Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Burnout Among Special Education Teachers
Burnout Among Special Education Teachers
November 2002
Journal of
Special
Education
Leadership
The Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education
A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
Articles
Superintendents Commentary:
May You Live in Interesting Times ........................................................................74
Jennifer Esler Reeves, Ed.D.
CASE IN POINT: Same Song and Verse or Will the Melody Change? ....................76
Kenneth E. Schneider, Ed.D.
ISSN 1525-1810
Editorial Board
Editor
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
Review Board
Dr. Kenneth M. Bird
Westside Community Schools
Omaha, NE
Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey
University of Southern Maine
Gorham, ME
Dr. Leonard C. Burrello
Indiana University Bloomington, IN
Dr. Colleen A. Capper
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dr. Jean B. Crockett
Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
Advertising
The Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference
announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products,
materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.
Permissions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without
permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material,
please write or call the editor.
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills-South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Copyright
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education in conjunction with Sopris West to
foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education
administration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the
responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by
adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the publisher.
42
Administrators Perceptions
of Special Education Law
Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D.
Waxhaw, NC
Beginning administrators perceptions of legislation affecting students with disabilities were surveyed.
Opinions were solicited with regard to knowledge and understanding of special education law and
satisfaction with administrative preparation in special education law as well as the perceived need for
additional training.
Most novice administrators did not believe they had sufficient knowledge of special education law.
Most novice administrators reported dissatisfaction with their administrative training and a need for
additional preparation in special education law.
More academic training in special education law appears warranted in efforts to provide effective
leadership in managing educational programs for students with disabilities.
Method
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of special education law among beginning
school administrators. A survey was used to sample
43
Law Perceptions
Participants
The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program
(PFP) has existed for more than five years to ensure
that the best, most highly qualified students are
selected for a preparation and qualification program in public school administration. These
individuals are selected based on a rigorous screening and agree to a four-year commitment to the
state of North Carolina following their graduation.
Each Principal Fellow receives a scholarship loan in
the amount of $20,000 per year of full-time study
for a total of $40,000 over two years. The funding
pays for tuition, fees, and living expenses while in
the program. The scholarship loan is repaid
through service as a school-based administrator
(assistant principal or principal) at a North
Carolina public school. Principal Fellows are
enrolled full time and must remain in good standing in an MSA program at a university
participating as an approved program site, complete a full-time internship in a public school
during the second year of the program, and participate in enrichment activities provided by the PFP.
While serving as an intern, a Principal Fellow
receives a stipend in addition to the scholarship
loan, equal to the 04 step on the state salary schedule for assistant principals. Enrichment activities
that supplement the MSA program focus on leadership development. These professional development
activities are offered at the state level through the
PFP office to all Principal Fellows as well as by the
individual university programs.
44
Procedure
The research was conducted using a descriptive/
comparative design. A cross-sectional survey was
administered to beginning school administrators.
The questionnaire was used to gather data on the
perceptions of special education law. Participants
were asked their perception of their level of knowledge for procedural safeguards in IDEA that govern
programs and services for children with special
needs. Demographic information was also solicited.
A single-stage sampling procedure was used to select
participants. Surveys were administered accordingly:
(1) 180 Principal Fellow graduates were mailed questionnaires from the North Carolina Principal Fellows
office; and (2) 84 student interns were administered
questionnaires during Internship/Seminar class at
their respective universities.
Law Perceptions
Analysis of Data
Frequency distributions were used to describe the
sample. Descriptive statistics were used to describe
the (1) perceived knowledge for special education
Results
Principal Fellows were almost divided equally as to
their perceived level of knowledge of special education law. While 52.5% perceived themselves to have
a moderate or significant level of knowledge of
special education law, 47.5% believed they had a
limited to basic level of knowledge. Specifically,
13.3% indicated a limited level, 34.2% a basic
level, 41.7% a moderate level, and 10.8% a significant level (see Table 1).
Table 1: Perceived level of knowledge of special education law
Level of Knowledge
Limited
13.3
16
Basic
34.2
41
Moderate
41.7
50
Significant
10.8
13
45
Law Perceptions
More than half (53.3%) of the Principal Fellows indicated a limited or basic level of understanding,
while 46.7% indicated a moderate or significant
level. Specifically, 40.0% of Principal Fellows indicated a moderate level of understanding, with
another 40.0% indicating a basic level of understanding. Percentages were lower at each of the
extremes, with 13.3% indicating a limited level
and only 6.7% indicating a significant level of
understanding for policies and procedures as mandated under IDEA.
