Teacher Attrition in Special Education: Perspectives From the Field

Abstract

In the field of special education, attrition plays a major role in a persistent teacher shortage problem. Over the past few decades, researchers in general education and special education have investigated the various reasons why new teachers leave the field and ways in which they can be better supported to stay in their positions. Despite the increased focus on why new special education teachers leave the field, the knowledge related to teacher attrition in special education is still somewhat limited when compared with the field of general education. For example, previous research has heavily relied on survey research to understand teacher attrition, but these methods may limit some of the important information related to the complexity of why a teacher might leave the field or their job within the first few years. In this study, the authors conduct several Nominal Group Technique (NGT) focus groups to learn more about the perceived needs of new special education teachers. Focus groups are held with three specific groups, preservice special education teachers, new special education teachers, and school administrators to further investigate the potential differences in perceptions about the needs and roles of new special education teachers.

Keywords

teacher attrition new special education teachers teacher preparation

For decades, school districts and researchers alike have reported a persistently high attrition rate of new special education teachers (see Boe & Cook, 2006). This chronic shortage has created a “revolving door” in which many new special education teachers only stay for a few years before leaving (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). As a result, these teachers never become “experts” because they leave before they have developed a solid repertoire of research-based teaching practices (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Typically, those who leave are replaced by someone with less experience (i.e., another first-year teacher) or someone who may lack full qualifications to teach students with disabilities (e.g., provisional licensure; Billingsley, 2005). This, in turn, can negatively impact student variables and school functioning (T. Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). For example, if new teachers leave the teaching profession soon after entering and are repeatedly replaced by another first-year teacher, students on their caseload are more likely to be exposed to years of potentially ineffective teachers or ineffective teaching practices (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2003; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Likewise, the loss of experienced special educators can impact relationships and partnerships established with other professionals in the school (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Specifically, when a special education teacher leaves, partnerships with other educators (e.g., co-teachers) are severed and the new, incoming special educator must spend critical time and effort establishing and developing new partnerships with educators (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). In sum, high teacher attrition rates have a negative impact on several school variables, including the educational outcomes of students with disabilities.

Research has documented that new special education teachers leave the field for a variety of reasons. For example, many new special educators cite personal reasons such as leaving to start a family or relocating for a different job as the primary reason for leaving a job (e.g., Billingsley, Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murray, & Hendricks, 1995). Although these personal reasons do greatly influence the number of new teachers leaving the field each year, they are not necessarily factors that can be prevented. That is, there is likely nothing a school or district could do about a new teacher leaving for personal reasons. Many new special educators list factors such as their lack of appropriate knowledge or qualifications (e.g., those on provisional licensure) or working conditions in a school (e.g., too large of caseload, lack of respect in the building, lack of administrative support) as primary reasons for leaving a job. These factors are typically preventable and should be considered in discussions and research about teacher attrition.

Despite the increased focus on why new special education teachers leave the field, the knowledge related to teacher attrition is still somewhat limited. Specifically, the majority of research on special education attrition has used survey data to understand attrition. This somewhat limits the conclusions that can be drawn for several reasons. First, the design of survey research (e.g., Likert scales) can often force responders to select items with which they may not fully agree (e.g., choosing between Agree and Disagree). Second, some surveys do not allow for further explanation or additional information regarding the response that was selected. For example, in several studies related to teacher attrition, participants indicated having a mentor in their first year of teaching. As a result, these studies indicate that roughly 61% of new teachers receive formal mentoring (see Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, 2004). When school districts are asked about the mentors they provide, many have indicated that their mentors are not trained, the mentors may not teach in the same area in which their mentee is a teacher (e.g., a special education teacher paired with a general education mentor), or the mentors were teachers in other buildings (see Irinaga-Bistolas, Schalock, Marvin, & Beck, 2007), or mentors only in title but did not provide any mentoring, suggesting that the initial statistic of 61% may not be completely accurate or representative of the overall induction or mentoring programs first-year teachers receive. Finally, survey research provides a good starting point for our understanding but limits some of the important information related to the complexity of why a teacher might leave the field or their job.

