Project ReSpecT

Abstract

School districts have struggled with special education teacher shortages for over a decade. Special education teachers who leave the profession after a few years certainly contribute to the shortage. Project ReSpecT (Retaining Special Education Teachers) was a federally funded project to develop and implement a mentoring model designed to retain 1st-year special education teachers. The purpose of this article is to describe the first two phases of Project ReSpecT, including the research that led to the development of the model and the pilot test phase. We also discuss the preliminary findings from this study in the context of results from similar programs. We end by discussing implications for educational policy and practice for mentoring models.

Keywords

mentoring special education teacher retention

The national shortage of special education teachers may be the most serious problem facing special education today. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), calls the problem chronic and notes that teacher shortages in special education have existed for 20 years with no solution in sight. Although the number of teachers receiving initial certification has remained at about 300,000 teachers per year, attrition continues to take a major toll on available special education teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Research indicates that, in general, teacher turnover is 14% to 15% annually, yet as many as 40% of beginning special education teachers leave the profession within 5 years of entering the teaching field (Council for Exceptional Children, 2000; Ingersoll, 2003).

Why are early career special education teachers so likely to leave the field within their first few years of teaching? The following factors specific to the field of special education appear to be related to teachers’ choices to leave the field: (a) inappropriate certification (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997; Singer, 1992), (b) lack of administrative support (Brownell & Smith, 1992), (c) stress and a lack of emotional support (Singer, 1992; Whitaker, 1999), (d) inadequate or inappropriate resources and materials (Billingsley & Cross, 1991; Whitaker, 1999), (e) number of students and lack of classroom capacity limits (Billingsley & Cross, 1991; Brownell & Smith, 1992; Platt & Olson, 1990), and (f) excessive paperwork (Billingsley & Cross, 1991).

There is considerable evidence that the first few years of teaching are a critical period for special educators. Because of the increased vulnerability of new teachers, a number of programs have been designed to provide support during the first years of teaching. One way state and federal educational agencies are addressing the problem of teacher attrition is by implementing mentoring programs for new teachers. The New Teacher Center (NTC, 2007) called for a minimum of 1 year of mentoring for new special education professionals. Sindelar, Heretick, Hirsch, Rorrer, and Dawson (2010) reported that 48 states have requirements and policies for providing mentoring to new teachers. Many of these programs, however, do not include an emphasis on structured feedback and observation, or on specific training provided by a mentor—all things that new teachers consider important in their mentor programs (Wayne, Youngs, & Fleishman, 2005). Research suggests that new teachers consider their mentors more effective if the mentors are also in special education, teach students with the same disabilities, and have the same planning period as the inductees (Gilbert, 2005; Griffin, 2010; Whitaker, 1999). New teachers also consider their mentors more effective if they receive frequent assistance with lesson plans and unit development, and if they have opportunities both to observe the mentors teaching and to be observed themselves (Andrews & Quinn, 2005; Gilbert, 2005).

Once we know the elements of mentoring that are most important to teachers, the next question is how to validate these elements and incorporate them, when appropriate, into induction programs and policies. States with a clear mentoring policy for induction teachers will be able to communicate clear priorities for induction programs to district and building-level administrators (Sindelar et al., 2010). The NTC (2007) suggests, however, that the per teacher cost of between US$6,000 and US$7,000 for quality induction programs inhibit prescriptive policies. We developed an empirically based mentorship model designed to improve retention of new special education teachers (Project ReSpecT: Retaining Special Education Teachers) in a model that was deemed feasible by both administrators and teachers.

Project ReSpecT was developed in three stages. In Stage 1, we synthesized the existing literature on special education teacher attrition and mentoring models, and conducted a statewide survey of certified special educators. Stage 2 included validation of the model through stakeholder feedback, model refinement, and pilot testing the model in one district. Stage 3 included dissemination to multiple districts and the development of training modules, so districts could implement the model on their own. Special education teachers and administrators, parents of children with disabilities, and other stakeholders provided feedback at various stages of the model development process. Figure 1 depicts these three stages.

