad p rac tica l experiences should be included in preparation in view o f the d i ffe r in g r e s p o n s ib ilitie s of administrators of special education as related to the size of the school system, the stage of development of the special education program, the chang­ ing role of the adm inistrator o f special education, whether employ­ ment is at the state or local le v e l , e tc , (p. 49) Thestudy also included the follow ing l i s t o f what was termed "major areas o f professional competence," which were lis t e d as knowledge statements, and t h e ir attendant ad m in istrative and supervisory functions: 1. Understanding o f Total Education Process a. provide leadership and develop working relationships between regular and special education personnel; b. philosophy 1) develop a statement of philosophy which r e fle c ts the needs o f exceptional children and is consis­ te n t with th a t of the to ta l school system and acceptable to the community; 2) promote understanding and acceptance of this philosophy in the school and community. c. provide fo r the continuous assessment of the special education needs of the pupil population and supply th is information to ad m in istrative o ffic e r s fo r pro­ gram planning and budgetary purposes; d. p o licies and procedures 1) develop p o licie s and procedures which r e f le c t the philosophy; 2) co ntinually evaluate and modify p o licie s and procedures. e. p a rtic ip a te as a member of the to ta l school system; f. represent employer at various meetings. 2. Knowledge of School Organization and Adm inistrative Prac­ tices a. provide fo r e f f e c t iv e organization and administration of special education programs w ith in and among school d i s t r i c t s , including cooperative arrangements and re s id e n tia l programs where indicated; b. determine class size and case load; c. develop schedules fo r special education personnel; d. employ sound personnel and o f f ic e management p r in c i­ ples with professional or nonprofessional persons; e. insure e f fe c tiv e s t a f f u t i l i z a t i o n ; f . develop procedures f o r selection and inventory of books, equipment, supplies and other in stru ctio n al m a te ria ls ; g. develop appropriate record and report forms; 25 h. i. prepare reports to superintendent, board of education and others; develop appropriate publicatio ns, brochures and other m ate ria ls. 3. Knowledge o f Various Adm inistrative Provisions a. provide fo r continuing placement, replacement and d is­ missal ; b. provide fo r a n c illa r y services; c. provide fo r adequate guidance, placement and follow-up s e rv ic e s ; d. assess tran spo rtatio n needs; e. determine best transpo rtatio n means; f. arrange appropriate tran sportation schedules; g. provide necessary personnel to insure safety of chi 1dren„ 4. Knowledge o f Fiscal Procedures a. maintain in ven tories; b. prepare budgets with supportive data; c. develop and process forms and reports; d. administer local budget; e. administer state reimbursement program; f. administer fe d e r a lly funded programs. 5. Knowledge of Curriculum Development and Methodology a. provide fo r appropriate methodology of teaching v a r i ­ ous exceptional ch ildren ; b. develop appropriate curriculum guides, courses of in s tru c tio n and methods; c. plan fo r continuous evaluation o f and experimentation with curriculum and methodology; d. develop p u b lic atio n s , brochures and other m aterials; e. u t i l i z e appropriate resource and consultant help. 6. Knowledge of Supervisory Practices and Theory and Tech­ niques of S t a f f Development a. id e n t if y needs fo r and conduct in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g ; b. develop channels of communication (f o r example, s t a f f meetings, individual conferences, "brain storming sessions" and seminars); c. make recommendations on groups and organization fo r i nstruction; d. provide fo r the improvement of in s tru c tio n through classroom v i s i t a t i o n and co nsultative services to personnel; e. develop appropriate publicatio ns, brochures and other m ate ria ls; f. develop and implement a state plan fo r federal pro­ grams fo r preparation of professional personnel. 26 7. Knowledge of Psychoeducational and Other Diagnostic Procedures a. develop procedures fo r id e n tify in g children fo r pro­ gram; b. determine e l i g i b i l i t y ; c. evaluate pupil progress; d. r e f e r to appropriate agencies; e. in te r p r e t medical, psychological and other reports; f 0 develop appropriate p u blicatio ns, brochures and other m ate ria ls ; g. maintain appropriate pupil records; h. as s is t other personnel (teachers, p rin c ip a ls , e t c . ) in techniques fo r the id e n t if ic a t io n of children with special needs. 8. Knowledge of Personnel Practices a. plan fo r recruitm ent, placement and tra n s fe r of teachers; b. as s is t in evaluating personnel; c. id e n t if y persons f o r promotion p o s s i b ilit ie s ; d. provide consultative service on personnel problems; e. build s t a f f morale; f . maintain personnel records. 9. Knowledge and U t i l i z a t i o n of Community Organizations and Resources a. r e fe r to appropriate agencies; b. coordinate relationships between special education programs and other related agencies; c. encourage and as sis t cooperative planning and develop­ ment of centers f o r preparation of special education personnel. 10. A b i l i t y to Id e n t if y , Define and Influence the Power Struc­ tu re Both Inside and Outside Education a. knowledge and techniques in direc tin g group thinking and action; b. establish e f fe c tiv e working relationships with the various individuals and groups with consideration fo r both stated and unstated principles and purposes. 11. Knowledge of Public Relations a. carry out a continuous program of community education fo r professional and lay public; b. develop appropriate publicatio ns, brochures and other m a te r ia ls ; c. promote in te r e s t and understanding of special educa­ tio n through speeches, publicatio ns, news releases, e tc .; 27 d. e. establish provisions fo r the in te r p r e ta tio n of special programs to parents of exceptional ch ildren ; establish channels o f communication between the school and the home. 12. Knowledge of School Law and L e g is la tiv e Processes and Their Implementation a. develop rules and regulations to implement special education le g is la t io n ; b. comply with and enforce s ta te standards fo r program operation and c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; c. stim ulate the development o f needed le g is la tio n and work toward accomplishment o f th is le g is la t io n ; d. operate programs as set fo rth by various school laws. 13. Knowledge o f School Plant Planning and U t i l i z a t i o n a. plan fo r i n i t i a t i n g and providing appropriate physical environment in coordination with to ta l school program; b. plan f o r physical environment and needs of a l l c h i l ­ dren and s t a f f . 14. Knowledge of Research Techniques and Procedures a. possess knowledge and a b i l i t y to apply current research; b. conduct and apply the findings o f meaningful research and studies; c. create a research clim ate; d. id e n t ify sources and requirements fo r funding and implementation o f research projects; e. cooperate with u n iv e rs itie s and other research centers. 