Given these limitations, it is important that additional research using techniques beyond surveys investigates the complex reasons why new special education teachers are more likely to leave the field. In this study, we used a nominal group technique (NGT) series of focus groups to better understand the high attrition rates of new special education teachers. In this study, we included three specific groups that help to inform the understanding of teacher attrition and the potential differences in perception that may exist between these different groups. First, because nearly half of all special educators will not successfully complete the path from hopeful beginner (i.e., preservice teachers) to highly qualified experienced teacher (i.e., practicing special education teacher, see Billingsley, 2004), can preservice teachers accurately identify reasons why new special educators would leave the field? That is, are they already aware of the difficulties they may encounter in the field and if so, what changes occur between the time they are leaving their teacher preparation program and the first several years of teaching. Second, teachers in their first 3 years represent a critical time-period to understanding the attrition rate as several studies indicate that many special education teachers will likely leave within those first 3 years (see Mandlawitz, 2003). Using NGT focus groups can allow new special education teachers to elaborate on their experiences and responses in a way that survey research cannot and therefore help teacher preparation institutions and school districts learn more about the reasons why new special education teachers leave the field at such high rates. Finally, administrators may play an important role in the retention of special educators. Research suggests that one of the reasons new special education teachers leave the field is because they perceive a lack of support from administration in their buildings (see Billingsley, 2003). By including administrators in this study, we will be able to compare their responses with those of new special educators (and preservice special educators) to see whether there are any differences in perception. It is possible that there is a mismatch between expectations or perceptions among administrators and special education teachers that can inform teacher preparation, professional development, or new teacher supports.

Using these three groups, the research questions guiding this study were as follows:

Research Question 1: Why do new special education teachers leave the field?

Research Question 2: What roles/responsibilities are expected of first-year special education teachers?

Research Question 3: What supports are provided to new special education teachers?

Method

Setting

Three specific groups participated in this study: (a) preservice teachers (i.e., those in their student teaching/clinical experience within one semester of graduation); (b) special education teachers within their first 3 years of teaching; and (c) school personnel involved in the hiring or support of new special education teachers (e.g., principals). All participants were located in the Midwest within a 30-mile radius of two universities. Parameters were set on the locations in which participants were selected to make travel to and from the focus group locations manageable.

Participant Identification Procedures

All study procedures were approved by the University’s institutional review board (IRB). The three specific subgroups each had specific identification/inclusion criteria.

Preservice teachers

All potential participants in the preservice teacher group were students who attended the two universities participating in this study. Inclusion criteria for the preservice special education teachers included (a) teachers within 1 year of graduation (i.e., currently student teaching or in their last semester of coursework prior to student teaching) from local teacher preparation programs and (b) seeking licensure in special education.

New special education teachers

Potential participants for the new special education group were identified by searching the existing state databases for licensed special education teachers within the first 3 years of teaching. This initial list included all special education teachers in each of the two states who were within the first 3 years of teaching. Using this list, only those teachers who were working at a school within a 30-mile radius of one of the two participating universities were contacted for potential participation in focus groups. Inclusion criteria for participating in this study included (a) licensed special education teachers who were currently teaching and (b) had 3 or fewer years of teaching experience in the public school setting.

Administrators

Potential participants for the administrator group were identified by contacting administrative offices at school districts to identify appropriate administrators to contact within a 30-mile radius of the two participating universities. The school districts primarily recommended contacting district-level personnel (e.g., director of student services, Special education coordinator) who had more substantial knowledge of the specific ways in which new special education teachers were supported. Inclusion criteria for school personnel included any school staff (e.g., principals) involved in the hiring or support of new special education teachers within the past 5 years.

Participant identification

Lists of all possible participants for the three groups were created and used to select roughly 10 to 15 participants to invite per group, per institution using a random numbers table. The intent was to invite roughly 20 potential participants to five focus groups per group (i.e., three groups × five focus groups = 15 possible focus groups). The identification procedures yielded a sample pool of 271 possible participants: 39 preservice teachers, 205 new teachers, and 27 related school personnel. Of the 271 preservice, new, and related school personnel meeting eligibility across the two sites, 87 (32%) agreed to participate in scheduled focus groups, 34 (13%) declined or were not available (e.g., conflict of schedule), and 150 (67%) did not respond to the contact(s). Of the 87 potential participants agreeing to participate, 52 attended the focus groups: 22 preservice, 18 new teachers, and 12 administrative school personnel.

Focus Group Procedure

The 52 participants attended one of 13 scheduled 2-hour focus groups (five preservice, five new special education teachers, and three administrators; see Table 1 for participant demographics). Eight focus groups were held at one University and five at another based on state and institution population size (i.e., more focus groups were held in the state with a higher population). Each focus group had three to five participants in attendance. To promote attendance, the meetings were held at two different locations and during different times of the evening (e.g., 4:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m.) and week (e.g., Tuesday, Thursday). With the exception of location and time, all focus group procedures were held constant. First, participants were provided with a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting and asked to provide written consent. Second, participants were provided with a brief context for the focus groups by listening to a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation that included data related to attrition rates in special education. At the conclusion of the presentation, participants learned the procedures of the focus group and were allowed to ask questions.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

	Preservice teachers (n = 22)	New teachers (n = 18)	Administrators (n = 12)
Gender	5 male 17 female	3 male 15 female	3 male 9 female
Age (years)
Mean	24	27	44
Range	21-37	23-49	35-63
Years in current position
Mean	—	1.5	5
Range	—	1-3	1-15
Current position supports SWD	22	18	8

Note. SWD = students with disabilities.