Figure 1.

Stages in the development of the Project ReSpecT mentoring model.

In this article, we first describe the research and conceptual model that served as the foundation of the Project ReSpecT mentoring model. Second, we examine the process that we used to translate the research into our model. Third, we discuss the preliminary findings from the pilot phase of Project ReSpecT. We end by suggesting potential areas of improvement in mentoring models.

Foundational Research

Review of Literature

We reviewed literature on the topics of teacher attrition, teacher retention, mentoring, and teacher induction by (a) searching those four terms and their synonyms in ERIC, PsycInfo, and Dissertation Abstracts International databases and (b) conducting Internet searches using the Google search engine. Existing mentoring programs were identified through the Internet search and through descriptions of programs in the published literature. Because of the limited literature base on special education teacher retention, we also collected resources from the general education literature.

We had two major purposes for reviewing these articles. First, we reviewed research-based articles related to teacher attrition and retention to identify the range and frequency of factors related to teacher attrition. Second, we reviewed and summarized descriptions of mentoring programs and research on their efficacy. Both reviews were compiled into brief summaries, which were then presented to the Project Planning Team (PPT). The PPT was composed of special education teachers and administrators, personnel from the South Carolina Department of Education, parents of children with disabilities, and a representative from the South Carolina Governor’s Office. PPT members reviewed the information and identified topics in order of importance for teacher retention. The record of this discussion was used to generate drafts of the statewide surveys, described below.

Surveys of Special Education Teachers

We developed two surveys for this study, the Special Educator Survey and the Educator Survey. The Special Educator Survey was designed to be administered to current special education teachers and the Educator Survey was designed to be administered to persons certified to teach special education who worked in some other capacity within South Carolina public schools (e.g., general education teacher, administrator). The PPT reviewed the initial survey drafts. The revised drafts were then pilot tested with six educators and six special educators. We used the results of the pilot tests to make final revisions to both instruments.

The final Special Educator Survey included 66 items about current teaching assignment and responsibilities, school climate, job satisfaction, educational background, professional development opportunities, induction experiences, and demographic information (see Table 1). The final version of the Educator Survey included 34 questions about current and past positions, factors that contributed to decisions to leave the special education classroom, educational background, induction experiences, and demographic information. Table 2 lists a few example items. Both surveys included an open-ended response section in which respondents could make additional comments about attrition, retention, and mentoring.

Table 1.

Sample Items From Educator Survey.

To what extent did each of the following factors contribute to your decision to stop teaching special education?

Which of the following conditions do you believe would have caused you to continue teaching special education instead of leaving your job?

How well did the training you received before you started teaching prepare you for your 1st year as a teacher?

Which of the following would have made your 1st-year teaching experience better?

Table 2.

Sample Items From Special Educator Survey.

Area	Item
Current teaching assignment	1. Which of the following do your administrators do to help you be a more effective special education teacher?
	2. Which of the following types of support does your school or district provide to help lessen your paperwork burden?
	3. Which of the following statements best describe how you feel about the size of your caseload?
School climate (Likert-type items)	4. General education teachers in my school make my students feel welcome.
	5. My school administrators support me in my role as a special educator.
	6. I have a good relationship with other special education teachers in my school.
Job satisfaction (Likert-type items)	7. I receive enough support from my school administrators to effectively do my job.
	8. I am satisfied with the growth I see in my students.
	9. Overall, I am satisfied with my job as a special education teacher.

Note. Items related to educational background and induction-year experiences were identical to items on the Educator Survey.

We mailed the surveys to 7,622 educators identified by the South Carolina State Department of Education as certified special education teachers teaching in a special education classroom during the 1st year of the study (n = 5,103) and those certified to teach special education but employed in other positions in South Carolina school districts during that same year (n = 2,519). Each survey packet included a survey, cover letter, postage-paid return envelope, and an entry form for a prize drawing. No targeted reminders or repeat mailings were sent to increase the response rates.

