Content area
Abstract
This study was undertaken to examine the time and cost of the principal's role in the administration of special education instructional programs. The purpose of this study was to determine the time and cost as they relate to different exceptionality groups, different delivery service models, and different administrative functions.
The population of the study consisted of eighty-four principals from a seven-county area of Southwest Iowa. The instrumentation was designed by the researcher and validated in a pilot study. Principals recorded time spent in special education administrative activities during the months of March and April of 1982. The time was equated on a monetary expenditure based on the average hourly compensation of the participants. A simple one-way analysis of variance yielded significant differences in time and cost factors related to exceptionality groups, delivery service models, and administrative functions.
The findings of this study suggest that principals spend 4.86 hours each week or in excess of eleven percent of their work week in special education administrative activities. When this time is equated with a monetary expenditure, the data would suggest that school districts could expect to expend $74.45 each week for special education administrative services. The data suggest that principals spend more time in programs for the mentally disabled and learning disabled than they do in programs for the emotionally disabled. There were also significant differences found when mainstreamed programs were compared to self-contained classrooms. In addition, the data suggest that principals devote the majority of their time to the administrative functions of conferences with professional staff, conferences with parents, and written work.
The recommendations from this study would indicate a need for replication in multiple settings to develop a body of findings that can be examined for general implications. The issues of principal efficiency and the full range of special education administration costs need to be explored. Traditional funding procedures may need to be reconsidered. A final recommendation would involve the importance of cost analysis in comparing local expenditures to state and federal procedures.
