Special Education Teachers Analysis Scope,

¶ … Special Education Teachers Analysis

Scope, Limitations and Delimitations

Retention of Special Education Teachers Analysis

While many areas in education are experiencing teacher shortages (McKnab, 1995; Merrow, 1999), historically, the retention of special education teachers in particular is a critical concern in many schools across the nation. The increasingly rapid pace of growth in the student population in special education will further exacerbate current teacher shortages (Sindelar & Rosenberg, 2005; Amos, 2004). As early as the 1980s, research has demonstrated that retention is integral to the problem (Otto and Arnold, 2005). Increased recruitment has the potential to be part of the solution, but more is needed. Even prior to the developing national teacher shortage, educators were voicing concerns about higher burnout and/or teacher attrition rates in special education as compared to general education (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1990). The Texas Teacher Demand Study (2003) indicates that 2,500 elementary special education teachers and 2500 high school special education teachers will be needed in the upcoming school year. Some researchers anticipate that the national teacher shortage may only exacerbate this growing need for special educators (Olivarez & Arnold 2006). A shortage of special education teachers and the retention of those already holding positions as special educations is a problematic situation a study of personal and demographic characteristics of retained teachers of special education teachers conducted in 2006 by Olivarez and Arnold indicated that additional research is needed to show the significance of the various elements that contribute in teacher retention.

McKnab (1995), for example, estimated the annual attrition rate for special education teachers as between 9% and 10%, as compared to 6% among educators in other areas. As noted above, Billingsley (2004) also determined that within the first 3 years of teaching, 29% of beginning teachers are projected to leave the profession; by the end of the 5th year 395 leave the teaching field. Additionally, Billingsley (2004), projected that in the year 2010, there will be a need for 611,550 special education teachers in the U.S. 13.2% of special education teachers leave their positions, 6% leave the field altogether, and 7.2% transfer to general education positions.

Brownell et al. (2002), stated that "shortages in all fields are likely to worsen as the teaching workforce ages and as statewide initiatives (such as reductions in class size) fuel increased demand" (p. 2). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Act also purportedly imposes the mandatory obligation of improving quality education but does add to the problem of qualified teachers. According to Amos, 2005, with the demands of:highly qualified teachers" in the No Child Left Behind mandates and its alignment with IDEA 2004, mentoring and retaining these special educators will be necessary but also beneficial for special educators and their students" (p. 27). Additionally, standard-based reforms in which teacher competence is linked to student performance on high-stakes assessments causes the quality of the teaching workforce to come under scrutiny (NCLB, 2001; IDEA, 2004).

The proposed qualitative research study seeks to identify, describe, and understand some of the barriers to retention of special education teachers and provide suggestions to change unsuccessful approaches to successful practices. Chapter one presents an explanation of the background, problem statement, and purpose statement for this study that will examine the relationship between resources/support systems and retention. To conduct the review, computer searches of ERIC, EBSCOhost, Questia, Psychological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts International were completed. References contained in articles, reports, book chapters, and dissertations provided additional sources. Only empirical research findings related to teacher retention, attrition, transfer, or turnover since 1980 were included in the review. No teacher retention or attrition studies in special education were found prior to 1980 and general education findings prior to 1980 have been reviewed by Chapman (1983), Grissmer and Kirby (1987), and Sweeney (1987). Studies excluded psychologists and addressed the retention/attrition of special education support personnel.

Descriptions of the 13 special education attrition/retention studies appear in Table 1. This table summarizes the (a) purpose(s) of the study, (b) definition of attrition/retention used, - methodological approach used, (d) sample, and (e) results. Table 1 also demonstrates that researchers have used several major approaches to examine factors related to special education teacher attrition and retention. Most of the information about the reasons special educators left teaching (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Billingsley, Bodkins, & Hendricks, in press; Dangel, Bunch, & Coopman, 1987; Lawrenson & McKinnon, 1982; McKnab, 1983; Platt & Olson, 1990; Seery, 1990) or factors associated with retention/attrition (Metzke, 1988; Seery, 1990). Singer (1993) used state longitudinal databases to describe the career paths of special educators and the characteristics of teachers who stay, leave, and return over extended periods. Therefore, most of the research is concerned with those who actually left special education teaching. Factors that influence intent to leave special education teaching were investigated in only two studies (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; George, George, & Grosenick, 1992). Several researchers have sought secondary opinions about why special educators leave the field (Mani, 1989: McKnab, 1983; Lauritzen, 1986). The groups surveyed included current administrators (Mani, 1989; McKnab, 1983), special educators (Lauritzen, 1986; Mani, 1989), and general educators (Mani, 1989). In a recent study by Otto and Arnold (2005), the results indicated special education teachers considered administrative support to be an incentive for retention, when they perceived such support to be present. Conversely, special education teachers perceived absence of administrative support as a cause for leaving the profession. Additionally teachers reported that when administrators placed little value on special education students, teachers, then, received little administrative attention to their needs or ideas.

The proposed research will employ a modified Delphi study to explore and evaluate documented support system practices and methods of retention. The study discerns which patterns and practices teachers recommend as most successful in retaining special education teachers. Research methods will include teacher and personnel department interviews, public personnel records / statistics, and information from district websites. The study should result in information useful to school district administrators and board members when analyzing resources and support systems necessary for recruitment and retention of special education teachers.

Research affirms the importance of supporting the first year teacher, which becomes an effective tool in retention. A recent study by (Nougaret & et. al., 2005); concluded that teacher certification (traditional vs. non-traditional) could have some bearing on the implications in this study. The following conclusions were among those presented by the authors:

First-year teachers who participated in a traditional education program greatly outperformed first-year teachers with emergency provisional licensure on observational ratings of planning and preparation, classroom environment, and instruction.

Teachers in both groups rated themselves similarly, suggesting that nontraditionally licensed teachers were unaware of their relative deficiencies.

First-year special education teachers holding emergency temporary licensure may be at a great disadvantage.

Statement of the Problem

The general problem is that teacher shortages exist in all areas of education across the country, but the special education teacher shortage is of special concern in California (California Special Education Management Information System [CASEMIS], June 1999-2003). The numbers of students requiring special education services is growing, while the numbers of qualified teachers is declining, creating a serious shortage of special education teacher candidates available to the public schools (Rosenberg & Sindelar, 2005; Amos, 2004, U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The specific problem is that special education teachers will leave the field within a few years of beginning to teach, thus exacerbating the situation for school leaders, parents, and all others that are trying to provide a quality education for students with special education needs. Clearly, there remains a profound need to identify those negative factors that contribute to special education teachers leaving the profession and to determine effective methods of overcoming them.

Furthermore, hidden within the growing national teacher shortage in all certification areas, the ongoing burnout of special education teachers has become an important liability in the provision of appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. In this regard, Arnold and Mitchell (2004) report that over the past decade, the analysis of special education teachers has contributed to a growing body of research by examining factors that are directly related to decisions of special educators to remain or leave the field and describe the exact nature of special education teacher attrition. The authors cite the results of a national survey of over 1,000 special educators conducted by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) that concluded: "Poor teacher working conditions contribute to the high rate of special educators leaving the field, teacher burnout, and substandard quality of education for students for special needs" (quoted in Arnold & Mitchell, 2004 at p. 214).

