The college major which the majority of special educators regarded as most valuable to directors was quite clearly indicated; 57 percent chose orientation to all areas of special education. Very few chose clinical psychology, elementary and secondary teaching methods, or a major in one area of special education. In the selection of minors, however, there was a greater diversity of opinion. The greatest percentage of choices for a minor to supplement a major in orientation to all areas of special education went to general educational administration and supervision. A much higher percentage would choose clinical psychology and elementary and secondary teaching methods for a minor than for a major. It should be remembered, however, that the choice of a minor is dependent upon the choice of a major.

For the specialist, the total group of educators emphasized the importance of a thorough background in the teaching of at least one type of exceptional child (74%). They also thought that experience in regular classroom teaching with normal children (52%) and in supervisory duties at the State or local level (42%) would be valuable.

The academic major receiving the most emphasis was one area of special education (45%). The opinions indicated that a minor in either orientation to all areas of special education (33%), general educational administration and supervision (33%), clinical psychology (30%), or elementary teaching methods (30%) would be valuable to a specialist.

Although it is recognized that a college degree per se may have little intrinsic significance, the background which it represents is significant. The majority of the special educators thought that the director should have a doctor's degree (64%), while the specialist should have a master's degree (73%). The opinion of the State special educators themselves, however, diverged from that of the total group. They regarded a master's degree as adequate for director and specialist.

While the basic elements in professional background are the same for directors and specialists, there is a difference in emphasis, which is shown graphically in graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, on pages 23 and 24.

Experience in supervision in special education at the State or local level was considered important for both directors and specialists, but the greater percentage chose it for directors. Similarly, experience in teaching of exceptional children was also important for both; here, however, the greater percentage chose it for specialists. (See graph 1.)

As to academic preparation, a major in orientation to all areas of special education was thought to contribute most to the success of a director, while a major in one area of special education was important for the specialist. For both positions, the choice of a minor was split and depended on the choice of a major. (See graphs 2 and 3.)

2 All directors and specialists, as well as college instructors, would place even more emphasis upon the specialized teaching of at least one type of exceptional child than teachers themselves would, although almost three-fourths of the teachers made this choice. In other words, the consensus on the importance of this experience is quite high.

Graph. 1.-Professional Experiences Desirable for Special Education Personnel, According to the Opinions of 1,400 Special Educators

Graph. 2.-College Major Desirable for Special Education Personnel, According to the Opinions of 1,400 Special Educators

Both directors and specialists, the participants indicated, should have specialized preparation at the graduate level; it would seem, however, that this preparation should be somewhat more advanced for a director than for a specialist. (See graph 4.)

Graph 3.-College Minor Desirable for Special Education Personnel, According to the Opinions of 1,400 Special Educators

Graph 4.-Academic Degree Desirable for Special Education Personnel, According to the Opinions of 1,400 Special Educators

In the opinion of these 1,400 special educators, the experiences and professional preparation here outlined-the practical background in education, and particularly in special education-contribute much to competence and lead to dynamic leadership on a statewide level.

FUNCTIONS OF STATE DIRECTORS

AND SPECIALISTS

THE 'HE AIM of the study on which this report is based was to discover what best prepares and qualifies an individual for successful performance of his duties as a State leader in special education. These duties were discussed briefly in the committee report; at this point a more detailed analysis is called for.

Two types of State special education personnel have emerged from the current analysis: First, the administrator responsible for the total special education program within the State departments of education; and second, the specialist or consultant who serves a limited number of areas of exceptional children in such departments. The characteristics which distinguish the two types can be observed not only in terms of the number of special education areas served but also in terms of the relative emphasis given to administration as distinguished from the supervision and consultation which bring direct service to the local person carrying on work with exceptional children.

What, specifically, are the functions to be performed by State leaders in special education? In what proportions do these leaders allocate time to their various functions? Is there a difference in the allocation of the time of the director and that of the specialist to these functions? How do State leaders think that they should spend their time? Are their functions consistent with the ideals set in the competency committee report? As special educators look to the future, and both program and functions are better understood, will these functions be the proper ones? Since these questions have bearing on the competencies needed they are discussed here.

ALLOCATION OF TIME

In order to gain a better understanding of the work being done at present by special education leaders in State departments of education, effort was made. through the inquiry forms to obtain some sort of time analysis and to see in what proportions directors and specialists were allocating their time to various functions. State staff members were asked to estimate the percentage of time which they spent on a number of activities grouped under the following heads: Administrative and supervisory duties at the State level; consultative and supervisory services in local school systems; direct service to children; inservice education; public relations outside the State department; and professional study and research. They were also

given opportunity to list other duties, but so few suggestions were made that no additional category was needed.' The average distribution of time of both directors and specialists is reported in table 4, page 27.

The directors, on the average, spent more than half of their time (55%) in administrative and supervisory duties at the State department and almost a quarter of their time in consultative services in the local communities (21%). The remainder, about one quarter, was distributed among inservice education, public relations outside the State department, and professional study and research, or in some cases direct service to exceptional children. Almost all of the participating directors gave some time to each of these duties with the exception of direct serv ice to children; unpublished data show that only 10 of the directors performed this function at all. Individual directors, of course, varied a good deal from these averages.

An examination of the two administrative duties claiming the greatest proportion of time of the director shows that they are distinctive to the field of special education. Directors were spending the most time on planning, approving, and giving leadership to the development of new programs for exceptional children (19%); and on investigating, evaluating, and preparing budgets, legislation, certifying standards; and the distribution of funds (10%). In this second function, the directors would be concerned with a knowledge of excess cost and the factors which make the education of the handicapped child more expensive than that of the normal child. They would be concerned with the various special education laws and the implications for program development. Directors also devoted, on the aver age, considerable time to conferring with special educators in local school systems assisting in the development of programs for exceptional children; apparently they were doing this to give the local personnel the advantage of their specialized knowledge and skills. The director thus needs to know all facets of the field and to communicate his specialized knowledge and skills to those in local systems.

Specialists, on the average, divided their time in three ways. Administrative and supervisory duties at the State department took more than one-third of their time (37%); another third was spent in consultative services to local communities. The remainder was divided between inservice education, public relations outside the State department, self-directed study and research, and direct services to children. Nearly all of the specialists reported giving some time to all of these functions. The most notable exception here, as with the directors, was in direct service to exceptional children; only a little more than half of them were performing this function at all. Again, some individual specialists deviated considerably from the average.'

1 See appendix D, Inquiry form EXC-1, question 2.

2 For example, the amount of time a director spent on administrative and supervisory duties in the State department ranged from 24 to 90 percent with a standard deviation of 15 percent. See appendix C, page 43, for more detailed information.

3 For example, the amount of time specialists spent on administrative and supervisory duties at the State department ranged from 0 to 100 percent with a standard deviation of 20 percent. See appendix C, page 43, for more detailed information.