Seven hundred eighty-six respondents (response rate = 31%) returned Educator Surveys. More than one third of Educator Survey respondents listed the following as reasons that contributed to their decision to leave the special education classroom: (a) too much paperwork, (b) lack of planning time, (c) responsible for too many types of students, (d) responsible for too many students, and (e) lack of support from parents. Respondents also identified factors that would have caused them to continue teaching, including better working conditions (paperwork, planning time, and size of caseload), and better pay and benefits.

A total of 1,662 teachers responded to the Special Educator Survey (response rate = 34%). Our analysis of a subset of responses to this survey yielded some interesting results. Respondents who said they planned to leave the special education classroom within 1 year (n = 73) were compared with those who said they planned to remain a special education teacher for at least 5 more years (n = 827). Although both groups had similar job characteristics on paper (i.e., same instructional settings, same size caseloads, same nonteaching responsibilities), the intended leavers perceived their job characteristics as more overwhelming. For example, teachers who intended to leave special education were less likely to report various types of administrative support. They also had as many or more special education student teaching experiences than teachers who planned to stay in special education, but they participated in fewer professional development training opportunities in the previous 5 years and rated more training experiences as poor.

In summary, the responses from the Educator Surveys reflect the major factors identified in previous research as reasons for attrition from special education classrooms, including lack of support and too much paperwork. In the Special Educator Survey, the responses also indicated previously identified factors such as lack of administrative support. The data from both surveys were then incorporated into the ecological conceptual model.

Conceptual Model

The Project ReSpecT mentoring model is based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1976) ecological model, with adaptations based on Brownell and Smith’s (1993) work on special education teacher attrition. According to Bronfenbrenner, environments consist of four interrelated and nested systems: the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. When applied to education, the microsystem is a teacher’s immediate setting, the classroom, and the interactions that occur as a result of student and teacher characteristics. The mesosystem consists of interactions of variables in a teacher’s workplace, such as the relationship between teachers and administrators and teachers’ participation in school decision making. The exosystem consists of the formal and informal social structures of the local school district and the state educational agency. Finally, the macrosystem is the elements of the larger society in which the school system exists that exert an influence on the educational environment.

We organized the survey responses about reasons for leaving within Brownell and Smith’s (1993) adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s model (see Figure 2). Most attrition variables were associated with the mesosystem and school-based support. Because the primary intent of Project ReSpecT was to be a mentoring model that addresses the teacher and his or her immediate classroom environment, we decided that the 1st year of the project should focus primarily on microsystem influences. However, we also included activities in the model designed to address coping with mesosystem factors (e.g., participating in school district decision-making activities and grade-level meetings).

Figure 2.

Conceptual model of factors that influence teacher attrition.

The Project ReSpecT Model

Once the conceptual model was established, we examined each of the personal and environmental factors that could influence retention. We also considered survey responses about what would have made the 1st-year teaching experience better. We then established general categories of needs that represented those factors and influences. Those categories included the following:

Logistical needs (e.g., orientation to school and school district)

Emotional support (e.g., stress management, nonjudgmental advice)

Methodological concerns (e.g., instructional methods, legal and district requirements)

Coping strategies (e.g., time management, developing realistic expectations)

Self-assessment strategies (e.g., developing systems for monitoring effectiveness)

Professional development activities (e.g., training needs for induction-year teachers)

Project staff also reviewed open-ended survey responses about effective and ineffective mentoring practices reported by respondents. We used those responses to help determine how mentors should address each of the six domains of need. Table 3 summarizes the mentoring activities associated with each domain.

Table 3.

Summary of Teacher Needs and Corresponding Mentoring Activities.

