I was so much older then (click here).
My Back Pages
Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin, high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads
Using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon," said I
Proud 'neath heated brow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
"rip down all hate," I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
Girls' faces formed the forward path
From phony jealousy
To memorizing politics
Of ancient history
Flung down by corpse evangelists
Unthought of, though, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
A self-ordained professor's tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
"equality," I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
-Bob Dylan
Showing posts with label special education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label special education. Show all posts
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Impact of ESE Teachers Teaching 300 Minutes at High Schools
CTA representatives have asked that we forward them input for a committee that is analyzing the impact of the teaching an additional period and having only one planning period for high school. In addition to the many negative outcomes being reported by general education teachers consider the following which is particular to ESE students and teachers:
1. Teachers have no time to mentor, support, counsel, and tutor students outside class. With the demands of curriculum, there is very little time in the classroom when instruction can be stopped to take care of this important ESE service. We have seen huge increases in suspensions, withdrawals to charter and private schools, drops in student grades, feelings from students that there is “no help.” and the number of students with a lack of motivation.
2. ESE teachers are missing 2-3 classes per week, on the average, to conduct IEP meetings. Sometimes it’s an aid covering or a co-teacher is left by themselves.
3. ESE teachers are completing the draft IEPs after school or at home. Increasing the “homework” portion of the job several more hours per week on the average.
4. Very little “case management” is occurring. There is much less time to consult, collaborate, make phone calls to parents and agencies, etc.
5. ESE teachers who co-teach travel all over the building (floating) and must co-plan with on the average 3 different teachers.
6. ESE teachers of students in the self-contained classrooms (TMH and SPMH at my school) use parts of their planning and lunch time to assist students in the lunchroom, bathroom, and locker rooms. This adds up to a class period, but because there is no roster for the ESE teacher, the time does not count as instructional for the ESE teacher.
1. Teachers have no time to mentor, support, counsel, and tutor students outside class. With the demands of curriculum, there is very little time in the classroom when instruction can be stopped to take care of this important ESE service. We have seen huge increases in suspensions, withdrawals to charter and private schools, drops in student grades, feelings from students that there is “no help.” and the number of students with a lack of motivation.
2. ESE teachers are missing 2-3 classes per week, on the average, to conduct IEP meetings. Sometimes it’s an aid covering or a co-teacher is left by themselves.
3. ESE teachers are completing the draft IEPs after school or at home. Increasing the “homework” portion of the job several more hours per week on the average.
4. Very little “case management” is occurring. There is much less time to consult, collaborate, make phone calls to parents and agencies, etc.
5. ESE teachers who co-teach travel all over the building (floating) and must co-plan with on the average 3 different teachers.
6. ESE teachers of students in the self-contained classrooms (TMH and SPMH at my school) use parts of their planning and lunch time to assist students in the lunchroom, bathroom, and locker rooms. This adds up to a class period, but because there is no roster for the ESE teacher, the time does not count as instructional for the ESE teacher.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
ESE Teachers - this is a warning, pay attention!
The way to CYA, is to put into writing and send the district or a member of the school board your views on the ESE cutbacks in services for next year. That action may be your only protection in a law suit.
"WASHINGTON, May 21 — A Supreme Court decision on Monday gave parents of children with disabilities the right to go to court without a lawyer to challenge their public school district’s individualized plan for their child’s education." (click title for full story)
Read the post below about a teacher being awarded 1M, her only back up was to have her concerns in writing. Read the post below from STAND. Not reporting students' violation of their rights is like not reporting abuse or neglect.
Late yesterday (5/21), the district announced that the IEP Paraprofessional positions are "frozen" and will be filled by all the VE teachers who are in the pool. So, a highly qualified teacher" may be in this position. STAND do not stand for this! This is not a solution to deliver quality services for students with disabilities.
"WASHINGTON, May 21 — A Supreme Court decision on Monday gave parents of children with disabilities the right to go to court without a lawyer to challenge their public school district’s individualized plan for their child’s education." (click title for full story)
Read the post below about a teacher being awarded 1M, her only back up was to have her concerns in writing. Read the post below from STAND. Not reporting students' violation of their rights is like not reporting abuse or neglect.