Clearly, then, administrators and other school leaders need insights into the factors that compel special education teachers to leave a few years after beginning to teach thus exacerbating the teacher shortage situation for school leaders, parents, and all others who are trying to provide a quality education for students with special education needs. A study that explores special education teacher perceptions and recommendations regarding factors that influence their decisions to stay or leave specific teaching situations is necessary so that school communities might discover valuable information about teacher retention.

This qualitative research uses a Delphi study to explore the perceptions of special education teachers regarding retention. This Delphi study includes twenty-five to thirty special education teachers of K-12 in two California districts of less than 40,000 students. The information gathered provides leaders in the field with successful practices in retaining special education teachers.

Purpose of the study

The primary purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of special education teachers regarding the factors that influence their decisions to stay with a specific job placement or school community and develop recommendations for increasing teacher retention by developing more supportive school policies and practices. The study will employ the Delphi method to systematically survey special education teachers and develop an informed opinion about teacher retention by reviewing and distilling teacher input through several rounds of review. This survey of special education professionals can provide policymakers at all levels with an informed opinion on this issue for forecasting future events that can assist in future planning. The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback (Adler and Ziglio, 1996).

Additionally, the purpose of this phenomenological study is to describe the burnout/teacher retention problem in the field of special education, within the context of today's classrooms. Further, the study synthesizes the available information in order to suggest steps that may ameliorate this problem. To this end, a synthesis of research on teacher burnout within special education is presented. Next, several specific and malleable factors are explored more completely, including teacher stress and mentoring programs for new teachers. Finally, the study includes suggestions developed through the Delphi Study for increasing retention of teachers in special education.

The design is a Delphi teacher survey with open-ended questions as the primary source, and interviews as the secondary source, with approximately 25 to 30 K-12 special education teachers in two districts in Los Angeles County. This method is appropriate as qualitative research. According to Creswell (2002), "to learn about this phenomenon, the inquirer asks participants broad, general questions, collects the detailed view of the participants in the form of words or images, and analyzes the information for descriptions and themes." (p. 58). Additionally, a descriptive statistic research inquiry will be useful for gathering demographic data required on the number of special education teachers hired over a specific period and the longevity of each.

Significance of the Problem

Clearly, the continual growth of the student population in special education will only add to the current teacher shortages that exist. Districts appear to be in need of timely and reliable information to help their personnel departments attract and keep teachers in the field of special education. To date, research has both documented higher turnover among special education teachers, and suggested a number of reasons for this phenomenon (Boe, Bobbit, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; McKnab, 1995; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Table 1 below presents a synopsis of the research published since 1995. Many of these studies are recent enough to reflect the evolving nature of special education instruction, such as the recent expectations for inclusive instruction, the changes in disciplinary tactics as reflected in the recently mandated behavioral intervention plans, and the ever-increasing paperwork load on special education teachers.

The importance of retaining qualified special educators becomes apparent when studying the shortage problem. Recent estimates indicate that an additional 29,774 special education teachers need to replace uncertified staff and fill vacancies in the U.S. during 1988-89 (the Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress, 1991). E.E. Boe (personal communication, 1991), using the Annual Reports to Congress, found that the need for fully certified special educators increased by more than 12,000 (or 74%) over a recent 4-year period, while the supply of new teacher graduates declined by well over 7,000 (34%). Another indicator of the shortage problem is the high number of state personnel reporting teacher shortages (Schofer & Duncan, 1986; Smith-Davis, Burke, & Noel, 1984). Recent projections by a national consortium of special education organizations suggest that the teacher shortage problem in special education will reach crisis proportions in the years to come (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1989).

Teacher shortages result in a number of undesirable consequences. Of primary concern is the number of unqualified teachers hired to fill vacant positions. Schrag (1990) estimated that up to 30% of special educators were on emergency certification, compared to 10% in general education. In an effort to understand the factors that contribute to retaining special educators, a literature review ascertained how major researchers in the field have conceptually organized and viewed the problems associated with recruiting and retaining special educators.

Nature of the Study

This present study will employ a qualitative method of conducting research using a selected criteria, population, and sample, size of panel, selection of panel, field test, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and conclusion. Teachers will answer questions as per a Delphi study. Then on receiving the answers, a second round of questions will take place. Given the extant data on turnover and burnout in special education, it is reasonable to inquire as to the reasons for the higher attrition rates among special educators. In this regard, Brownell, Smith, McNellis, and Miller (1997) addressed that issue in a study using 93 randomly selected Florida teachers who did not return to their special education teaching positions after the 1992-93 school year. Participants interviewed over the telephone answered questions about special education teacher attrition and the causes for leaving special education. The questions related to current employment status, primary and secondary reasons for leaving, things the school system could have done, incentives to return, and future career plans. The results of the study indicated that the majority of special educators who left the field took positions in other areas of education. Many took general education teaching positions along with non-administrative positions, administrative positions, district-level specialist positions, or substitute teaching positions, while others retired.

In order to further the analysis, these authors identified two groups of teachers from this sample, disgruntled teachers leaving the field, and non-disgruntled teachers leaving the field. Disgruntled teachers left because of the stresses due to being unsupported, unprepared, overwhelmed by student needs or job responsibilities, and a general sense that teachers have become increasingly disempowered. A combination of unpleasant work conditions (e.g., unsupported, disempowered, unprepared) and outside influences (e.g., birth of child, spouse transferred, retirement) contributed to these educators leaving the field. Non-disgruntled leavers left because of external factors such as certification requirements, family influences, retirement, positions not reoffered, or inadequate pay. The largest portion of the teachers stated that there were no incentives for them to return. A few mentioned they would consider returning if there were an increase in administrative support, and instructional support. This study provided evidence that stress, coupled with workload manageability lead to burnout.

In another study, Singh, and Billingsley (1996) used 658 special educators in Virginia in an attempt to identify variables that affected teachers' intent to stay in education. One hundred and fifty nine of these subjects were teachers of students with emotional and behavior disorders, and 499 were teachers in other areas of special education. With this differentiation in teaching responsibility noted, these data shed light on what may be the highest burnout area in special education -- working with behaviorally disordered students. All of the teachers mailed-in a questionnaire that identified various factors that may contribute to teacher retention and attrition. These survey data revealed that teachers working with students in other areas of special education were more likely to stay in the field of special education as compared to teachers of students with behavioral disorders; this difference attributed to higher stress in BD classes. The results also indicated that job satisfaction was the greatest influence on the teachers' intent to stay in the field for both groups of teachers. The second commonality for the two groups was the negative effect of role-related problems (e.g. managing challenging behavior; arranging IEP meetings, etc.) on job satisfaction. Both groups of teachers indicated that the greater the job satisfaction, the greater their intention to stay in teaching. Strong support from the Principal had no effect on the teachers who taught students with behavioral disorders, whereas it had a moderate effect on retention of the other group of special educators. Finally, the data suggested that in the profession of special education, teachers with greater experience, principal support, and less stress, were more likely to express higher intent to stay in the teaching field.

Hypotheses/Research Questions

Much of the research on teacher attrition/retention has been piecemeal (Chapman, 1983; Grissmer & Kirby, 1987), and few have used a comprehensive model or framework of attrition and retention. Available research results indicate that teachers' career decisions relate to a wide variety of variables. The conceptual model provides the following goals: (a) identify the primary variable that hypothetically influence teachers' career decisions: (b) suggest possible relationships among the major variables: and - provide the reader with a framework for interpreting the research findings that follow. Other published (Chapman, 1983: Grissmer & Kirby, 1987) and unpublished (Gersten & Morvant, 1991; Sweeney, 1987) proposed career decision models and theories of teachers.