15. Knowledge o f Professional R esponsibilities to the Field a. stimulate in te r e s t in special education as a career; b. work with preparation centers of various personnel in special education by providing practicum experiences (observation, demonstration, p a r t ic ip a tio n , student teaching, supervision-adm inistrati on in te rn s h ip ); c. hold membership and p a rtic ip a te in appropriate pro­ fessional organizations; d. stim ulate local p a r t ic ip a tio n , in partnership with others, in the development o f personnel with adminis­ t r a t i v e and supervisory r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ; e. evaluate college and u n iv e rs ity sequences in the preparation of special education personnel f o r c e r t i ­ fic a t io n purposes, (pp. 50-52) These standards, though seemingly exhaustive, have y e t to be researched in any way and, as noted e a r l i e r , the acquisitio n of knowledge 28 is not a competency in i t s e l f , but rath er undergirds or provides the foundation fo r the s k i l l s to be performed. Connor (1966) noted in his a r t i c l e , "Preparation Programs fo r Special Education Administrators" th a t "the c h ie f adm inistrator has, among other functions, those o f manager, in s tru c tio n a l lea d e r, te ch n i­ cian, fin a n c ie r , l e g i s l a t o r , psychologist, p o l i t i c i a n and educational­ is t." He f e l t th a t "preparation programs must provide opportunities and insights in to a ll o f these p ra c tic a l areas of endeavor." (p. 374) In 1967, the Michigan Department o f Education promulgated rules fo r the approval o f directors of special education. Among the requirements fo r approval were l is t e d the follow ing nine areas in which special education d irectors should demonstrate knowledge and competency through graduate c r e d it earned in a college or u n iv e rs ity approved by the Michigan State Board of Education: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. child growth and development theory and i t s applicatio n in the classroom; personality development; theories o f learning; systematic study o f curriculum; organization and financing of schools; adm inistrative and supervisory procedures; evaluation methods and procedures; research methods; vocational r e h a b ilit a tio n programs. Kothera (1967) in his study "to establish problem areas fo r simulation in a course of general practice f o r preparation of special education administrators" f e l t th a t the areas o f tr a in in g as specified by Mackie and Engel and the problem areas as specified by Wisland and Vaughan (to be reviewed in the next section o f th is chapter) were too broad (p. 37). He id e n t if ie d nineteen areas to be used to categorize the problems he id e n t if ie d fo r use in sim ulation: 29 1. coordinating community agencies; 2. i n t e r - s t a f f r e la tio n s ; 3. placement procedures; 4. consultant to g e n e ra lis ts ; 5. developing in d iv id u a liz e d programs; 6. transpo rtatio n problems; 7„ curriculum construction and coordination; 8. i n t e r d i s t r i c t re la tio n s h ip s ; 9. budget and finance; 10. policy formation; 11. public re la tio n s ; 12. pupil i d e n t if ic a t io n and evaluation; 13o pupil d is c ip lin e ; 14. research; 15. classroom and program supply; 16. recruitment; 17. parent counseling; 18. general program development; 19. in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g (p. 39 ). In 1969, C atalina conducted a study "to come to a b e tte r under­ standing of the requirements of an adm inistrator in special education; and, as a re s u lt of an an aly sis, to suggest an e f f e c t iv e graduate sequence." (p. 8) While his major research focus was on the in te rn s h ip , the experiences rated as "very es sen tia l" fo r inclusion in the internship experience are of in te r e s t to th is study: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. becoming f a m ili a r with the legal re s p o n s ib ilitie s and righ ts o f special education programs; working with special education budgets, costs and reim­ bursements; becoming f a m ili a r through observations and teacher con­ ference with a l l areas o f e x c e p tio n a lity ; becoming f a m ili a r with le g is la t io n pertaining to special education areas; making "decisions" based on delegated areas of responsi­ b ility ; d irec tin g or assisting in the recruitment and selection of teaching personnel. Henley (1969) has twice surveyed the colleges and u n iv e rs itie s approved fo r funding by the United States O ffic e of Education in the area of special education ad m in istration . His speech, "A National 30 Perspective— Preparation Programs in Special Education A dm inistration," given fo r the National Consortium o f U n iv e rs itie s Preparing Administra­ tors of Special Education conference in Austin, Texas, summarizes both studies. Of in te r e s t to th is study were the responses to three ques­ tions on his survey Question I I : What are the s p e c ific courses which have been developed in Special Education Administration and Supervision? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Administration and Supervision of Special Education; Problems in Special Education; Doctoral Seminar in Special Education Adm inistration; Issues and Trends in Special Education; Community Agency Programs f o r the Handicapped; Design of Local, State Regulations and National Programs f o r the Exceptional; Administration of Pupil Personnel Services; Supervision of Special Education; Special Education Finance; Legal, Financial and Organizational Structure o f Special Education Programs; Seminar: The Intermediate School D i s t r i c t ; Administration of Residential Programs; Seminar: State and Federal L e g is la tio n ; Research in Special Education Adm inistration; Education Administration. Question I I I : What are the courses in Educational Administra­ tio n which are normally u t i l i z e d in th is program? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. School Law; School Administration (foundations); School Finance; Personnel Administration or Management; Supervision of In s tru c tio n ; Plant Planning; Public Relations fo r Administration; Curriculum Development; Philosophy of Education; Problems in School Administration; Organization and Administration of the Elementary and/or Secondary School; State and Federal Education Programs; Support Programs (g ra n ts ); Theory and Principles of Education; School Business Management; Proceedings of Classroom Observation and Analysis; 31 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Change and Organization; Dynamic Factors in School Adm inistration; Social Policy in Public School Adm inistration; P rin c ip le s , Practices and P olicies o f Modern Management; Labor Relations; Administration Theory; Administration Information Systems. Question IV: What are the areas other than special education adm inistration and educational adm inistration which are nor­ mally considered to be essential to the program? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Research and S t a t is t ic s ; Additional Special Education coursework (g en e ra l); Mental Retardation (not included in #2 above); Foundations of Education; Educational Psychology; Sociology; Vocational R e h a b ilita tio n ; Diagnostic Techniques; Business; Psychology (pp. 38-40). The above named t i t l e s and areas represent a compilation of a ll of the programs surveyed and should not be construed as meaning th a t a ll of these t i t l e s and areas were included in any one tra in in g program surveyed. None o f these t i t l e s and areas were represented in a l l t r a i n ­ ing programs and very few o f them represented even three-fo urth s of the train in g programs, in dicating a f a i r l y wide discrepancy in requirements. In a presentation, "A Model fo r Competency-Based Adm inistrative Training," given a t the National Council fo r Exceptional Children con­ vention, April 27, 1973, held in D a lla s , Texas, Wright proposed a model based on the concept th a t a ll prospective administrators must have com­ petencies in twelve core areas, irre s p e c tiv e of the type of administra­ tiv e position sought. 1. 2. 3. 4. The twelve core competencies proposed were: developing ob jectives; planning and scheduling; developing programs; personnel selection and management; 32 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. establishing communications; physical plant management; public r e la tio n s ; fis c a l management; program evaluation; professional development; personal development; systems analysis. He then proposed th a t the core competencies be supplemented by the following competency areas related to the special education administrator: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. categorical approaches; non-categorical approaches; self-contained programs; resource programs; mainstream approaches; work-study programs; c li n ic a l programs. As the competencies are developed by the prospective special education adm in istrator, Wright suggested th at fu rth e r perspectives be sought in competency areas pertaining to general education programs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. public; p riv a te ; elementary; intermediate; secondary; in d u s tria l ( d is t r ib u t iv e education). Wright stated th at i t should also be possible fo r the special education adm inistrator to obtain competencies f o r administering programs as they are found in: 1. 2. 3. 4. rural s e ttin g s ; suburban se ttin g s; urban s e ttin g s ; i n t e r c i t y se ttin gs. " F in a lly , since such competencies as in the areas of law, finance, and le g is la t iv e processes are often d if f e r e n t from region to 33 region, the prospective Special Education Administrator should obtain competencies relevan t to any region(s) in which he/she might be working." (pp. 1. 2, 4) Role, Tasks, Functions and A c tiv itie s Graham (1956) defined the functions o f the d ire c to r of special education in the following manner: 1. A dm inistrative Functions a. developing p o lic ie s ; b. establishing special education programs; c. placement of ch ild ren ; d. schedules fo r special teachers; e. completion of state forms; f. pupil accounting and records; g. teacher accounting; h. tran spo rtatio n; i. establishing channels of communication; j. evaluation o f personnel ( f o r h ir in g , tenure and pro­ motion) ; k. equipment and in stru c tio n a l supplies; 1. planning and appraisal o f the to ta l program. 2. Supervisory Functions a. fo sterin g professional growth; b. evaluating personnel ( f o r teaching effec tive n es s, re la tio n s with other teachers and parents); c. serving as a resource person; d. building s t a f f morale. 3. Coordinating Functions a. school personnel; b. community agencies; c. s ta te personnel. Conner (1961) in his book, Administration o f Special Education Programs, was more descrip tive in his d e fin itio n of the functions of a special education adm inistrator: 1. Personnel a. se lec tio n ; b. provision of information as to 1) o rie n ta tio n to the teaching techniques; c. d. e. 2) information about p a r t ic u la r c h ild re n , local schedules and organization o f community f a c i l i t i e s ; curriculum development; encouragement of professional growth; evaluation of salary schedules, retirem ent benefits and tenure r ig h ts . Finance and Business Management a. preparation and control o f the annual budget; b. providing income sources fo r the special education program; c. tran sportation planning and operation. Provisions fo r Plant and Equipment a. knowledge of the physical plant and equipment u t i l i z e d by special classes; b. recommend schedule fo r school buildings which includes a cycle of inspection, painting and re p a irs ; c. propose master plan of needed building construction; d. evaluation o f present f a c i l i t i e s and help plan more e f fe c tiv e u t i l i z a t i o n of school service areas. In s tru c tio n a l Services to Exceptional Children a. development of p o licie s concerning attendance and absences of teachers, and t h e i r scheduling of c h i l ­ dren, reporting to parents, assignments o f homework, promotion and grading of p u p ils , e t c . ; b. development of general and s p e c ific aims o f the school and determination o f teaching methods f o r various age levels of each e x c e p tio n a lity ; c. development of relationships with the community, par­ ent groups, and service agencies as adjuncts o f the in stru ctio n al program; d. se ttin g of time schedules, u t i l i z a t i o n of a u x ilia r y services and various building areas and ordering of in stru ctio n al m ate ria ls; e. upgrading of the in stru c tio n a l level of a school through helping classroom teachers gain in sig h t in to c h ild re n 's learning processes and behavior; f . developing cooperation between local or county d is ­ t r i c t s f o r supervision of teachers; g„ development of lin es of communication among the adm inistration, the s t a f f and the public; h. r e s p o n s ib ility fo r coordination and implementation of services in the special education program; i . development o f a well-organized and comprehensive system fo r recording and reporting pupil data; j . development of curriculum; k. encouraging professional growth of s t a f f . 35 5. Adm inistrative Relationship with Groups a. a b i l i t y to deal with a d m in istra tive groups such as boards of c o n tro l, the s ta te department o f education, federal level groups, other school ad m inistrators, as well as the superintendent; b. a b i l i t y to deal with school groups such as teachers, o f f ic e s t a f f , food preparation personnel, custodial personnel, bus d r iv e r s , parent organizations; c. a b i l i t y to deal with community and special in te r e s t groups as well as the community newspaper and other media o f p u b lic ity . 