The level of understanding that male and
female Principal Fellows had for special education
policies and procedures was similar. A high percentage of males and females indicated a basic or
moderate level of understanding for special education policies and procedures. A total of 84.4% of
the males indicated basic or moderate levels,
while 78.4% of the females perceived the same
levels. A lower percentage of male (15.6%) and
female (12.5%) Principal Fellows perceived their
level of understanding to be at the limited level.
Females (9.1%) were the only group that indicated
a significant level of understanding.
When Principal Fellows were asked to indicate
their need for administrative training in special education
law, the majority (47.5%) indicated an average need
for additional training. According to their responses, a
total of 34.2% indicated an above average or very
high need for additional training in special education
law. Ten percent of the Principal Fellows indicated a
very high need for additional training, while 24.2%
indicated an above average need for additional
training. Only 18.4% of Principal Fellows believed
additional training was not needed in special education law. Of this group, 14.2% indicated a below
average need, and 4.2% indicated a very low need.
The perceptions that male and female Principal
Fellows had for additional training in special education law are illustrated in Table 2. The majority of
both genders perceived an average or above
average need for additional training. Of females,
48.9% perceived an average need and 20.5%
perceived an above average need, compared to
43.8% of the males perceiving an average need
and 34.4% perceiving an above average need. A
higher percentage of females (11.4%) perceived a
46
5.7
.0
5
0
Below Average
Female
Male
13.6
15.6
12
5
Average
Female
Male
48.9
43.8
43
14
Above Average
Female
Male
20.5
34.4
18
11
Very High
Female
Male
11.4
6.3
10
2
Total
Female
Male
100.0
100.0
88
32
Law Perceptions
14.8
12.5
13
4
Below Standard
Female
Male
31.8
34.4
28
11
At Standard
Female
Male
37.5
40.6
33
13
Above Standard
Female
Male
13.6
12.5
12
4
2.3
.0
2
0
100.0
100.0
88
32
Conclusions
Effective leadership depends upon the acquired
knowledge and understanding that a principal has
for laws, policies, and regulations governing the system as well as a responsiveness that meets the needs
of the entire organization. Principals have a significant impact on the delivery of services for students
with disabilities as a result of their knowledge of the
laws that govern special education. For a buildinglevel administrator, special education law does not
authorize educational services based on individual
interpretation. Instead, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and its implementing regulations through specific legal provisions guide the
identification, evaluation, and placement of students
with disabilities. If those who train principals
university faculties and local school system
personnelare to provide skills necessary for the
effective administration of all educational programs,
then information about the knowledge and under-
47
Law Perceptions
References
Chapman, D., Sorenson, G., & Lobosco, A. (1987, April).
Public school administrators knowledge of recent Supreme
Court decisions affecting school practice. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association
Conference, Washington, D.C.
Eads, P. F., Arnold, M., & Tyler, J. L. (1995). Special education legislation affecting classroom teachers and
administrators. Reading Improvement, 32(1), 912.
Einstein, V. (1983). The nature and role of school law in public
school administration. Doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University.
Hines, T. S. (1993). Florida principals and designates
knowledge of special education law. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 55(07A), 1908.
Jaeger, R. M. (1997). Survey research methods in education.
In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.). Methods for research in education
(pp. 449478). Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Research Association.
48
This study examined the perceptions of special education administrators and principals on the impact of
requiring a minimum competency graduation examination for students with learning disabilities.
Administrators generally agreed that access to general education is important to success on the graduation exam.
Administrators felt that, as a result of the new graduation requirement, efforts will be made to promote
and support inclusive practices.
Administrators also agreed that, although they are important for student success on the exam, additional
resources will not be increased in the near future.
The overwhelming majority of administrators felt that repeated failure on the exam will contribute to
students with learning disabilities leaving school before graduating.
49
standards will lead to better instruction, the justification for requiring students with disabilities to pass the
exit exam is one of fairness. That is, if there are going
to be high standards, the content of these standards
must be the same for all students. It suggests a tough
stance with universal high expectations and accountability. Like many high-stakes examinations, the
intent of requiring the GQE is to improve education.