Need	Content	Method
Logistical	Orienting to districts	• One-day orientation at beginning of school year
	a. People to contact	○ Conducted by director, with opportunities to build trust/relationship with mentor
	b. Forms (IEP, FBA, BIP)	○ Substitute orientation for regular district orientation meetings
	Orientation to schools	• Orientation at the school
	a. Finding materials	○ School tour given by mentor; half-day informal work with mentor on whatever the new teacher wants to work on to get ready for school; time to plan mentoring activities, scheduling time to meet. Complete one-page cheat sheet with school-level information new teacher can refer to after the fact
	b. People who can help	• Beginning teachers keep log of problems (and successes)
	c. School-level policies
	d. Training in computerized IEPs
Emotional	1. Having time with special education colleagues	• Scheduled time for out-of-work contact (coffee, lunch together, phone call after school) once per week. No set agenda
	2. Positive feedback	• Can administrator schedule same planning time for mentor and mentee?
	3. Someone to listen	• Develop crisis plan
	4. Advice that is not threatening	• Beginning teachers meeting bimonthly (teachers determine agenda)
	5. Stress management	• Mentors have separate bimonthly meeting, ongoing informal training, and keep log of successes and problems
	6. Identifying people who can become a support system	• Web support: discussion groups for mentors and beginning teachers
Methodological	1. Classroom management	• Observing mentor (or other teacher) teaching
	2. IEPs	• Mentor observing new teacher teaching (minimum four times first semester, two times second semester)—schedule time for feedback session apart from informal meetings
	3. Parent–teacher conferences	• Cowrite at least one IEP with mentor; observe mentor’s IEP meeting and have mentor colead mentee’s first IEP meeting
	4. Understanding and interpreting assessments	• Developing guidelines with mentor
	5. Legal requirements	• Problem-solving sessions with mentor if problems working with general education teachers
	6. District and school requirements	• Pairs attending either the mentor’s or mentee’s grade-level group planning meeting
	Writing appropriate goals and objectives that conform to school objectives	• Web content on specific topics
	1. Incorporating general education curriculum and state standards	• Small group meetings (bimonthly)—if new teachers choose, could do informal training on topics as needed
	2. Working with general education teachers
Coping strategies	1. Large and diverse student load	• Include these issues in mentoring activity log, so that pairs realize they do not always have to be focusing on instruction
	2. Acquisition of realistic expectations	• Informal meetings (see above—meeting after work, phone contacts, etc.)
	3. How do we cope with things that we cannot change	• Materials on time management and other content (via web)
	4. Looking at things that can be delegated
	5. Time management
	6. Paperwork efficiency
	7. Managerial skills (paraprofessionals)
Self-assessment (of teacher effectiveness)	1. Developing realistic expectations for self and students	• Self-assessment meeting—new teacher fills out short self-assessment, mentor uses as vehicle for discussion (scheduled for end of each marking period; combined with feedback for each set of two observation sessions)
	2. System for monitoring teacher effectiveness
	3. Ability to adjust course to improve effectiveness
Professional development	1. Teacher selected topics for induction-year teachers	• Professional development activities arranged through the district; district staff compile information from mentors about what the new teachers need, and project staff help make arrangements as necessary. Teachers and mentors both identify topics.
	2. Training specific to special education	• Provide web materials on those topics
	3. Ongoing professional development more informal

Note. IEP = Individualized Education Program; FBA = functional behavior analysis; BIP = behavior intervention plan.

In addition to the content and method of the mentoring model, we also determined what characteristics the mentors should possess and what criteria should be used to match mentors to new teachers. We asked three district-level special education directors for their feedback on selection criteria. According to the criteria, the mentor must (a) make time for mentoring activities, (b) be knowledgeable in each of the important areas (e.g., paperwork, classroom management), (c) have a reputation as an excellent practitioner, (d) be interested in being a mentor, (e) create a nonthreatening environment, (f) work well with others, and (g) not be part of the district’s induction program evaluation team. After districts selected potential mentors based on these criteria, district administrators were asked to match mentors to teachers based on school level (elementary, middle, high), types of students taught, and instructional setting.

