Lynne H. Cook

Teacher Turnover: Examining Exit Attrition, Teaching Area Transfer, and School Migration

The purposes of this research were to quantify trends in three components of teacher turnover and to investigate claims of excessive teacher turnover as the predominant source of teacher shortages. Attrition and teaching area transfer rates were comparable in special and general education and increased substantially from 1991–1992 to 2000–2001. School migration was stable over years, but higher in special than general education. Although annual turnover was high and increased to 1 in 4 teachers (25.6%) by 2000–2001, teacher attrition was lower than in other occupations. Evidence suggests that retention is unlikely to increase without dramatic improvements in the organization, management, and funding of public schools. Until then, an increased supply of qualified teachers is needed to reduce teacher shortages.

Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers from a National Perspective

In view of the paucity of national data on teacher retention, transfer, and attrition in special education, and the importance of these phenomena to teacher demand and shortage, we sought to provide such data from a national probability sample of 4,798 public school teachers from the 1988–1989 Teacher Followup Survey (Faupel, Bobbitt, & Friedrichs, 1992). The analysis focused on two main teaching fields (special and general education) and various aspects of teacher turnover. Results showed higher annual turnover for special education teachers (SFTs) than for general education teachers (GETs), in terms of both attrition from public school teaching (SETs = 8%; GETs = 6%) and transfer among public schools (SETs = 13%; GETs = 7%). However, the SET-GET difference in attrition percentages was modest in absolute terms, and lower than those reported from several states. SETs and GETs who left teaching did not differ significantly in postteaching activities or plans to return to teaching. The relationships between teacher turnover and teacher demand, shortage, recruitment, retention, and preparation are discussed.

Does Teacher Preparation Matter for Beginning Teachers in Either Special or General Education

The current U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) emphasis on the preparation of teachers in content knowledge, and de-emphasis on pedagogy and teaching practicums, constitutes a major issue concerning how best to prepare a sufficient supply of highly qualified teachers. By contrast, federal policy represented by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes both full certification and content knowledge. Our research was based on data from the Schools and Staffing Survey for beginning teachers in both special and general education (separately). Results showed that extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching was more effective than was only some or no preparation in producing beginning teachers who (a) were fully certified, (b) secured in-field teaching assignments, and (c) reported being well prepared to teach subject matter and well prepared with respect to pedagogical skills. Thus, contrary to the USDOE perspective emphasizing preparation in content knowledge, extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching contributed to the attainment of the two key NCLB indicators of a highly qualified teacher: full certification and in-field teaching.

The Chronic and Increasing Shortage of Fully Certified Teachers in Special and General Education

This study addresses the chronic and increasing national shortage of fully certified special education teachers (SETs) in comparison with general education teachers (GETs). The data sources were the 1987–1988 through 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Surveys and the Data Analysis System for special education for school years 1987–1988 through 2001–2002. The study found that (a) the shortage of fully certified SETs increased from 7.4% in 1993–1994 to 12.2% in 2001–2002 (2%-4% greater than the shortage of fully certified GETs), (b) the number of additional fully certified SETs needed almost doubled from 25,000 in 1993–1994 to 49,000 in 2001–2002, (c) the shortage of fully certified teachers was exacerbated by entering teachers (only 44.4% of entering SETs were fully certified), and (d) only 53.1% of first-time entering SETs with extensive teacher preparation were fully certified.

The Shortage of Fully Certified Teachers in Special and General Education

Tbere has long been concern in special education about the shortage of teachers who are fully certified in their main teaching assignment. Based on a national probability sample of 46,599 public school teachers, this research provides data on the certification status of both special and general education teacbers. Findings are presented for four types of teachers who enter the teaching force each year, and for two types of teachers who continue in public schools from the prior year. Results showed a chronic annual shortage of about 29, 000 fully certified teachers in special education (9.8%), a level that was almost twice the number in general education (5.59%). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special education was attributable mostly to entering teachers (32% not fully certified) and to continuing teachers who had not become established in their teaching positions (14% not fully certified). These percentages were higher than observed in general education, a finding partly due to the higher rate of turnover of teachers in special education. Implications for teacher education, professional development, and retention are discussed.

The State of the Art of Collaboration on Behalf of Students With Disabilities

The need for effective collaboration on behalf of students with disabilities has never been greater. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) set two requirements that build a presumption of teacher and other professional collaboration: (a) that students with disabilities access the general curriculum and (b) that they do so in the least restrictive environment (LRE), increasingly determined to be the general education classroom. Other requirements of these laws, including those related to highly qualified teachers, team decision making for students with disabilities, general educator participation in most individualized education program (IEP) meetings, and parent participation reinforce an expectation for collaboration. The purpose of this article is to briefly overview collaboration as it pertains to special education. Topics include a summary of the evolution of collaboration, especially as it pertains to teachers working with students with disabilities as well as clarification of what collaboration is and is not and the dilemmas of research related to it. Finally, this article also functions as the introduction to the special issue and provides and orientation to the other articles.

Special and General Education Teachers in Public Schools: Sources of Supply in National Perspective

In view of the chronic shortage of qualified special education teachers and the pauciij, of data on the sources of supply of entering teachers, this research provides such data from a national probability sample of 46,599 public-school teachers from the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey. The analysis focused on two main teaching fields (special and general education) and five main sources of supply of public school teachers (first-time teachers who recently graduated, first-time teachers who delayed entry to the teaching profession, reentering experienced teachers, teachers migrating from private to public schools, and public school teachers continuing from the prior year). Results showed significantly, greater annual inflow of entering teachers in special education (8.5%) than in general education (5.9%). The main source of entering public teachers in 1990-91 was the reserve pool (68% in special education; 69% in general education), composed of (a) delayed entry first-time teachers and (b) reentering experienced teachers. The other sources of entering public teachers were first-time teachers who recently graduated from college (24% in both special and general education), and migrant teachers from private schools (8% in special education; 7% in general education). Although special and general education were more similar than dissimilar in their respective sources of supply of teachers, these two fields differed somewhat in the following respects: (a) there was a greater percentage demand in special education for teachers to fill open positions, and (b) special education filled a higher percentage of open positions with reentering eaperienced teachers Implications for teacher shortage, recruitment, and teacher education are discussed

National Trends in the Sources of Supply of Teachers in Special and General Education.

This paper addresses the national quantity demand, supply, and shortage of special education teachers (SETs) in comparison to general education teachers (GETs). The main data source was the 1999–00 Schools and Staffing Survey. Results indicated that the total demand for SETs increased 38% from 240,000 in 1987–88 to 330,000 in 1999–00, a rate of growth greater than the 26% increase observed for GETs. For entering teachers, the reserve pool was the predominant source of supply of both SETs and GETs. However, only 46% of first-time SETs completed extensive teacher preparation with degree majors in their primary areas of teaching, whereas the comparable figure for GETs was 82%. As an indication of the inadequate supply of extensively prepared teachers in special education, about 28% of first-time teachers hired in special education positions had completed teacher preparation in general education. Finally, a modest decline in the supply of degree graduates in special education has occurred since 1997–98 in spite of the increasing quantity demand for entering SETs.