The role of the administrator of special education as perceived by administrators of special education and school superintendents in Texas

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of school superintendents and special education administrators regarding the role of the special education administrator to determine if they have a mutual understanding of the special education administrator's role. Such study is needed in order to develop optimum relationships between the superintendents and special education administrators--if those relationships currently do not exist. The following objectives were developed to accomplish this purpose: 1. to compare the role of the Plan A Special Education Administrator as perceived by the special education administrator and superintendent of the school district; 2. to characterize the comparison data obtained in objective one for the group of special education administrators; 3. to characterize the comparison data obtained in objective one for the group of school superintendents; and 4. to make recommendations to both groups concerning the findings of this research. The following null hypothesis was developed prior to conducting the study: there are no differences in the perceptions of Plan A Special Education Administrators and school superintendents regarding the role of the Plan A Special Education Administrator. Responses from questionnaires were received from 34 pairs of special education administrators and public school superintendents from the same school districts. Analysis of variance was used to determine the differences between the paired responses. The mean and standard deviation were used in characterizing the data. This research demonstrated that the role of the Plan A Special Education Administrator is understood in essentially the same way by the special education administrator and the superintendent, as evidenced by the fact that the null hypothesis was supported. There were no significant differences in perception on 58 of the 86 items of the questionnaire. On those 28 items where a significant difference did appear, the difference must be attributed not to disagreement, but merely to degree or strength of agreement.