Validation

After establishing the preliminary mentoring model, we used several procedures to validate it. The PPT reviewed survey results and discussed the preliminary model in terms of conceptual soundness, logistical feasibility, omissions, and likely effectiveness in the pilot school districts. In addition, early career and experienced special education teachers participated in focus group discussions about the model and discussed its feasibility. They also discussed the extent to which the model would have been valuable to them during their 1st year of teaching. Finally, we mailed four nationally recognized experts detailed information about the model development process, the content of the model, the proposed methods, and selection criteria. We selected expert reviewers who had nationally recognized mentoring programs and who published extensively in the areas of teacher retention and/or mentoring, and asked them to respond to questions similar to those asked of the PPT and teachers. We used feedback from all three sources to refine the model prior to the pilot phase of implementation.

Pilot Testing of Project ReSpecT

We piloted the Project ReSpecT mentoring model with six mentors and six induction-year teachers in one large, suburban school district between February and May. Evaluation of the pilot phase included measures of implementation, such as frequency and type of teacher/mentor contact, early career teachers’ support needs as determined from self-assessments, and qualitative data gleaned from focus groups that included evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of the program and recommended changes to the model. Although the primary goal of Project ReSpecT is to retain teachers, we did not collect teacher retention data at this phase because the model was not implemented for a full year.

Project ReSpecT model does not require a specific number and type of contacts between mentors and teachers each quarter, but does provide some suggested minimum contact guidelines. Mentors kept records of each contact with 1st-year teachers, including the type of activity, length of time, and method of contact. Each mentor’s records were reviewed to determine whether the mentoring activities met the minimum guidelines each quarter. Sufficient data were available for five of the six mentor–new teacher pairs. The total number of contacts ranged from 9 to 28, with a median of 23.5 contacts between February and May. The number of contacts per month ranged from 1 to 15. The median number of contacts per month was highest in March (median = 9.0), followed by April (median = 7.5). During the third quarter, three pairs clearly exceeded the minimum guidelines. During the fourth quarter, four pairs clearly exceeded the minimum guidelines. During each quarter, one pair generally had contact beyond the minimum guidelines but did not complete a recommended classroom observation.

The 1st-year teachers completed a quarterly self-assessment of their needs for mentor support. This assessment was a one-page survey with 30 items that teachers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale with response options ranging from “little or no need” to “very high need.” Table 4 lists a few representative questions from the self-assessment. Data were available for four teachers at the end of the third quarter and five teachers at the end of the fourth quarter. Teachers reported high needs in 16 areas during the third quarter and 11 areas during the fourth quarter. The type of support most frequently rated as a high need during the third quarter was “administering standardized achievement tests,” while the most frequently reported high needs for support in the fourth quarter were “completing administrative paperwork” and “communicating with other teachers.” Across both quarters, paperwork was the most frequently endorsed support need.

Table 4.

Sample Items From Teacher Self-Assessment.

Finding out what is expected of me as a teacher

Becoming aware of special services provided by the district

Presenting functional content appropriate to the learners’ capacities

Documenting student progress

Completing administrative paperwork

Obtaining instructional resources and materials

Source. Adapted from Gordon (1991).

Note. Rated on scale from 1 (little or no need) to 5 (very high need).

Across teachers, the overall number of different support needs decreased from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. The number of needs also decreased for each individual teacher. The number of items each teacher ranked as a “high” or “very high” support need decreased from the third to the fourth quarter. By the fourth quarter, three of four teachers had minimal or no areas of high need. One teacher still had six areas of high need in the fourth quarter. However, this teacher also started with a higher number of needs the previous quarter.

To explore participants’ perceptions of Project ReSpecT and recommendations for change, teachers and mentors participated in 90-min focus groups at the end of the pilot period. Both mentors and teachers reported that Project ReSpecT had been beneficial, without creating additional time and paperwork demands. However, the benefits were limited by the short period of time (3 months) it was implemented. Mentors commented that their Project ReSpecT duties were easily integrated with their typical induction-year responsibilities. The mentors reported that their ability to support their teachers effectively was due to daily contact, proximity, and having students in common. The 1st-year teachers also said that having mentors who clearly were dedicated to helping them was critical to their successful mentoring experience.

