burnout among special education teachers

7/23/2019 Burnout Among Special Education Teachers

1/48

Volume 15, Number 2November 2002

Journal of

SpecialEducation

LeadershipThe Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education

A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children

Articles Administrators Perceptions of Special Education Law ..............................................43

Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D., and Bob Algozzine, Ph.D.

Administrators Perspectives of the Impact of Mandatory GraduationQualifying Examinations for Students with Learning Disabilities ............................49

Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., and Sandra Washburn, M.A.

Improving Special Education Teacher Retention: Implicationsfrom a Decade of Research............................................................................................60

Bonnie S. Billingsley, Ed.D.

Burnout Among Special Education Teachers and Perceptions of Support ................67

Robert H. Zabel, Ph.D., and Mary Kay Zabel, Ph.D.

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.


2/48

Editor

Dr. Mary Lynn BoscardinUniversity of Massachusetts at

Amherst

Assistant to the Editor

Heather GouklerUniversity of Massachusetts atAmherst

Board of Associate Editors

Dr. Patricia AnthonyUniversity of Massachusetts-LowellLowell, MA

Dr. Judy MontgomeryChapman University Orange, CA

Dr. Carl LashleyUniversity of North Carolinaat Greensboro

Dr. Edward Lee VargasHacienda La Puente UnifiedSchool DistrictCity of Industry, CA

Review Board

Dr. Kenneth M. BirdWestside Community SchoolsOmaha, NE

Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey

University of Southern MaineGorham, ME

Dr. Leonard C. BurrelloIndiana University Bloomington, IN

Dr. Colleen A. CapperUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. Jean B. CrockettVirginia Tech Blacksburg, VA

Dr. Pia DurkinBoston Public SchoolsDorchester, MA

Dr. Margaret E. GoertzUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PA

Ms. Charlene A. GreenClark County School DistrictLas Vegas, NV

Dr. Susan Brody HasaziUniversity of VermontBurlington, VT

Dr. Robert HendersonUniversity of IllinoisUrbana-Champaign, IL

Dr. William Hickey

Avon Public Schools Avon, CTDr. Dawn L. HunterChapman University Orange, CA

Dr. Shirley R. McBrideCanadian Government Victoria, BC

Dr. Harold McGradyDivision of Learning DisabilitiesColumbus, OH

Dr. Jonathan McIntireOrange County Public SchoolsOrlando, FL

Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlinUniversity of Maryland

College Park, MDDr. Tom ParrishAmerican Institutes For ResearchPalo Alto, CA

Dr. David P. RileyThe Urban Special EducationLeadership CollaborativeNewton, MA

Dr. Kenneth E. SchneiderOrange County Public SchoolsOrlando, FL

Dr. Thomas M. SkrticUniversity of Kansas Lawrence, KS

Dr. William Swan

University of Georgia Athens, GADr. Martha ThurlowNational Center on EducationalOutcomes, University ofMinnesota Minneapolis, MN

Dr. Deborah A. VerstegenUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville, VA

Dr. David WoodFlorida Southern CollegeLakeland, FL

Dr. Jim YatesUniversity of Texas at Austin

CASE Executive Committee 20022003

Brenda Heiman, President

Steve Milliken, President-Elect

Beverly McCoun, Past President

Christy Chambers, Secretary

Cal Evans, Treasurer

Emily Collins, Representativeof CASE Units

Thomas Jeschke, Representative to CEC

Cheryl Hofweber, CanadianRepresentative

Eileen McCarthy,Membership ChairJerry Hine, Policy & Legislation Chair

Mary Lynn Boscardin,Journal Editor

John Faust, Publications andProduct Review Chair

Jim Chapple, ProfessionalDevelopment Chair

Luann Purcell, Executive Director

Editorial Board

The Editorial Mission

The primary goal of theJournal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administratorsand researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based onrecent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. TheJournal of Special Education Leadership is a journaldedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy issues. It is a refereed journal that directlysupports CASEs main objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of specialeducation administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields.Articles for theJournal of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing specialeducation service delivery systems, as well as reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on spe-cial education that is significant. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, andimmediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.

ISSN 1525-1810


3/48

SubscriptionsTheJournal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Educationin conjunction with Sopris West. Copy requests should be made to CASE, 615 16th Street NW, Albuquerque,NM 87104. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at areduced rate. Members receive a copy of theJournal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membershipfee. See back cover for subscription form.

Advertising

TheJournal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conferenceannouncements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products,materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.

Permissions

TheJournal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes withoutpermission 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, EditorJournal of Special Education Leadership175 Hills-SouthSchool of EducationUniversity of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

Copyright

TheJournal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education adminis-tration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education in conjunction with Sopris West tofoster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special educationadministration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copy-righted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is theresponsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth byadopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution with-out permission from the publisher.

Published in partnership with:Sopris West Educational Services4093 Specialty PlaceLongmont, CO 80504

Phone: (303) 651-2829Fax: (888) 819-7767www.sopriswest.com

Journal of Special Education LeadershipVolume 15, Number 2


4/48

42Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

In July 2002,A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families, also known as theCommission Report, was released. This report was written by the Commission on Excellence in Special

Education, created by President George W. Bush on October 2, 2001 (Executive Order 13227). This reportcomes on the heels of the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is now heraldedas the driving force behind IDEA reauthorization. Several concerns regarding the future mission andstructure of special education are raised in this report, with few solutions offered.

NCLB and the Commission Report will continue to shape the role of administrators and the way servicesare provided for students with disabilities. With the passage of NCLB there will be an even greater need forbuilding principals to have more than just a passing understanding of special education. Principals willneed to have a working knowledge of the law as it relates to special education and of the accommodationsthat make the curriculum accessible to students with disabilities. The intent is to increase the number of stu-dents with disabilities passing statewide assessments and graduating from high school.

A major recommendation of the Commission Report is to require that only highly qualified teachers edu-cate our students with disabilities. However, the report says nothing about highly qualified administrators.

Administrators must develop programs that fulfill the professional growth and development needs of theseteachers to increase retention of the best and brightest. This means that administrators must also be amongthe best and brightest. They must be able to cultivate a learning environment that provides every singleteacher with the support they need to achieve the optimal performance of their students.

The authors of the articles in this issue ofJSEL address some of the concerns raised in the CommissionReport, though this was not their intention.

This issue includes articles by Drs. Donica N. Davidson and Bob Algozzine, Dr. Genevieve Manset-Williamson and Ms. Sandra Washburn, Dr. Bonnie Billingsley, and Drs. Robert H. Zabel and Mary Kay Zabelthat address some of the issues raised by the Commission Report. Dr. Ken Schneider provides a special educa-tion directors point of view for Case in Point and Jennie Reeves provides a superintendents perspective.

The CASE Executive Committee and I always welcome your feedback regarding each issue ofJSEL. We

hope you enjoy this issue of the journal.

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., [email protected]

A Letter from the Editor


5/48

Administrators Perceptionsof Special Education Law

Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D. Bob Algozzine, Ph.D.Waxhaw, NC University of North Carolina at Charlotte

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.


Law permeates every facet of our public schools(Eads, Arnold, & Tyler, 1995; Riehl, 2000;Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000). The politi-cal and social ramifications of our legal system havechanged over time, and this change is reflectedthroughout our educational system. Special educa-tion has been particularly affected by these trends(Eads et al., 1995; Einstein, 1983; Hines, 1993,Russell, 1990; Schmidt, 1987; Ysseldyke et al., 2000).Current practices in special education are driven inpart by laws that have established a provision of ser-vices to students with special needs. Mandates thatrequire complete compliance in educational servicesfor students with disabilities have dramaticallyaltered the role of building level administrators(Eads et al., 1993; Yell, 1998; Ysseldyke et al., 2000).