Late yesterday (5/21), the district announced that the IEP Paraprofessional positions are "frozen" and will be filled by all the VE teachers who are in the pool. So, a highly qualified teacher" may be in this position. STAND do not stand for this! This is not a solution to deliver quality services for students with disabilities.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Why ESE Teachers Need a Planning Period AND an ESE Clinical Period
Why Secondary ESE Teachers Need a “Clinical” Period and a Planning Period
(revised on 3/3/07)
With both district and administrative support at my school, we were able to implement a “clinical” period for most ESE teachers for nearly 10 years. Many other high schools throughout the county followed suit. In planning for this school year, 2006-07, we realized that it would be impossible to provide services for our students without ESE teachers teaching 5 out of 7 periods. Our duty period became “ESE Duty”, and these teachers were not assigned homerooms. This plan has not been successful as what we are asked to do for ESE students outside of the classroom while maintaining mandatory compliance and documentation is overwhelming for the little time afforded to these tasks. These tasks are clearly 20% of time.
Below is the typical/average ESE paperwork load and case management activities for VE teachers co-teaching and perhaps having 1-2 resource/special diploma classes. This is why a “Clinical Period” is needed.
1. The average IEP from arranging a date to photocopying and filing = 7 hours x 22 case load =154 hours per year (about 1/5th require an additional review) =184 hours per year.
2. Three year re-evaluations, testing for FCAT Waivers, and alternate assessments = 8 students x 3 hours each = 24 hours per year.
3. Conducting FBAs/PBIPs, IEP reviews for every student at the 10th day of suspension = (lucky if you have the average of) 2 students x 12 hours = 24 hours per year.
4. Students on McKay meetings for a re-evaluations/other = 1student x 4 hours = 4 hours per year.
5. Meeting with students on consultative status = 5 students x 9 months (not meeting in May) x 15 min. average. = 11.25 hours per year.
6. Phone calls to parents for case management = 22 case load x 10 months x average 10 min. a month (some none, more, or less) = 36.67 hours per year.
7. Consulting with teachers for students on caseload/monthly progress reports = 22 students x 9 months (not May) x 5 minutes each = 16.5 hours per year.
8. Report Card inserts = 22 caseload x 4 times per year X 5 min. each = 7.3 hours.
9. “Gretrude Graduate” (informing parents that services end upon graduation) and Summary of Performance forms (must meet with student) = 5 students x 25 minutes = 2 hours.
10. Recommendations for the following year programming 17 caseload (less the grads) x 10 minutes = 3 hours.
11. Reviewing the IEPs at the beginning of the year, and communicating accommodations and information to gen. ed. teachers at the beginning of the year and again when the IEP is reviewed = 10 hours.
This is 322.72 hours per year of ESE additional requirements to a teacher’s work day!
There's time spent “counseling” a student or providing additional help for an academic problem, not included.
Another issue is the enormous number of updates to procedures and policies. We live in a rapidly changing world and it takes a great deal of time to read the continually changing "new rule" or "procedure". With the many legal issues involved with ESE students, this is another time consuming part of the job. An annual file folder of updates has been 2 inches thick for years.
The self-contained programs spend their time of lower caseloads doing far more data collection, on-going alternate assessment, parent contact, agency contact, etc. They also must review/revise the IEP to address Extended School Year. They also have a classroom aide or attendant.
A “Planning Period” is needed for planning. In an ideal world, a VE teacher would have 3 preps and co-teaching with no more than 2 people. That's far more than a solid hour per day for planning and grading. Teachers must also plan for differentiated instruction. They must plan and provide accommodations. This must also include modified content, materials, and assessment for special diploma students who are served in a regular education classes.