However, barriers to effective mentoring, as reported by mentors and 1st-year teachers, were lack of time and too much distance. Teachers who were at different schools or who had conflicting schedules experienced difficulty connecting with each other as often as they desired. The absence of a planning period (a district-wide issue) also inhibited the ability of pairs who were in the same school to handle mentoring responsibilities. New teachers indicated that they often had to seek answers to questions from other people because of the limited access they had to their assigned mentor. One teacher said she found a “back-up” mentor who provided frequent, informal support outside the framework of Project ReSpecT.

Participants were asked to identify features of the Project ReSpecT model that they found helpful and those that needed improvement or revision. Mentors reported that the self-assessment process was very beneficial in planning subsequent mentoring activities. The 1st-year teachers especially appreciated informal contacts, ranging from conversations in passing to planned lunches together. First-year teacher–mentor pairs also demonstrated flexibility and creativity in adapting the mentoring requirements to fit their own needs. One pair, responsible for 35 transition Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) between the two of them, decided to share responsibility for all 35 meetings. They both remarked on the benefits of this process in terms of greater efficiency and improved training for the new teacher. Participants also perceived two problems related to technology. Teachers wanted to use email to communicate with their mentors but felt limited in what they could write because their district email was not considered private and could be read by administrators. Teachers also reported limited use of the online discussion forum and teaching resources but did not suggest ways to improve the content or format to make it more useful.

Although mentors’ and teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of our mentoring model were largely similar, there were two points of disagreement. First, although mentors thought teachers could benefit from ongoing mentoring in the 2nd teaching year, the 1st-year teachers reported that they did not think they would require additional assistance. Second, although a criterion for mentor selection was that the mentor not be responsible for formal evaluation of the teacher, logistical limitations resulted in the selection of several mentors who did have these dual roles. The mentors thought that dual roles of supportive mentor and evaluator did not create a problem for the teachers. Some 1st-year teachers, however, expressed discomfort about their mentors’ dual roles. Teachers weighed this discomfort against the alternative, which was being matched with a mentor who was less similar in terms of students taught and proximity, and indicated they preferred a mentor with dual roles to one who was less available or who was less knowledgeable about the new teacher’s students.

Mentors and teachers also were asked about changes they noticed in themselves and each other throughout the year. Mentors said their new teachers had greater confidence and independence, were better able to read situations and know how to respond to students, and were better able to manage paraprofessionals. New teachers noticed improvement in their ability to write IEPs and in their familiarity with instructional resources available in their schools. Mentors also reflected on the changes they noticed in themselves, as they learned with, and from, their assigned teachers.

Recommendations for revising the Project ReSpecT model were compiled and incorporated into the new manual and training materials for the next school year. The fundamental conceptual model and scope of activities did not change, but some modifications were made (e.g., agendas for quarterly teacher meetings, increased support for IEP development) based on mentor and teacher feedback.

Preliminary Results

We then implemented Project ReSpecT in a local school district at the beginning of the school year. All of the new special education teachers in this district were included in the mentoring model. The school district for the first cohort was a large district serving more than 21,000 students in 22 schools from both rural and suburban communities. Although not quite 4 years since the initial group of mentors and mentees participated in Project ReSpecT, preliminary retention data are encouraging. From the first group of 19 new teachers, 15 (80%) are still employed in the district and teaching in special education. These data compare favorably with the national average retention rate of 60% in the first 5 years of teaching. In addition, two of the new teachers no longer in the original district moved for personal and family reasons; therefore, an additional 10% of the participants are still in special education. Of the 2 teachers no longer in special education, 1 returned to general education and 1 was not offered a contract.