Over three decades, the changes in federal poli-cies and guidelines have increased the principalsresponsibility from managing programs for childrento regulating educational services for students withdisabilities (Riehl, 2000; Sage & Burrello, 1994;Ysseldyke et al., 2000). Today, the principal mustunderstand laws that govern special education.Ongoing audits of the schools compliance with fed-eral and state mandates for special education

require knowledge in practices and procedures(Osborne, Dimattia, & Curran, 1993). If they donthave such knowledge, principals often render infe-rior leadership and decision-making that commitsdistrict resources to inappropriate and legally liable

situations (Smith & Colon, 1998).In order to meet professional obligations andprotect the rights of all individuals involved, publicschool administrators must possess a basic under-standing of special education school law and how itimpacts their respective schools and school districts.The knowledge of special education law is critical tothe building-level administrator when managingspecial education programs because judicial conse-quences result when decisions are not in compliancewith federal mandates. This study posed the follow-

ing question: What is the perception and level ofknowledge of special education law among begin-ning administrators?

Method

The purpose of this study was to describe the per-ceptions of special education law among beginningschool administrators. A survey was used to sample


6/48


Law Perceptions

opinions and to maximize the generalization of thefindings to the widest possible population.

Participants

The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program

(PFP) has existed for more than five years to ensurethat the best, most highly qualified students areselected for a preparation and qualification pro-gram in public school administration. Theseindividuals are selected based on a rigorous screen-ing and agree to a four-year commitment to thestate of North Carolina following their graduation.Each Principal Fellow receives a scholarship loan inthe amount of $20,000 per year of full-time studyfor a total of $40,000 over two years. The fundingpays for tuition, fees, and living expenses while inthe program. The scholarship loan is repaid

through service as a school-based administrator(assistant principal or principal) at a NorthCarolina public school. Principal Fellows areenrolled full time and must remain in good stand-ing in an MSA program at a universityparticipating as an approved program site, com-plete a full-time internship in a public schoolduring the second year of the program, and partici-pate in enrichment activities provided by the PFP.While serving as an intern, a Principal Fellowreceives a stipend in addition to the scholarship

loan, equal to the 04 step on the state salary sched-ule for assistant principals. Enrichment activitiesthat supplement the MSA program focus on leader-ship development. These professional developmentactivities are offered at the state level through thePFP office to all Principal Fellows as well as by theindividual university programs.

The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program

(PFP) has existed for more than five years to ensure

that the best, most highly qualified students areselected for a preparation and qualification

program in public school administration.

A group of these specially prepared beginningadministrators (n = 264) participated in this research.One hundred and eighty graduates of Masters ofSchool Administration programs and 84 students in

a full-time internship under a master principal wereincluded. For the purpose of comparing subgroupsin the study, the sample was divided into fourcohorts: (1) Cohort 138 subjects, graduated fouryears ago, (2) Cohort 267 subjects, graduated threeyears ago, (3) Cohort 376 subjects, graduated twoyears ago, and (4) Cohort 484 interns projected tograduate at the end of the then current school year.

The positions held by most Principal Fellowswere either assistant principal (54%) or intern (31%).Small cadres of principals (9.2%) and lead teachers(2.5%) were among the group. The majority of therespondents were Caucasian (83%). Most of therespondents were females (73.3%). Principal Fellowswere mainly grouped in the 30 to 39-year-old(40.8%) and 40 to 49-year-old (37.5%) age categories.There were a few Principal Fellows in age categories

at opposite ends of the spectrum20 to 29 (15.8%)and 50 to 59 years (5.8%). Almost the entire group ofPrincipal Fellows was certified in regular education(89%) and not special education (6%); however, afew were certified in both regular and special educa-tion (5%). The majority of Principal Fellows servedin their current administrative assignment for onlyone to two years but spent from five to ten years inboth teaching and administration (58%). The major-ity of the females (58%) were assigned to elementaryschools, in contrast with the males, who were evenly

distributed between the elementary, middle, andhigh school levels.

Procedure

The research was conducted using a descriptive/comparative design. A cross-sectional survey wasadministered to beginning school administrators.The questionnaire was used to gather data on theperceptions of special education law. Participantswere asked their perception of their level of knowl-edge for procedural safeguards in IDEA that govern

programs and services for children with specialneeds. Demographic information was also solicited.A single-stage sampling procedure was used to selectparticipants. Surveys were administered accordingly:(1) 180 Principal Fellow graduates were mailed ques-tionnaires from the North Carolina Principal Fellowsoffice; and (2) 84 student interns were administeredquestionnaires during Internship/Seminar class attheir respective universities.


7/48


In an effort to obtain a high rate of return on theinterns questionnaire, the senior author contactedthe directors of the Principal Fellows Program ateach university and explained the research project.Permission was requested to contact the professorresponsible for the Internship/Seminar during thespring term. The senior author then contacted theprofessor and requested assistance in administeringthe survey during a class session. If the professorrequested assistance in administering the survey,the senior author attended the seminar and gath-ered the data. If the professor agreed to administerthe survey during a seminar class, the senior authormailed to the university a package containing thequestionnaires, endorsement letters, and directionsfor each student. A self-addressed, return envelopewas provided to the professor for return of com-

pleted questionnaires. Extra envelopes were sentwith the survey package for any student who mayhave been absent and would need to complete thesurvey at a later date.

Instrument. A mail survey that took approxi-mately 2530 minutes to complete was the primarydata source for this study. An instrument originallydeveloped in 1986 for the purpose of surveyingsuperintendents knowledge in special education lawand later revised to access principals knowledge wasadapted for this study (Robertson, 1996). Changes

were made to meet 1997 revisions to IDEA and makethe information applicable to local standards.The questionnaire also contained items soliciting

demographic information, including current posi-tion in public schools, professional experience,administrative experience, and certification area.This information was used in comparative analysisto determine if relationships existed betweenselected characteristics and knowledge of specialeducation law. A 5-point Likert-type scale was usedfor participants to indicate opinions as to their (1)level of knowledge of special education law, (2)

level of need for administrative training in specialeducation law, and (3) level of satisfaction for previ-ous administrative training in special education law.

Analysis of Data

Frequency distributions were used to describe thesample. Descriptive statistics were used to describethe (1) perceived knowledge for special education

law among beginning administrators, (2) need foradministrative training in special education law, and(3) satisfaction from previous training in special edu-cation law. Descriptive and inferential statistics wereused to examine relations between demographiccharacteristics and perceptions of knowledge.

Results

Principal Fellows were almost divided equally as totheir perceived level of knowledge of special educa-tion law. While 52.5% perceived themselves to havea moderate or significant level of knowledge ofspecial education law, 47.5% believed they had alimited to basic level of knowledge. Specifically,13.3% indicated a limited level, 34.2% a basiclevel, 41.7% a moderate level, and 10.8% a signifi-

cant level (see Table 1).

The difference in perceptions that male and femalePrincipal Fellows had concerning their level of knowl-edge of special education law was relatively small.The majority of both groups perceived their level ofknowledge to be at the basic or moderate levels,with 50.0% of the males indicating a basic level and37.5% indicating a moderate level. However,females perceived their level of knowledge to behigher, with 43.3% of females indicating a moderate

level and 28.4% indicating a basic level. Also, morefemales (13.6%) perceived their level of knowledge tobe significant, compared to only 3.1% of males.

When asked to indicate their level of under-standing for policies and procedures as mandatedunder the IDEA, the percent distribution among lev-els was similar to the Principal Fellows perceptionof their level of knowledge of special education law.