(revised on 3/3/07)
With both district and administrative support at my school, we were able to implement a “clinical” period for most ESE teachers for nearly 10 years. Many other high schools throughout the county followed suit. In planning for this school year, 2006-07, we realized that it would be impossible to provide services for our students without ESE teachers teaching 5 out of 7 periods. Our duty period became “ESE Duty”, and these teachers were not assigned homerooms. This plan has not been successful as what we are asked to do for ESE students outside of the classroom while maintaining mandatory compliance and documentation is overwhelming for the little time afforded to these tasks. These tasks are clearly 20% of time.
Below is the typical/average ESE paperwork load and case management activities for VE teachers co-teaching and perhaps having 1-2 resource/special diploma classes. This is why a “Clinical Period” is needed.
1. The average IEP from arranging a date to photocopying and filing = 7 hours x 22 case load =154 hours per year (about 1/5th require an additional review) =184 hours per year.
2. Three year re-evaluations, testing for FCAT Waivers, and alternate assessments = 8 students x 3 hours each = 24 hours per year.
3. Conducting FBAs/PBIPs, IEP reviews for every student at the 10th day of suspension = (lucky if you have the average of) 2 students x 12 hours = 24 hours per year.
4. Students on McKay meetings for a re-evaluations/other = 1student x 4 hours = 4 hours per year.
5. Meeting with students on consultative status = 5 students x 9 months (not meeting in May) x 15 min. average. = 11.25 hours per year.
6. Phone calls to parents for case management = 22 case load x 10 months x average 10 min. a month (some none, more, or less) = 36.67 hours per year.
7. Consulting with teachers for students on caseload/monthly progress reports = 22 students x 9 months (not May) x 5 minutes each = 16.5 hours per year.
8. Report Card inserts = 22 caseload x 4 times per year X 5 min. each = 7.3 hours.
9. “Gretrude Graduate” (informing parents that services end upon graduation) and Summary of Performance forms (must meet with student) = 5 students x 25 minutes = 2 hours.
10. Recommendations for the following year programming 17 caseload (less the grads) x 10 minutes = 3 hours.
11. Reviewing the IEPs at the beginning of the year, and communicating accommodations and information to gen. ed. teachers at the beginning of the year and again when the IEP is reviewed = 10 hours.
This is 322.72 hours per year of ESE additional requirements to a teacher’s work day!
There's time spent “counseling” a student or providing additional help for an academic problem, not included.
Another issue is the enormous number of updates to procedures and policies. We live in a rapidly changing world and it takes a great deal of time to read the continually changing "new rule" or "procedure". With the many legal issues involved with ESE students, this is another time consuming part of the job. An annual file folder of updates has been 2 inches thick for years.
The self-contained programs spend their time of lower caseloads doing far more data collection, on-going alternate assessment, parent contact, agency contact, etc. They also must review/revise the IEP to address Extended School Year. They also have a classroom aide or attendant.
A “Planning Period” is needed for planning. In an ideal world, a VE teacher would have 3 preps and co-teaching with no more than 2 people. That's far more than a solid hour per day for planning and grading. Teachers must also plan for differentiated instruction. They must plan and provide accommodations. This must also include modified content, materials, and assessment for special diploma students who are served in a regular education classes.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Attrition Factors for Special Educators
Factors in Retention and Attrition of Special Educators
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE)—a partnership between the University of Florida (UF) and Johns Hopkins University (JHU)—uses insights from research to address special education personnel issues. COPSSE research is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education [#H325Q000002]. Helen Thornton serves as the project officer.
Billingsley, B. S. (2003). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature (COPSSE Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
U. S. Office of Special
Education Programs
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/RS-2/1/RS-2.pdf
(My personal comments are in italics.)
In the link above, you will find the most recent (April 2003) literature review of special education teacher attrition factors. The SDHC’s projected plan of teaching 300 minutes (or 1 planning period) for next school year will compound and increase the risk factors that have been found to effect special education teacher retention and attrition.
Many of the same factors contribute to the attrition of both general education and special education teachers. The issues below are on the working conditions, unique to special education teachers, and are found on pages 22- 28 of the article. The numbered items (italicized) are the issues I have addressed to the board, district administration, and CTA over the past several weeks. The citations document research findings for the numbered items, as an “abstracted” summary of this body of research.