In addition to preliminary retention data, a group of 25 mentors and new teachers participated in individual interviews after their experience with Project ReSpecT. Summaries of a few of their responses can be found in Table 5. In general, the open-ended responses of these participants mirrored the responses of the pilot studies. In particular, all participants considered having mentors and mentees in different schools a great liability. It is important to note that the intent of the project directors was to have a mentor in the same school of each participant, as this was clearly identified as a problem in the literature. Because it was not possible to find a mentor in each school who taught in the same area, occasionally a mentor was located in a different school. The feedback clearly indicates that, in the future, a school-based mentor may be more critical than a mentor teaching at the same level and area of special education. Subsequent participants found that the project would have been more helpful if it were implemented before school started. The early start was also an original component of the implementation plan, but district policy issues resulted in a delayed start date. One clear difference between the pilot study participants and full-year participants was that the former did not feel that the elements of Project ReSpecT were too time-consuming, while the latter group did feel that the one of the components—the journal activity—was just “more paperwork.” Part of that difference might be that the second group began this activity in fall, when all new teachers were dealing with IEPs for the first time. The journal requirements, therefore, might have been seen as less helpful in the fall.

Table 5.

Sample Interview Questions and Responses of First Cohort of Mentors and New Teachers.

Question	Most frequent responses
1. What changes to the model would you recommend?	Begin project in early August before start of school
	Mentors should be in the same school as new teachers, even if the mentor teaches in a different area of special education
2. How helpful were specific elements of the mentoring program?	Group meetings: Helpful but could use even more structure
	Journals: None of the participants valued the journaling process and considered it more paperwork
	Mentors: All participants considered the mentor relationship important
3. Would you participate in the project again?	All participants said they would participate again
	All participants reported that mentoring was a very important to retention
	Mentors reported that mentoring allowed them to give back to the field
	New teachers reported that they would be interested in serving as mentors to new teachers in the future

Discussion

We developed the Project ReSpecT mentoring model through a careful consideration of research-based practices and experiences of teachers in our state. Several findings from the statewide surveys were consistent with previous research on teacher attrition and retention. The top few reasons South Carolina teachers left special education were similar to reasons cited in other studies (e.g., caseload, lack of administrative support). Interestingly, paperwork was the top reason teachers in South Carolina reported leaving. While some causes of attrition cannot be directly addressed through a mentoring model, effective mentoring can help new teachers cope with the features of their job that cannot change, such as paperwork. The interview results also suggested that mentoring programs should be careful not to add to the paperwork load by requiring activities such as journaling.

By using a conceptual framework that recognized the multiple interpersonal and ecological influences on teacher retention and solicited stakeholder feedback during the development phases, we were able to create a mentoring model that was flexible enough to meet the needs of a wide range of early career teachers. Mentors and teachers used all forms of support recommended in the model, ranging from informal communication to formal assistance with IEP meetings. Additional evidence of the need for a flexible and multifaceted mentoring model was seen in teachers’ identification of informal contacts as especially helpful. For the most part, mentors and teachers were able to use the model to plan and conduct mentoring activities that met teachers’ needs and helped them improve their skills in areas such as writing IEPs, identifying instructional materials, responding to students, and managing paraprofessionals. Consistent with the concerns about paperwork burden identified in the statewide surveys, teachers in the pilot phase continued to identify paperwork assistance as an area of needed support, even as they began the final marking period of the school year.

The pilot implementation phase and the resulting participant feedback yielded some expected and some surprising results. The process of matching mentors and teachers was one clear concern. Teachers expressed concerns about mentors who were supposed to both support and evaluate new teachers, again echoing comments from statewide survey respondents. Perhaps more so than other matching criteria, proximity to one’s mentor was seen as critical for a successful mentoring relationship. Because most induction-year evaluation teams include personnel from the 1st-year teacher’s school, and because most schools have a limited pool of qualified special education teachers from which to draw mentors, how should districts weigh the value of proximity against assigning a mentor whose only role is to support the teacher? There are several ways in which mentors who must serve dual roles can fulfill both roles effectively. Mentors who interact with teachers in ways that encourage open communication and trust can help teachers feel comfortable asking questions. Making clear distinctions between meetings for supportive purposes and meetings for formal evaluation purposes can also help teachers decide when to disclose concerns and acknowledge needs, and when to demonstrate their best teaching. Finally, emphasizing the supportive role in the first few weeks of the school year gives mentors and teachers the opportunity to build a strong relationship that can make later evaluation activities seem less threatening.