NGT Procedures

Following the presentation and question and answer session, a modified NGT (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1986) process was conducted (i.e., the first six steps of the NGT). NGT is a structured focus group that combines both qualitative and quantitative method to collect feedback in a timely manner (Johnson & Turner, 2003). The NGT focus group method was selected over other techniques (e.g., individual interviews, survey) because focus groups provide participants with a safe environment where participants can build off of other’s ideas (expanding the depth of the response; Madriz, 2000) and are an effective method for gathering information where little research has previously been conducted (Fontana & Frey, 2005; Nelson, Jayanthi, Brittain, Epstein, & Bursuck, 2002).

The NGT focus group procedures consisted of a set of previously developed questions focusing on the training needs, supports, and perceived responsibilities of new special education teachers. NGT focus group procedures involved the completion of six steps as recommended by Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1986): (a) brainstorming and silent generation of ideas by participants about possible barriers to special education teacher retention and ideas for how to support new teachers, (b) reading aloud, recording, and display of generated ideas from the previous step, (c) group discussion of ideas for clarification, (d) categorization of ideas into themes, (e) a preliminary vote to identify high-priority ideas, (e) group discussion of preliminary vote, and (f) a final vote of ideas using a 1-5 ranking system to provide quantitative data (Delbecq et al., 1986).

Each focus group followed the same procedure. Following the brief description of purpose and procedures, each group was provided a set of three questions to be discussed in turn. Preservice teacher groups were asked, (a) Why do you think new special education teachers leave the field? (b) What roles do you expect to have during your first year as a special education teacher? and (c) What supports do you think you will be provided by your school district? New special education teacher groups (i.e., within in first 3 years of teaching) were asked, (a) Why do you think new special education teachers leave the field? (b) What roles did you have during your first year as a special education teacher? and (c) What supports were provided by your school district? Administrator groups were asked, (a) Why do you think new special education teachers leave the field? (b) What roles/expertise/knowledge do you expect of your new special education teachers? and (c) What supports do your school and district provide to new special education teachers?

Each question was presented one at a time. After the question was presented, the participants were asked to independently generate a list of responses to the questions on index cards (i.e., one response per card). The index cards were collected as the participants worked, and each response was typed onto a master list. When the master list was completed, it was projected to the group and discussion ensued. The goal of the discussion was to clarify and organize responses into five high-priority responses. If needed, the five priorities were discussed and clarified. Finally, the participants were given five more index cards to rank the five high-priority responses in order from first to last priority. These rankings were given the following points: responses ranked as priority one were given 5 points, responses ranked as priority two were given 4 points, responses ranked as priority three were given 3 points, responses ranked as priority four were given 2 points, and responses ranked as priority five were given 1 point. The item that received the most points across all similar groups was ranked Number 1, second most points was ranked number two, third most was ranked number three, fourth was ranked number four, and fifth number five (see Tables 2 to 4). All procedures were audiotaped and a note-taker was present to record all questions and ideas discussed during the focus groups.

Table 2.

Participant Generated Ideas and Item Rankings for Research Question 1: Why Do You Think New Special Education Teachers Leave the Field?

Items	Generated reasons			Reasons ranked^a
Items	Preservicen^b = 5	Newn^b = 5	Administratorn^b = 3	Preservice	New	Administrator
1. Stress related to too many responsibilities (i.e., overworked)	5	5	3	1	1	1
2. Lack of cooperation, recognition, and support from other teachers and administration	5	5	3	2	2	2
3. Large and high-maintenance caseload (e.g., students with significant needs)	5	4	0	5	4	—
4. Not enough training or professional development that addressed my needs as a new teacher	4	3	1	3	3	—
5. Paperwork	2	3	2	—	5	3
6. Time	1	1	1	—	—	—
7. No clear curriculum or road map for how to address students’ needs	3	1	1	—	—	5
8. Not enough knowledge of different disabilities (e.g., low incidence) or interventions to address their needs	2	1	0	—	—	—
9. New education initiatives that devalue the role of teachers or that teachers are not adequately prepared for (e.g., high-stakes testing, lack of union support, common core standards)	3	0	2	4	—	4

The item’s rank in top five for each focus group.

Number of focus groups in which the item was generated.

Table 3.

Participant Generated Ideas and Item Rankings for Research Question 2: What Roles Do You Think You Will Have During Your First Year (Few Years) as a Special Education Teacher?