6. Special A c t i v it ie s a. i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , diagnosis and r e f e r r a l ; b. program planning; c. le g is la t io n ; d. research. Wisland and Vaughan (1964) "undertook the task o f id e n tify in g problems and problem areas which d irectors and supervisors are cu rren tly experiencing in th irte e n western states to provide empirical evidence fo r developing b e tte r tr a in in g programs f o r in divid uals planning to enter th is f i e l d . " 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (p. 17) They id e n t if ie d eight major problem areas: S e lf-d ire c te d study and research; Student personnel; Communication; Supervision; Professional personnel; Policies and procedures; Education of the public; Finance (p. 89). In addition to the major problem areas, the Wisland and Vaughan study also id e n t if ie d the ten most s ig n if ic a n t problems of spe­ cial education administrators and supervisors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. obtaining adequately prepared personnel; adequately providing fo r the m u ltip ly handicapped c h ild ; helping parents understand t h e i r exceptional c h ild ; adequately providing fo r a l l types o f exceptional ch ildren ; having adequate time to carry out ac tiv e research; counseling parents; developing curriculum fo r the d i f f e r e n t types o f excep­ tional ch ildren ; 36 8. 9. 10. s ta rtin g new programs fo r exceptional children not previously included in your program; developing new programs and services to expand the program f o r exceptional ch ild ren ; obtaining adequate physical f a c i l i t i e s f o r the in s tru c ­ tio nal phase of the special education program such as classrooms, therapy rooms, counseling rooms and examining rooms (p. 89 ). Gearheart (1967) divided the duties and r e s p o n s ib ilitie s of the local special education adm inistrator in to the following general categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. General ad m in istrative duties; Supervisory duties; Research and continued professional study; Public re la tio n s ; L e g is la tiv e r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ; S ta f f development: in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g . Throughout his book, Gearheart discussed the duties and r e ­ s p o n s ib ilitie s o f the d ire c to r . The following passages were of p a r tic u la r in te re s t fo r th is study: A d ire c to r is obviously the key person in the special educa­ tio n team. He must know enough about the various e x c e p tio n a litie s to develop a good program, and must recognize a q u a lity program when he sees i t . He must be able to fin d good personnel fo r his s t a f f - - o r at lea st help the personnel d ire c to r fin d them. He must have considerable ad m in istrative a b i l i t y and be well enough informed about the general school program to be able to work e f f i c i e n t l y with those in charge of other departments o f the school system. In most school systems, he w i l l need to know a great deal about parent counseling, but a t the same time w ill need to be well-informed regarding local school budget, state budgeting procedures and problems, and the s ta te reimbursement plan. (p. 37) To carry out his ad m in istrative duties p rop erly, the d ire c to r must f i r s t understand the to ta l functioning of the school system in which he works. This means understanding o f f i c i a l l i n e - s t a f f relationships and the additional "power structures" which may be superimposed on the c a r e fu lly charted, w e ll- w r it t e n relationships to be found in the p o licie s and regulations handbook. He must fu rth e r be in tim a te ly acquainted with the various individuals and agencies in the community which contribute or r e la te to services f o r handicapped youth. In a d d itio n , he must 37 understand how state leadership in special education influences the local program, (p. 74) In addition to ce rtain s p e c ific understandings and knowledge, the d ire c to r must be able to handle d e t a i l , r e la t e well with other educators, be f a i r , p a tie n t, understanding--and when necessary, know how to be q u ite p o s itiv e and "hard-nosed." To have an e f fe c tiv e program, the local d ire c to r o f special education must supervise those in divid ua ls who report d ir e c t ly to him. In ad d itio n , he must as sis t in supervision of such personnel as special education teachers (who report d ir e c t ly to t h e i r b u ild ­ ing p r in c ip a l) ; speech th erapists (who may report to a c h ie f th e ra p is t in la rg e r systems) and others. With the r e s p o n s ib ility of recommending the employment of in divid uals to f i l l s p e c ific vacancies, there is also the re s p o n s ib ility to supervise, evaluate and sometimes to recommend dism issal, (p. 75) Although r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e time is spent by most special edu­ cation administrators in pursuit of fu rth e r professional competency via the professional study and/or research route, th is is indeed an important duty and r e s p o n s ib ility . I f the adm inistrator a c tu a lly spends f i v e per cent of his time in professional study and research, th is is probably "par fo r the course." The d ire c to r o f special education must not only be co ntinually aware o f the public re la tio n s im plications of everyday happenings in special education, but must also attempt to keep a l l special education personnel aware of t h e i r public re la tio n s r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . Within the lim ita tio n s o f local d i s t r i c t regulations regarding contacts with news media, a concentrated e f f o r t should be made to keep the public informed, (p. 76) L e g is la tiv e knowledge and planned e ffo r ts to correct any d e ficiencies in ex istin g laws are an important part of the to ta l re s p o n s ib ility of the special education adm in istrator. He need not be a p o lit ic ia n (in the sense of promoting partisan p o l i t i c s ) , but he should understand the p o li t i c a l scene, and play the le g is ­ l a t i v e game c a r e f u lly , with d e lib e ra tio n . There are many aspects to the s t a f f development r e s p o n s ib ility o f the special education adm in istrator. This may involve provision o f professional resource m a te ria l; provision o f opportunities fo r attendance of s ta te le v e l , regional and national professional meet­ ings; establishment o f local in -s e rv ic e meetings which r e a ll y chal­ lenge the classroom teacher; arrangement fo r teacher p a rtic ip a tio n in curriculum w r itin g ; s e llin g the superintendent and the board of education on the need fo r s p e c ia liz e d , f u l l - t i m e consultative help and other s im ila r tasks. The adm inistrator can be a liv in g example of one who keeps abreast of new developments, and by his example cause others to do the same. He can work with u n iv e rs ity o f f i c i a l s to promote the o ffe rin g of meaningful n ig h t, Saturday, or extension courses fo r special education teachers. He can demonstrate to the s t a f f his 38 open-mindedness and his desire to innovate, thus encouraging the use of new ideas, m aterials and other motivators. He can make every attempt to make in -s e rv ic e meetings come a li v e , even i f he does not have the money to bring in n a tio n a lly recognized leaders and a u th o ritie s . He can