Law Perceptions

Table 1: Perceived level of knowledge of special education law

Level of Knowledge % n

Limited 13.3 16

Basic 34.2 41

Moderate 41.7 50

Significant 10.8 13


8/48


More than half (53.3%) of the Principal Fellows indi-cated a limited or basic level of understanding,while 46.7% indicated a moderate or significantlevel. Specifically, 40.0% of Principal Fellows indi-cated a moderate level of understanding, withanother 40.0% indicating a basic level of under-standing. Percentages were lower at each of theextremes, with 13.3% indicating a limited leveland only 6.7% indicating a significant level ofunderstanding for policies and procedures as man-dated under IDEA.

The level of understanding that male andfemale Principal Fellows had for special educationpolicies and procedures was similar. A high per-centage of males and females indicated a basic ormoderate level of understanding for special edu-cation policies and procedures. A total of 84.4% of

the males indicated basic or moderate levels,while 78.4% of the females perceived the samelevels. A lower percentage of male (15.6%) andfemale (12.5%) Principal Fellows perceived theirlevel of understanding to be at the limited level.Females (9.1%) were the only group that indicateda significant level of understanding.

When Principal Fellows were asked to indicatetheir need for administrative training in special educationlaw, the majority (47.5%) indicated an average needfor additional training. According to their responses, atotal of 34.2% indicated an above average or veryhigh need for additional training in special educationlaw. Ten percent of the Principal Fellows indicated avery high need for additional training, while 24.2%indicated an above average need for additionaltraining. Only 18.4% of Principal Fellows believedadditional training was not needed in special educa-tion law. Of this group, 14.2% indicated a belowaverage need, and 4.2% indicated a very low need.

The perceptions that male and female PrincipalFellows had for additional training in special edu-cation law are illustrated in Table 2. The majority of

both genders perceived an average or aboveaverage need for additional training. Of females,48.9% perceived an average need and 20.5%perceived an above average need, compared to43.8% of the males perceiving an average needand 34.4% perceiving an above average need. Ahigher percentage of females (11.4%) perceived a

very high need for additional training as com-pared to males (6.3%).

When Principal Fellows were asked to rate theirsatisfaction with preparation they received in special

education law during their administrative training,the majority (46.7%) gave a rating below or wellbelow standard. While 38.3% of the PrincipalFellows rated their administrative training in specialeducation law to be at standard, 32.5% rated itbelow standard, and 14.2% rated it well belowstandard. Only 15.0% of all Principal Fellowsreported above standard (13.3%) or well abovestandard (1.7%) satisfaction.

The level of satisfaction male and femalePrincipal Fellows had for their administrative train-ing in special education law is presented in Table 3.

The majority of both males and females rated theiradministrative training in special education lawbelow or well below standard, with females giv-ing it the lowest rating. While 37.5% of all femalesand 40.6% of all males rated their training at stan-dard, 46.9% of males and 46.6% females rated theiradministrative training in special education lawbelow or well below standard. Only 28.4%

Law Perceptions

Table 2: Perceived need for additional training in special education

law (by gender)

Need for Training % n

Very Low

Female 5.7 5Male .0 0

Below Average

Female 13.6 12

Male 15.6 5

Average

Female 48.9 43

Male 43.8 14

Above Average

Female 20.5 18

Male 34.4 11

Very High

Female 11.4 10Male 6.3 2

Total

Female 100.0 88

Male 100.0 32


9/48


of male and female Principal Fellows rated theirtraining above or well above standard.

Conclusions

Effective leadership depends upon the acquiredknowledge and understanding that a principal hasfor laws, policies, and regulations governing the sys-tem as well as a responsiveness that meets the needsof the entire organization. Principals have a signifi-cant impact on the delivery of services for studentswith disabilities as a result of their knowledge of thelaws that govern special education. For a building-level administrator, special education law does notauthorize educational services based on individualinterpretation. Instead, the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act and its implementing reg-ulations through specific legal provisions guide theidentification, evaluation, and placement of studentswith disabilities. If those who train principalsuniversity faculties and local school systempersonnelare to provide skills necessary for theeffective administration of all educational programs,then information about the knowledge and under-

standing of special education law among schooladministrators must be of paramount importance.Otherwise, decisions that affect the educational pro-grams and services offered to students withdisabilities could be seriously jeopardized.Consequently, a school system could find itself in acompromising position and threat of litigation.

Analysis of the data collected in this study suggeststhat novice administrators, due to their lack of knowl-edge of special education law, may have difficulty inproviding leadership and effectively managing specialeducation. Principal Fellows, the most recent andallegedly most well-prepared school administrators inthe state, not only perceived themselves as having onlya limited to basic level of knowledge in special educa-tion law (47%) but also reported an even lower level ofunderstanding of special education law (53.3%).

Knowing ones level of knowledge and under-standing is critical in the application ofdecision-making. If a Principal Fellow believes he orshe has the knowledge and understanding of specialeducation law when actually he or she does not, thenhis or her rendering of decisions could vastly affectthe outcome of services. Interestingly, the data of thisstudy suggest that female Principal Fellows perceivedtheir level of knowledge and understanding of specialeducation law to be higher than the levels indicatedby male respondents. However, when given the

scenario-statements based on special education law,males scored at a higher level than did the femaleparticipants. Knowledge is power, and power enablesa person to provide either sound, competent leader-ship or leadership that is fragmented, confusing, and,often, debilitating. The level of knowledge of specialeducation law is a factor that could ultimately affectthe type of leadership a principal demonstrates in themanagement of educational programs and servicesfor students with disabilities.

In a review of case law, Chapman, Sorenson, andLobosco (1987) found that an increasing number ofparents and advocacy groups representing childrenwith disabilities sought relief from the courts for non-compliance of educational services provided in publicschools. Compliance issues over the services renderedto these students could be related to the level of knowl-edge school administrators have of special educationlaw. On a daily basis, principals and assistant princi-pals are required to make decisions that affect the lives,

Law Perceptions

Table 3: Satisfaction with administrative training in special

education law (by gender)

Satisfaction with Training % n

Well Below Standard

Female 14.8 13Male 12.5 4

Below Standard

Female 31.8 28

Male 34.4 11

At Standard

Female 37.5 33

Male 40.6 13

Above Standard

Female 13.6 12

Male 12.5 4

Well Above Standard

Female 2.3 2Male .0 0

Total

Female 100.0 88

Male 100.0 32


10/48


attitudes, and perceptions of others. Principals haveindicated their need for further training in special edu-cation law to improve their skills in the administrationand management of special education.

The complexity of special education law andvariation among administrators could lead to differ-ent interpretations that, in turn, could lead to avariety of problems. As a result, the leadership that aprincipal provides could have a ripple effect on allparties involved if the knowledge of special educa-tion law is below a minimal level. Without theknowledge and understanding of special educationlaw, managing the special education program couldbecome frustrating and challenging for the adminis-trator. Instead of managing special educationprograms at the building level, principals witha limited knowledge may avoid or even relinquish

their responsibility to others.

References

Chapman, D., Sorenson, G., & Lobosco, A. (1987, April).Public school administrators knowledge of recent SupremeCourt decisions affecting school practice. Paper presentedat the American Educational Research AssociationConference, Washington, D.C.

Eads, P. F., Arnold, M., & Tyler, J. L. (1995). Special educa-tion legislation affecting classroom teachers andadministrators. 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 designatesknowledge 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.: AmericanEducational Research Association.

Osborne, A., DiMattia, P., & Curran, F. (1993). Effectivemanagement of special education programs. New York:Teachers College Press.

Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principals role in creating inclusiveschools for diverse students: A review of normative,empirical, and critical literature on the practice of

educational administration. Review of EducationalResearch, 70, 5581.Robertson, L. R. (1996). Public school administrators knowledge

of special education law. Doctoral dissertation, FloridaInternational University.

