Public school administrators' knowledge of special education law

The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of public school administrators with respect to special education (ESE) law. The study used a sample of 220 public school administrators. A survey instrument was developed consisting of 19 demographic questions and 20 situational scenarios. The scenarios were based on ESE issues of discipline, due process (including IEP procedures), identification, evaluation, placement, and related services. The participants had to decide whether a violation of the ESE child's rights had occurred by marking: (a) Yes, (b) No, or (c) Undecided. An analysis of the scores and demographic information was done using a two-way analysis of variance, chi-square, and crosstabs after a 77% survey response rate.^ Research questions addressed the administrators' overall level of knowledge. Comparisons were made between principals and assistant principals and differences between the levels of schooling. Exploratory questions were concerned with ESE issues deemed problematic by administrators, effects of demographic variables on survey scores, and the listing of resources utilized by administrators to access ESE information.^ The study revealed: (a) a significant difference was found when comparing the number of ESE courses taken and the score on the survey, (b) the top five resources of ESE information were the region office, school ESE department chairs, ESE teachers, county workshops, and county inservices, (c) problematic areas included discipline, evaluation procedures, placement issues, and IEP due process concerns, (d) administrators as a group did not exhibit a satisfactory knowledge of ESE law with a mean score of 12 correct and 74% of responding administrators scoring in the unsatisfactory level (below 70%), (e) across school levels, elementary administrators scored significantly higher than high school administrators, and (f) a significant implication that assistant principals consistently scored higher than principals on each scenario with a significant difference at the high school level.^ The study reveals a vital need for administrators to receive additional preparation in order to possess a basic understanding of ESE school law and how it impacts their respective schools and school districts so that they might meet professional obligations and protect the rights of all individuals involved. Recommendations for this additional administrative preparation and further research topics were discussed. ^

Use of the DACUM process in the identification and verification of competencies for the medical administrative assistant

Medicine has changed in recent years. Medicare will all of its rules and regulations, worker's compensation laws, managed care and the trend toward more and larger group practices all contributed to the creation of an extremely structured regulatory environment which in turn demanded highly trained medical administrative assistants.^ The researcher noted three primary problems in the identification of competencies for the medical administrative assistant position: A lack of curricula, diverse roles, and a complex environment which has undergone radical change in recent years and will continue to evolve. Therefore, the purposes of the study were to use the DACUM process to develop a relevant list of competencies required by the medical administrative assistant practicing in physicians' offices in South Florida; determine the rank order of importance of each competency using a scale of one to five; cross-validate the DACUM group scores with a second population who did not participate in the DACUM process; and establish a basis for a curriculum framework for an occupational program.^ The DACUM process of curriculum development was selected because it seemed best suited to the need to develop a list of competencies for an occupation for which no programs existed. A panel of expert medical office administrative staff was selected to attend a 2-day workshop to describe their jobs in great detail. The panel, led by a trained facilitator, listed major duties and the respective tasks of their job. Brainstorming techniques were used to develop a consensus.^ Based upon the DACUM workshop, a survey was developed listing the 8 major duties and 71 tasks identified by the panel. The survey was mailed to the DACUM group and a second, larger population who did not participate in the DACUM. The survey results from the two groups were then compared. The non-DACUM group validated all but 3 of the 71 tasks listed by the DACUM panel. Because the three tasks were rated by the second group as at least "somewhat important" and rated "very important" by the DACUM group, the researcher recommended the inclusion of all 71 tasks in program development for this occupation. ^