That is, programming and instruction will change as a
result of the testing requirement, and all students will
graduate with the skills that will translate into success
as an adult. It has been recognized, however, that students with learning disabilities differ in many
respects from students in general. No doubt most
readers are aware that the deficits that students with
learning disabilities demonstrate in reading and
mathematics can be extreme. Although by definition
having cognitive aptitude within a normal range, secondary students with learning disabilities are, on
average, four years behind their peers in basic reading and mathematics skills. Many of these students
skills will plateau between the 5th and 6th grade levels (Cawley & Miller, 1989; Deschler, Ellis, & Lenz,
1996; Smith, 1994). Researchers provide little evidence
as to the source of this plateau, and its possible that it
varies greatly from student to student. It may be due
to the inherent limitations of the student, the move
from instructional to compensatory models in high
school special education programs, poor instruction,
or a combination of all of the above.
50
Method
Participants
Surveys were mailed to 117 directors of special education responsible for secondary students with
disabilities in all Indiana special education planning
districts; all 358 high school principals in Indiana
also received a survey. Because some of the planning
districts are large enough to have more than one
administrator overseeing secondary programs, more
than one participant may have been sent a survey in
the larger districts. Of this initial sample, 58 directors
of special education (50%), representing 60% of the
planning districts, and 204 principals from 57% of
Indianas public high schools responded (n = 262).
Mean graduation and poverty rates for participating
high schools approximate those for the state as a
Students who meet course requirements, attend school
95% of the time, demonstrate test proficiencies, and
attempt the test when offered may receive a waiver to
the testing requirement.
2
Also referred to as the ISTEP+.
1
Graduation
Rate*
Percent
Students
Receiving Free
or Reduced
Lunch
Planning Districts
58
**
**
High Schools
204
88
22
SD
Survey Instrument
Two related surveys, one for directors of special education and one for principals (Manset & Washburn,
1998a, 1998b), were designed for this study, based on
an extensive review of the literature on minimum
competency examinations (Manset & Washburn,
2000). Surveys consisted of five major parts with a
total of 65 closed items. This study examines three
parts of the survey. Questions in these parts of the
survey pertained to the current and future impact of
requiring the passing of the GQE for graduation and
instructional practices and programming that predict
success on the exam. Respondents were required to
respond to statements by marking a 5-point Likert
scale, with 1 = strongly disagree or definitely false, 2
= disagree or probably false, 3 = neutral or neither
true nor false, 4 = agree or probably true, and 5 =
strongly agree or definitely true.
51
Table 2: Factors for survey items related to administrators perceptions of services or resources that will predict success on GQE
Factors
Eigenvalue
% Variance
8.25
41.2
Greater advocacy for inclusive programming on the part of special education teachers
Increased level of administrative support for all teachers teaching in inclusive settings
Additional professional development activities and training addressing inclusive school services
Increased level of special education support to general education teachers teaching in inclusive settings
Increased time in general education
Increased teacher knowledge and utilization of instructional accommodations
.820
.763
.758
.742
.708
.690
1.73
1.24
large number of items for the number of respondents, a conservative minimum loading of .6 was
used for each factor. Pair-wise deletion was used for
missing items. Items included in each factor were
combined by calculating mean responses across
items and respondents. T-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences
Loadings
8.6
.790
.699
.695
.643
.636
6.2
.691
.607
Table 3: Factors for survey items related to administrators perspectives of current and future impact of GQE
Eigenvalue
% Variance
4.12
34.2
.752
.707
.816
.687
1.61
1.12
1.12
52
Loadings
13.4
.687
.849
8.5
.844
.788
8.5
.746
Table 4: Factors for survey items related to administrators perceptions of the changes that will occur over the next 3 years in response to the GQE.
Eigenvalue
% Variance
6.32
30.1
.741
.725
.641
.623
.622
2.48
1.66
1.27
1.04
Results
Results are summarized here through a comparison
of mean responses from principals and directors of
special education. In addition, a descriptive summary of responses is provided here through the
reporting of percentage of administrators responding to the following three question types:
(1) Provisions of the following services or resources
predicts success on the GQE for students with learning disabilities; (2) As a result of the GQE, students
with learning disabilities currently/will in the
future...; and (3) The following are practices predicted to occur in the next three years in response
to the new GQE requirement....