Russell, R. F. (1990). Opinions toward and knowledge ofspecial education law: A survey of special educationadministrators. Dissertation Abstracts International,51(12A), 3984.

Sage, D., & Burrello L. (1994) Leadership in educational reform:An administrators guide to changes in special education.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Schmidt, D. M. (1987). Illinois school administrators

knowledge of special education law and regulations.Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(07A), 1614.

Smith, J. S., & Colon, R.J. (Jan.1998). Legal responsibilitiestoward students with disabilities: What every admin-istrator should know. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 4053.

Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Criticalissues in special education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

About the Authors

Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D., is an educational consul-tant at 3611 Tom Greene Road, Waxhaw, NC 28173.E-mail: [email protected].

Bob Algozzine, Ph.D., is a professor in theDepartment of Educational Leadership at theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,NC 28223. E-mail: [email protected].

Law Perceptions


11/48

Administrators Perspectives of the Impact ofMandatory Graduation Qualifying Examinationsfor Students with Learning Disabilities

Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., and Sandra Washburn, M.A.Indiana University

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.


State and district assessment programs have beena central part of public school reform for the lastfifty years (Linn, 2000). Accountability programsbased primarily on standardized tests were institutedin an effort to affect the content and quality of educa-tion. Ideally, educators and administrators could usetest results to inform decisions about the direction ofresources and instructional effort. Increasingly, highstakes have been attached to the exams. These stakesmay consist of the public posting of results, cash ben-efits or fines to schools, or loss of accreditation or oflocal control. High stakes are imposed on schools bypolicy makers as a way to control curricular contentand performance in schools. Politicians also use themas a relatively simple and inexpensive way todemonstrate a commitment to education and highstandards. Despite the proliferation of high-stakesexaminations, there is little evidence that this essen-tially carrot-and-stick approach to pedagogicalreform has improved public education and even lesson how it has affected students with disabilities(Airasian, 1988; Linn, 2000). Minimum CompetencyTests (MCTs) for graduation are an example of high-stakes exams where students experience theimmediate consequences. While MCTs for high

school graduation were first introduced in a fewstates in the 1970s, in the last few years, a new waveof interest in high standards has led to an increasingnumbers of states adopting minimum competencygraduation qualifying exams as a part of theiraccountability program (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). Inthis study, we examined administrators perspectivesof the impact of Indianas recently enacted minimumcompetency test, the Gateway QualifyingExamination (GQE), on the educational experiencesand outcomes of students with learning disabilities(LD). Of particular interest was whether administra-tors felt that the conditions created by the test wouldcontradict efforts to provide inclusive or appropri-ately alternative course offerings.

Minimum Competency Graduation

Qualifying ExaminationsUnlike tests that have high stakes for schools ordistricts, failing to pass a high school graduationexamination has great personal significance.Secondary students who do not pass these examina-tions and therefore do not receive a high schooldiploma have limited career and postsecondaryeducational options. Beyond the belief that high


12/48


standards will lead to better instruction, the justifica-tion for requiring students with disabilities to pass theexit exam is one of fairness. That is, if there are goingto be high standards, the content of these standardsmust be the same for all students. It suggests a toughstance with universal high expectations and account-ability. Like many high-stakes examinations, theintent of requiring the GQE is to improve education.That is, programming and instruction will change as aresult of the testing requirement, and all students willgraduate with the skills that will translate into successas an adult. It has been recognized, however, that stu-dents with learning disabilities differ in manyrespects from students in general. No doubt mostreaders are aware that the deficits that students withlearning disabilities demonstrate in reading andmathematics can be extreme. Although by definition

having cognitive aptitude within a normal range, sec-ondary students with learning disabilities are, onaverage, four years behind their peers in basic read-ing and mathematics skills. Many of these studentsskills will plateau between the 5th and 6th grade lev-els (Cawley & Miller, 1989; Deschler, Ellis, & Lenz,1996; Smith, 1994). Researchers provide little evidenceas to the source of this plateau, and its possible that itvaries greatly from student to student. It may be dueto the inherent limitations of the student, the movefrom instructional to compensatory models in high

school special education programs, poor instruction,or a combination of all of the above.

Like many high-stakes examinations, the intent of

requiring the GQE is to improve education.

Whether mandating a MCT will eliminate thebasic skill deficits of students with learning disabili-ties has not been determined. Researchers havefound that minimum competency graduation exams

have the potential for negatively affecting the educa-tional experiences of students with learningdisabilities (MacMillan et al., 1990; Manset &Washburn, 2000). For instance, some researchershave found an association between dropping out ofschool and the failure to pass MCTs. Students withlearning disabilities who drop out of school are atrisk for poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, andinvolvement in crime (Gajar, Goodman, & McAfee,

1993; MacMillan, 1991; MacMillan et al., 1992).

Because schools play an essential part in the transi-

tioning of students, when students with learning

disabilities are out of the educational system, the

support services associated with effective transition

are no longer accessible (Gajar, Goodman, &McAfee, 1993). Minimum competency tests are

related to a narrowing of the curriculum as well

(Herman & Golan, 1990; Shepard & Doughtery, 1991;

Smith, 1991). By mandating a graduating examina-

tion, students and teachers are aware of the

particular skills to be mastered in order to graduate.

On the other hand, while these skills represented a

standard for students in general, they were not nec-

essarily appropriate for those students with learning

disabilities who required an alternative curriculum

in order to successfully transition to adulthood. Thenarrow focus of the curriculum and required reme-

diation may have also countered attempts to include

students with learning disabilities fulltime in main-

stream classrooms, although we were not able to

find research that addressed this particular issue.

There is also little research on how graduation quali-

fying exams affect efforts towards full inclusion in

high schools.

In this study, the perceptions of administrators

on the issue of requiring minimum competencygraduation examinations for secondary students

with learning disabilities were collected and exam-

ined. Administrators provide an important

perspective on new policies because they have more

information on (and control over) resources, staffing,

and programming than the average educator. Their

birds eye view of programs allows them a unique

perspective from which to reflect on the impact of

the new graduation requirement. The following two

questions framed this study: (1) how do administra-

tors perceive that the new graduation requirementsimpact the educational experiences and outcomes of

students with learning disabilities; and (2) what

changes did administrators perceive were needed in

order to best support students in meeting these

requirements? These questions were addressed

through a survey of high school principals and

directors of special education.

Graduation Qualifying Examinations


13/48


Indianas Graduation Qualifying Examination

Beginning with the graduating class of 2000, Indianasecondary students must pass a minimum compe-tency test (MCT) in order to receive a high schooldiploma.1 The Indiana Gateway Qualifying

Examination (GQE)2

is designed to reflect the statelanguage arts and mathematics curriculum stan-dards. The GQE consists of items assessing languagearts skills up to the 9th grade level and mathematicsskills through basic algebra and geometry. Permittedaccommodations include extended time and thereading of the mathematics items to students withdisabilities. Students with learning disabilities mustread the language arts portion of the test themselves.As with students in general, students with learningdisabilities are required to pass the exam in order toreceive a diploma. Not surprisingly, a majority ofstudents with disabilities are finding it difficult topass the examination. Results from 1998 exam showthat almost three-quarters of students with disabili-ties scored below the proficiency level in both theEnglish/language arts and mathematics portions ofthe test (Indiana Department of Education, 1998).

Method

Participants

Surveys were mailed to 117 directors of special edu-cation responsible for secondary students withdisabilities in all Indiana special education planningdistricts; all 358 high school principals in Indianaalso received a survey. Because some of the planningdistricts are large enough to have more than oneadministrator overseeing secondary programs, morethan one participant may have been sent a survey inthe larger districts. Of this initial sample, 58 directorsof special education (50%), representing 60% of theplanning districts, and 204 principals from 57% ofIndianas public high schools responded (n = 262).