work to bring building principals and other school d i s t r i c t s ' adm inistrative personnel into the on-going tra in in g program, which may r e a ll y "pay o f f . " He can encourage teachers to p a rtic ip a te in professional organizations, do action research and become involved in other s im ila r individual growth a c t i v i t i e s , by his strong support through the y e a r, and by s p e c ific favorable comments about these a c t i v i t i e s at teacher evaluation time. (pp. 77-79) In the "Guidelines fo r Wisconsin's D irectors, Coordinators and Supervisors of Special Education" (1969), the ro le and functions of special education administrators were defined according to whether they were lo c a lly or reg io n a lly based. The functions of local administrators were defined as the following: 1. Adm inistrative Functions a. policy development; b. establishing a special education program; c. r e f e r r a l , examination, placement and dismissal (p u p ils ); d. maintaining s t a f f morale; e. establishing communication between s t a f f members and d is c ip lin e s ; f . evaluation of teaching personnel; g. evaluation of s p e c ific programs; h. assisting the d is c ip lin e to become an in teg ral part of the to ta l school program; i. ro le in records and accounting; j. relationships to other adm inistrative heads. 2. Supervisory-Consultative Functions a. pre-service o rie n ta tio n and tr a in in g ; b. fosterin g o f professional growth; c. resource consultant; d. maintaining s t a f f morale; e. fosterin g research, p i l o t and demonstration projects; f. development and dissemination of m aterials (m aterials meaning more than in stru ctio n al . . . press releases, pamphlets); g. relationships to other resource consultants (outside system). 39 3. Coordinative Functions a. working with community agencies; b. working with personnel outside our d is c ip lin e ; c. working with s ta te groups; d. working with federal groups (pp. 2 - 5 ). The Wisconsin guidelines defined the functions o f the regional d ire c to rs , coordinators and supervisors as: 1. Adm inistrative Functions a. ro le in policy development; b. ro le in keeping appropriate records and accounting; c. . . . making proper r e f e r r a ls , examinations, place­ ments and dismissals; d. ro le in pupil personnel services including transporta­ tio n , class rosters . . . , fam ily counseling . . .; e. ro le in budgeting; f . . . . as adm inistrator and the agent o f the board o f education; g. ro le as coordinator with other agencies dealing with handicapped children; h. ro le as r e c r u it e r of special education s t a f f ; i . ro le as public re la tio n s consultant in the community; j . ro le as lia is o n person with u n iv e rs itie s fo r research purposes and teacher tr a in in g ; k. ro le in providing in -s e rv ic e tra in in g programs and sessions; 1. ro le in p a rtic ip a tin g in conferences and conclaves; m. ro le as coordinator of services to handicapped c h i l ­ dren (includes outside agencies.) 2. Supervisory Functions a. classroom supervisor and in stru ctio n al leader; b. developer of curriculum; c. providing pre-service and in -s e rv ic e tra in in g and professional growth; d. evaluating teaching personnel; e. promoting innovations in teaching, crea tive thinking and improved programs; f. ro le in helping teachers help each other and them­ selves (p. 7 ). In 1969, Harris conducted a study "to obtain information with regard to the s p e c ific nature of the position of d ire c to r of special education in the b e l i e f th at th is type o f data w ill be of value in the development of b e tte r s ta te c e r t i f i c a t i n g standards and b e tte r college 40 and u n iv e rs ity preparation programs fo r such personnel." (p. 14) "The purpose o f th is study was to in ves tig a te the present role and determine the s p e c ific adm in istrative a c t i v i t i e s of directors o f special education in Michigan." (p. 15) This is one o f the most comprehensive studies of the a c t i v i t i e s of d irec to rs of special education administrators th a t has been conducted to date. The following ten major areas and t h e ir related a c t i v i t i e s were id e n t if ie d : 1. Major Area: Curriculum and In stru ctio n a. developing curriculum fo r to ta l school or sp ecialized area; b. improving and changing curriculum; c. selecting textbooks and in stru ctio n al m a te ria l; d. providing f o r in stru ctio n al supervision and consulta­ tio n ; e. providing leadership at s t a f f meetings; f. consulting with classroom teachers; g. evaluating the in stru c tio n a l program; h. evaluating individual teaching; i. developing an in -s e rv ic e education program f o r teachers; j. promoting the use of community resources in the in ­ stru ctio nal program; k. i n i t i a t i n g new programs; 1. keeping aware of s ta te school laws. 2. Major Area: Personnel Administration a. preparing c r i t e r i a f o r personnel se lec tio n ; b. conducting personnel interviews; c. selecting personnel f o r employment; d. o rien tin g personnel; e. developing schedules and work loads fo r professional personnel; f. developing schedules and work loads fo r non-professional personnel; g. evaluating teaching personnel; h. evaluating non-teaching personnel; i. suspending or dismissing employees; j . assigning personnel to a s p e c ific f a c i l i t y ; k. recommending tenure appointments. 3. Major Area: Finance a. preparing a budget; b. administering a budget; c. preparing fin a n c ia l statements f o r the board; d. preparing fin a n c ia l data fo r c itiz e n s advisory groups; 41 e. f. g„ h. formulating and evaluating salary schedules; preparing and completing s ta te reports; computing per pupil costs and other s t a t i s t i c a l data; requesting and administering federal funds. 4. Major Area: Business Management and Practices a. organizing and coordinating purchase practices; b. studying equipment and supply needs; c. analyzing school d i s t r i c t expenditures; d. arranging to serve non-resident pupils. 5. Major Area: School Plant a. planning fo r buildings and equipment with the a rc h i­ te c t; b. planning fo r buildings and equipment with the s t a f f ; c. determining remodeling needs of school f a c i l i t i e s ; d. determining physical location of classes. 6. Major Area: A u x ilia ry Services a. evaluating tran spo rtatio n needs; b. developing transpo rtatio n plans; c. supervising or coordinating school diagnostician program; d. supervising or coordinating school social worker program; e. supervising or coordinating speech correction program. 7. Major Area: Pupil-Personnel Guidance a. developing procedures f o r reporting to parents; b. counseling of students and parents. 8. Major Area: Community Relations a. organizing lay and professional groups fo r p a r tic ip a ­ tio n in educational planning and other educational a c tiv itie s ; b. in te rp re tin g and presenting school p o licie s to the community; c. developing and administering a community re la tio n s program; d. preparing news releases; e. conducting and u t i l i z i n g research concerning educa­ tio n a l problems o f the school and community; f . using community resources in the school program; g. p a rtic ip a tin g in parent-school organizations; h. making speeches at s ta te and national conferences; i . conducting individual parent conferences; j. arranging student teaching and internship experiences with u n iv e r s itie s ; k. meeting with le g is la to r s regarding school issues; lo developing cooperative agreements between school d i s t r i c t s fo r programs. 