Loadings
11.8
.783
.732
.719
.625
7.9
.894
.840
.790
6.1
.793
.756
5.0
.764
.729
tor groups differed on one factor related to the perceived impact of the GQE requirement on students
with learning disabilities and one related to changes
that would occur as a result of the new requirement.
Both groups generally agreed that repeated failure on
the GQE influenced student decisions to drop out, but
directors of special education were significantly more
likely to agree that repeated failure on the GQE influenced the decision to drop out.
There were also significant differences between
administrator groups on one of the factors related
to perceived changes that would occur in the next
three years as a result of the GQE requirement.
Principals were more likely to agree that there
would be an increase in staff and instructional
support as a result of the GQE requirement. While
neither group responded with general agreement
on this point, directors of special education
appeared much less optimistic that resources would
increase. The reader should note that, for each of
these factors, the standard deviations are fairly
large, indicating a range of perception.
53
Table 5: Means for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE on students with learning disabilities
Special Education
Director
Principal
M
SD
SD
3.59
3.84
2.74
.86
.82
1.62
3.75
3.82
2.87
.84
.66
1.14
2.02
2.99
3.26
3.92
.92
.83
.89
1.01
3.13
3.09
3.21
4.22*
.90
.83
.80
.75
3.45
3.18
4.17
3.66
2.96
.68
.87
.73
.83
.85
3.46
2.82*
4.02
3.06
2.85
.76
.75
.59
.61
.96
54
Table 6: Percentages for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE requirement on students with learning disabilities
Percentage of Administrator Responses
Strongly
Disagree/
Definitely
False
Disagree/
Probably
False
Neutral/
Neither
True nor
False
Agree/
Probably
True
Strongly
Agree/
Definitely
True
Missing
4.2
1.5
6.5
5.3
5.3
28.2
26.0
20.6
39.7
48.5
48.5
22.1
14.5
21.4
1.9
1.5
2.7
1.5
5.7
7.3
5.3
1.9
30.2
24.0
18.7
7.3
34.0
51.1
43.5
13.7
26.3
15.6
29.0
44.7
3.4
1.5
3.1
32.4
.4
.4
.8
0
1.1
2.3
.4
2.3
9.5
6.5
27.9
1.5
6.5
40.1
35.1
43.1
6.9
31.7
25.6
49.6
22.9
63.0
48.9
21.4
6.5
3.1
27.1
8.4
2.3
1.1
.8
1.1
2.3
1.1
Discussion
Although not universal, there is some agreement that
access to general education is important to success on
the GQE and that efforts will be made to promote
55
56
standards imposed by the state rather than the transition planning team. Students forced to attend
unproductive remedial courses that conflict with
more appropriate coursework in order to satisfy state
requirements are denied their right to individualized
instruction and to a curriculum that will best maximize their success once they graduate.
57
Conclusions
The increased prevalence of high-stakes testing
poses both challenges and opportunities for educators of students with learning disabilities. While
setting minimum, consistent standards is meant to
encourage improved education for lower-achieving
students, these standards may represent unrealistic
expectations for many students with disabilities. In
some cases, however, as indicated by administrators
responses, they may serve as the impetus for increasing the accessibility of the mainstream curriculum
for secondary students with LD. However, it cant be
assumed that secondary general education will
transform to the extent that students with learning
disabilities will be better educated than they currently are by special education programs.
Because the data here represent administrators
perceptions, rather than concrete evidence, findings
should certainly be viewed with caution. They also
only represent the experience in Indianas schools of
the introduction of a graduation exam requirement
that focuses only on reading/language arts and mathematics and may not translate to the experience of
other states. Despite these limitations, the issues
raised by this study clearly have serious implications
for students with learning disabilities and deserve
further research and careful scrutiny as we head more
deeply into the realm of high-stakes assessment.
58
References
Airasian, P. W. (1988). Symbolic validation: The case of
state-mandated, high stakes testing. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 301313.
Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children
with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track
toward comprehensive programming? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 250259.
Deschler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching
adolescents with learning disabilities: strategies and
methods, (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Gajar, A., Goodman, L., & McAfee, J. (1993). Secondary
schools and beyond: Transition of individuals with mild
disabilities. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for
tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learninganother look. Los Angeles:
Center for Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 738).
Indiana Department of Education. (1998). K12 school data,
1998. Available from the Indiana Department of
Education web site: http://dew.doe.state.in.us.
Linn, R. (2000) Assessments and accountability.
Educational Researcher, 29(2), 416.
MacMillan, D. (1991). Hidden youth: Dropouts from special education. Exceptional Children at Risk: CEC Mini
Library. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Children (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 339 168).
MacMillan, D., Balow, I., Widaman, K., & Hemsley, R.
(1990). A study of minimum competency tests and their
impact: Final report. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 360 803).
MacMillan, D., Widaman, K., Balow, I., Borthwick-Duffy,
S., Hendrick, I., & Hemsley, R. (1992). Special education students exiting the educational system. The
Journal of Special Education, 26, 2036.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (2000) Equity through
accountability?: Mandating minimum competency
exit exams for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
15(3), 160167.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998a). EXIT Survey for directors of special education (DSE-EXIT). Unpublished
survey, Indiana University-Bloomington.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998b). EXIT Survey for principals (P-EXIT). Unpublished survey, Indiana
University-Bloomington.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991). Effects of highstakes testing on instruction. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 337 468).
Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interdependence
of learner, task, and setting, (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put it to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5),
811.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Anderson, C. L. (1995).
High school graduation requirements: Whats happening for
students with disabilities? Report No. 20. Minnesota:
National Center on Educational Outcomes. [online]
Available: http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO/
OnlinePubs/Synthesis20.html.
59
The shortage of special education teachers threatens the quality of education that is provided to students
with disabilities.
Attrition plays a part in the teacher shortage problem, since these teachers must be replaced, often after
just a few years of teaching.
Efforts to increase teacher retention must be informed by an understanding of the factors that contribute
to attrition.
Eight recommendations to improve special educators' work environments and increase retention are provided.
ne of the greatest challenges I faced as a supervisor of special education in the 1980s was
recruiting and retaining qualified special education
teachers. At one point, an administrator in the urban
system that employed me asked, What's wrong?
Special education teachers are leaving in droves. I
wish I had known then what I have learned since
that time, that young, early career teachers are at the
greatest risk of leaving. Grissmer and Kirby (1987)
showed that teacher attrition patterns for both general and special educators followed a U-shaped
curve, with high levels of attrition among younger
teachers, lower attrition for teachers during the middle career years, and higher levels again as teachers
reach retirement age. Special education teachers in
our urban system were relatively young and inexperienced compared to the established cadre of general
educators. But age wasn't the only factor. Sometimes
I felt like we were the training ground for new special educators, who would later compete for
positions in the better paying and more desirable
suburban districts that surrounded us.
Today, securing a qualified special education
teaching force remains a major challenge for many
school districts. The shortage of special education
teachers has not lessened over the last two decades,
and predictions are that shortages will grow worse
(Smith et al., 2002). Recent data suggest that roughly
60
ten percent of current special educators are not qualified for their positions (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2000), and approximately 30% of beginning teachers are not certified for their main
assignments (Billingsley, 2002a).
Recently, Carlson (2001) found that administrators indicated that a shortage of qualified applicants
is the greatest barrier to finding special educators.
Local school administrators reported job openings
for 69,249 special educators in the 19992000 school
year. As of October, 1999, over 50,000 special educators were newly hired. However, at the same time,
more than 12,000 special education positions were
left vacant or filled by a substitute because of the
lack of suitable candidates.
Unfortunately, teacher attrition is a major contributor to the teacher shortage problem. Attrition
rates are estimated to be at about seven percent for
those who transfer to other positions and about six
percent for those who exit their positions (Boe,
Barkanic, & Leow, 1999). Although general and special educators exit teaching at similar rates, special
education teachers are significantly more likely
than general educators to transfer to other teaching
positions (Boe et al., 1998). Further, special educators are about ten times more likely to transfer to
general education than the reverse (Boe et al., 1998).
As Ingersoll (2001) suggests, the teacher shortage
Researchers in the 1990s began investigating factors that are related to attrition in larger-scale studies
using more comprehensive conceptual models
(Billingsley, 1993; Brownell & Smith, 1993). We know
that teachers leave for many different kinds of reasons, some of which are unrelated to work.