Research in the past four years has continued to focus on working conditions and support systems as the areas of most concern in order to improve retention of special educators and reduce attrition rates.
This is a link to the author’s 11/2006 Power Point presentation:
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/Billingsley/1/Billingsley.pdf
“As Gersten et al. (2001) asks: “Does the job, with all it entails, make sense? Is it feasible? Is it one that well-trained, interested, special educational professionals can manage in order to accomplish their main objective—enhancing students’ academic, social, and vocational competence?” (p23)
1. ESE teachers complete 5 hours a week of ESE paperwork (exclusive of case management tasks). This is in addition to lesson planning.
“In particular, findings from the largest study investigating paper work, Paperwork in Special Education (SPeNSE, 2002) suggest that paper work problems are significantly related to special educators’ intent to leave teaching, after many other work condition variables are controlled. “ (p23)
“Morvant et al. (1995) found that only half of the special educators in their study agreed that their work load was manageable, 68% felt they had too little time to do their work, and almost one-third found conflicting goals, expectations, and directives a frequent source of stress.” (p23) (17 years ago)
2. Lesson planning time demands, incorporating inclusive practices (accommodations and modification for differentiated instruction), have greatly increased over the years.
“In an investigation of teacher burnout, Embich (2001) concludes that teachers who work
primarily in general education classrooms are at more of a risk of burnout than teachers who work in more traditional settings (e.g., resource, self-contained classrooms). Embich states that responsibilities of those who team teach have expanded and include a wider range of services (e.g., teaching, work in regular classrooms, collaboration) than those working in resource or self-contained models. These team teachers are often involved in working where they are not wanted and in areas in which they have had little preparation. (p25)”
“Moreover, research suggests that collaborative environments have the potential to benefit teachers by preventing burnout, heightening teachers' sense of efficacy, and improving teachers' knowledge base (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997).” (p35)
3. If we could offer teachers collaborative planning time, not only would we provide for the instructional needs of our students in an inclusive environment, but the process itself may reduce other factors that have shown to increase teacher attrition rates.
Case load sizes are a large factor in teacher attrition. For this coming year (2007-08), for ESE “units,” our consultative students did NOT count. These students do receive services in addition to their paper work as part of the spectrum of services. With the recent unit reductions, case loads will increase greatly for next year, even if spread equitably among all ESE teachers at school.
“Although there have not been any clear quantitative findings relating attrition to numbers of students taught, in qualitative studies, teachers consistently report problems with case load and give case load issues as reasons for leaving (Billingsley et al., 1993; Billingsley et al., 1995; Brownell et al., 1994-1995; Morvant et al., 1995; Schnorr, 1995). (p26)”
4. The changes in the types of students we serve have greatly changed. We are now serving students with 2-4 different exceptionalities in non- categorical case loads for ESE teachers. In addition, the demographics and at risk factors of all our students have dramatically changed over the years.
“As some states move toward non-categorical and inclusive programs, such comparisons across disability may make less sense today. A recent national study of special educators revealed that 80% of teachers work with students with two or more exceptionalities, and 32% of teachers work with students with four or more different primary disabilities reported in A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom (SPeNSE, 2002).” (p26)
“Miller etal. (1999) did not find a link between satisfaction with student relationships and attrition. Billingsley et al. (1995) found that student issues were a less important factor in attrition than other types of problems, e.g., inadequate administrative support, case load, and role problems. Westling and Whitten (1996) stated that, “Teachers who planned to leave were not doing so because of the students they were teaching or the type or severity of their disabilities” (p. 330). Morvant et al. (1995) suggested that 83% of teachers felt satisfied with their accomplishments with students, 85% felt they were making a significant difference in their students’ lives, and 96% enjoyed their students.” (p26)
Teachers seem to not attribute the diversity of their students as the cause of their stress levels, but the lack of time and supports to prepare adequately for the student differences.