42 9. 10, Major Area: S t a f f Relations a. arranging fo r and/or conducting s t a f f meetings; b. encouraging s t a f f p a rtic ip a tio n in professional organizations; c. encouraging s t a f f p a rtic ip a tio n in community a c t i v i ­ tie s ; d. recommending sick leave provisions and other frin g e benefits f o r s t a f f ; e. defining the duties and r e s p o n s ib ilitie s of the s t a f f ; f . developing and u t i l i z i n g a s t a f f newsletter; g. in te rp re tin g sp ecialized educational programs to other educators. Major Area: School Board Relations a. recommending items fo r the school board agenda; b. preparing w ritte n and oral reports f o r the board of education; c. recommending policy to the board of education; d. administering board p o licy ; e. aiding the board to distinguish between policy and executive function; f. developing and providing opportunities fo r the board to meet and work with the s t a f f ; g. developing and providing opportunities fo r the board to appear before the public. Another extensive study was conducted in 1969. Newman studied the functional tasks o f special education administrators in 100 public school d i s t r i c t s with pupil populations between 13,000 and 30,000. "An instrument was developed u t i l i z i n g Orwick's 'P0SDC0RB' theory (planning, organizing, s t a f f i n g , d ir e c tin g , coordinating, reporting and budgeting) to study seven types of adm inistration a c t i v i t i e s . " (1970, p. 521) Summary As can be seen from th is review o f the l i t e r a t u r e , i n i t i a l attempts have been made to describe through research the a c t i v i t i e s or tasks of administrators o f special education (H a r r is , 1969; Newman, 1969, 1970); however, l i t t l e has been done to describe through research the competencies needed in the pre-service tra in in g program of these 43 administrators except as re la te d to the in ternship experience (C a ta lin a , 1969) and to simulation problems (Kothera, 1967). Most of the l i t e r a t u r e re la te d to both tr a in in g programs and ad m inistrative tasks has been based on the opinion of one or two persons or a committee and not based on information from practicing special education adminis­ tra to rs themselves. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF STUDY This chapter contains a description o f the procedures used in the development of th is study, the population surveyed and the methods used fo r analyzing and reporting the data obtained. Procedure Derivation o f Competency Areas At a Michigan Department of Education summer i n s t i t u t e , held June, 1973, eleven major areas o f ad m in istrative functioning were iden­ t i f i e d by the special education directors and supervisors in attendance. The areas id e n t if ie d were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9o 10. 11. S ta ffin g Programs Budgets Reports Public Relations Supervision Evaluation Transportation In -s e rv ic e Morale Negotiations The information obtained from th is i n s t i t u t e was used as the basis f o r the i d e n t if ic a t io n , by th is author, of seventeen major com­ petency areas. The additions and revisions to the o r ig in a l l i s t were made on the basis o f the author's own experience and a review o f the 44 45 lite ra tu re . The following revised l i s t was used as the basis fo r a preliminary study, conducted by th is author, of a c t i v i t i e s of special education directors in Michigan (see "Prelim inary Study," pp. 46 -4 7 ). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Program Development and Evaluation; Personnel S t a f f in g , Supervision and Evaluation (d ire c to r with individ ual s t a f f members); Interpersonal Relationships, Communications, Persuasion and Morale ( s t a f f , ad m in is tra tio n , school board . . . d ire c to r with in divid ua ls and groups); In -s e rv ic e Organization and Management (includes both formal in -s e rv ic e and informal information dissemination); Budgeting, Finance and Reporting (rep orting means f i l l i n g out forms f o r s ta te department, e t c . ) ; Public Relations (le ctu re s to c iv ic groups, radio and T.V. announcements o f programs f o r handicapped, e t c . ) ; Parent Relationships (parent advisory groups, involvement of parents in determining e l i g i b i l i t y and programming, fie ld in g complaints, e tc . . . . l i s t only where the d i ­ recto r had d ir e c t contact with the parents; not those which were handled by s t a f f ) ; Transportation Planning and Management; School Plant Planning and Management; Service to Students (d ir e c t contact by the d ire c to r ; d ir e c t service provided by the d ir e c t o r , EPPC meetings attended by the d ir e c t o r , e t c . ) ; Salary Negotiations; Management and Coordination of Resources (supplied, equip­ ment, non-school supportive agencies, e t c . ) ; Research and Grant W riting ; O ffice Management (space and o f f ic e supplies a llo c a tio n , management o f s e c re ta ria l tim e, planning fo r central o f f ic e building needs and/or u t i l i z a t i o n , e t c . ) ; Lobbying and other School Related P o lit ic a l A c t i v it ie s ; Due Process Hearings; Professional A c t i v it ie s (p u b lic a tio n s , organizations, le c tu re s , service on s ta te department committees, e t c . ) . On the basis of the prelim inary study, competency area #15 was revised from "Lobbying and Other School-Related P o lit ic a l A c tiv itie s " to "School-Related P o lit ic a l A c t i v i t i e s , Legal A c t i v it ie s and Due Process Hearings." This combined competency areas #15 and #16. "Salary Negoti­ ations," #11, was eliminated and any competency statements related to that area became a p art o f #2, "Personnel S t a f f in g , Supervision and 46 Evaluation." The competency areas were then renumbered accordingly. The t i t l e fo r #10 was changed from "Service to Students" to "Consulta­ tio n ." This was considered to be a more appropriate t i t l e given the a c t iv i t ie s lis t e d by d irec to rs in th is area. With the indicated changes, a to ta l of f i f t e e n competency areas were derived (see Appendix A Questionnaire). Derivation of Competency Statements Three sources were used by th is author in order to derive t competency statements fo r each o f the competency areas: 1. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e as to course o fferin g s in pre-service programs and as to recommend curriculum and competencies fo r trainees in special education administ r a t i on; 2. A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e as to r o l e , functions and tasks of special education administrators as seen by various authors and as id e n t if ie d through research. 