Recent research suggests that e-mentoring may be a way to at least supplement face-to-face mentoring when preferred special education mentors are not available in a given school (Smith & Israel, 2010). The issue of confidentiality of email and teachers’ comfort in using it as a reporting system still needs to be addressed.

Initial data suggest the mentoring model is effective. We do not yet know whether Project ReSpecT will make a meaningful, long-term impact on the retention of early career special educators. Mentoring activities varied considerably; no two mentor–teacher pairs implemented the model in the same way. Although this inconsistency creates challenges for the purpose of evaluating a single mentoring “model,” the need for teachers to be able to obtain appropriate, individualized support should be considered in light of concerns about strong procedural fidelity in evaluation of the model’s efficacy. Data on each mentor–teacher pair’s use of specific features of the model may be useful in interpreting early career teachers’ outcomes (i.e., retention).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the teachers and administrators of the Richland County School District 2, Columbia, SC, for their assistance in carrying out Project ReSpecT (Retaining Special Education Teachers). We would also like to thank the following graduate students for their invaluable work on this project: Jennifer Brucker, Sam Cofield, Pamela Gravley, George Johnson, Stacia Leone, Erin Martin, Elizabeth Moore, and Sarah Orlov.

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Complete results of both surveys are available on the Project ReSpecT (Retaining Special Education Teachers) website ().

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this research was provided in part by Grant No. H325N000045A from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, awarded to the University of South Carolina.

References

Andrews

B. D.

Quinn

R. J.

(2005). The effects of mentoring on first-year teachers’ perceptions of support received. Clearing House, 78, 110–116.

Billingsley

B. S.

Cross

L. H.

(1991). Teachers’ decisions to transfer from special to general education. Journal of Special Education, 24, 496–511.

Boe

E. E.

Bobbitt

S. A.

Cook

L. H.

Whitener

S. D.

Weber

A. L.

(1997). Why didst thou go? Predictors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special end general education teachers from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30, 390–411.

Bronfenbrenner

(1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5-15.

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

(1992). Attention/retention of special education teachers: Critique of current research and recommendations for retention efforts. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 229–248.

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

(1993). Understanding special education teacher attrition: A conceptual model and implications for teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 270–282.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Bright futures for exceptional learners: An action agenda to achieve quality conditions to teaching and learning. Available from http://www.cec.sped.org/

Gilbert

(2005). What helps beginning teachers? Educational Leadership, 62, 36–39.

Gordon

S. P.

(1991). How to help beginning teachers succeed. Austin, TX: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

10.

Griffin

C. C.

(2010). A summary of research for educational leaders on the induction of beginning special educators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 14–20.

11.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

12.

New Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz. (2007). NTC policy brief: New teach support pays off. Santa Cruz, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.newteachercenter.org/policy_reports.php

13.

Platt

J. M.

Olson

(1990). Why teachers are leaving special education: Implications for preservice and inservice educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 192–196.

14.

Sindelar

P. T.

Heretick

Hirsch

Rorrer

Dawson

S. A.

(2010). What district administrators need to know about state induction policy. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 5–13.

15.

Singer

J. D.

(1992). Are special educators’ career paths special? Results from a 13-year longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262–279.

16.

Smith

S. J.

Israel

(2010). E-mentoring: Enhancing special education teacher induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, 30–40.

17.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Higher Education Act II: Reporting system. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

Wayne

A. J.

Youngs

Fleishman

(2005). Improving teacher induction. Educational Leadership, 62, 76–78.

19.

Whitaker

S. D.

(1999). Induction year special education teachers: Perceptions of mentoring and its relationship to attrition (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(07A), 2447.