Mean graduation and poverty rates for participatinghigh schools approximate those for the state as a

whole (See Table 1). No other demographic data wascollected from respondents.

Survey Instrument

Two related surveys, one for directors of special edu-cation and one for principals (Manset & Washburn,1998a, 1998b), were designed for this study, based onan extensive review of the literature on minimumcompetency examinations (Manset & Washburn,2000). Surveys consisted of five major parts with a

total of 65 closed items. This study examines threeparts of the survey. Questions in these parts of thesurvey pertained to the current and future impact ofrequiring the passing of the GQE for graduation andinstructional practices and programming that predictsuccess on the exam. Respondents were required torespond to statements by marking a 5-point Likertscale, with 1 = strongly disagree or definitely false, 2= disagree or probably false, 3 = neutral or neithertrue nor false, 4 = agree or probably true, and 5 =strongly agree or definitely true.

Data Reduction and AnalysisWithin each of the three parts of the survey, the itemson the questionnaire were mathematically reduced tothe 12 factors reported here (see Tables 24 on pages5253). Factors were produced through a principalcomponents analysis with varimax rotation for eachportion of the survey. Only factors with a minimumeigenvalue of one were accepted. Because of the


1 Students who meet course requirements, attend school95% of the time, demonstrate test proficiencies, andattempt the test when offered may receive a waiver tothe testing requirement.2 Also referred to as the ISTEP+.

Table 1: Descriptive information for planning districts and high

schools represented in study

Percent

Students

Receiving Free

Graduation or Reduced

N Rate* Lunch

Planning Districts 58 ** **

High Schools 204

M 88 22

SD 7 8

* Percent of 12th grade students who graduate high school

** Not available


14/48


large number of items for the number of respon-dents, a conservative minimum loading of .6 wasused for each factor. Pair-wise deletion was used formissing items. Items included in each factor werecombined by calculating mean responses acrossitems and respondents. T-tests were used to deter-

mine the statistical significance of differences

between the responses of principals and directors ofspecial education. A descriptive summary ofresponses for participants as a whole is providedthrough the reporting of percentage of administra-tors. Bar charts illustrating the mean of responsetypes on factors are provided to support the

descriptive analysis.


Table 2: Factors for survey items related to administratorsperceptions of services or resources that will predict success on GQE

Factors Eigenvalue % Variance Loadings

(1) Increased Inclusive Programming and Support 8.25 41.2

Greater advocacy for inclusive programming on the part of special education teachers .820

Increased level of administrative support for all teachers teaching in inclusive settings .763

Additional professional development activities and training addressing inclusive school services .758 Increased level of special education support to general education teachers teaching in inclusive settings .742

Increased time in general education .708

Increased teacher knowledge and utilization of instructional accommodations .690

(2) Additional Staff and Instructional Resources 1.73 8.6

Additional paraprofessionals assigned to teachers that instruct students with learning disabilities .790

Decreases to special educators case loads .699

Limiting the numbers of students in inclusive classrooms to 20 or fewer .695

Increased availability of tutoring services within the community .643

More extensive use of Teacher Assistance Teams .636

(3) Special Education Pullout and Related Services 1.24 6.2

Increased time in pullout instruction .691

Increased special education related services (i.e., counselors, psychologists, etc.) .607

Table 3: Factors for survey items related to administratorsperspectives of current and future impact of GQE

Eigenvalue %Variance Loadings

(1) Less Vocational and Alternative Course Choice 4.12 34.2

Experience less choice of course selection (future) .752

Participate in fewer vocational or career preparation courses (future) .707

Enroll in less vocational or career preparation courses .816

Enroll in more courses that focus on basic academic skills .687

(2) Attend Summer School More Often 1.61 13.4

Are attending summer school more often (currently) .687

Will attend summer school more often (future) .849

(3) Increased Time in Resource or Pullout 1.12 8.5

Spend more time in resource or pullout (future) .844

Spend more time in resource or pullout (currently) .788

(4) Repeated Failure on GQE Influences Decision to Dropout 1.12 8.5 .746


15/48



Table 4: Factors for survey items related to administratorsperceptions of the changes that will occur over the next 3 years in response to the GQE.

Eigenvalue %Variance Loadings

(1) Increased Inclusive Programming and Support 6.32 30.1

Increased level of administrative support for teachers teaching in inclusive settings .741

Greater advocacy for inclusive programming on the part of special education teachers .725

Additional professional development activities and training addressing inclusive school services .641 Increased level special education support to general education teachers working in inclusion settings .623

Increased willingness of general education teachers to include students in their classrooms .622

(2) Additional Staff and Instructional Resources 2.48 11.8

Increased special education support services (i.e., counselor, psychologist, etc.) .783

Additional paraprofessionals assigned to teachers that instruct students with learning disabilities .732

Limiting the number of students in inclusive classrooms to 20 or fewer .719

Increased availability of tutoring services within the community .625

(3) Instructional Focus on GQE 1.66 7.9

Increased use of practice tests .894

Additional instruction in test-taking strategies .840

Increased availability and use of instructional materials that resemble the format of the tests .790

(4) Increase in Remedial Programming 1.27 6.1

Increased number of remedial courses .793

Mandatory ninth grade enrollment in remedial classes that focus on GQE preparation .756

(5) Decreased Time in Pullout Settings 1.04 5.0

Decreased time in pullout instruction .764

Increased time in general education .729

Results

Results are summarized here through a comparison

of mean responses from principals and directors ofspecial education. In addition, a descriptive sum-mary of responses is provided here through thereporting of percentage of administrators respond-ing to the following three question types:(1) Provisions of the following services or resourcespredicts success on the GQE for students with learn-ing disabilities; (2) As a result of the GQE, studentswith learning disabilities currently/will in thefuture...; and (3) The following are practices pre-dicted to occur in the next three years in response

to the new GQE requirement....

Responses of Principals vs. Directors of

Special Education

Principals and directors of special education weregenerally in agreement on their responses with theexception of two of the factors (see Table 5 on page 54and Figures 13 on pages 5657). The two administra-

tor groups differed on one factor related to the per-ceived impact of the GQE requirement on studentswith learning disabilities and one related to changesthat would occur as a result of the new requirement.Both groups generally agreed that repeated failure onthe GQE influenced student decisions to drop out, butdirectors of special education were significantly morelikely to agree that repeated failure on the GQE influ-enced the decision to drop out.

There were also significant differences betweenadministrator groups on one of the factors relatedto perceived changes that would occur in the nextthree years as a result of the GQE requirement.Principals were more likely to agree that therewould be an increase in staff and instructionalsupport as a result of the GQE requirement. Whileneither group responded with general agreementon this point, directors of special educationappeared much less optimistic that resources wouldincrease. The reader should note that, for each ofthese factors, the standard deviations are fairlylarge, indicating a range of perception.


16/48


Provision of the following services or

resources predicts success on the GQE for

students with learning disabilities

Approximately 63% of the respondents agreed thatincreased inclusive programming would enhanceGQE success for students with learning disabilities(see Table 6 on following page). In contrast, only24% agreed that increased special education pulloutor related services predicts success on the GQE forstudents with learning disabilities. Forty percent ofrespondents were neutral on this, indicating anuncertainty around this item or an inability to makea general statement about all students with LD or allprograms, since students with learning disabilitiesvary greatly in their needs and programs differ in

their effectiveness. Seventy percent agreed as wellthat additional instructional and staff resources con-tribute to success for students with learningdisabilities on the GQE.