Items	Generated reasons			Reasons ranked^a
Items	Preservicen^b = 5	Newn^b = 5	Administratorn^b = 3	Preservice	New	Administrator
1. Behavior management and crisis intervention	5	5	3	5	1	5
2. Communication with others	2	5	3	—	2	2
3. Manage/write IEP	5	4	3	1	4	—
4. Manage caseload (e.g., placement, accommodations and modifications, related services)	5	2	3	3	5	1
5. Support students in different capacities in all environments (e.g., interventionist, co-teacher)	4	2	3	4	—	—
6. Lesson planning and teaching	5	5	3	2	3	3
7. Assessment, formal and informal	3	4	1	—	—	—
8. Transition planning	1	0	1	—	—	—
9. Manage paraprofessionals	1	0	1	—	—	—
10. Attend professional development and specialized trainings	1	0	0	—	—	—
11. Manage paraprofessionals	1	0	1	—	—	—
12. Build relationships with co-teachers, students, and parents	2	0	3	—	—	4
13. Feeding, toileting, nursing, and general caretaking responsibilities	0	2	0	—	—	—
14. Advocate	0	0	1	—	—	—

Note. IEP = Individual Education Plans.

The item’s rank in top five for each focus group.

Number of focus groups in which the item was generated.

Table 4.

Participant Generated Ideas and Item Rankings for Research Question 3: What Supports Do You Expect to Receive During Your First-Year Teaching?

Items	Generated reasons			Items ranked^a
Items	Preservicen^b = 5	Newn^b = 5	Administratorn^b = 3	Preservice	New	Administrator
1. Mentor	5	5	3	1	2	1
2. Training specific to supporting students with disabilities (e.g., writing IEP, specialized curriculum, behavior management)	5	5	3	4	3	2
3. Training on district policies, pay, insurance	4	4	3	3	4	2
4. Paraprofessional(s) assigned to work with new teacher	4	4	0	—	1	—
5. Materials specific to job responsibilities (e.g., curriculum, computer software, handbook)	5	4	3	2	5	3
6. Teaching teams with planned meeting times	4	1	2	5	—	4
7. Extra preparation time	1	0	2	—	—	5
8. Support from other staff who is not the mentor	2	1	0	—	—	—
9. Smaller caseload to start	1	0	0	—	—	—
10. Services coordinator (e.g., assistance with scheduling meetings and other administrative tasks)	0	2	0	—	—	—
11. Consultants	2	1	0	—	—	—
12. Technical equipment (e.g., computers, copiers, software for student learning, assistive technology)	2	0	2	—	—	—

Note. IEP = Individual Education Plans.

The item’s rank in top five for each focus group.

Number of focus groups in which the item was generated.

Results

Participants

The 52 participants in this study were from two states in the Midwest. Of the 22 preservice teachers, 13 were from one participating institution. Within the 18 new teacher participants, 12 school districts were represented across the two states. Finally, within the 12 administrative school personnel, 10 school districts were represented.

Tables 2 to 4 include all the items (i.e., participant responses) generated by at least one focus group for each question. The number of items generated varied by each focus group. Each table provides information about the number of focus groups in which each item arose as well as the priority rankings associated with each item according to each group. The participants’ responses that were similar in content and nature, but worded differently, were collapsed into one item. Consequently, the points for those items were also combined. For example, for Research Question 1, some participants’ stated they felt “overworked,” and others stated they felt “stress due to the amount of work they had to complete.” These two responses were counted under item one “Stress related to too many responsibilities.” (see Table 2). The generated columns indicate the number of focus groups in which the associated item was presented. For example, in Table 2, Items 1 and 2 were generated in all focus groups. Item 3 was generated in all preservice teacher groups, four new teacher groups, and none of the administrator groups.

Research Question 1

Table 2 includes the nine items generated for Research Question 1 across all focus groups, as well as the number of focus groups that identified each item. Closer inspection of the item rankings reveals that responses to Research Question 1 were similar across teacher groups. All participants in these groups indicated that the top three reasons they thought new special education teachers leave the field were due first to “stress” (see Item 1), second to “lack of cooperation, recognition, and support from other teachers and administrators” (see Item 2), and third from a “large and high-maintenance caseload” (see Item 3). The fourth-ranked item differed between teacher groups. Preservice teacher ranked “new education initiatives” as the fourth most likely reason teachers leave the field (see Item 9), which was not ranked by new teachers. Preservice teachers ranked “large and high-maintenance caseload” to be the fifth most likely reason teachers leave the field (see Item 3), which was ranked fourth by new teachers. New teachers ranked “paperwork” to be the fifth most likely reason new teachers leave the field (see Item 5).