3. A prelim inary study of the a c t i v i t i e s o f Michigan d i ­ rectors of special education conducted by th is author. The l i t e r a t u r e reviews are contained in Chapter I I , Review of the L ite r a tu re . The procedure fo r the prelim inary study was as follbws: Preliminary Study: Eight o f the to ta l population of Michigan d irectors o f special education to be surveyed fo r th is study were selected f o r a prelim inary study. The purpose o f the preliminary study was to gather updated information on the tasks o f d irectors o f special education in Michigan. Four intermediate and four local d irectors were chosen to repre­ sent various sizes o f d i s t r i c t s , rural and urban settings and geographical lo cations. A log was designed u t i l i z i n g the seventeen major areas of functioning (competency areas) as described above. The directors were asked to keep a d a ily record o f t h e ir a c t i v i t i e s fo r two f u l l weeks, l i s t i n g each of t h e ir a c t i v i t i e s under one of the competency areas. At the end of the two-week period, they were asked to note any other major a c t i v i t i e s , which they performed as a part of t h e ir jo b , th a t had not been included in the two-week log 47 (again by c a teg o ries ). Six of the eight logs were returned, one local d ire c to r and one intermediate d ire c to r not respon­ ding as promised. All o f the categories were u t i l i z e d by the respondents, with the number of responses l is t e d under each category ranging from three fo r "Due Process Hearing" to eighty-seven fo r "Personnel S ta f fin g , Supervision and Evalua­ t io n ." (Four of the six respondents reported having no due process hearings to d a te .) On the basis of information obtained from these three sources, seventy-nine competency statements were w r itte n which re la te d to the fif te e n competency areas. The number of statements w ritte n fo r each area ranged from two fo r "Consultation" to twelve fo r "Budgeting, F i ­ nancing and R eporting." (For a complete l i s t of the competency areas and statements, see the questionnaire in Appendix A.) Because these competency statements were to be w ritte n at the state rules and guidelines l e v e l , no attempt was made to set conditions or c r i t e r i a f o r evaluation. These components o f behavioral statements are more appropriate to the s p e c ific a tio n of performance o b jec tive s, which task is seen by th is author as the re s p o n s ib ility o f the individual train in g in s tit u tio n s in the development of tra in in g programs to meet objectives derived from these competencies. Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of two sections: 1) a section which allowed the directors to choose the best means f o r the i n i t i a l development of each competency as described in the competency statements and to ra te the importance of each competency as i t related to t h e ir on-the-job performance; and 2) a section requesting s p e c ific information regarding each d ire c to r and h is /h e r special education program (see Appendix A). 48 In order to determine the most appropriate means f o r the i n i t i a l development of the competencies s p e c ifie d , the d irec to rs were asked to se le c t one of the following fo r each competency statement: 1. 2. Pre-service Training Program On the Job The selection of crucial or very important competencies was made by the directors on the basis of a o n e -to -fiv e ra tin g scale ranging from "not important" to " c ru c ia l." Each competency was rated in d iv id u a lly using th is scale. Five questions were developed fo r the purpose of obtaining additional information regarding the population of d irec to rs designated fo r th is study. Two of the questions r e la te to the size o f the special education s t a f f and three o f the questions r e la t e to the experience and approval o f the special education d ire c to r . The directors were asked to record a l l o f t h e i r answers to both sections o f the questionnaire on machine-scored answer sheets to f a c i l i t a t e data processing. The answer sheets were color coded to d i f ­ fe r e n tia te between local and intermediate d ire c to rs . Both the answer sheets and the questionnaires were numerically coded fo r follow -up on non-returns. In order to encourage the return of the questionnaires, the following procedures were carried out: F i r s t , an announcement was made at the f i r s t f a l l meeting of the Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education which b r i e f l y informed the directors o f the purpose of the study and the fa c t th a t they would be receiving a questionnaire. Second, the l e t t e r accompanying the questionnaire (see Appendix A) fu rth e r defined the purposes o f the study and the need fo r returning 49 the questionnaire promptly. T h ird , two weeks following the mailing of the questionnaire, a follow-up postcard was mailed to a l l d irec to rs who had not returned the questionnaire. Fourth, one week follow ing the mailing of the postcard, phone c a lls were made to some o f the directors who had not returned the questionnaire. Population The population used fo r th is study was a l l of the d irec to rs of special education in the State of Michigan who were e l i g i b l e to receive categorical special education s ta te reimbursement as f u l l - t i m e directors o f special education. directors must e ith e r : To receive s ta te reimbursement, these 1) hold temporary or f u l l approval as a d ire c to r of special education, which approval has been recommended by a college or un iversity o ffe rin g a n a tio n a lly accredited and s ta te approved t r a i n ­ ing program fo r special education adm in istrators, or 2) have been grand­ fathered into position in 1967 as stated in the Michigan rules fo r approval of directors o f special education which were promulgated that year. The 1973-74 computor p r in t-o u t of inform ation, giving the names o f the directors of special education who met the requirements lis te d above, was obtained from the Michigan Department o f Education, Special Education Services, and updated through phone c a lls to each of the intermediate directors of special education, asking them fo r addi­ tions and deletions to the 1973-74 data f o r the 1974-75 school year. From the information supplied, f i f t y intermediate d irectors and 50 ninety-fo ur local d irec to rs were id e n t i f i e d , giving a to ta l of 144 directors e l i g i b l e fo r p a r tic ip a tio n in th is study. Of the 105 directors who responded to the questionnaire, 73 percent were f u l l y approved d irectors o f special education, 11 percent were temporarily approved and 16 percent were grandfathered in position. In terms of years completed as a d ire c to r o f special education, 13 per­ cent had 0-1 year o f experience, 37 percent had 2-5 years o f experience, 30 percent had 6-10 years of experience and 20 percent had 11 or more years of experience. Regarding the areas of greatest number of years of experience p r io r to becoming a d ire c to r o f special education, 37 per­ cent of the directors reported th a t t h e ir primary experience was as a special education teacher and/or teacher consultant, 25 percent as a school psychologist, 4 percent as a school social worker, 13 percent as a speech th e ra p is t and 21 percent as a regular education teacher and/or administrator. Information regarding the size of the reimbursable special education s t a f f under the d ire c tio n of the special education d ire c to r was also e l i c i t e d . The s t a f f s iz e , not including supervisors and assistant d ire c to r s , was reported by 6 percent of the directors as 1-10, 35 percent of the directors as 11-25, 34 percent of the directors as 26-50, 14 percent of the directors as 51-90 and 11 percent o f the d ire c ­ tors as 91 or more. The number of supervisors and assistan t directors was reported by 32 percent of the d irectors as 0, 51 percent of the directors as 1 -3 , 8 percent of the directors as 4 - 7 , 2 percent o f the directors as 8-11 and 7 percent of the directors as 12 or more (see Appendix B fo r complete compilation of d a ta ). 