Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Administrative Competencies Needed to Successfully Implement the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Inservice, Preservice, Pl94-142)|
|Author(s):||Jobe, Margaret Owen|
|Department / Program:||Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Abstract:||The study was conducted to assist in the understanding of the responsibilities which public school administrators must now assume as a result of the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142, 1975). All public school administrators are now required to provide handicapped students a free and appropriate education and due process for parents and guardians. They must often do this with limited financial resources, declining enrollment, and other factors resulting from the economic and social trends of the 1980s. Thus, it is essential that all administrators know the law and are skilled in those competencies which assure implementation of the law so they can program effectively for handicapped students within the framework of their local education agency.
The study uses a survey form of descriptive research which gathers information about 30 competencies related to special education and Public Law 94-142. The subjects were asked to complete the 30-item questionnaire by responding to each item on three levels: (1) Priority Level: How important is the competency? (2) Mastery Level: How proficient must a person be to execute the competency? (3) Skill Level: To what extent do you have skills to execute the competency.
The study used as its sample two groups of administrators in Illinois, those from independent school districts and those who are a part of a special education joint agreement. The term "administrator" includes principals, assistant superintendents, superintendents, and directors of special education. The questionnaire was sent to 136 administrators. There were 18 unit districts and 16 joint agreement districts participating in the study.
The results of the study analyze the responses of all administrators, compare the responses of each administrative position, and compare the responses of unit districts and joint agreement districts. Comparisons of responses are made for each of the three levels reflected on the questionnaire which result in implications of the study for preservice and inservice training, and research and development.
Thesis (Educat.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1984.
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2014-12-15|