Although administrators shared the teacher groups perceptions on Items 1 and 2, they did not rank the third item. In fact, the administrator group did not generate the item “large or high-maintenance caseload” as a potential reason that new special education teachers would leave the field. The third ranked item by administrators was “paperwork” (see Item 5), which was ranked fifth by new teachers. The fourth-ranked item by administrators, “new education initiatives that devalue the role of teachers” (see Item 9), was ranked fourth by preservice teachers. The fifth ranked item by administrators, “no clear curriculum or road map for how to address students’ needs” (see item 7), was not ranked in the top five by either of the teacher groups.

Research Question 2

Table 3 includes the 14 items generated for Research Question 2 across all focus groups, as well as the number of focus groups that identified each item. Although the rankings of items for Research Question 2 varied, there were similarities in the top five items ranked. For example, all three groups identified “behavior management” (see Item 1) and “lesson planning and teaching” (see Item 6) in their top five roles a new special education teacher is likely to have during their first year. All new teachers and administrators generated Items 3 and 4 in all focus groups.

Although there were several items generated across all focus groups, there were several notable differences in item rankings. The preservice teacher group ranked “support students in different capacities in all environments,” whereas none of the other groups ranked that item (see Item 5). In addition, administrators ranked “build relationships,” which was not ranked by either of the teacher groups. Finally, preservice teachers ranked Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and lesson planning (two items that coursework heavily focuses on) as the largest anticipated roles or responsibilities they would have as a new teacher. New special education teachers ranked behavior management and communicating with others as their primary responsibilities during their first few years.

Research Question 3

Table 4 includes the 12 items generated for Research Question 3 across all focus groups, as well as the number of focus groups that identified each item. Although the rankings of items for Research Question 3 varied, there were similarities in the top five items generated. For example, all three groups identified “mentor” (see Item 1) and “training specific to supporting students with disabilities” (see Item 2).

There were a number of differences in item rankings for Research Question 3. First, the teacher groups did not rank any of the top five items similarly. Preservice teacher groups ranked “teaching teams with planned meeting times” which was not ranked by new teacher groups and only generated as an item in one new teacher group (see Item 6). New teachers ranked “paraprofessionals” as the number one support received, which was not ranked by either preservice or administrator groups (see Item 4). Administrators ranked “extra preparation time” in the top five supports provided, which was not ranked by teacher groups and only generated in one preservice group.

Discussion

Although it is clear that new special education teachers experience high amounts of stress, multiple responsibilities, and require systematic support or induction, research investigating the perceived needs of new special education teachers is still somewhat limited. Initial studies in this area have primarily relied on survey research that limits the responses (e.g., being required to select from predetermined responses). In this study, we report the findings from a pilot study investigating the perceived needs of new special education teachers as compared with two other groups of interest: preservice special educators and administrators who support new special educators. Specifically, a series of modified NGT focus groups was conducted with three groups: preservice special educators, special educators in the first 3 years, and administrators who hire or support new special education teachers.

Several important commonalities emerged across the different groups. Between the three groups there was considerable agreement among the top five items generated and ranked for each question. For example, all groups identified stress and lack of recognition or support as the major reasons why new special educators would leave the field. This is consistent with previous research investigating attrition in special education (see Billingsley, 2004; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Millser, 1997). In addition, all groups identified mentorship and specialized training as supports they receive (or expect to receive) during their first year of teaching. Finally, all groups identified the primary roles of special educators to include planning and teaching, managing behaviors, and crisis intervention (e.g., behaviors). Collectively, these commonalities are positive because it suggests administrators are aware of the some of the challenges, roles, and supports provided to and expected of new special education teachers and there is evidence to suggest that perceived support of administrators can help to alleviate some of the stress of new special education teachers (see Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001).

However, along with these common themes, some differences emerged across the different groups. First, administrators were less likely to list issues with caseload or lacking specialized training as reasons why special educators might leave their position. This was in contrast to both preservice and new special educators who indicated that both difficult caseloads and lack of training were top reasons why special educators would leave a job. Specifically, both preservice and new special educators indicated that heavy caseloads or those with higher numbers of high-needs students caused significant stress in day-to-day routines. Some participants indicated that specialized training related to high-needs students could have alleviated some of these stressors. For others, the number of students on their caseload contributed to difficulty with scheduling (e.g., paraeducator schedules, intervention/instruction schedules, IEP meetings) that impacted their ability to perform other job responsibilities or resulted in them needing to make hard decisions when crises arose. As one participant said, “I only have 2 arms and I can only be in one place at a time.” This difference among groups is a concern because research has documented that caseload is correlated to attrition rates in special education and severity of student needs can influence teacher perception of effectiveness (e.g., Russ, Chiang, Rylance, & Bongers, 2001).

