The problem with which this investigation was concerned was that of determining the practices utilized by college supervisors of secondary student teachers in Kentucky. A mailed questionnaire was employed to determine the emphasis of practices of the college supervisor pertaining to student teachers, cooperating teachers, and cooperating school administrators. The purposes of this study included the following: 1. To determine the status of Kentucky college and university supervisors of secondary student teachers. 2. To compare the practices of Kentucky college supervisors with practices recommended by national authorities in the field of student teaching. 3. To compare the practices reported by general supervisors with practices reported by special supervisors. 4. To compare the supervisory practices as reported in Texas in 1968 to the practices reported currently in Kentucky. The findings pertaining to the status of the Kentucky college supervisor included the following: 1. Seventy-one percent of Kentucky college supervisors reported having a total of more than ten years teaching experience at different levels. Twenty-eight percent had more than twenty years full-time teaching experience. 2. Sixty-four percent of the supervisors reported twenty-one or more student teachers as a full supervisory load. 3. Fifty-four percent of college supervisors at state schools and 39 percent at private schools hold the rank of assistant professor. 4. Fifty-two percent of college supervisors at state schools and 36 percent at private schools hold the earned doctorate. The findings pertaining to the practices of the Kentucky college supervisor of secondary student teachers included the following: 1. The null hypothesis that no significant differences exist between the emphasis of supervisory practices by the state presidents of the Association of Teacher Educators and by Kentucky college supervisors was retained. 2. The null hypothesis that no significant differences exist between the emphasis of supervisory practices of special and general supervisors was retained. 3. The null hypothesis, that no significant differences would exist between the utilization of supervisory practices reported by Texas supervisors in 1968 and such utilization by Kentucky supervisors, was rejected. The conclusions of the study included the following: 1. Kentucky supervisors were utilizing the practices recommended by national authorities. 2. Special and general supervisors in Kentucky were utilizing recommended practices equally well. 3. Kentucky supervisors were utilizing recommended practices to a higher degree than did Texas supervisors in 1968.

The problem of this study is differences in perceptions of priorities in selected areas of student teaching existing within the governance set, i.e., university directors of student teaching, public school administrators charged with implementing Senate Bill Eight, and presidents of local units of the Texas State Teachers Association. Six areas were chosen as the focal point of the study: selection of student teachers, selection of cooperating teachers, selection of college coordinators, placement of student teachers, evaluation of student teachers, and expenditure of Senate Bill Eight funds designated for the support of student teaching programs. The study concluded that the governance set is in overall agreement concerning the ordering of priorities. However, some significant differences were manifested concerning the implementation of specific priorities. Disagreements were noted in the following areas: selection body for student teachers, selection body for cooperating teachers, selection body for college coordinators, minimum grade point averages in education courses, and minimum grade point averages in major area courses.

This investigation was designed to delineate the role of the university supervisor and to develop guidelines and procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the university supervisor of student teachers. The specific purposes of the study were to compose a generic role description of the university supervisor, to define general guidelines that may be utilized to develop procedures for the evaluation of the university supervisor, and to define specific procedures that may be utilized at North Texas State University, Denton, Texas for the evaluation of the university supervisor.