5. The plan of teaching 300 minutes will ACTUALLY reduce the number of ESE teachers.
“Excessive and prolonged work problems lead to negative affective reactions, such as increased stress, lower job satisfaction, and reduced organizational and professional commitment. The combination of multiple, interacting work-related problems (e.g., too many students, too much paper work, too little support, and the lack of needed resources) clearly weakens the teacher’s ability to be effective and therefore reduces their opportunities for the positive intrinsic rewards that are important to teachers (Billingsley et al., 1995).” (p26-27)
“Morvant et al. (1995) stated that almost 80% of those who planned to leave indicated that they felt under a great deal of stress on a weekly or daily basis, compared to just over half of stayers. They also report that leavers indicated significantly more frequent stress than stayers due to: (1) the range of students’ needs and abilities; (2) bureaucratic requirements; and (3) conflicting expectations, goals, and directives.” (p27)
And the final concluding paragraph of this literature review of the past 10 years of published research on special education attrition factors (my highlighting):
“Work Environment factors associated with staying include: (1) higher salaries; (2) positive school climate; (3) adequate support systems, particularly principal and central office support; (4) opportunities for professional development; (5) reasonable role demand; and (6) manageable case loads. Problematic district and school factors especially low salaries, poor climate, lack of administrative support, and role overload and dissonance lead to negative affective reactions, e.g., high levels of stress, low levels of job satisfaction, and low levels of commitment. These negative reactions can often lead to withdrawal and eventually attrition.” (p28)
The Executive Summary of this report can be found at:
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/RS-2E/1/RS-2E.pdf
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS:
“Policy makers and administrators interested in reducing attrition must facilitate the development of better work environments for special educators. Addressing issues such as teacher role overload and the need for critical supports (e.g., administrative support, professional development) must be addressed to ensure that teachers can be effective in their work. Focusing on one or two aspects of teachers’ work lives will probably be insufficient to substantially reduce attrition. For example, providing beginning teachers with formal induction programs is not likely to be effective in the end unless their work assignments are also reasonable. A holistic look at creating positive work environments should not only reduce attrition behavior, but should also help sustain special educators’ involvement and commitment in their work.” (Final paragraph from the Executive Summary)
SUMMARY:
What are the major best practice recommendations schools systems can implement to reduce special education teachers’ attrition rates?
Provide time for effective planning.
Provide time for paper work and case management.
What else should we be doing to keep our ESE teachers, especially our newer ones?
Offer sufficient building level support.
“Special educators, like general educators, must engage in educational planning,
understand the curriculum, and become familiar with school routines. Special educators have numerous additional responsibilities and concerns related to working with students with significant learning and behavioral problems. A few qualitative studies have documented the concerns experienced by beginning special educators, e.g., managing paper work, making accommodations for instruction and testing, developing and monitoring IEPs, scheduling students, and collaborating with teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and related services personnel” (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; MacDonald, 2001; Magliaro & Wildman, 1990). (p20)
“Singh and Billingsley (1998) suggest that the principal enhances commitment through fostering a collegial environment.” (p20)
2. A full-time ESE Specialist is vital for offering the support needed for ESE teachers, especially the newer ones, to experience success and reduce attrition rates.
Offer continuing professional development AND the time to implement new skills
(planning time).
“Special educators devote considerable time to continuing professional development, averaging 59 hours in 1999-2000 as reported by A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, (SPeNSE, 2002). Although school districts support staff development, they do not reliably incorporate best practices, e.g., engaging teachers in the learning process, allowing time to plan now to implement new skills.” (p.22)
COPSSE Home Page: http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/index.php
Abstracted from the above linked sources in March 2007
By Gayle C
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE)—a partnership between the University of Florida (UF) and Johns Hopkins University (JHU)—uses insights from research to address special education personnel issues. COPSSE research is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education [#H325Q000002]. Helen Thornton serves as the project officer.
Billingsley, B. S. (2003). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature (COPSSE Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
U. S. Office of Special
Education Programs
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/RS-2/1/RS-2.pdf
(My personal comments are in italics.)
In the link above, you will find the most recent (April 2003) literature review of special education teacher attrition factors. The SDHC’s projected plan of teaching 300 minutes (or 1 planning period) for next school year will compound and increase the risk factors that have been found to effect special education teacher retention and attrition.
Many of the same factors contribute to the attrition of both general education and special education teachers. The issues below are on the working conditions, unique to special education teachers, and are found on pages 22- 28 of the article. The numbered items (italicized) are the issues I have addressed to the board, district administration, and CTA over the past several weeks. The citations document research findings for the numbered items, as an “abstracted” summary of this body of research.
Research in the past four years has continued to focus on working conditions and support systems as the areas of most concern in order to improve retention of special educators and reduce attrition rates.
This is a link to the author’s 11/2006 Power Point presentation:
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/Billingsley/1/Billingsley.pdf
“As Gersten et al. (2001) asks: “Does the job, with all it entails, make sense? Is it feasible? Is it one that well-trained, interested, special educational professionals can manage in order to accomplish their main objective—enhancing students’ academic, social, and vocational competence?” (p23)
1. ESE teachers complete 5 hours a week of ESE paperwork (exclusive of case management tasks). This is in addition to lesson planning.
“In particular, findings from the largest study investigating paper work, Paperwork in Special Education (SPeNSE, 2002) suggest that paper work problems are significantly related to special educators’ intent to leave teaching, after many other work condition variables are controlled. “ (p23)
“Morvant et al. (1995) found that only half of the special educators in their study agreed that their work load was manageable, 68% felt they had too little time to do their work, and almost one-third found conflicting goals, expectations, and directives a frequent source of stress.” (p23) (17 years ago)
2. Lesson planning time demands, incorporating inclusive practices (accommodations and modification for differentiated instruction), have greatly increased over the years.
“In an investigation of teacher burnout, Embich (2001) concludes that teachers who work
primarily in general education classrooms are at more of a risk of burnout than teachers who work in more traditional settings (e.g., resource, self-contained classrooms). Embich states that responsibilities of those who team teach have expanded and include a wider range of services (e.g., teaching, work in regular classrooms, collaboration) than those working in resource or self-contained models. These team teachers are often involved in working where they are not wanted and in areas in which they have had little preparation. (p25)”
“Moreover, research suggests that collaborative environments have the potential to benefit teachers by preventing burnout, heightening teachers' sense of efficacy, and improving teachers' knowledge base (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997).” (p35)
3. If we could offer teachers collaborative planning time, not only would we provide for the instructional needs of our students in an inclusive environment, but the process itself may reduce other factors that have shown to increase teacher attrition rates.
Case load sizes are a large factor in teacher attrition. For this coming year (2007-08), for ESE “units,” our consultative students did NOT count. These students do receive services in addition to their paper work as part of the spectrum of services. With the recent unit reductions, case loads will increase greatly for next year, even if spread equitably among all ESE teachers at school.
“Although there have not been any clear quantitative findings relating attrition to numbers of students taught, in qualitative studies, teachers consistently report problems with case load and give case load issues as reasons for leaving (Billingsley et al., 1993; Billingsley et al., 1995; Brownell et al., 1994-1995; Morvant et al., 1995; Schnorr, 1995). (p26)”
4. The changes in the types of students we serve have greatly changed. We are now serving students with 2-4 different exceptionalities in non- categorical case loads for ESE teachers. In addition, the demographics and at risk factors of all our students have dramatically changed over the years.
“As some states move toward non-categorical and inclusive programs, such comparisons across disability may make less sense today. A recent national study of special educators revealed that 80% of teachers work with students with two or more exceptionalities, and 32% of teachers work with students with four or more different primary disabilities reported in A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom (SPeNSE, 2002).” (p26)
“Miller etal. (1999) did not find a link between satisfaction with student relationships and attrition. Billingsley et al. (1995) found that student issues were a less important factor in attrition than other types of problems, e.g., inadequate administrative support, case load, and role problems. Westling and Whitten (1996) stated that, “Teachers who planned to leave were not doing so because of the students they were teaching or the type or severity of their disabilities” (p. 330). Morvant et al. (1995) suggested that 83% of teachers felt satisfied with their accomplishments with students, 85% felt they were making a significant difference in their students’ lives, and 96% enjoyed their students.” (p26)
Teachers seem to not attribute the diversity of their students as the cause of their stress levels, but the lack of time and supports to prepare adequately for the student differences.
5. The plan of teaching 300 minutes will ACTUALLY reduce the number of ESE teachers.
“Excessive and prolonged work problems lead to negative affective reactions, such as increased stress, lower job satisfaction, and reduced organizational and professional commitment. The combination of multiple, interacting work-related problems (e.g., too many students, too much paper work, too little support, and the lack of needed resources) clearly weakens the teacher’s ability to be effective and therefore reduces their opportunities for the positive intrinsic rewards that are important to teachers (Billingsley et al., 1995).” (p26-27)
“Morvant et al. (1995) stated that almost 80% of those who planned to leave indicated that they felt under a great deal of stress on a weekly or daily basis, compared to just over half of stayers. They also report that leavers indicated significantly more frequent stress than stayers due to: (1) the range of students’ needs and abilities; (2) bureaucratic requirements; and (3) conflicting expectations, goals, and directives.” (p27)
And the final concluding paragraph of this literature review of the past 10 years of published research on special education attrition factors (my highlighting):
“Work Environment factors associated with staying include: (1) higher salaries; (2) positive school climate; (3) adequate support systems, particularly principal and central office support; (4) opportunities for professional development; (5) reasonable role demand; and (6) manageable case loads. Problematic district and school factors especially low salaries, poor climate, lack of administrative support, and role overload and dissonance lead to negative affective reactions, e.g., high levels of stress, low levels of job satisfaction, and low levels of commitment. These negative reactions can often lead to withdrawal and eventually attrition.” (p28)
The Executive Summary of this report can be found at:
http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/docs/RS-2E/1/RS-2E.pdf
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS:
“Policy makers and administrators interested in reducing attrition must facilitate the development of better work environments for special educators. Addressing issues such as teacher role overload and the need for critical supports (e.g., administrative support, professional development) must be addressed to ensure that teachers can be effective in their work. Focusing on one or two aspects of teachers’ work lives will probably be insufficient to substantially reduce attrition. For example, providing beginning teachers with formal induction programs is not likely to be effective in the end unless their work assignments are also reasonable. A holistic look at creating positive work environments should not only reduce attrition behavior, but should also help sustain special educators’ involvement and commitment in their work.” (Final paragraph from the Executive Summary)
SUMMARY:
What are the major best practice recommendations schools systems can implement to reduce special education teachers’ attrition rates?
Provide time for effective planning.
Provide time for paper work and case management.
What else should we be doing to keep our ESE teachers, especially our newer ones?
Offer sufficient building level support.
“Special educators, like general educators, must engage in educational planning,
understand the curriculum, and become familiar with school routines. Special educators have numerous additional responsibilities and concerns related to working with students with significant learning and behavioral problems. A few qualitative studies have documented the concerns experienced by beginning special educators, e.g., managing paper work, making accommodations for instruction and testing, developing and monitoring IEPs, scheduling students, and collaborating with teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and related services personnel” (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998; MacDonald, 2001; Magliaro & Wildman, 1990). (p20)
“Singh and Billingsley (1998) suggest that the principal enhances commitment through fostering a collegial environment.” (p20)
2. A full-time ESE Specialist is vital for offering the support needed for ESE teachers, especially the newer ones, to experience success and reduce attrition rates.
Offer continuing professional development AND the time to implement new skills
(planning time).
“Special educators devote considerable time to continuing professional development, averaging 59 hours in 1999-2000 as reported by A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, (SPeNSE, 2002). Although school districts support staff development, they do not reliably incorporate best practices, e.g., engaging teachers in the learning process, allowing time to plan now to implement new skills.” (p.22)
COPSSE Home Page: http://www.coe.ufl.edu/copsse/index.php
Abstracted from the above linked sources in March 2007
By Gayle C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)