The conceptual model proposes by the researcher above posit that influences in career decisions are "external," "employment," and "personal" factors. External factors include societal, economic, and institutional factors that are external to the teacher and the employing school district. These external factors hypnotically have primarily an indirect effect on teachers' career decisions by influencing employment and personal factors. Employment factors, comprising the middle block of the figure, hypothetically have either direct or indirect influence teachers' career decisions. Professional qualifications comprise teachers' experiences (e.g., educational preparation, prior work experiences) and present knowledge and skills that contribute to their preparedness for their positions. Work conditions include district policies and school environments, as well as the nature of teachers' individual work assignments. It would appear reasonable to hypothesize that qualified teachers working in desirable environments will have greater opportunities to experience work rewards (e.g., professional fulfillment, recognition, salary).

These rewards should lead to increased levels of commitment (e.g., to school, district, teaching field, and profession) and lead to decisions to stay in teaching; however, when professional qualifications and work conditions are not as favorable, teachers are likely to experience fewer rewards and, thus, reduced commitment. Whether teachers actually leave depends on a host of personal, social, and economic factors. Personal factors (past and present) likely directly or indirectly influence teachers' career decisions. For example, teachers may decide to retire, stay home with children, or pursue new interests with minimal consideration of work factors; however, personal factors such as family responsibilities may interact with employment factors. For example, teaching schedules (ancillary reward) may be compatible with family responsibilities, thus increasing commitment and decisions to stay.

The relationship between these factors and teachers' career decisions is complex, involving many interactions. Further, the influences of these factors on teachers' career decisions change and evolve over time, depending on life circumstances, priorities, and needs. The assumption is that not every factor within each block has a relationship across the connecting blocks. Obviously, many other specific relations exist among the three factors.

What part do incentives play in retention?

Does non-traditional certification play a part in retaining teachers?

Does mentoring and/or staff development play an important part in retention?

Teachers that receive incentives, opportunities for non-traditional certification, mentoring and on going staff development support tend to accept positions and remain within those districts.

Theoretical Framework

This qualitative study directly addresses the problem of critical shortages in special education at the local level. It will do so using qualitative methods to explore the relationship between resources/support systems and teacher retention in order to influence leadership practices and local policy that will promote special educator retention. The study explores perceived effect of leadership practices and local policy on special educators' decisions to remain in or exit the field of special education. The historical basis for the conceptual framework is social construct and behaviorism. In this regard, Linstone and Turoff (2002) state, "The major advantage to use of the Delphi Method is that it permits the researcher to obtain an objective consensus of expert judgment on the subject under study. The Delphi method also makes the rationale underlying a specific estimate or prediction explicit for everyone. The goal is to change local level practices and policy" (p. 37). Therefore, in an effort to understand the factors that contribute to retaining special educators, a literature review ascertained how major researchers in the field have conceptually organized and viewed the problems associated with retaining special educators.

Definition of Terms

Attrition is a reduction of members in an organization because of resignation, retirement, or firing.

California Basic Educational Skills Test CBEST. Developed to assess and verify acceptable proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics skills in the English language as part of the requirements for obtaining a teaching credential.

Credential California document authorizing someone to teach in specialized areas on the credential.

Emergency permit-Issued by the Department of education upon the request of the employing public school entity when an advertised position has no fully qualified and properly certificated applicant available.

Expert a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority

Mentor an influential senior sponsor or supporter.

Non-traditional certification: Alternative methods of teacher certification can permit non-traditional teaching candidates or career-changers to enter the profession

Resource Support is consultation and collaboration with classroom teachers by providing materials and instructional strategies for new teachers.

Recruitment is the practice of bringing potential employees into an organization.

Retention: Keeping members of an organization employed for services.

Waiver the voluntary action of a person or party that removes that person's or party's right or particular ability in an agreement.

Assumptions

An examination of teacher retention and attrition is timely in this era of special education teacher shortages. Boe (1990) suggests that teacher retention is the most promising approach to minimizing teacher shortages in special education since attrition is the major factor causing the shortage problem. Policymakers need knowledge about retention/attrition in order to understand the factors contributing to career decisions and to develop appropriate policies for increasing the retention of special educators. This study reviews the retention/attrition literature relevant to special education and outlines considerations for future research and the development of retention policies.

The following assumptions were implicit in this study:

Participants in the study answered survey, questionnaires, and interview questions with honesty.

There is a relationship between the support system/resources and teacher retention.

Expert interviews questions, surveys, and questionnaires were not adapted to benefit the researcher.

Scope, Limitations and Delimitations

Scope. The scope of this study will extend to educational institutions in the United States in general, with a specific emphasis on special education programs in place in the State of California and their effect on teacher retention.

Limitations. There were several limitations to this study. Given a list, panelists may have been less likely to devise items on their own, and this may have inadvertently led them to reflect biases held by the researchers. However, the addition of 130 items by the panel would seem to lessen the impact of any researcher bias.

The following scope and limitations are noted:

The scope of research is exclusive to the field of special education.

This study may not generalize to all special education teachers in every state.

The researcher is both and insider/outsider of the study, therefore perceptions may be affected.

This Delphi study includes the opinions of selected experts in the field and their voluntary responses.

The use of email allows the researcher to interact with the sample population.

The nature of a Delphi study and this one in particular, requires extensive contributions of time and thoughtful consideration. Panelists' feedback will take several hours to complete. Future studies of this type could limit the scope of their topics so that respondents can focus on precise issues. The present study is needed as a first step in exploring factors of retention but further investigation into specific aspects of retention practices should continue.

Delimitations. This study will analyze the opinions of experts from two school districts in Los Angeles County in the field of special education in the state of California. While the respondents in this study are experts in the field of Special education, identifying retention factors for an entire field is a difficult and complex task. The results of the study give only as a "broad strokes" indication of how a small number of experts in special education

Panelists chosen for inclusion in the study represented professionals who were well regarded in their fields. The panelists are teachers with at least two years experience and have knowledge about working conditions and what is supportive and what is not. Additionally, the panelists have associated with other special education teachers who are staying and leaving. Members of the panel belong to special education professional organization and participate as presenters at staff development sessions / and/or conferences. The study seeks to provide a framework that policymakers and educators in districts, schools, and agencies may use to consider what support and services they choose to provide.

Summary

In summary, various research studies have determined that burnout among special education teachers is higher than for teachers in general education (Boe, Bobbit, & Cook, Whither, & Weber, 1997; Boe, Bobbit, & Cook, 1997). Further, numerous studies using a variety of rigorous study designs (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989; Johnson, 1986), have delineated specific factors that may lead to burnout. These factors seem to include increasing paperwork loads, stress associated with the job requirements, a lack of planning time, lack of support from administrators, lack of proper staff development training, as well as the type of disabilities teachers deal with in the classroom. Both large-scale surveys of general and special education teachers, as well as smaller interview/questionnaire studies involving special education teachers who had left the classroom, indicate the same general causal factors related to burnout in special education.