Although a range of factors influence attrition,
including personal, demographic, teacher qualifications, and work-related factors (see Billingsley,
2002b, for a recent review of the literature), the focus
of this paper is on work environment factors that
influence attrition and retention. This paper is
organized around eight major recommendations
for policy-makers and administrators.
61
One of the most important actions that administrators can take to reduce attrition is to provide
support during the early stages of special educators' careers when they are most likely to leave.
Induction programs need to address the specific
support needs of beginning teachers. Recent studies
show that special educators view informal assistance
as more helpful than more formalized mechanisms
(A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, SPeNSE,
2002; Billingsley, 2002a; Whitaker, 2000), although we
do not know why this is the case. Since beginning
teachers indicate the need for emotional support
62
63
64
The Challenge
The research on attrition and retention clearly points
to specific areas that will improve work conditions
as well as increase retention. It is time to address the
challenge of creating better work environments for
special educators. Special educators need to feel
that their work is meaningful, and they must be
able to focus their attention on helping their students
succeed. The most important actions that school districts can take to reduce attrition is to hire qualified
teachers, pay them well, and create work environments that are characterized by supportive
relationships, reasonable role expectations, and
opportunities for professional growth. It is especially
important to focus on early career special educators,
since they are the most likely to leave. Attention to
these eight recommendations should not only
improve attrition, it should lead to better outcomes
for students with disabilities as well.
References
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in
special and general education. A critical review of the
literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27(2),
137174.
Billingsley, B. S. (2002a). Beginning special educators:
Characteristics, qualifications, and experiences. SPeNSE
Factsheet. Retrieved March, 2002, from
www.spense.org.
Billingsley, B. S. (2002b). Special Education Teacher Retention
and Attrition: A Critical Analysis of the Literature,
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on
Personnel Studies in Special Education.
65
Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Naomi Alt,
N. (1997). Teachers in the 1990s: Profile of a Profession
(NCES 97-460). Berkeley, CA: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
A High-quality teacher for every classroom (n.d.). SPeNSE
Factsheet. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from
www.spense.org.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages
and the organization of schools (Document R-01-1).
University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Kilgore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special
educators: Problems of practice and the influence of
school context. Teacher Education and Special Education,
21(3), 155173.
Littrell, P., Billingsley, B., & Cross, L. (1994). The effects of
principal support on special and general educators'
stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health,
and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special
Education, 15, 297310.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S.W. (1999). Factors
that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional
Children, 65 (2), 201218.
Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake,
G. (1995). Attrition/retention of urban special education
teachers: Multi-faceted research and strategic action planning. Final performance report, Volume 1. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 154)
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1988). The
influences of salaries and opportunity costs on
teachers career choices: Evidence from North
Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3).
Paperwork in special education (n.d.). SPeNSE Factsheet.
Retrieved January 9, 2002, from www.spense.org.
Quicho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence:
Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of
Educational Research, 70(4), 485528.
66
67
68
Method
Participants
Questionnaires were mailed to 420 current special
education teachers selected from Kansas State Board
of Education records. In Kansas, teachers are listed
according to the classification of students with whom
they are reported to be working. Equal numbers
(n = 70) were randomly selected from each of the six
largest classificationsBehavior Disorders, Early
Childhood Special Education, Gifted, Learning
Disabilities, Mental Retardation, and Interrelated. The
last of these, Interrelated (multicategorical), was not
included in the earlier study because it was not a
common classification at that time. Now, however,
teachers in Interrelated programs comprise the largest
classification. Teachers in low incidence classifications
were not included in the current study because their
numbers were too small to permit statistical analyses.
Three weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up
was sent to nonrespondents. Within six weeks 301
(71.4%) completed questionnaires were returned.
This return rate was nearly as high as the 78.6%
(n = 601) in the earlier study and provided a representative sample that was sufficient to perform
relevant statistical analyses.
Questionnaire
Participant characteristics. Recipients of the questionnaire were asked to respond to questions included
in two sections. In the first section were questions
about themselves, including age, amount of professional preparation, certification status, and amount
of experience in both general and special education.
