Special Education Teachers Find New Careers, Increase in Leverage

Transcription

1 Tennessee s State Personnel Development Grant Working to Solve Special Education Teacher and Staff Recruitment, Retention, and Equity Issues Factors Affecting the Equitable Distribution of Special Education Teachers and Related Service Providers: A Statewide Survey of LEA Supervisors December 2010 Analysis of Results Introduction One of the initiatives of the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) involves the equitable distribution of highly qualified special education teachers with the goal of ensuring that lowincome and minority children with disabilities are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. To that end, the SPDG began activity by conducting a fall 2010 LEA survey on special education teacher and staff recruitment, retention, and equity. The survey received a high response rate with 104 out of approximately 136 independently operating districts in the State participating. Results are expressed in percentage response for the group responding. Results: Attracting and Retaining High Quality Staff *Attracting High Quality Staff 67% of districts responding reported having difficulty attracting high-quality special education teachers and/or related service providers. Districts identified related service providers as the most difficult positions to fill. Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) and Occupational Therapists (OTs) were most frequently mentioned with mention of Physical Therapists (PTs). When responding, Comprehensive Development Class (CDC) teachers were also cited as a category difficult to fill. *Retaining High Quality Staff 48% of districts responding reported having difficulty retaining high-quality special education teachers and related service providers. Once again, the focus was mainly on related service providers (SLPs), but also in this section, CDC teachers were mentioned. 1

2 *Quality of Staff Attracted Of districts responding, 58% reported difficulty attracting related services personnel with a lower 11% reporting that they could attract related services personnel but were not satisfied with the quality of the applicants. For special education teachers, however, a significant 48% of districts responding reported that they could attract special education teachers, but were not satisfied with the quality of the applicants. *Contracting Related Services 96% of districts responding reported that they contracted some of their related services. Of that group, 53% reported contracting because they were not able to attract and employ high-quality personnel. *Characteristics of Individual Schools with the Most Staffing Difficulty Respondents were asked to select one school in their district with the most difficulty in staffing special education positions and describe the school (location, demographics, community demographics, school climate, academic performance). The following themes emerged (in order of frequency reported from 1. most frequent): 1. High School 2. Rural/isolated 3. High poverty 4. High frequency of behavior problems 5. High school Highly Qualified issues, including turnover of those dually certified 6. Low parental involvement/ lack of parental support 7. Inner city, high crime area 8. Low paying system located close to urban areas with higher pay 9. High minority 10. High administrative turnover 11. Poor school climate Results: Recruiting and Supporting Staff, District Plans and Use of Various Strategies *Formal Plans Designed to Recruit, Retain, and Support Staff Of those responding, only 26% reported that they had a district developed and implemented formal plan to recruit staff. Thirty-six percent (36%) reported that their district had a formal plan to support teachers; thirty-one percent (31%) reported that they had a formal plan to retain staff. Only 27% reported that they had a leadership team dedicated to the issues of attracting, recruiting, and retaining high quality staff. 2

3 *Use of Various Strategies for Recruitment When asked how much progress the district had made in implementing various strategies to recruit high quality staff, the following results were compiled (top 7 most frequently used): Strategy Fully Implemented Not Planning to Implement District level screening of candidates 65% 15% Online recruitment and online applications 63% 13% Utilization of alternative licensing programs 48% 27% Partnerships with Institutes of High Education 47% 21% Recruitment of non-traditional candidates for special education certification (e.g. paraprofessionals) 44% 29% Advertising campaigns promoting open positions 37% 32% Efficient, well-defined hiring schedules 33% 36% When asked about contingency-based incentive plans (e.g. extra pay for first 3 years), 80% of respondents said they were not planning to implement any type of pay incentives and 71% reported they were not planning on implementing any type of signing bonuses. Seventy-two percent (72%) reported that they were not planning on implementing strategies like allowing high-priority schools to begin hiring before other schools. The most successful recruiting strategy was reported as online recruitment and online applications, but results were widely scattered on which strategies were the most successful (online recruitment and applications was most frequently reported with only 38%). The least successful recruiting strategy was reported as advertising campaigns that promote open positions. When asked about strategies felt to be most valuable in the future, 59% felt that signing bonuses would be useful, 44% felt that online recruitment and online applications would be most valuable, 43% felt Grow your own programs would be most valuable, and even though it was reported as the least successful recruiting strategy, 42% reported advertising campaigns that promote open special education positions. 3