Further, there is evidence in this body of research that some teachers are leaving special education classrooms and choosing to teach in general education classes, while there is no evidence of the reverse phenomenon -- i.e., teachers leaving the general education class in order to teach special education students. This may suggest that, during a national teacher shortage, the shortage in special education teachers may become more critical than the shortage in teachers overall. While the reasons for burnout varies somewhat from study to study, a number of general themes emerged including -- mentoring and job related stress.

Teacher shortages result in a number of undesirable consequences. Of primary concern is the number of unqualified teachers hired to fill vacant positions. Schrag (1990) estimated that up to 30% of special educators were on emergency certification, compared to 10% in general education. Unfortunately, many of these uncertified teachers had little or no training or experience in special education. The lack of qualified personnel may result in local efforts to reduce services to students requiring special education, or it may create pressure to raise class-size limits. The latter may actually contribute to teacher attrition, given the stress associated with increased workloads.

Reasons for teacher shortages are complex and involve many issues, including societal views of teaching, opportunities outside of teaching, and changing opportunities for women. In special education several major factors have contributed to shortages, among these are the following:

more teachers needed to serve increasing special education enrollments (Billingsley & Cross, 1991a);

decline in the number of special education teachers graduating from personnel preparation programs over the last decade (National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, 1988);

the number of special education graduates who do not assume teaching positions after graduation (Frankel & Stowe, 1990); and attrition, since new teachers are needed to replace teachers who leave (Grissmer & Kirby, 1987).

Chapter 2

REVIEW of the LITERATURE

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the background and problem of teacher shortages, especially in Special Education. Chapter 2 examines the existing literature relevant to the topics of Special Education teacher recruitment and retention. This qualitative method study proposes to explore the relationship between recruitment practices, support systems, and resources in the retention of special education teachers. A selected group of teachers from two districts in Los Angeles County will participate in a Delphi study exploring factors contributing to teachers staying in or leaving the field of special education. The following review of the literature will provide an overview of the scholarly contributions relevant to this research. A review and critique of existing research on teacher retention and attrition in special education presents a critical analysis with a synopsis of research findings and considerations for future research.

Documentation

The problem of critical shortages in special education teachers analyzed in this study focuses on special educator recruitment practices and attrition in order to improve retention in the field. Compiling data for the review of literature included sources from various online databases. Some of the sources included Questia, EBSCOhost, InfoTrac, and the UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertation database. The databases provided peer-reviewed journal articles as well as articles from more popular literature sources on the topic. Only selected articles deemed relevant to the research topic published between 1986 and 2005 provided information for the purposes of this literature review, however for historical background, an article from pre-1986 is included. Additionally, the progressions of the literature over the last twenty years appear to support the premise that the problem of recruitment and retention of special education teachers has grown. The majority of the literature related to recruitment and retention of special education teachers includes only the search results from the database published from 2002 forward. References contained in the Special Educator provided additional sources. Additionally, the research includes selective contacts with many major national special education organizations, individuals, personnel department interviews, public personnel records/statistics, and information from district websites.

A search of the University of Phoenix library resulted in a number of peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertations. The relevant sources included two dissertations that addressed the issues of recruiting and retaining special education teachers. The study of attracting and keeping teachers in the field of special education (Gischel, 2003), and the study of the influence of administrators on the retention of special educators (Butterfield, 2004) provided recommendations for further research relevant to this study.

Chapter Overview brief description of the latest statewide shortages by districts provides background information regarding the critical need for special education teachers. This chapter also includes some basic historical facts of recruitment and retention practices, job satisfaction, and dissatisfaction, attractors to teaching, rewards and incentives, attrition and retention in adequate of highly qualified teachers for our nation's schools, many factors hinder its success" (Sindelar et al., 2005, 1) Special education teachers are in demand throughout the country. The shortage issues include certain types of disability categories, rural teachers, and culturally and/or linguistically diverse background teachers. In the research, (Tyler, Yzquiento, Lopez-Reyna, Flippin, 2004), state, "the need for special education teachers from culturally and/or linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds has become a national concern." (1) Additionally, Prater (2005) pointed out three challenges to hiring special educators; ethnically diverse licensed special educators, rural locations and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Specific certifications for teachers working with certain types of disability categories plague districts, which add to the challenge of upgrading quality. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine what factors experts predict have the greatest effect on attracting and keeping teacher in the field of special education as compared to general education, mentoring, traditional vs. non-traditional credentialing, administrative support, and a summary. In sum, teacher shortages exist in all areas of education, however special education is a field greatly affected by the shortage. The teacher education programs have not kept up with the demand.

Historical Perspective

Local, state, and federal agencies charged with educating students with disabilities have had a longstanding concern for the chronic and growing shortages of special education teachers. Over twenty years ago, the national report, a Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983), addressed the shortage of teachers in hard-to-place fields. The passage of the Education Handicap Act, Public Law (PL) 94-142 of 1975, its reauthorization in 1997(as Individuals with Disabilities Act) and in 2004 describes the term highly qualified special education teacher. Prater (2005), states, "more specially, IDEA requires that special educators who teach only students assessed with NCLB's alternative achievement standards be held to the same NCLB standards for elementary or secondary subject matter teachers." Historically, the shortage is not a new phenomenon. "Ninety-eight percent of school districts in the nation currently report a chronic shortage of special education teachers" (Boyer 2000, p. 1). In early literature, (pre-1986), Norman Shapiro states, "although teacher recruitment is in the process of change, the basic fact of recruitment for specific needs is still a major problem and may even increase in the future." (1971, p. 2). The problem of staffing rural schools with special education teachers is a challenge that is much more profound because of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) highly qualified teacher requirement. Because of their geographic location, culture, and lack of resources, rural administrators have always struggled to staff their schools with qualified special education teachers. (Brownell, Bishop, Sindelar, 2005, p. 1).

Table 1 shows the number of special education teachers for students in different age groups and the change in that number from 1998-99 through 2002-03. Overall, the number of teachers and students has increased during those years. Enrollment increased by 7.39%, but the number of teachers increased by only 1.34%. This difference in growth rate is one reason for the teacher shortage for special education in California.

Number of Teachers and Students in Special Education, 1998-2003.

Years

Ages 0-2

Ages 3-5

Ages 6-22

Teachers Students Teachers Students Teachers Students 1998-99-404 4,885 2,075 56,743 31,946 567,220 34,425 628,848 1999-00-386 5,093 2,100 58,491 33,099 582,607 35,585 646,191 2000-01-376 5,136 2,006 57,651 29,356 587,932 31,738 650,719 2001-02-454 5,265 2,073 58,456 32,088 599,499 34,615 663,220 2002-03-472 5,548 2,159 60,265 32,257 609,519 34,888 675,332 Source: California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS), June 1999-2003

There are many reasons why teachers are leaving the field of special education. Among these are excessive legal requirements and the desire to teach in general education discussed in the literature by Billingsley & McLeskey (2004). The California Department of Education, (2001a) indicates that the number of students served in special education in California has doubled between 1985 and 1999 and the latest statistics (California Department of Education, 2004), indicate that over 600,000 students are currently enrolled in the various special education programs compared to approximately 300,000 in 1985. As a result, the growth of students requiring a specialized education combined with an ever-present teacher shortage has left all school districts searching to fill critical positions. Qualified teacher scarcity results in some districts placing unqualified instructors with students requiring the most skilled teachers. According to Sindelar et al., 2005, "too few people enter the field, and a policy context that promotes easy entry via unconventional preparation threatens to dilute teacher quality" (p 1). This practice places untrained teachers in classrooms, jeopardizes student's education, and increases the likelihood that teachers entering the field will not stay.