As a result of the implementation of the

GQE, students with learning disabilities

currently or in the future will experience

the following...Respondents appeared split about whether studentswould experience less course selection and/or voca-tional preparation, with approximately 30% ofrespondents agreeing with and 36 % of respondentsdisagreeing with statements related to the factor (seeTable 6). Respondents also varied in agreement overwhether students with learning disabilities wouldspend more time in summer school, with half of therespondents indicating a neutral response. Therewas disagreement over whether students with LDwould spend more time in the resource room orpullout instruction as a result of the new graduationrequirement, with 32% agreeing and 24% disagree-ing with this statement. There was much moreagreement (82% probably to definitely true) that therequirement will influence students decision toleave school prior to graduation.


Table 5: Means for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE on students with learning disabilities

Special Education

Principal Director

M SD M SD

Predicts GQE Successa

Increased inclusive programming & support 3.59 .86 3.75 .84

Additional staff and inst. resources 3.84 .82 3.82 .66

Spec ed pullout & related services 2.74 1.62 2.87 1.14

Impact of GQE Requirement on Students with LDb

Less course selection/vocational program 2.02 .92 3.13 .90

Attend summer school more often 2.99 .83 3.09 .83

More time in resource/pullout 3.26 .89 3.21 .80

Failure on GQE encourages dropout 3.92 1.01 4.22* .75

Changes That Will Occur as Result of the GQE

Increased inclusive programming/support 3.45 .68 3.46 .76

Increased staff/instructional support 3.18 .87 2.82* .75

Increased instruction focused on GQE 4.17 .73 4.02 .59

Increased remedial programming 3.66 .83 3.06 .61

Decreased time in pullout settings 2.96 .85 2.85 .96

Note: a1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agreeb1 = definitely False, 2 = probably false, 3 = neither true nor false, 4 = probably true, and 5 = definitely true


17/48



Practices predicted to occur in the next

three years in response to the new GQE

graduation requirement

These factors related to changes administrators per-

ceived would occur over the next three years inresponse to the GQE requirement (see Table 6).Approximately 90% agreed that there would be anincrease in the instructional focus related to theGQE, including greater use of practice materials andinstruction in test-taking strategies. A majority (56%)agreed that there would be increased inclusive pro-gramming and support for students with learningdisabilities. Only 26% felt that there would be anincrease in instructional and staff resources. Fifty-five percent agreed that there would be increased

required remedial programming. Few (22%) felt thatthere would be a decrease in time spent in specialeducation pullout instruction.

Discussion

Although not universal, there is some agreement thataccess to general education is important to success onthe GQE and that efforts will be made to promote

and support inclusive practices. There was littleagreement, however, over whether students willspend more time in special education pullout pro-gramming as a response to the new graduationrequirements. While this finding is encouraging in

light of efforts to move to more inclusive program-ming, it is less clear as what it means for the role ofspecial education in preparing students for gradua-tion exams. On one hand, it may suggest littleconfidence or commitment to traditional special edu-cation programming as the appropriate means ofraising the basic skill levels needed in order to passthe approximately ninth-grade-level examination.This lack of confidence is found both with principalsand with directors of special education. On the otherhand, it may reflect the logistical realities, such as

problems with scheduling and accessing resourcesfor effective special education intervention. Success,therefore, will be contingent on whether an appropri-ate, individualized curriculum is offered to studentswith learning disabilities in general education class-rooms in a way that maximizes their learningpotential. This leads to questions that need to beaddressed in the age of increasing accountabilitythrough standardized testing.

Table 6: Percentages for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE requirement on students with learning disabilities

Percentage of Administrator Responses

Strongly Neutral/ Strongly

Disagree/ Disagree/ Neither Agree/ Agree/

Definitely Probably True nor Probably Definitely

False False False True True Missing

Predicts GQE Success

Increased inclusive programming & support 4.2 5.3 26.0 48.5 14.5 1.5

Additional staff and inst. resources 1.5 5.3 20.6 48.5 21.4 2.7

Spec ed pullout & related services 6.5 28.2 39.7 22.1 1.9 1.5

Impact of GQE Requirement on Students with LD

Less course selection/vocational program 5.7 30.2 34.0 26.3 3.4 .4

Attend summer school more often 7.3 24.0 51.1 15.6 1.5 .4

More time in resource/pullout 5.3 18.7 43.5 29.0 3.1 .8

Repeated failure on GQE influences decision to drop out 1.9 7.3 13.7 44.7 32.4 0

Changes That Will Occur as Result of the GQE

Increased inclusive programming/support 1.1 6.5 35.1 49.6 6.5 1.1Increased staff/instructional support 2.3 27.9 43.1 22.9 3.1 .8

Increased instruction focused on GQE .4 1.5 6.9 63.0 27.1 1.1

Increased remedial programming 2.3 6.5 31.7 48.9 8.4 2.3

Decreased time in pullout settings 9.5 40.1 25.6 21.4 2.3 1.1


18/48


Are General Educators Willing And Able To

Meet This Challenge?

For those students with learning disabilities whoare relatively high functioning and whose skills aresimilar to low-achieving students, additional reme-dial, basic skills courses may be appropriate. Infact, these courses may be more appropriate than

simply providing compensatory instruction. Thismay be particularly true for those students whosedisability is a result of a maturational lag or skilldeficit exasperated by poor instruction in elemen-tary and middle school. For these students, thegraduation examination requirement may indirectlyprove to enhance their educational experiences.However, those students with learning disabilitieswith the lowest reading skills levels entering high

school (anywhere from nonreaders to those reading

at a 3rd or 4th grade level) will require intensive

beginning reading instruction. The same scenario

repeats itself for mathematics. Many students will

not only require intensive instruction in algebra

and geometry but in the very basics of math com-

putation or problem solving. The challenge will be

for secondary general education programs to offer aform of basic intensive basic skills instruction that

will require radical changes in secondary preservice

training, curriculum, and redistribution of resources.

However, if students with learning disabilities can

be taught to read and solve math problems at this

grade level within the general education system,

why is this not occurring now?



19/48



Can We Maintain Individualized Programs?

There is also overwhelming agreement that instruc-tional materials will begin to more heavily resemblethe content of the GQE examination, suggesting thatthe exam will be a driving force in curricularchanges. While administrators anticipate that stu-dents with learning disabilities will attend moreremedial GQE-related courses, there are mixed per-ceptions about whether this will limit their courseselection or access to vocational programming.Schools and districts may vary in their alternativecourse offerings and in whether the schedules forremedial courses conflict with vocational/careerclasses. For those students for whom it does interferein appropriate programming as determined by theirtransition plan, the focus of a program is dictated by

standards imposed by the state rather than the tran-sition planning team. Students forced to attendunproductive remedial courses that conflict withmore appropriate coursework in order to satisfy staterequirements are denied their right to individualizedinstruction and to a curriculum that will best maxi-

mize their success once they graduate.

Will There Be Enough Resources To

Ensure Success?

While a large proportion of administrators agreedthat additional instructional and staff support, suchas paraprofessionals, reduced class size, and smallercaseloads, would contribute to the success of stu-dents with learning disabilities on the GQE, therewas little agreement that this would actually occur inthe next three years. Without needed resources, the

imposed standards are reduced to political posturingrather than a true commitment to improving instruc-tion for students with learning disabilities. Whileresources are provided to schools in order to provideGQE remedial courses, they are not necessarilydesigned to improve accessibility in the general edu-cation classroom for students with learningdisabilities.

Will Graduation Exams Push Students

out of School?