Participants’ responses to Research Question 3 presented additional differences among teachers and administrators. For example, new special education teachers were the only group to indicate that being assigned a paraeducator was a major resource to help them with their first year. Specifically, new special educators listed paraeducators or assistants as the most important resource or support they were given in their first few years of teaching. This was in contrast to preservice teachers and administrators who indicated that mentoring was the most important support provided. This suggests that new special education teachers highly value the access to additional professionals who can help with their daily tasks and roles as opposed to a person to ask questions or seek support from, indicating that many of these new teachers are in “survival” mode and feel the need to complete the tasks in front of them, and paraeducators can help them address those tasks in a more practical and immediate way than a mentor can. Administrators should consider this when looking at budgets because it appears that new special educators may benefit as much from supports (e.g., time, paraeducators) to help them complete the tasks already in front of them, as opposed to new professional development, curricula, or training.

This finding is also an important consideration as previous research, both in general education and special education, suggested that providing a mentor was an effective way to support new teachers in developing skills and relationships that should result in lower attrition rates (see Billingsley, 2005; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). As a result, many states and districts quickly moved toward providing some type of mentoring to new teachers. From the preliminary findings in this pilot study, we suggest that mentors may not best fit within the first few years when teachers are more likely to be overwhelmed with new tasks asked of them. Based on this study, it is possible that new special education teachers view formal mentoring as another task to complete or something that negatively affects their ability to work on more pressing matters such as paperwork, lesson planning, and attending multidisciplinary team (MDT) and IEP meetings. These findings are somewhat aligned with findings from general education mentoring that suggest mentors did not have an affect on teachers in the higher need placements (e.g., low socioeconomic status [SES]; see Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). Together, these findings suggest that teachers in more challenging situations (e.g., special education, low-income schools, schools with high teacher attrition) may simply have more to learn because of the challenging situations they encounter in their positions. As a result, it is possible that second to fifth year mentoring may have a larger impact on attrition and student outcomes than first-year mentoring.

Another interesting difference across the three groups related to Research Question 2. Administrators listed “building relationships” as one of the top five tasks expected of their new special educators (i.e., the task of building relationships was one of the primary roles in which they expected to see their new special educators engaged), but this was not generated as an item with the new special educator focus groups and was only generated twice across the five preservice focus groups. This is an important difference in expectation to note for several reasons. First, this suggests that special educators may feel overwhelmed with the amount of time-sensitive tasks required of them (e.g., writing IEPs, teaching, scheduling, dealing with crises) and view building relationships as either an integral part of the tasks they are already completing (and therefore do not need to list this separately) or do not feel they have time to prioritize establishing and building relationships. Second, administrators may be expecting their new special educators to begin by building relationships with peers (e.g., co-teachers) and parents and are prepared to provide support for this by including them in meetings and professional development opportunities. Qualitative evidence from these focus groups suggests that preservice and new special educators viewed these as additional meetings that contributed to their overall stress. For example, one participant indicated that they attended so many meetings and they used evenings, weekends, and lunch to get other tasks done:

Some weeks I attend 3 different grade-level team meetings in addition to my own IEP or MDT [multi-disciplinary team] meetings, meeting with co-teachers, and meeting with paras and parents. I come to school early, I leave late, I schedule my “plan time” and lunch with meetings and feel like I’m never getting anything done.

Finally, several preservice teachers and new special educators indicated that they felt their administrators in their buildings were not as knowledgeable about special education as they had previously thought (i.e., prior to being in the field). For example, several participants discussed situations in which they approached their administrator to ask questions and were told to speak with other staff or administrators in the district office. The concern in this for the new special educators was that several of these questions were timely in nature (e.g., a behavior occurring, parent with a question) and the special educators felt that having to ask several people, including people not currently in the building, prolonged the incident (e.g., behavior) and contributed to an overall sense of frustration because they “had no one to turn to.” For example, one preservice teacher indicated that there was “nowhere for us to go, if we can’t figure it out, who do we go to?” This suggests that additional training on special education for all building administrators (e.g., principal) may be an important part in better supporting new special education teachers.

Implications

From the findings in this study, we identified several important implications. First, as expected, administrator responses differed from preservice and new special educators. Specifically, in most cases, administrators were able to identify the stresses experienced by special educators and potential supports that new special educators might need to be successful (e.g., more plan time, mentor support, reduced caseload) but felt limited in their ability to provide those supports because of resources. Adding to this struggle is the sheer volume of roles and responsibilities identified by participants, many of which may require additional support and training (e.g., teaching, managing IEPs, crisis intervention, managing challenging caseloads), especially during the first few years of teaching. These findings suggest a need for administrators to set clear expectations for special education teachers considering the school’s existing resources. In addition, new special education teachers may benefit from working with their administrators and mentors to adopt a balanced and realistic approach to the increasing demands of the profession.

