Blazing New Trails - Connexions

116 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADERSHIP
Table 4. Substantially Delegated Functions.
Functions_______________________________________________________________________
2. Addresses policy issues regarding the processes for student, teacher, parent involvement in
determining Individual Education Plans
14. Develops standards, objectives, and procedures to establish and maintain a continuum of
appropriate special education services
15. Seeks to know the parents and interpret special education programs to them
16. Provides supervision for related service providers (such as school psychologists and speech
pathologists) in most cases
23. Coordinates programs with various agencies facilitating individual post-school transition
26. Plans, develops and establishes methods to ensure the identification of all children with special
needs
28. Determines methods of assessment for students with disabilities (such as district and state
assessments)
29. Develops strategies to implement activities, priorities and programs required by local, state, and
federal mandates
38. Encourages and secures parent involvement in individual education planning activities
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
While the sample size in this study is admittedly low (20%), preliminary conclusions
can be drawn about rural Montana administrators’ delegation of special education
administrative functions. As reported, the least delegated functions were general support and
personnel activities, which are not specific to special education, but align well with a school
leader’s general education tasks. While there is little surprise in this finding, it is noted that
DiPaola and Walther-Thomas’s research supported a broad approach by school leaders in
meeting student needs. DiPaola and Walther-Thomas (2003) observed, “Effective leaders are
committed to the success of all students and collaborate with others to achieve this aim” (p.
9). It was also clear from the perspectives of the respondents that the majority of
administrative functions included in the survey were being fulfilled either fully or
substantially by the superintendent and principal.
Only nine of the 49 special education administrative tasks included in the survey were
reported by small school principals and superintendents as being substantially delegated. Of
the remaining 40 functions (82%), no item scored 100% in the not delegated column. This
finding suggested a substantial level of collaboration on the part of these school
administrators, which is a hallmark of effective leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). This
circumstance may have practical origins as well. While the rural school administrators in this
study reported that they take full or partial responsibility for 82% of the special education
tasks, they may also be utilizing the experience and expertise of teachers and support staff
members as support. It is reasonable to expect the superintendent or principal to ensure that
each function is accomplished effectively; yet, there is no corresponding expectation that the
administrator conducts all of the activities associated with the functions by him or herself.
These results may be an example of administrators who “work collaboratively with others to
increase their school’s capacity” (DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003, p. 16). The challenges
facing rural school administrators are nonetheless apparent. Superintendents in smaller
districts often find themselves engaged in a broad spectrum of responsibilities that are most
often handled by specialized personnel in larger districts (Dunlop, 2006).