51 Methods o f Data Reporting and Analysis The data obtained through th is study were d e s c rip tiv e in nature and were reported p rim a rily in terms o f combined to ta l responses o f local directors and intermediate directors o f special education. In order fo r the local directors and the intermediate d irectors to carry equal weight in the to ta ls fo r each competency statement, the following methods were u t i l i z e d : 1. Percentages of directors choosing (a) "Pre-service T r a in ­ ing" vs. (b) "On the Job" fo r each competency statement. (a) Local D i r e c t o r s .............. Intermediate Directors . . . Total D i r e c t o r s .................... .. . 2. +(a) (a) % (b) %_______(b) % f 2 (b) % % % f 2 Rating score fo r each competency statement. Local Directors ............................. averageratin g score Intermediate Directors . . . +average ra tin g score Total Directors ......................... ratin g score f 2 The information obtained from numbers 1 and 2 above was then used to rank order the competency statements according to average ratings and was grouped according to whether the m ajority o f the d irectors saw the competencies as being i n i t i a l l y developed through a pre-service tra in in g program or i n i t i a l l y developed on the job. Those competency statements which received an average ratin g of 3.5 or above and were seen by 41 percent or more of the d irec to rs as being i n i t i a l l y developed in a pre-service tra in in g program were recom­ mended fo r use as guidelines fo r development o f c o lle g e /u n iv e rs ity tra in in g programs fo r special education directors in Michigan. Chapter V, Recommendations, pp. 78-85.) (See 52 Those competency areas which did not include a t le a s t one competency statement which received an average ratin g of 3 .5 or above and which should be contained in a pre-service tra in in g program were deleted from the l i s t of competency areas. The remaining competency areas were recommended fo r use in the rules fo r approval of d irectors of special education in Michigan. (See Chapter V, Recommendations, pp. 78-85.) Summary The author f i r s t derived seventeen competency areas fo r d ire c ­ tors of special education which were l a t e r revised and consolidated in to f if t e e n competency areas based on data from a prelim inary study of a c t iv i t ie s of directors of special education. On the basis of the review of the l i t e r a t u r e and the preliminary study, competency s t a t e ­ ments fo r each o f the competency areas were derived. These seventy-nine competency statements formed the basis fo r a questionnaire which was sent to a l l approved directors of special education in Michigan. The directors were asked to in dicate whether each competency should i n i ­ t i a l l y be developed through a pre-service tra in in g program or on the job and were asked to in dicate the importance of each competency. These data were then analyzed to determine those competencies which received a high ratin g ( 3 .5 or above) which were also seen by 41 percent or more of directors as i n i t i a l l y being developed in a pre-service tra in in g program. The information obtained from th a t analysis was used to recommend rules fo r approval of directors of special education and guidelines fo r development of u n ive rs ity tr a in in g programs in Michigan. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This chapter contains a description of the return ra te of the questionnaires, a presentation of the findings as a whole and a discussion o f the findings. Questionnaire Returns Of the 144 questionnaires mailed to approved special educa­ tion d ire c to rs , 112 (78 percent) were returned. Seven of the 112 questionnaires were unusable; f iv e because o f incomplete data and two because of la t e retu rn . Six o f the seven unusable questionnaires were from local d irectors and one from an intermediate d ire c to r . Therefore, 105 (73 percent) questionnaires were used in the analysis of resu lts of th is study. Of the 50 questionnaires sent to intermediate d ire c to rs , 43 (86 percent) were used in the analysis and of the 94 questionnaires sent to local d ir e c to r s , 62 (66 percent) were used. The 43 questionnaires from intermediate d irec to rs repre­ sented 41 percent o f the 105 to ta l questionnaires used in the analysis and the 62 questionnaires from local d ire c to rs represented 59 percent of the 105 questionnaires used. 53 54 Description of Data I n i t i a l Competency Development The directors were asked to evaluate each competency s t a te ­ ment in terms of where the i n i t i a l tr a in in g of the competency should take place: 1) through a c o lle g e -u n iv e rs ity pre-service tr a in in g program which would include course work, simulation and in te rn s h ip / practicum experiences or 2) on the job ( a f t e r the completion o f the pre-service tr a in in g program including the internship) which would include in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g , conferences and l i t e r a t u r e review as well as actual working experiences. As seen in Table 1, only eight (10 percent) of the 79 com­ petency statements received 60 percent or more responses of pre-service tra in in g . Of these eight competency statements, only three (3 percent of the t o t a l ) received 70 percent or more responses o f pre-service tra in in g . A to ta l of 45 (56 percent) of the 79 competency statements received 60 percent or more responses of on-the-job tr a in in g . Of these 45 competency statements, 25 (31 percent of the t o t a l ) received 70 percent or more responses of on-the-job tr a in in g . The remaining 26 (32 percent) competency statements received close to a 50-50 s p l i t between the two possible responses. Of the 26, 14 (17 percent of the t o t a l ) received responses favoring pre-service tra in in g and 12 (15 percent of the t o t a l ) received responses favoring on-the-job tr a in in g . 55 Table 1. D is trib u tio n of competency statements according to the preference fo r i n i t i a l tr a in in g . Pre-service Competencies 51-59% Number 14 Percent 17% 60-100% 8 10% On The Job Totals 51-59% 60-100% Totals 22 12 45 57 28% 15% 56