Second, preservice responses were almost identical to new special educators in focus groups. This suggests that new special educators enter the field knowing the demands of the job but that the difficulty may come in experiencing these demands firsthand. This could in part be due to the type of classroom experiences teacher candidates are exposed to prior to their student teaching placement. Most field experiences are focused on developing specific skills and do not require teacher candidates to take full responsibility of their cooperating teacher’s duties until they student teach. This was supported by participant responses in the preservice focus groups. For example, several preservice teachers indicated that they never truly took full responsibility for their cooperating teachers’ caseload. These students noted that their cooperating teacher still completed many of the IEPs, progress reports, or assessments/progress monitoring while they assumed responsibility primarily for instruction. Overall, this suggests that while preservice teachers are aware of the demands, they may not realize how the weight of these responsibilities will impact their long-term commitment to the field. This finding supports the need for induction programs that provide a “bridge” between training and teaching in which both teacher preparation programs and schools work collaboratively to create realistic and meaningful experiences during the first-year(s) teaching. Based on the findings from this study, there are areas of professional development seemingly overlooked in mentorship programs. Support and training in skills related to time management, effective communication techniques, and relationship building would be areas in which new special educators would benefit during their first few years.

Another consideration for teacher preparation programs includes the intentional supporting of preservice teachers in understanding all the roles expected of special education teachers. It appears that the majority of field experiences in which preservice teachers engage are primarily focused on developing instructional techniques, assessment or reflection skills, or collaboration skills (see Darling-Hammond, 2014; McDonnough & Matkins, 2010). For general education teachers, this is appropriate as the primary roles they have are arguably to deliver content instruction, reflect on practices, assess knowledge, and work with others. For special education teachers, this study and others clearly identify the large number of roles and responsibilities expected of special education teachers. If preservice special education teachers are to truly understand what goes into the job of special education, careful planning of experiences that allow them to experience all the roles and responsibilities in which they might engage would allow them to identify questions they have and areas where further development or support might be needed rather than waiting until they are on the job to discover these. For example, field placements should ensure preservice special education teachers experience various types of responsibilities such as paperwork (e.g., IEP development, progress reports), running meetings, contacting parents, managing caseloads (e.g., data collection, instructional time, and support), and supervision and support of professionals such as paraeducators while college or university support is provided.

Because preservice teachers appear to be aware of the demands of the job, there is also a need for teacher preparation programs to consider supporting and developing some of the professional skills that may help new special education teachers. For example, time management, advocacy, and collaborative practices and skills are all areas in which preservice teachers could potentially receive additional instruction or support either through guided field experiences or imbedded within university instruction. Likewise, careful training and support for cooperating teachers in the field can help to ensure that field and clinical experiences provide future special educators with realistic classroom experiences.

One interesting consideration was that several teachers in the “new special educators” group spontaneously indicated that they were leaving their job after the first year. Specifically, of the 18 participants in the “new special educator” group, four from two different school districts (attending two different focus group sessions) indicated that they were already planning to leave their current job. Two were planning to transfer to different schools within the same district and two were leaving special education, one for counseling and one to pursue a BCBA and more one-on-one work with students with behaviors and mental health needs. All these participants indicated that school climate issues and “lack of general respect” were the reasons why they were planning to leave their current role. One of the teachers indicated that the job “was not what I thought. There are so many politics and so many unspoken expectations with no support. How am I supposed to get all these things done when no one is helping me.” Another indicated that she “got into the field to work with students. One-on-one work through interventions sounds more in-line with what I thought I would be doing.” Although these are simply observations in this small study, these observations support the previous research related to teacher attrition (see Billingsley, 2003, 2004; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008).

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. First, all the participants were from the Midwest. Although there were two different sites for the focus groups (i.e., Nebraska and Wisconsin), this could have limited the generalization of findings as school experiences and district needs can vary by region and state. Second, participants were limited to those within a 30-mile radius. It is possible that this excluded some participants who may have otherwise participated but were not included in the contact lists for this study. Third, a major limitation was that administrators who attended were primarily those who had a special education background. Specifically, when identifying participants at the administration level for this study, districts were asked to indicate several administrators (e.g., building principals, district personnel) who would be able to answer a few simple questions about supporting new special education teachers. The majority of districts identified district personnel such as Student Service Coordinators or Special Education Directors. Some districts also indicated that building administration would be unable to answer specific questions related to supporting special education teachers. This was unexpected in this study as the purpose was to better understand how all administrators, including building principals, understand the roles and supports for new special education teachers. As a result, the findings from this study are not representative of all administration as the majority of administrators in this study had some background in special education and therefore they likely had more knowledge related to special education. It is possible that a different set of responses would have been found if all types of administrators responded and elected to participate.