Attractors to Teaching

From the literature review, various viewpoints emerge explaining the reasons or probable causes associated with attracting and keeping teachers in the special education field. Brownell, Sindelar, Bishop, Langley & Seo (2002) discuss the problems and solutions concerning special education teacher supply and teacher quality. Shortages in fields such as math, science, and ESL teachers are likely to worsen as the workforce ages and as statewide initiatives (such as reductions in class size) fuel increased demand (Brownell et al., 2002). Therefore, examining the reasons why teachers choose the field of special education provides clues needed in attracting additional needed personnel.

The reasons for becoming a special educator and more importantly choosing to remain the field are numerous. Some people knew from an early age that they wanted to work with people with disabilities perhaps from family experiences.

Table 2.

Teacher Credentials and Experience, 1998-1999 through 2002-2003.

Credentials.

Year Number of teachers Full credential % University intern % District intern % Emergency % Waiver % 1998-99-283,975 248,535 87.5-2,523 0.9-2,327 0.8-34,194 12.0-3,695 1.3 1999-00-292,012 251,431 86.1-3,710 1.3-2,495 0.9-37,266 12.8-4,220 1.4 2000-01-301,361 258,934 85.9-4,205 1.4-2,179 0.7-34,670 11.5-3,348 1.1 2001-02-306,940 265,201 86.4-4,867 1.6-2,384 0.8-32,523 10.6-3,020 1.0 2002-03-309,773 272,464 88.0-6,128 2.0-2,587 0.8-26,061 8.4-2,272 0.7

Figure 1. Number of Teachers - 1998-2003.

Figure 2. Percentage of Teachers Traditionally Credentialed - 1998-2003.

Figure 3. Percentage of University vs. District Interns - 1998-2003.

Figure 4. Percentage of Emergency vs. Waiver - 1998-2003.

Table 3.

Experience

Average years teaching

Average years in district

Number of first-year teachers

Number of second-year teachers

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

Note: Partial teacher credential data or a teacher may hold one or more types of credentials.

As a result, percentages shown on this report do not add up to 100%.

Figure 5. Average Years Teaching and Average Years in District - 1998-2003.

Figure 6. First-Year Teachers vs. Second Year Teachers - 1998-2003.

Table 4.

Number and Percent of Teachers in Selected Age Groups, 2002-03.

Age group

Number of teachers

Percent of teachers

Over 55

46 to 55

Under 46

Not reported

Figure 7. Number of Teachers in Selected Age Groups, 2002-03.

Figure 7. Percentage of Teachers in Selected Age Groups, 2002-03.

Source: CBEDS data collection, Educational Demographics, October 2002.

Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

The influence of work conditions is particularly important to beginning special education teachers. Both Chapman and Green (1986) and Sweeney et al. (1991) indicated that general education teachers that taught continuously reported positive first employment experiences. In a study of 1st-year teachers, Henry (1986) found that the inability to cope with teaching problems was given as one of the major reasons for attrition. Metzke (1988) also found that positive initial teaching experiences were correlated with decisions to stay among special educators.

Beginners often experience a set of common problems, including discipline concerns, parent difficulties, and inadequate/insufficient materials (Veenman, 1984). Special education beginners include some of these same problems as well as additional concerns, including collaboration needs, working with classroom aides, dealing with Individualized Education Program (IEP) requirements, and scheduling students (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Magliaro & Wildman, 1990). Unfortunately, beginners are often given the most demanding assignments, without adequate support systems (Peterson, 1990), and most do not feel well-prepared for their new roles (Feistritzer, 1990).

Although all beginners have much to learn, the nature and content of the induction experience influences beginners' bonding and involvement. Yee (1990) stated the following: "The nature of novice teachers' assignments, coupled with the level of support given during the induction period, affects the speed with which professional competence and self-confidence are achieved" (p. 112). Therefore, teachers with positive novice experiences -- reasonable assignments in terms of load and subject matter, adequate feedback, and, especially personal support from mentors and colleagues -- are more likely to develop the competence and skills required for a satisfying career; teachers with more negative early experiences (frequently those whose induction occurred in an inner-city school) are less likely to acquire the tools of the trade or to develop professional involvement and a commitment to staying in teaching. (p. 112)

Work Rewards

Lortie (1975) posits three types of teacher rewards -- intrinsic, extrinsic, and ancillary; however, the intrinsic rewards are believed to be the most important. Individuals choose teaching largely because they desire to help children learn (Lortie, 1975). Teachers derive intrinsic or "psychic" rewards from positive experiences with students and recognition from colleagues, parents, and principals (Rosenholtz, 1989). It is particularly important for teachers to feel that they "have 'reached' their students -- their core rewards are tied to that perception" (Lortie, 1975, p. 106). The absence of psychic rewards can result in teacher dissatisfaction, burnout, and ultimately the desire to leave teaching (Rosenholtz, 1989). Likewise, Johnson (1986) states "there are easier ways to make a living, and most teachers who leave teaching do so because they fail to achieve personal satisfaction in their work" (p. 60). The work-related and training factors presented above are likely to influence the psychic rewards and job satisfaction that teachers experience. For example, qualified teachers who were satisfied with the recognitions, rewards, and working conditions appear to stay longer as research will propose to show.

Work Assignments

Work assignments may be thought of as the teachers' immediate work environment (e.g., classroom) as well as the daily activities and interactions that occur in this environment. Previous studies suggest that the characteristics of specific teaching assignments are related to teachers' career decisions. The above district and school factors may directly or indirectly influence teachers' work assignments through the assignment of students and duties and the amount of support given to the teacher. This section reviews the relationships among teaching assignments, students, class size, as well as role factors and career decisions.

Teaching Assignments.

Grade level has been related to attrition with secondary teachers leaving sooner than elementary teachers (Bentzen, Williams, & Heckman, 1980; Heyns, 1988; Keith, Warren, & Dilts, 1983; Murnane et al., 1989). Heyns (1988) also found that elementary school teachers were more likely to want to return than former secondary teachers. This finding was verified for special educators by Singer (1993), who noted that special educators in secondary schools stay an average of 1.6 years less than their colleagues in elementary schools.

Several other researchers have looked at differences in attrition rates associated with specific special education assignments. Metzke (1988) found that teachers from multicategorical programs were more likely to leave than teachers in single categorical programs. Seery (1990) reported higher levels of attrition among teachers working in full day programs than those working in resource programs. Singer (1993) also found that teachers of students with learning disabilities, physical/multiple disabilities, and mental retardation were the least likely to leave teaching. Those working with students with emotional problems were somewhat more likely to leave. Teachers working with speech, hearing, or vision impaired students were the most likely to leave (see Note 1).

Student Factors.

Teaching rewards stem largely from teachers' work with students, "which means that students exert significant influence over job satisfaction" (Sykes, 1983, p. 580). Unfortunately, teachers who continually experience student problems (e.g., discipline, motivation, and learning) may eventually believe that they cannot positively influence student behavior or that students are not capable of learning. Over time, perceived ineffectiveness may lead to low self-esteem (Weiskopf, 1980), dissatisfaction, and attrition from teaching. In urban settings, difficulties with students pose greater problems for teachers. Grant (1989) stated that teachers new to urban schools experience "culture shock" and never completely learn how to work effectively with urban students.