The overwhelming majority of administrators feelthat repeated failure on the GQE will contribute tostudents with learning disabilities leaving schoolbefore graduating. Currently, it is too early to havea clear indication of whether this will in fact be thecase. Inclusive programming, curricular changes,and support will become irrelevant issues if studentswith learning disabilities leave school early on intheir high school education. In addition, once stu-dents with learning disabilities are out of school,they are outside of the only legally dictated system

of supports that will aid their transition to adult-hood. There is more to gain from a secondarycurriculum than reading and math skills. Becausestudents with learning disabilities are less likely tocomplete school than their peers, they are particu-larly vulnerable to the pressures surroundingpassing of a graduation exam. As noted earlier, thestakes are particularly high for students with learn-ing disabilities. However, stakes may not be high


20/48


enough to encourage a school to refocus resourcesand priorities to meet the needs of a small propor-tion of students likely to drop out of schoolaltogether. In other words, no administrator orteacher will lose their job as a consequence of stu-dents with learning disabilities not passing thisexamination.

Conclusions

The increased prevalence of high-stakes testingposes both challenges and opportunities for educa-tors of students with learning disabilities. Whilesetting minimum, consistent standards is meant toencourage improved education for lower-achievingstudents, these standards may represent unrealisticexpectations for many students with disabilities. In

some cases, however, as indicated by administratorsresponses, they may serve as the impetus for increas-ing the accessibility of the mainstream curriculumfor secondary students with LD. However, it cant beassumed that secondary general education willtransform to the extent that students with learningdisabilities will be better educated than they cur-rently are by special education programs.

Because the data here represent administratorsperceptions, rather than concrete evidence, findingsshould certainly be viewed with caution. They alsoonly represent the experience in Indianas schools of

the introduction of a graduation exam requirementthat focuses only on reading/language arts and math-ematics and may not translate to the experience ofother states. Despite these limitations, the issuesraised by this study clearly have serious implicationsfor students with learning disabilities and deservefurther research and careful scrutiny as we head moredeeply into the realm of high-stakes assessment.

ReferencesAirasian, P. W. (1988). Symbolic validation: The case of

state-mandated, high stakes testing. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 301313.

Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional com-

parisons of the mathematical performance of childrenwith learning disabilities: Are we on the right tracktoward comprehensive programming?Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 22, 250259.

Deschler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teachingadolescents with learning disabilities: strategies andmethods, (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Gajar, A., Goodman, L., & McAfee, J. (1993). Secondaryschools and beyond: Transition of individuals with milddisabilities. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. M. (1999).High stakes: Testing fortracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.

Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of standardized test-ing on teachers and learninganother look. Los Angeles:Center for Research and Improvement. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 341 738).

Indiana Department of Education. (1998). K12 school data,1998. Available from the Indiana Department ofEducation 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 spe-cial education. Exceptional Children at Risk: CEC MiniLibrary. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse onHandicapped 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 theirimpact: Final report. Office of Special Education andRehabilitation Services, U.S. Department ofEducation. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 360 803).

MacMillan, D., Widaman, K., Balow, I., Borthwick-Duffy,S., Hendrick, I., & Hemsley, R. (1992). Special educa-tion students exiting the educational system. The

Journal of Special Education, 26, 2036.Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (2000) Equity through

accountability?: Mandating minimum competencyexit exams for secondary students with learning dis-abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,15(3), 160167.

Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998a). EXIT Survey for direc-tors of special education (DSE-EXIT). Unpublishedsurvey, Indiana University-Bloomington.



21/48



Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998b). EXIT Survey for princi-pals (P-EXIT). Unpublished survey, IndianaUniversity-Bloomington.

Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Services No. ED 337 468).

Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interdependenceof learner, task, and setting, (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Smith, M. L. (1991). Put it to the test: The effects of exter-nal testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5),811.

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Anderson, C. L. (1995).High school graduation requirements: Whats happening forstudents with disabilities? Report No. 20. Minnesota:National Center on Educational Outcomes. [online]Available: http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis20.html.

About the Authors

Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., is an associateprofessor of special education in the Department ofCurriculum and Instruction at Indiana University, ED3220, School of Education, Indiana University,

Bloomington, Indiana 47405.E-mail: [email protected].

Sandra Washburn, M.A., is a research associate at theIndiana Institute on Disability and Community atIndiana University, 2853 E. 10th Street, Bloomington,IN 47408. E-mail: [email protected].


22/48

Improving Special EducationTeacher RetentionImplications from a Decade of Research

Bonnie S. Billingsley, Ed.D.Virginia Tech

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.


One of the greatest challenges I faced as a super-visor of special education in the 1980s wasrecruiting and retaining qualified special educationteachers. At one point, an administrator in the urbansystem that employed me asked, What's wrong?Special education teachers are leaving in droves. Iwish I had known then what I have learned sincethat time, that young, early career teachers are at the

greatest risk of leaving. Grissmer and Kirby (1987)showed that teacher attrition patterns for both gen-eral and special educators followed a U-shapedcurve, with high levels of attrition among youngerteachers, lower attrition for teachers during the mid-dle career years, and higher levels again as teachersreach retirement age. Special education teachers inour urban system were relatively young and inexpe-rienced compared to the established cadre of generaleducators. But age wasn't the only factor. SometimesI felt like we were the training ground for new spe-

cial educators, who would later compete forpositions in the better paying and more desirablesuburban districts that surrounded us.

Today, securing a qualified special educationteaching force remains a major challenge for manyschool districts. The shortage of special educationteachers 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

ten percent of current special educators are not qual-ified for their positions (Council for ExceptionalChildren, 2000), and approximately 30% of begin-ning teachers are not certified for their mainassignments (Billingsley, 2002a).

Recently, Carlson (2001) found that administra-tors indicated that a shortage of qualified applicantsis the greatest barrier to finding special educators.

Local school administrators reported job openingsfor 69,249 special educators in the 19992000 schoolyear. As of October, 1999, over 50,000 special educa-tors were newly hired. However, at the same time,more than 12,000 special education positions wereleft vacant or filled by a substitute because of thelack of suitable candidates.

Unfortunately, teacher attrition is a major con-tributor to the teacher shortage problem. Attritionrates are estimated to be at about seven percent forthose who transfer to other positions and about six

percent for those who exit their positions (Boe,Barkanic, & Leow, 1999). Although general and spe-cial educators exit teaching at similar rates, specialeducation teachers are significantly more likelythan general educators to transfer to other teachingpositions (Boe et al., 1998). Further, special educa-tors are about ten times more likely to transfer togeneral education than the reverse (Boe et al., 1998).As Ingersoll (2001) suggests, the teacher shortage


23/48


problem will not be solved by recruiting thousandsof new people into teaching if, after a few shortyears, many of them leave.

Teacher retention is important not just because ofthe difficulty of finding replacements but because itmust also be a priority to improve the quality of ser-vices for students with disabilities. Murnane andcolleagues (1988) state:

Prior research indicates that teachers make markedgains in effectiveness during their first years in theclassroom. Consequently, reducing the frequency withwhich children are taught by a successive stream ofnovice teachers may be one step toward improving edu-cational quality (p. 343).

Researchers in the 1990s began investigating fac-tors that are related to attrition in larger-scale studiesusing more comprehensive conceptual models

(Billingsley, 1993; Brownell & Smith, 1993). We knowthat teachers leave for many different kinds of rea-sons, some of which are unrelated to work.Although a range of factors influence attrition,including personal, demographic, teacher qualifica-tions, and work-related factors (see Billingsley,2002b, for a recent review of the literature), the focusof this paper is on work environment factors thatinfluence attrition and retention. This paper isorganized around eight major recommendationsfor policy-makers and administrators.