4 *Supporting Staff Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents reported that they had adequately developed a formal process of supporting novice staff. Respondents were asked about use of various methods of supporting novice staff and also asked if any of those strategies were used for struggling experienced staff. Results: Strategy for Supporting Staff Used Very Often for Novice Staff Used Very Often for Struggling Staff New staff orientation/induction program 73% 20% Mentoring of novice special education teachers by experienced special education teachers 70% 42% Targeted professional development 57% 53% Mentoring of novice staff conducted by someone other than special ed or related services staff 52% 29% Grade-level/department-level collaboration 51% 41% Other strategies (see below)* 50% 66% Mentoring of novice related service providers by experienced related service providers 43% 24% Mentor training programs 42% 31% Peer observation and feedback 18% 17% *Of respondents reporting Other Strategies, new staff orientation/induction was referred to as boot camp, instructional coaches were frequently mentioned, use of itinerant staff to provide support was frequently reported, and difficulty hiring or supplementing mentors was discussed (economic cut-backs). Of all the strategies for supporting novice staff and struggling staff, mentoring of novice special education teachers by experienced special education teachers was reported as the most successful of support strategies. The least successful support strategy for novice staff was reported as peer observation and feedback. The least successful support strategy for struggling staff was reported as repeating staff orientation/induction program. For future use, 61% felt mentoring of novice special education teachers by experienced special education teachers would be the most valuable strategy for helping both novice and struggling teachers. 4

5 Results: Why Special Education Teachers Leave and Where They Go *Factors Contributing to Special Education Teachers Leaving Their Positions When asked their opinions of why special education teachers left their positions, the most frequent factor cited as 1.unhappy with current wages/salary (45% of respondents reported this to be the most frequent factor). 2. Lack of resources was frequently cited, 3. paperwork burden was also frequently cited in the top reasons for teachers leaving. Other factors (in addition to the top three mentioned above and listed in approximate order of frequency from highest frequency [unhappy with administrative style ] to lowest frequency [heavy caseload]): 4. Unhappy with administrative style and administrative support 5. Pressure of special education s legal requirements 6. Lack of leadership and advancement possibilities 7. Unhappy with school culture 8. Unhappy with school climate 9. Parent or community demands 10. Frustration with student performance 11 Few opportunities to collaborate with colleagues 12. Lack of control over curriculum/instructional practices 13 Lack of preparation time 14. Heavy caseload *Where Special Education Teachers Find New Employment When asked to use current knowledge about where leaving special education teachers found new employment, the following results were obtained ranked in approximate order: 1. At a general education position in the same school. 2. At a special education position in a school outside of the district, but within the state. 3. At a general education position in another school within the district. 4. At a general education position in a school outside of the district, but within the state. 5

6 5. At a special education position in a different state. 6. At a special education position in another school within the district. When asked if they track special education teachers or related service providers after they leave, 93% reported that they did not. Of the 6.9% who did, exit interviews and follow-up via telephone were reported as their methods. Other LEA Comments When asked for any other comments, LEAs talked about the need for support from Institutes of Higher Education. One respondent reported that new teachers particularly from small university programs had a lack of knowledge. The burden of paperwork was mentioned many times throughout the comments on the survey. The proportionate amount of paperwork necessary to fulfill the job requirements seems disproportionately high for many. There were repeated comments about teachers wanting more time to teach and about the burdens of the regulations. Some survey respondents reported that in the past, teachers went into special education to get a job and that situation is not changed. The accountability of principals was also mentioned with problems with lack of knowledge about what is involved in special education positions. Conclusions Results of this survey present food for thought for multiple players in the process of meeting the needs of students with disabilities. The Department of Education, Institutes of Higher Education, local administrations and school level administrators all play a role in the process of recruiting and retaining high quality staff. In Tennessee those difficulties are most glaring in isolated, rural, high school settings with high poverty. One significant unintended consequence of regulations intended to improve the quality of instruction (dual certification for high school) is that teachers are leaving for general education positions. The long-term debate on the paperwork burden is still in the forefront with concerns about heavy caseloads easing. For the topic of supporting quality staff, everyone reported that mentoring programs that use special education teachers to support special education staff are the most effective of support systems. One disturbing finding was the feeling that special education teacher applicants were available, but sometimes the quality was less than satisfactory. The availability of related services personnel continues to pose a barrier to service provision with salary/wage competition with the medical sector as the primary cause as it has been for some time. 6

7 These results will be further utilized to make recommendations for improvement activities. The Department of Education should take ownership of the role of paperwork and do what can be done in light of Federal and State regulations. IHEs should take information about the perceived quality of new applicants and examine their training programs. District and school level administrators must take ownership of local issues before lasting improvements can be expected. Respondents who appeared proactive in their efforts (those with mentoring programs, etc.) consistently reported their districts in more optimistic terms. A small number of respondents reported that had no difficulty attracting or retaining staff, but they were, by far, in the minority. It can be concluded overall that many of the issues that existed 25, 15, 5 years ago continue to complicate provision of quality services to students with disabilities, and only by using an approach with multiple players will any change occur in the future. Donna S. Parker SPDG Project Manager 7