Special education teachers encounter students with a variety of difficulties (e.g., learning, behavioral) and experience limited success. Specific student problems that have been linked to attrition in special education include discipline problems (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b), relationships with students (Lawrenson & McKinnon, 1982), lack of student progress (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Lawrenson & McKinnon, 1982), and too much diversity in student needs (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b). Student attitudes were also linked to intention to leave among BD teachers (George et al., 1992).

Role Demands.

Problems with role overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity have been reported among various teacher groups (Bensky et al., 1980; Fimian & Blanton, 1986; Schwab & Iwanicki, 1982) and have been linked to attrition. Teachers must balance role demands imposed from a variety of external sources (e.g., parents, principal) as well as personal expectations for work-related responsibilities. When role expectations become excessive, role overload can result.

Problems with role conflict and role ambiguity are also sources of stress. Role conflict results when inconsistent behaviors are expected from an individual, and role ambiguity refers to the lack of necessary information available to a given position (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Schwab and Iwanicki (1982) found that role conflict and ambiguity contributed significantly to burnout among teachers. In a recent study, special educators reported significantly higher levels of role conflict and ambiguity than general educators reported (Billingsley & Cross, 1992). However, little is known about specific causes of role conflict among special educators and research needs to pinpoint these issues.

Other role demands, such as excessive paperwork and meetings, have been linked to attrition (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Dangel et al., 1987). Excessive paperwork was cited as the primary reason for special education teacher attrition in three studies (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Dangel et al., 1987; Platt & Olson, 1990) and is also a major deterrent to reentry (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b). George et al. (1992) found that only 3% of BD teachers who intended to leave found sufficient time to complete paperwork, versus 53% of those who intended to stay. Paperwork has also been identified as a source of stress for special educators in earlier studies (Bensky et al., 1980; Olson & Matuskey, 1982) and is an area in which teachers need support (Cline & Billingsley, 1991; Schetz & Billingsley, 1992). Further, White (1989) indicated that additional time during the work day to complete record keeping activities was one of the most frequently mentioned resources identified by teachers to improve work conditions. The problem may not be paperwork requirements per se, but the fact that such activities prevent teachers from doing other important tasks (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b). Teachers who are burdened with excessive bureaucratic requirements may not have adequate time to provide for the instructional needs of their students.

Class Size.

Class size has also been associated with teacher attrition/retention. For general educators, Theobald (1989) found that large teacher/student ratios were detrimental to teacher retention. Large caseloads have also been linked to attrition among special educators. Platt and Olson (1990) reported that 58% of special educators leaving teaching reported "too many students in a class" as a reason for attrition. Billingsley and Cross (1991b) reported high numbers of students as an important reason for transferring from special to general education. George et al. (1992) found no relationship between BD teachers' pupil ratios and teacher intent to stay or leave. However, Seery (1990) found that teachers of BD and seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) students who left were more likely to have maximum class sizes than teachers who stayed. Two of the researchers (George et al., 1992; Seery, 1990) actually looked at the reported numbers of students served, while others (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Platt & Olson, 1990) looked at perceived reasons for attrition. Given the differences in definition, methodology, and samples used in the above studies, the only conclusion to be drawn is that many special educators to teacher retention. Large caseloads have also been linked to who leave perceive class size to be a problem.

Attrition and Retention

Subtle differences in the way attrition is defined can result in major differences in research findings. Some of the inconsistencies in the results of special education attrition studies are likely due to differences in how the researchers defined attrition. Some researchers investigated teachers who transferred within the teaching field (from special to general education) (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b) or included a combination of exiters and those who transferred within the teaching field (McKnab, 1983; Platt & Olson, 1990). Metzke (1988) and Seery (1990) also included those teachers who left their certification category but remained in special education teaching, which more than likely encompasses all of the transfer and exit categories identified. Billingsley and Cross (1992) and George et al. (1992) investigated "intent" to leave teaching. In which attrition categories were included (e.g., Dangel et al., 1987; Lawrenson & McKinnon, 1982) and those using extant state data bases (e.g., Singer, 1993, in press) usually will not have follow-up information to determine the various transfer and exit decisions. It is interesting to note that no studies targeted only special educators who exited teaching.

It is critical that researchers precisely report the categories of transfer and attrition used in their studies. In addition, future attrition studies involving large numbers of special educators who represent the varied exit and transfer categories are needed. Comparisons among these categories should provide information regarding how special educators who transfer to general education teaching are different from those who exit teaching, or whether teachers in these categories leave for different reasons. For example, teachers who exit the profession may be influenced by factors different from those of teachers who transfer to other districts or teaching fields.

Comparison Groups.

It is also important to learn how those who leave special education differ from those who stay, regarding factors such as demographics, preparation, and reasons for career decisions. Several researchers (e.g., Metzke, 1988; Platt & Olson, 1990; Seery, 1990) have compared those who stayed in special education with those who left. George et al. (1992) compared differences between those who planned to stay and those who planned to leave.

Another important comparison is how attrition among general educators differs from that of special educators. The latter comparison is important because some retention interventions may require organizational and school-wide changes, while others may require revisions primarily in special education practices. Billingsley and Cross (1992) investigated differences between general and special educators on factors influencing "intent to leave," and Metz (1988) included a general education comparison group in her study of special education attrition/retention.

To understand special education attrition/retention, it is important to investigate differences between special educators teaching different types of students (e.g., those with learning disabilities or hearing impairments) and working in different service delivery models (e.g., consultation, resource, self- contained). Several previous researchers have included teachers representing different disability groups and service delivery models in their attrition studies (e.g., Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; McKnab, 1983; Metzke, 1988; Platt & Olson, 1990; Singer, 1993, in press). Other comparisons of interest include (a) those leaving temporarily vs. those leaving permanently; (b) those who are excellent teachers vs. those who are mediocre or poor; and - those who leave voluntarily and those who leave involuntarily (Grissmer & Kirby, 1987).

Traditional vs. Non-Traditional Credentialing

Just as drastic (and frequently expensive) emergency initiatives are undertaken by the federal government to fill critical war-time needs in the interests of national security, there have been some efforts by many states to implement alternative credentialing programs to help fill the growing need for special education teacher. In this regard, Hawley (1990) reports that there is a practical case to be made for alternative credentialing programs that is based on the fact that teacher shortages, which are often more pronounced in schools serving minority and disadvantaged children, usually have been satisfied by filling such positions with teachers that have been provided with emergency certificates but little formal training. "Thus, it is argued," Hawley notes, "when conventionally certified teachers cannot be found, it is better to have formal programs for recruiting, preparing, and supporting prospective teachers than it is to use emergency licensing procedures to fill teaching vacancies" (1990, p. 4). Even the advocates of such alternative credentialing initiatives recognize that many of these programs are not providing teacher candidates with all of the training and experience they are going to need to succeed in the classroom, they still maintain that the approach is "better than nothing"; however, even the most ardent proponents may suggest that such alternatives remain an inferior approach in many settings (Hawley, 1990). In this regard, Hawley adds that, "This argument does not challenge the assumption that conventionally certified teachers are likely to be better teachers than those certified through alternative procedures, at least in most cases. In this view, alternative certification is seen as necessary but, generally, nondesirable. In other words, a 'last resort'" (1990, p. 5).