They were asked about conditions of their jobs,
including their primary service delivery model (selfcontained, resource, consulting, itinerant, other), age
level of the majority of their students (early childhood, primary, intermediate, middle school, high
school), and the colleagues with whom they work
(paraeducators, team teachers). Also, participants
were asked to characterize the locale of their
school(s) as urban, rural, or suburban.
In addition, participants were asked:
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by your
school administrators?
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by your
special education administrators?
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by other
teachers?
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by your
students parents?
Results
Participants
Of the 301 returned questionnaires, three were from
persons who were not currently in teaching roles.
These were deleted, resulting in an effective sample
of 298. Return rates from the six disability classification groups were similar and ranged from 61.4% for
teachers of students with BD to 77.1% for teachers of
students who are gifted. Most participants were
69
70
School
Administrators
Special Ed
Administrators
Teachers
Parents
60.4
23.2
16.4
76.9
3.0
20.1
68.8
19.5
11.7
59.7
22.0
18.3
Table 2: Correlations between burnout measures and ratings of support from special education administrators, school administrators, other
teachers, and students parents
Burnout Measure
Ratings
Source of Support
School
Administrators
Emotional Exhaustion
Depersonalization
Personal Accomplishment
Special Ed
Administrators
-.28***
-.22**
.21**
-.26***
-.13*
.13*
Teachers
Parents
-.19**
-.35***
.18**
-.22***
-.07 (NS)
.28***
from teachers (r = -.19). The highest negative correlations between DP and support were for parents
(r = -.35) and school administrators (r = -.22). PA
was most highly correlated with support from parents (r = .28) and least correlated with support from
special education administrators (r = .13).
71
Discussion
Major Findings
Support and burnout. It is encouraging that, as a
group, participants gave high marks to all four
potential sources of supportschool administrators,
special education administrators, other teachers, and
students parents. For the sample as a whole, there
were no significant differences in mean ratings of
support from each source. However, a closer examination did reveal differences in the distribution of
ratings for each source of support. For example,
support ratings of special education administrators
represent a somewhat bi-modal distribution, with a
high percentage (76.9) given high ratings, a smaller,
but relatively high percentage (20.1) rated low, and
very few (3%) rated average. Fewer school administrators, teachers, and parents were considered to
provide either high or low levels of support.
Although a majority of special educators believe
they are well-supported by colleagues and parents,
the sizable proportions who rated support below
average or poor are a concern. It would be unreasonable to expect a Lake Wobegon effect where
everyone is judged above average. However, even
though low ratings were given to just 12% of teachers, 16% of school administrators, 18% of parents,
and 20% of special education administrators, these
numbers are cause for concern, because perceived
lack of support is closely related to teacher burnout.
72
References
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in
special and general education: A critical review of the
literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 137174.
Boe, E. (1995). Retention, transfer, and attrition of special
and general teachers in national perspective. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 158).
Boe, E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. A., & Terhanian, G. (1997).
The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and
general education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 21, 121.
Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1993). Understanding
special education teacher attrition: A conceptual
model and implications for teacher educators. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 16, 270282.
Center, D. B., & Callaway, J. M. (1999). Self-reported job
stress and personality in teachers of students with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 25, 4151.
The Council for Exceptional Children (1999, June/July).
Special educators share their thoughts on special education teaching conditions. CEC Today, 5(9), 1, 5.
Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). Testing a model of
special educators intent to stay in teaching.
Exceptional Children, 60, 411421.
73
Superintendents Commentary
May You Live in Interesting Times
Jennifer Esler Reeves, Ed.D.
Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida
74
75
CASE IN POINT:
Same Song and Verse or Will the Melody Change?
Kenneth E. Schneider, Ed.D.
Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida
76
teachers, let alone qualified teachers trained in special education, can be recruited to take a position in
any one school district and stay there. Thirty years
ago, salaries offered by districts were probably not
the sole determinant in the decision-making of a
prospective employee as it often is today. One can
only begin to wonder about the amount of a signing
bonus in 1977, when the salary was only $12,200.
With the evolution of special education during
the past 2530 years came litigation, placing
educators in the compromised position they find
themselves in today. Additional rules and regulations
resulting from litigation at the federal and state levels
caused changes at the local school district level.
Whether it was the increase in number of forms to
be completed or the unending threats by parents to
pursue legal action, teachers and, to some extent,
administrators have reached their limit and have
begun to question the purpose of special education.
