The purposes of this study were to: (1) describe the status of administrators of joint service programs in special education with respect to race, age, experience, sex, tenure, position on the administrative chart, length of contract, salary, and formal training; (2) describe the role of administrators of joint service programs in special education with respect to supervision, planning, evaluation, in-service education, school systems served, budget, and duties unrelated to special education; (3) develop guidelines that may be used in preparing job descriptions; and (4) develop guidelines for selection of administrators of joint service programs in special education.The population for the study consisted of 27 Indiana administrators of joint service programs in special education. Each of them had at least one year experience administering such a program.The school systems administering joint service programs in special education, during the 1972-73 school year, were plotted on a map of Indiana. Highway 36 was used to divide the state into north and south. Seventeen school systems were located in the northern part of the state and 210 in the southern part of the state. Large joint service programs in special education were determined by identifying all joint service programs serving a total of 15,000+ students, and joint service programs with less than 15,000 students were labeled small joint service programs. If twothirds of the school corporations being served by a joint service program were located in rural communities of less than 5,000 people, the joint service program was labeled rural. Questionnaires were sent to all 27 administrators, and twenty-four of the administrators returned questionnaires. For the purpose of interviewing, the administrators were divided into the following categories:1. Those administering programs in the northern part of the state.2. Those administering programs in the southern part of the state.3. Those administering a large joint service program in special education.4. Those administering a small joint service program in special education.5. Those administering joint service programs in special education, that are for the most part rural.6. Those administering joint service programs in special education, that are for the most part urban.A total of 18 administrators were interviewed, three from each of the six categories. The data were treated normatively using percentages and tables.The major findings of this study are as follows:1. The most common undergraduate major for administrators of joint service programs was special education (58 per cent). Fifty per cent earned graduate majors in special education, 29 per cent in special education and administration, and 13 per in administration and guidance.Fifty per cent of the administrators recommended special education for an undergraduate major.3. The most common recommended graduate major for administrators was a combination of administration and special education (42 per cent).4. Education of exceptional children (54 per cent), school administration (42 per cent), and school law (33 per cent) were courses which were extremely helpful to the administrators. Educational testing and measurement, speech development, educational psychology, and philosophy were said to be helpful by two-thirds or more of the administrators. School finance (63 per cent), school-community relations (46 per cent), school law (37.5 per cent), and diagnosis of children with learning disabilities (37.5 per cent) were courses that were not completed by the administrators, but would have been helpful to them.5. Ninety-six per cent of the administrators were required to hold a Director of Special Education License. The 24 administrators held a total of 55 licenses.6. Fifty-nine per cent of the administrators reported directly to the chairman of the advisory board. Seventy-three per cent felt they should report directly to the chairman of the advisory board.7. Duties of administrators did not vary greatly. Supervision of programs and staff was of concern to all participants.8. Seventeen per cent of the administrators believed someone was prepared to replace them in the event of their death, promotion, retirement or resignation.The findings and conclusions of the study support the following recommendations: 1. It is recommended that job descriptions be prepared for all administrators of joint service programs in special education. Further, it is recommended that administrators be permitted to assist in the preparation of the job description. These instruments should be up-dated each year and may be used as a tool during evaluation.2. It is recommended that Negroes and more women explore administrative opportunities in the field of special education.3. I t is recommended that general administrators join together with administrators of joint special service programs to present their financial and other concerns to the legislature.4. It is recommended that a specific program of objectives be set and a thorough and regular system of program evaluation be established.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/174692 |
| Date | January 1974 |
| Creators | Abram, Sam Frank |
| Contributors | Nesper, Paul W. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | ix, 107 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us-in |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds