Expectation for the Role of Cooperative Special Education Director as Perceived by Superintendents of schools, Teachers of Special Education, and Directors of Special Education in North Dakota
Date of Award
Doctor of Education (EdD)
Teaching & Learning
The purpose of this study was to attempt to clarify the role expectations held for the cooperative special education director in the State of North Dakota as perceived by public school superintendents, public school special education teachers, and public school special education directors.
A three section questionnaire was constructed by the author. The first two sections asked the respondent to rank in order of importance seven role performances and six personal characteristics commonly associated with the role of the cooperative special education director. The third section asked the respondent to complete twenty forced choice questions dealing with typical administrative problem situations the cooperative special education director may face.
The questionnaire was sent to thirty public school superintendents, thirty public school special education teachers, and all twenty- two public school special education directors in the State of North Dakota.
Analysis of data was completed by considering one comparison. Do public school special education directors, public school superintendents, and public school special education teachers in North Dakota agree on expectations for the cooperative special education director? The comparison was made for each section of the questionnaire. The comparison was tested statistically by the use of Scheffe's test of one-way analysis.
A review of literature and related research plus the analysis of the data were used in the author's conclusions and recommendations. The conclusions were presented in three parts.
Conclusions for Part A 1. There was a significant difference in the ranking of curriculum and instruction as a task performance area of the cooperative special education director. 2. There was a significant difference in the ranking of finance as a task performance area of the cooperative special education director. 3. There was a significant difference in the ranking of superintendent relationships as a task performance area of the cooperative special education director. 4. Personnel was the top ranked task in the composite of task performance rankings. Curriculum followed in second position. On the other end of the spectrum, legislative responsibility was sixth and research and continued study was ranked seventh.
Conclusions for Part B 1. Task-related characteristics was the top rank in the composite of personal characteristics rankings. Personality was second and intellectual ability third. On the other end of the spectrum, social background was fifth and physical characteristics sixth. 2. The composite rank order suggests three task areas, task-related characteristics, personality, and intellectual abili:y, had relatively high rankings across all groups of respondents. Similarly two task areas, physical characteristics and social background, had generally low rankings across all three groups of respondents.
Conclusions for Part C Conclusions were reached for each of twenty-two selected administrative situations. These conclusions dealt with the proper course of action for the cooperative special education director to follow in selected situations.
Recommendations 1. Additional research should be done on the position of cooperative special education administration in North Dakota and throughout the United States. 2. Cooperative boards should be made aware of the wide range of expectations held for and the complex tasks of the cooperative director and provide the director with support. 3. Cooperative directors need to make a self-assessment of their utilization of time on the job. 4. Graduate school programs in special education administration and in-service programs for special education directors should emphasize the unique role of the cooperative special education director. 5. The Department of Public Instruction and institutions of higher education in North Dakota should consider a much mor>i extensive service of staff development and certification renewal activities for special education directors. 6. The North Dakota Association of School Administrators and the Department of Public Instruction in North Dakota should consider a series of seminars which will bring regular school administrators and special education administrators together to consider role expectations of the other. 7. Graduate schools should establish courses of study which will specifically meet the needs of future and practicing special education administrators and which inform other administrators in training about role expectations of special education administrators. 8. Special education administrators need to make an honest self- assessment of their abilities and interests. They need to ask themselves if they possess the flexibility to function in this multi-faceted position. 9. Cooperative or County Boards in North Dakota, when hiring a cooperative special education director, should emphasize personal characteristics of task-related characteristics, personality, and intellectual ability and should be less concerned with social background and physical characteristics. They should look for a person who possesses knowledge, understanding, and ability to handle administrative responsibility in personnel, curriculum, finance, and research. 10. Certification requirements for the special education administrator in North Dakota should be reviewed.
Duncan, Robert R., "Expectation for the Role of Cooperative Special Education Director as Perceived by Superintendents of schools, Teachers of Special Education, and Directors of Special Education in North Dakota" (1979). Theses and Dissertations. 2641.