Alternative credentialing programs have, nevertheless, gained momentum and are becoming increasingly common across the country. For example, during the early 1980s, only a few states had programs for certifying new teachers that did not complete a traditional course of study prescribed by a college or university; while there were emergency credentialing procedure in place in most states, teacher candidates that received such credentials were invariably expected to complete a "regular" course of study at an approved teacher preparation program in order to be fully certified to teach (Hawley, 1990). By 1990, however, depending on the definition used for such alternative credentialing programs, either 48 or 33 states were providing some type of alternative teacher certification process for special education teachers (Hawley, 1990). Despite this gain in popularity, much remains to be done to make these programs more aligned with what actually takes place in real-world classrooms today. In fact, both the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the International Society for Technology in Education have suggested that the alternative credentialing programs that schools of education are using today not adequately preparing their preservice teacher education students for the classroom (Milman, 2005).

The use of these alternative credentialing techniques across the country remains highly varied, though, and they are not universally applied or effective. According to Darling-Hammond (1990), "Over the past several years, alternate routes to teacher certification have been enacted, though not always implemented, in most states across the country" (p. 123). When these new alternatively credentialed teachers begin to experience the realities of their classrooms, though, many of them report they are disappointed that they have not been adequately prepared and feel unable to satisfy the special needs of their students or believe they are not receiving the support they need from veteran teachers and administrators (Darling-Hammond, 1990). Recent evidence appears to confirm this argument as well: "The extant data suggest that during the beginning and middle of the school year, many alternatively certified teachers assume full responsibility for a classroom without the training they need to be successful" (Schulte & Zeichner, 2001, p. 266). Likewise, Allard, Chubbuck, Clift and Quinlan (2001) note that while.".. preservice teacher education is viewed by many as a hopeful force for changing teaching practice in America's schools and improving teaching and learning for all students" (p. 365). A growing number of educators, though, are acknowledging that it is inappropriate to make a simplistic assumption that efforts at the preservice level automatically translate into the opportunity for, or the encouragement of, newly graduated teachers to put their burgeoning concepts about innovative teaching into actual practice.

In this regard, though, Darling-Hammond emphasizes that there is an enormous amount of differences among the alternative credentialing approaches being used for new special education teachers that makes across-the-board comparisons difficult:

The concept of 'alternatives' to traditional state certification leaves a great deal of room for varied meaning. It can mean alternative ways to meet teacher certification requirements -- such as a graduate level masters' degree program rather than an undergraduate teacher education program. It can mean alternative standards for certification which allows for truncated or reduced training -- or for training completed during the course of a teaching career rather than prior to its initiation. Or it can mean alternatives to state certification itself, as where a state allows local employers to train and certify their own candidates. (1990, p. 136)

Although the issue of just how effective alternative teacher credentialing programs have been in helping new teachers become proficient and avoid the path to burnout, there are some fundamental problems involved in the analysis that related to the disparate nature of the research that has been conducted to date concerning alternative credentialing programs. For example, Schulte and Zeichner (2001) conducted an analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on alternative credentialing programs, and report that there remains a need for a universally recognized definition of an alternative teacher credentialing programs. According to these authors, the problem in involves primarily how some alternative credentialing programs differ in their operation by states and school districts. "In some cases where the standards are lower than in college and university teacher preparation," they report, "alternative programs are viewed as undermining attempts to professionalize teaching because they minimize the need for specialized professional knowledge and imply that all a teacher needs is content knowledge and an apprenticeship in a school during an internship" (Schulte & Zeichner, 2001, p. 266).

Further, Schulte and Zeichner note that the advocates of alternative certification argue that such alternatives to traditional credentialing programs serve to make the profession sufficiently attractive to recruit academically competent individuals who would not otherwise enter the profession (2001). These authors employ the term "alternative teacher certification program" to refer to any alternative to the 4-year or 5-year undergraduate teacher education program, including both those programs that have reduced standards and those that require teachers to meet the same standards as college- and university-based undergraduate teacher education (Schulte & Zeichner, 2001).

Administrative Support

Administrators influence the conditions in which teachers work; therefore, it is not work; therefore, it is not surprising that administrative support has been consistently linked to attrition and retention. Lack of administrative support has been associated with attrition among both general (Bloland & Selby, 1980; National Center for Education Statistics, 1991) and special educators (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Lawrenson & McKinnon, 1982; Metzke, 1988; Platt & Olson, 1990). Metzke (1988) found that administrative support was correlated positively with teachers remaining in teaching. Although Seery (1990) did not find any differences between stayers and leavers on a three-item administrator support scale, she did report that 24% of teachers who left cited supervisory factors as reasons for leaving.

Interestingly, special educators cited a lack of support from central office administrators as a reason for attrition more often than lack of support from principals (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; McKnab, 1983). Both special and general education teachers who experience higher levels of principal support are likely to be less stressed, more committed to their employing school divisions, and more satisfied with their jobs, than those receiving lower levels of support (Billingsley & Cross, 1992).

The global measures of administrative support used in the above studies make it difficult to assess which specific aspects of support are important to retention / attrition. Some aspects of support relate to emotional/personal support (e.g., acknowledging, recognizing, and attending to others), while other aspects of support relate to specific leadership roles of administrators (e.g., providing clear goals, giving feedback about performance, facilitating curriculum development, facilitating professional growth). Since administrative support is a multidimensional concept (Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1992; Schetz & Billingsley, 1992), it is critical to investigate how the effects of specific types of leadership behavior influence career decisions.

In their study, "The Teacher Support Program: A Proposed Resource for the Special Education Profession and an Initial Validation," Cooper-Duffy, Herzog, Prohn, Ray and Westling (2006) report that one way to address the problem of special education teacher shortages is not simply to increase recruitment or even to focus solely on retention, but rather to take into account the actual job design involved as well as the working conditions of special education teachers. These authors include recommendations for greater support from principals, other teachers, and central office administrators; moreover, they emphasize that there is a need for:

More relevant professional development opportunities;

Assistance with sorting through dissonant directives, prioritizing, and solving problems;

Opportunities to engage in meaningful and substantive conversations with colleagues and administrators; and for support from fellow teachers (Cooper-Duffy et al., 2006).

Collegial and Parent Support.

According to Colucci and Epanchin (2002), "Our experience, supported by the research literature, had been that when a good fit existed between a teacher candidate and a mentor teacher, the mentor teacher exerted significant influence over the teacher candidate's development of understanding of teaching, learning, and schooling" (p. 349). Based on their experience, these authors report that all teacher candidates can be reasonably expected to require the following to some extent:

Practice in application over different contexts and time;

Honest, focused, frequent, skilled, and informed feedback about their practice; and,

Sufficient practice of their emerging skills, so that their knowledge and skills are sufficient to transfer to different settings, where the same type of support and guidance is not present (Colucci & Epanchin, 2002).

