In these latter years a lot of countries try to call people’s attention to education of the disabled. Special attention is paid to education of students with noticeable disability. Pupils with strongly noticeable disability are integrated into special classes of general education as well as educated in education centers, special boarding schools, specialized foster homes or children and youth boarding schools. An educator plays a very important part in the system of education. The attitude of a headmaster towards their functions is very important still very often opinion of a headmaster and an educator is quite different. It shows the existing problem between educators and headmasters. Nowadays we lack ways of solving this problem. It’s difficult to understand why educators and headmasters try to get round and not to solve this problem. One of the most important functions of every educator is taking care of individual’s education and maturity. Other functions are very important as well. They are: helping and taking care of pupils health and safety, looking for participants and pedagogical briefing. The main problem of the research study consists of one component – it is educators’ and headmasters’ attitude towards functions performed by educators. I tried to review activities done by educators teaching students with strongly noticeable disability and specificity of their activities and functions. I also tried to understand the priorities given... [to full text]

Švietimui kaip socialinei institucijai postmodernizme keliami uždaviniai, kurie sąlygoja esminius edukacinių procesų pokyčius. Ypatingas vaidmuo tenka mokyklos vadovui (Jucevičienė, 1996; Fullan, 1998; Kornør, Nordvik, 2004; R. H. Hofman, W. H. A. Hofman, Guldemond, 2001). Dažnas novatoriškas mokyklos vadovas stengiasi transformuoti mokyklos kultūrą (Želvys, 2003), o švietimo institucijos bendruomenė verčia jį prisitaikyti prie susiklosčiusių per dešimtmečius normų ir tradicijų (Žvirdauskas, 2006; Cibulskas, 2006; Katiliūtė, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2005). Moksliniai tyrimai atskleidė, kad mokyklos veiklos efektyvumas susijęs su švietimo subjektų – pedagogų ir ugdymo institucijos vadovų, ugdytinių ir jų tėvų / globėjų – bendravimo kultūra (Targamadzė, 2006; Hargreaves, 2000; Davies, Ellison, 2006). Atskleista, kad vadovavimas ugdymo institucijai sąlygoja mokyklos bendruomenės energiją, kai suprantama, jog organizacijos kaitą lemia ugdymo institucijoje puoselėjamos vertybės (Sergiovani, 2005), rūpinimasis asmenų tarpusavio santykiais (Kepalaitė, 2005; Kardelienė, Kardelis, 2006). Be to, nustatyta, kad vadovo nuostatos dėl elgesio su pavaldiniais (Šaparnis, 2002) ir pedagogų nuostatos dėl bendravimo organizacijoje (Fominienė, Kardelienė, Kardelis, 2006; Bagdonas, 2004; Engvik, 2006; Šaparnis, Šaparnienė, 2004; Meškinienė, Liniauskaitė, 2003) turi įtakos pedagoginio darbo rezultatams (Kepalaitė, 2005a; Rupšienė, Gustienė, 2005; Gailienė, Marozaitė, 2003), nes autoritarinis valdymas... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Education as social institution is evoked in the determination of changes of essential educational practice in the post-modern epoch. The key role is devoted to a director of the school (Fullan, 1993; Juceviciene, 1996; Kornør, Nordvik, 2004; R. H. Hofman, W. H. A. Hofman, Guldemond, 2001). A innovative school director frequently attempts to transform its culture (Zelvys, 2003), as well as community of educational institution makes the director to accomodate long lasting inhabited norms and traditions of such community (Zvirdauskas, 2006; Cibulskas, 2006; Katiliute, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2005). Some studies disclosed that the efficiency of school activities is related with the communication culture of subjects of education, namely educators and directors of educational institutions as well as pupils and their parents or foster-parents (Targamadze, 2006; Hargreaves, 2000; Davies, Ellison, 2006). It was acknowledged that the impact for results of educational work could be depended (Kepalaitė, 2005; Rupšienė, Gustienė, 2005; Gailienė, Marozaitė, 2003), on the director’s approach to subordinate personnel (Saparnis, 2002) and educators‘ attitudes to organization of communication within the institution (Fominiene, Kardeliene, Kardelis, 2006; Bagdonas, 2004; Engvik, 2006; Saparnis, Saparnienė, 2004; Meskinienė, Liniauskaite, 2003). It was recognized also that autocratic style management, the centralization of decision-making, psychological freeze (Grinceviciene, 2002; Juceviciene... [to full text]