Finally, of our possible pool of participants, 52 participated in the focus group. In addition, the goal was for at least five participants to attend every focus group. There were several focus groups (across all three groups of participants) where only three participants attended. This limited number of participants could have influenced the amount of items generated during each session and therefore the amount of conversation about each question. Although many factors may have influenced the overall low-participation rate (e.g., lack of time to participate in a focus group), it is possible that the participating sample may have been those with more extreme perceptions or experiences. For example, those interested in participating may have extremely positive or negative experiences they were hoping to share in the focus group format. Replication of the current study using other methods (e.g., one-on-one interviews) may capture a more representative sample of the population or more representative responses regarding attrition and new special educators.

Future Research

Although this study helps to illuminate some of the struggles faced by new special education teachers and the differences in perception across preservice teachers, new teachers, and administrators, future research is needed to replicate and extend these findings. For example, replication of this study with larger samples from varying regions would help to further describe the perceived roles and expectations of new special education teachers while also understanding how these perceptions may differ when compared with administrators. Likewise, more information about the difference in perception between preservice and new special educators could help to determine programs or experiences that better prepare new special educators for the challenging job ahead. Second, future research should consider using the same questions with general education teachers to see whether they feel the same within their first few years or whether there are major differences between special education teachers and general education teachers and their perceptions of the first few years. Third, further investigation into the perception of supports provided to new special education teachers may help schools better target supports. For example, from the findings in this study, we suggest that some teachers may find additional meetings with grade-level or subject-level teams to add to the stress and responsibilities even though research suggests coplanning time is an important part of a successful collaborative relationship. Likewise, research previously suggested that first-year mentoring may have a positive impact on teacher retention (see Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Waterman & He, 2011). Further studies should investigate the timing of mentors (e.g., first year vs. second year) to identify whether teacher retention is impacted by factors such as longer mentoring periods (e.g., beyond 1 year), “scaffolded” mentoring (e.g., first focus on basics/logistics, then teaching/skill support), or by providing mentors during Years 2 to 5. Finally, additional information related to why special education teachers stay could also help to further our understanding of protective factors for new special education teachers. Future research should consider further investigating those special education teachers who stayed in their positions and their feelings related to their first few years of teaching.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jessica L. Hagaman is an associate professor at the University of Nebraska Omaha. Her current research interests include academic interventions for students who are at risk and those with disabilities, cognitive strategy instruction, and effective teacher preparation and teacher attrition.

Kathryn J. Casey is an associate professor and assistant dean in the College of Education and Professional Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. Her research interests include teacher preparation, strategy instruction for students with disabilities, and postsecondary transition.

References

Billingsley

B. S.

(2003). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature. Gainesville: Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of Florida.

Billingsley

B. S.

(2004). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 370-376. doi:10.1177/00222194040370050101

Billingsley

B. S.

(2005). Cultivating and keeping committed special education teachers: What principals and district administrators can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Billingsley

B. S.

Carlson

Klein

(2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333-347.

Billingsley

B. S.

Pyecha

Smith-Davis

Murray

Hendricks

M. B.

(1995). Improving the retention of special education teachers: Final report (Prepared for Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education, under Agreement H023Q10001). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ERIC document Reproduction service ED379860).

Boe

E. E.

Cook

L. H.

(2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443-460.

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

McNellis

J. R.

Miller

M. T.

(1997). Attrition in special education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7, 143-155. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex0703_1

Darling-Hammond

(2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60, 6-13.

Darling-Hammond

. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4): 547-561.

10.

Delbecq

A. L.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Gustafson

D. H.

(1986). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Middleton, WI: Green Briar Press.

11.

Fontana

Frey

J. H.

(2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Gersten

Keating

Yovanoff

Harniss

M. K.

(2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549-567. doi:10.1177/001440290106700408

13.

Ingersoll

R. M.

Strong

(2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201-233. doi:10.3102/0034654311403323

14.

Irinaga-Bistolas

Schalock

Marvin

Beck

(2007). Bridges to success: A developmental induction model for rural early career special educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26, 13-22.

15.

Johnson

Turner

L. A.

(2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Madriz

(2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In Denzon

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 835-850). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Mandlawitz

(2003). A tale of 3 cities: Urban perspectives on special education. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

18.

McDonnough

J. T.

Matkins

J. J.

(2010). The role of field experience in elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and ability of connect research to practice. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 13-23.

19.

McLeskey

Billingsley

B. S.

(2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? Remedial and Special Education, 29, 293-305.

20.

Nelson

J. S.

Jayanthi

Brittain

C. S.

Epstein

M. H.

Bursuck

W. D.

(2002). Using the nominal group technique for homework communication decisions. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 379-386.

21.

Russ

Chiang

Rylance

B. J.

Bongers

(2001). Caseload in special education: An integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67, 161-172.

22.

Smith

Ingersoll

(2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681-714.

23.

Waterman

(2011). Effects of mentoring programs on new teacher retention: A literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 139-156.