For these purposes, interactions with colleagues are "teachers' most valued form of professional stimulation" (Yee, 1990, p. 113). Collegial interaction and support have been associated with satisfaction and retention among general educators (Bloland & Selby, 1980; Theobald, 1989). However, special education findings related to colleague interaction/support and attrition/retention are mixed. Metzke (1988) reported that support from other professionals was positively correlated with retention among special educators. Lack of interaction with other professionals was given as an important reason for leaving among 21% of those transferring from special to general education (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b). Although George et al. (1992) reported that almost a fourth of behavioral-disorder teachers surveyed indicated that support from classroom teachers was "totally inadequate," collegial support did not discriminate between teachers who intended to stay or to leave. However, they did find that teachers who intended to stay received more time from teacher assistants and rated support from teacher assistants as more adequate than those who were likely to leave. Mani (1989) reported that cooperation from classroom teachers was considered important to retention by current teacher and administrative groups. The George et al. (1992) findings may have differed from the other studies since they included a small sample of BD teachers and looked at intent to leave vs. actual leaving. Overall the above studies suggest that collegial support may be important to special educators' career decisions, particularly because these teachers are often isolated (Chandler, 1983; Davis, 1983) and less integrated into school settings.

Support received from parents has been associated with teacher attrition/retention. Platt and Olson (1990) reported that 53% of special educators surveyed indicated that "lack of support" from parents was a reason for attrition. George et al. (1992) found that 23% of those BD teachers who intended to stay indicated receiving adequate support from parents, compared to a mere 3% of those who intended to leave. In contrast, Billingsley and Cross (1991b) found that only 5.6% of special educators indicated "problems with parents" as reasons for transferring to general education. These discrepancies may be due to the differences in teacher samples employed, the research methodology, and the definitions of attrition used in the studies. In this regard, in her study, "A Survey of Teachers' Perceptions of the Function and Purpose of Student Support Teams," Lee-Tarver (2006) reports that, "Student intervention assistance programs go by a number of names depending upon the state where they are found. Some state educational legislation refers to these teams as 'student study teams,' 'building-based student support teams,' 'multidisciplinary teams,' or 'student support teams.' No matter their designation, these teams are mandated by state and federal legislation to support students' educational functioning through systematic group problem solving, and intervention" (p. 525). Such collegial support groups also provide procedural safeguards for children's rights to a free, appropriate, public education (Lee-Tarver, 2006). Collegial teams can assume a number of different responsibilities for helping new special education teachers "learn the ropes," including:

Teams may evaluate and refer students with physical medical or orthopedic problems, speech and language problems, and children with vision and hearing difficulties to appropriate community or school-based services;

Teams may have an additional function of identifying students who may have a disability that is causally related to the student's lack of progress in the regular education curriculum; and,

Notwithstanding the foregoing responsibilities and functions, the primary purpose of these collegial support teams is to provide educational assistance for new teaching students that are at risk of academic failure. Likewise, such assistance may assume a variety of forms, including:

One-to-one instruction or peer tutoring. This may help a teaching student that is having a problem in a specific subject;

Behavioral interventions can be used for students whose behavior becomes problematic or visits to the school counselor may help a student who is having difficulty coping with peer pressure;

Teachers also stand to benefit from team intervention. "Mentors may be provided for new teachers, provision of novel classroom management techniques, or strategies for helping difficult to teach students are a few of the interventions that the team may recommend for improving the classroom environment" (Lee-Tarver, 2006, p. 526).

These techniques provide student teachers with valuable guidance concerning how others who are effective deliver their instructions, but this approach requires careful planning and follow-up if it is to be useful (Farrell, 2003). A careful and honest self-evaluation by the student teacher will go a long way in facilitating the process because it will help highlight areas that require attention and strengthening, and may identify opportunities for improvement. In this regard, Farrell reports that, "One approach is to review one's own teaching strengths and weakness and draft a brief proforma identifying these. In observations the new teacher would then note how the observed teacher manages the aspects of teaching that the new teacher may be finding difficult" (p. 115). This author suggests that it can be especially useful to observe experienced teachers in the school where the new teacher is working: "Such observations may be informed by the new teacher's views of the areas of their own practice that they wish to improve" (Farrell, 2003, p. 115).

Teacher Autonomy and Decision Making.

Another factor contributing to the work environment is the professional discretion that teachers experience. Teachers hope to be recognized for their professional expertise, to have high levels of work autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and to be actively involved in decision making (Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, & Bauer, 1990). An environment that allows for professional discretion bolsters teachers' motivation, commitment, and of work autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and to be actively involved in decision making (Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley, & Bauer, 1990). An environment that allows for professional discretion bolsters teachers' motivation, commitment, and confidence, while a lack of independence tends to lead to dissatisfaction and/or attrition (Rosenholtz, 1989). Rosenholtz emphasizes that satisfied teachers see themselves as "causal agents in their own performance" (p. 424).

Unfortunately, special educators often do not have input into the formulation of policies that affect them, which can lead to feelings of powerlessness (Greer & Wethered, 1984). The lack of participation in decision making among special educators has been linked to attrition (Billingsley & Cross, 1991b; Platt & Olson, 1990).

Mentoring number of studies have indicated that supporting special education teachers can enhance retention, and this support for new teachers is typically undertaken in the form of mentoring programs (Whitaker, 2001; Cooley & Yovanoff, 1996; Farrell, 2003). This emphasis on mentoring special educators, sometimes referred to as peer coaching, parallels a similar movement in general education. For instance, Whitaker (2000), as one recent example, conducted a study with 156 randomly selected first year teachers in South Carolina. The teachers were given a questionnaire on forms of support, the overall effectiveness of mentoring, the characteristics of an appropriate mentor, and how mentoring affected their plans to remain in special education over the longer term. Eight areas of mentoring were investigated; emotional support, provision of system information on the school district, provision of system information on special education, interactions with others, provision of adequate resources/materials, assistance with problems in curriculum/instruction, assistance with discipline, and assistance with management. Teachers rated the support they received in each of the areas above on a scale of 0-5, with 0 indicating that mentoring in that particular area was "ineffective," and 5 indicating mentoring was "quite effective." such as techniques for changing a specific situation by analyzing physiological responses, or changing destructive thinking associated with a situation, can be one professional development offering during the first several years of teaching. Finally, a reduction in caseloads and class size would reduce stress and assist special educators in providing the needed individualized instruction for student success in special education classrooms.

Next, a number of studies suggest that mentoring may enhance retention by providing more support for beginning special education teachers (Gerstein, Keating, Yovanoff, Harniss, 2001; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Whitaker, 2000). The data suggest that beginning special educators should have weekly contact with mentors for mentoring to be effective. Also, the mentor optimally would be a special educator working in the same field and in the same building as the beginning teacher.

Building level support from both administrators was also suggested for reducing stress for special educators. Administrators may wish to conduct periodic needs assessments to see if they are providing the type of support that teachers believe is important. Finally, it was mentioned that carefully defining teachers' roles, reducing bureaucratic requirements, and making sure teachers have the resources needed to do their work stress and enhance retention.

Politically Risky Options for Recruitment and Retention

While the options presented previously have been suggested and fairly widely discussed, there are additional options, which represent some degree of administrative risk. These options may challenge our profession, and may impact how we, as special educators, respond to the critical need for teachers qualified to deal with the challenge of special needs students. However, with the critical need looming, we wished to include in this context, some politically risky options that have been briefly mentioned by others, as well as some suggestions of our own, which we wish to put on the agenda for public discussion. These options are presented in Table ____.