Too often teachers are spending more time in IEP
meetings, in-service training, and in filling out forms
than on instructing students. There is no question
that the amount of time available for teaching has
diminished over time and has fallen into the hands
of those less prepared. Not only has the instructional
time of the most qualified teachers diminished, but
also their energy has been misguided into activities
that may have little or no impact on improving student learning. We are far too involved with the
process of educating students and not the engagement of learning itself. Often general and special
education teachers and principals ask me to participate in question and answer sessions on, as an
example, topics such as Am I allowed to say this to
a parent? And too often I hear, I can work with the
child, but the legal requirements are constraining.
The other culprit that teachers face is the continual procedural changes that take place in our field.
The latest entry to impact our teachers is minimum
competency tests (MCT) for graduation. In this issue
of JSEL, Manset-Williamson and Washburn have conducted a survey on the impact of requiring a
minimum competency examination for students with
learning disabilities. Their results and discussion will
prove invaluable as teachers and administrators
begin to see the impact on students with disabilities.
As discussed in the article, there is both positive and
negative potential for students with disabilities,
depending on the direction taken by teachers and
administrators. In Florida, the high-stakes testing
data on most students with disabilities are disaggregated from the schools statistics. A negative result
due to disaggregating might be an increase in referrals to have students staffed into special education.
The better the scores, the higher the grade assigned
to the school and, therefore, the more status and cash
rewards. Likewise, those low-performing/lowgraded schools risk negative media, teachers fleeing
to other schools, and, possibly, the loss of funding
and students to private schools in the form of vouchers. If the desire is to increase the performance of
students with disabilities on MCTs, then the issues of
increasing student time in the general education setting and the need for additional resources will need
to be discussed. The question of whether the amount
of instruction geared toward passing a MCT meets
the future needs of students with disabilities must
also be considered. Add to the issue of MCT the
allowance or not of accommodations, and you have
the potential of additional legal precedents.
77
78
79
80
Review Process
Selection of manuscripts for publication is based
on a blind peer review process. However, all
manuscripts are screened first by the editor. Those
manuscripts that do not meet the manuscript
requirements, or that are not consistent with the
purpose of the journal, are not forwarded for peer
review. The author is either notified that the manuscript is not acceptable for the Journal of Special
Education Leadership or requested to make changes in
the manuscript so that it meets requirements. Copies
of the manuscript are not returned to the author in
either case.
Manuscripts that are consistent with the purpose
of the journal are sent out for peer review. Reviewers
will not know the identity of the author.
Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of Special
Education Leadership editor will communicate the
results of that review to the author. The decision
that is communicated to the author will be one of
the following:
Acceptable, with routine editing
Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor
Unacceptable
When a decision is made that a manuscript is
unacceptable for the Journal of Special Education
Leadership, it may be recommended that it be sent
to a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This
recommendation does not mean that the manuscript
would be automatically accepted by a Division
journal; the manuscript would have to go through
the review process again.
Author Checklist
Before sending a manuscript, please complete the
Author Checklist below. This will help ensure that
your manuscript is not screened out or returned
before review.
Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of
the journal.
Manuscript is no longer than 15 pages total.
Manuscript conforms to APA format (see
Appendix B of APA Publication Manual,
4th edition, 1994).
Send 5 copies of manuscript and file copy on a
3 1/2 floppy disk to:
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
Journal of Special Education Leadership
175 Hills-South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript
will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of your
manuscript will occur within 6 weeks.
81
Subscribe to the
Journal of Special Education Leadership
Photocopy and mail to:
CASE
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
If you are already a member of
CASE, you will automatically receive
the Journal of Special Education
Leadership as part of your membership. However, you can subscribe if
you are not a member of CASE.
Subscription Notes:
The Journal of Special Education
Leadership is published by the
Council of Administrators of
Special Education in conjunction
with Sopris West
Copy requests should be made to
CASE at the address above
For more information on this journal or other Sopris West publications and services, visit our
website at www.sopriswest.com
Single copies may be purchased.
Orders in multiples of 10 per
issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate.
Call CASE for membership
information: (800) 585-1753
or (478) 825-7667.
Or visit our website at
http://www.casecec.org
Council of Administrators
of Special Education
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
MasterCard
VISA
Ship to:
Name ______________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Phone ______________________________________________________
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 489