Hire certified teachers

Certified teachers are more likely to stay or expressintent to stay than those who are not certified. In astudy of over 1,000 Florida special education teachers,Miller, Brownell, and Smith (1999) reported thatuncertified teachers were more likely to leave thanbeginning special educators. Two national studiesreported similar results. Carlson and Billingsley (2001)reported that uncertified special educators were morelikely to indicate plans to leave, than their certifiedcounterparts. Boe and colleagues (1999) found thatbeing a partly certified teacher was associated with ahigher level of switching. Further, in another study,Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, and Weber (1997)reported that turnover was associated with not beingfully certified in their main assignment for special andgeneral educators combined. In a recent study ofbeginning special educators, Billingsley (2002a)

reported that beginning special education teachers

who were not certified were more likely to indicate

intent to leave than those who were certified.

We do not necessarily know why fully certified

teachers are more likely to stay. One reason may be

that certified teachers have greater initial commit-ment since they completed the necessary

requirements to earn certification. Those teachers

who are not fully certified may still be looking for

positions that match their educational background.

Another possible reason that certified teachers may

be more likely to stay is that they are better able to

address the needs of students with disabilities, there-

fore feeling successful and reaping the intrinsic

rewards associated with special education teaching.

Use salaries and bonuses as

incentives to remain

Teachers with higher salaries are more likely to stay

than those who receive lower salaries. Boe et al. (1997)

reported that for a national sample of special and gen-

eral educators, moving and leaving decreased as salary

increased. Miller et al. (1999) and Singer (1993) also

found that special educators with higher paying jobs

were more likely to stay than those who earned lower

salaries. Henke, Choy, Chen, Geis, and Alt (1997)

suggest that compensation is important for teachers

weighing the tangible and intangible costs and

benefits of remaining in the teaching field or in a

particular district or school (VI-I).

Teachers with higher salaries are more likely to stay

than those who receive lower salaries.

Many districts use financial incentives to recruitteachers, such as cash bonuses and placement at a

higher step of the salary schedule (Carlson &

Billingsley, 2001). However, salaries do have equity

implications. Henke et al. (1997) suggest that those

districts and schools who cannot offer competitive

salaries are at a serious disadvantage when it comes

to hiring and retaining teachers.

Improving Special Education Teacher Retention


24/48



Develop responsive induction

programs to support beginning

special educators

One of the most important actions that administra-

tors can take to reduce attrition is to provide supportduring the early stages of special educators' careerswhen they are most likely to leave. The early careerperiod is often characterized as a survival periodin which optimism gives way to discouragementand disillusionment (Gold, 1996). This may beparticularly true for the high percentage of noviceteachers who are not qualified for the positions thatthey hold (Billingsley, 2002a).

Special educators face numerous responsibilitiesfor which they may not be adequately prepared,

such as managing paperwork and federal and statedemands, making accommodations for instructionand testing, developing and monitoring IEPs, andcollaborating with teachers, paraprofessionals, andother service providers (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992;Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998).Induction programs can help provide support toteachers with these challenging tasks (Rosenberg,Griffin, Kilgore, & Carpenter, 1997), and also helpto reduce attrition (Whitaker, 2000). Beginners whoreceive higher levels of support are more likelythan those with lower levels of support to see their

roles as manageable, believe that they are successfulin providing education to students with disabilities,and indicate that they can get through to even themost difficult students (Billingsley 2002a, p. 5).

One of the most important actions that adminis-

trators can take to reduce attrition is to provide

support during the early stages of special educa-

tors' careers when they are most likely to leave.

Induction programs need to address the specificsupport needs of beginning teachers. Recent studiesshow that special educators view informal assistanceas more helpful than more formalized mechanisms(A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, SPeNSE,2002; Billingsley, 2002a; Whitaker, 2000), although wedo not know why this is the case. Since beginningteachers indicate the need for emotional support

(Gold, 1996; Whitaker, 2000), these informal contactsmay also better foster these types of interactions.Another important aspect of supporting beginningteachers is to pair them with more experienced spe-cial education mentors, even if those mentors are inother buildings (Whitaker, 2000).

Create positive work environments

and systems of support

Research results in general and special educationsuggest that the climate of the school is importantto special education teacher attrition and plans toleave (A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom,SPeNSE, 2002; Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996;Miller et al., 1999). Overall, researchers found thatwhen teachers judged their school/district as an

overall good place to work, they were more likelyto stay in teaching. School climate is influenced by arange of variables, including the extent to whichadministrators and colleagues support one anotherin their teaching efforts.

Educational leaders are in a position to facilitate thedevelopment of collegial and supportive environments(Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Although administrators dohave critical roles in supporting teachers, it is limitingto think of support as something that one personprovides and another receives. Important to the

development of a positive school climate is reciprocityof support among special and general educators,administrators, parents, paraprofessionals, and otherservice-providers (Billingsley, 2002b).

Increase the level and quality of

administrative support

Defining administrative support is difficult since itis a global construct with many different dimen-sions. Littrell, Billingsley, and Cross (1994) found

that emotional support (e.g., showing appreciation,establishing open communication, taking an interestin the teacher) was perceived as most important tospecial educators. They also found that emotionalsupport and instrumental support (e.g., helpingteachers secure needed resources, space, and timefor teaching) correlated positively with both job sat-isfaction and school commitment. This suggests thatattention must be given to both the administrator-


25/48



teacher relationship and the specific ways thatadministrators assist teachers. The context of theworking situation is important to determining whatspecific supports are needed. Administrators needto take time to listen to teachers and assist themwith their needs.

The relationship between administrative supportand teacher retention is strong, regardless of the typeof methodology used in the study (Billingsley &Cross, 1991; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997;George, George, Gersten & Grosenick, 1995; Westling& Whitten, 1996). In a national study of teachers, Boeet al. (1999) reported that those who stay in their posi-tions are almost four times more likely than leavers tostrongly perceive administrators' behavior as support-ive and encouraging. Miller et al. (1999) also foundthat stayers gave higher scores for building level

administrative support than leavers. Schnorr (1995)reports that the number-one-rated incentive to stay inspecial education was a supportive principal (88%).High levels of principal support are associated withfewer role problems, greater job satisfaction andcommitment, and less stress (Cross & Billingsley,1994; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001;Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Although more of theattrition studies specifically address the relationshipof the principal to attrition, several studies suggestthat the lack of support of central administrators also

contributes to attrition (Billingsley & Cross, 1991;Billingsley, Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murray, &Hendricks, 1995; Gersten et al., 2001; Morvant,Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995).

Foster professional development to

encourage teacher effectiveness

Educational leaders can also support teachers byfacilitating their professional development.Professional development is critical to teachers'

involvement and growth, but it appears to influenceretention as well (Brownell, Smith, McNellis, &Lenk, 199495; Gersten et al., 2001; Morvant et al.,1995). In a study of teacher attrition in three urbansystems, Gersten et al. found that professional devel-opment opportunities had an indirect effect onteachers' intent to leave and a direct influence onteachers' commitment to the profession. Special edu-cators who perceived greater professional

development opportunities also experienced lessrole dissonance.

A recent national study (A High-Quality Teacherfor Every Classroom, SPeNSE, 2002), found that,although school districts support staff development(special educators averaged 59 hours of professionaldevelopment activities in 19992000), they do notreliably incorporate best practices, such as engagingteachers in the learning process or allowing time toplan how to implement new skills. Quicho and Rios(2000) discuss the need for responsive professionaldevelopment opportunities for teachers and suggestthat they be directed toward professional nurtur-ing, be systematic, and change over time asprofessional needs change (p. 522).

Structure teachers roles so they can

focus on student learning

Teachers are motivated by a primary goal helpingtheir students learn. Special educators' efforts to helptheir students are thwarted when their time becomesdominated by nonteaching tasks, such as paperworkand meetings. Many special educators do not seetheir roles as manageable, and role overload hasbeen linked to attrition, perhaps more than any otherfactor (Billingsley, 2002b)

burnout among special education teachers

Documents