Burnout Among Special Education Teachers

Volume 15, Number 2
November 2002
Journal of
Special
Education
Leadership
The Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education
A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
Articles
Administrators Perceptions of Special Education Law ..............................................43

Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D., and Bob Algozzine, Ph.D.
Administrators Perspectives of the Impact of Mandatory Graduation

Qualifying Examinations for Students with Learning Disabilities ............................49
Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., and Sandra Washburn, M.A.
Improving Special Education Teacher Retention: Implications

from a Decade of Research............................................................................................60
Bonnie S. Billingsley, Ed.D.
Burnout Among Special Education Teachers and Perceptions of Support ................67

Robert H. Zabel, Ph.D., and Mary Kay Zabel, Ph.D.
Superintendents Commentary:
May You Live in Interesting Times ........................................................................74
Jennifer Esler Reeves, Ed.D.
CASE IN POINT: Same Song and Verse or Will the Melody Change? ....................76
Kenneth E. Schneider, Ed.D.
ISSN 1525-1810
Editorial Board
Editor
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
Assistant to the Editor

Heather Goukler
University of Massachusetts at
Amherst
Board of Associate Editors

Dr. Patricia Anthony
University of Massachusetts-Lowell
Lowell, MA
Dr. Judy Montgomery
Chapman University Orange, CA
Dr. Carl Lashley
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
Dr. Edward Lee Vargas
Hacienda La Puente Unified
School District
City of Industry, CA
Review Board
Dr. Kenneth M. Bird
Westside Community Schools
Omaha, NE
Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey
University of Southern Maine
Gorham, ME
Dr. Leonard C. Burrello
Indiana University Bloomington, IN
Dr. Colleen A. Capper
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dr. Jean B. Crockett
Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA
Dr. Pia Durkin

Boston Public Schools
Dorchester, MA
Dr. Margaret E. Goertz
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
Ms. Charlene A. Green
Clark County School District
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. Susan Brody Hasazi
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT
Dr. Robert Henderson
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, IL
Dr. William Hickey
Avon Public Schools Avon, CT
Dr. Dawn L. Hunter
Chapman University Orange, CA
Dr. Thomas M. Skrtic

University of Kansas Lawrence, KS
Dr. William Swan
University of Georgia Athens, GA
Dr. Martha Thurlow
National Center on Educational
Outcomes, University of
Minnesota Minneapolis, MN
Dr. Deborah A. Verstegen
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Dr. David Wood
Florida Southern College
Lakeland, FL
Dr. Jim Yates
University of Texas at Austin
CASE Executive Committee 20022003

Brenda Heiman, President
Dr. Shirley R. McBride

Canadian Government Victoria, BC
Steve Milliken, President-Elect
Dr. Harold McGrady

Division of Learning Disabilities
Columbus, OH
Christy Chambers, Secretary
Dr. Jonathan McIntire

Orange County Public Schools
Orlando, FL
Emily Collins, Representative

of CASE Units
Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlin

University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Cheryl Hofweber, Canadian

Representative
Dr. Tom Parrish

American Institutes For Research
Palo Alto, CA
Jerry Hine, Policy & Legislation Chair
Dr. David P. Riley

The Urban Special Education
Leadership Collaborative
Newton, MA
Dr. Kenneth E. Schneider
Orange County Public Schools
Orlando, FL
Beverly McCoun, Past President

Cal Evans, Treasurer
Thomas Jeschke, Representative to CEC
Eileen McCarthy, Membership Chair

Mary Lynn Boscardin, Journal Editor
John Faust, Publications and
Product Review Chair
Jim Chapple, Professional
Development Chair
Luann Purcell, Executive Director
The Editorial Mission

The primary goal of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators
and researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based on
recent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. The Journal of Special Education Leadership is a journal
dedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy issues. It is a refereed journal that directly
supports CASEs main objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special
education administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields.
Articles for the Journal of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special
education service delivery systems, as well as reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special education that is significant. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and
immediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.
Journal of Special Education Leadership

Volume 15, Number 2
Subscriptions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education
in conjunction with Sopris West. Copy requests should be made to CASE, 615 16th Street NW, Albuquerque,
NM 87104. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate. Members receive a copy of the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membership
fee. See back cover for subscription form.
Advertising
The Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference
announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products,
materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates.
Permissions
The Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without
permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material,
please write or call the editor.
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
175 Hills-South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Copyright
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education in conjunction with Sopris West to
foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education
administration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the
responsibility of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by
adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the publisher.
Sopris West Educational Services

4093 Specialty Place
Longmont, CO 80504
Phone: (303) 651-2829

Fax: (888) 819-7767
www.sopriswest.com
Published in partnership with:
A Letter from the Editor

In July 2002, A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families, also known as the
Commission Report, was released. This report was written by the Commission on Excellence in Special
Education, created by President George W. Bush on October 2, 2001 (Executive Order 13227). This report
comes on the heels of the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which is now heralded
as the driving force behind IDEA reauthorization. Several concerns regarding the future mission and
structure of special education are raised in this report, with few solutions offered.
NCLB and the Commission Report will continue to shape the role of administrators and the way services
are provided for students with disabilities. With the passage of NCLB there will be an even greater need for
building principals to have more than just a passing understanding of special education. Principals will
need to have a working knowledge of the law as it relates to special education and of the accommodations
that make the curriculum accessible to students with disabilities. The intent is to increase the number of students with disabilities passing statewide assessments and graduating from high school.
A major recommendation of the Commission Report is to require that only highly qualified teachers educate our students with disabilities. However, the report says nothing about highly qualified administrators.
Administrators must develop programs that fulfill the professional growth and development needs of these
teachers to increase retention of the best and brightest. This means that administrators must also be among
the best and brightest. They must be able to cultivate a learning environment that provides every single
teacher with the support they need to achieve the optimal performance of their students.
The authors of the articles in this issue of JSEL address some of the concerns raised in the Commission
Report, though this was not their intention.
This issue includes articles by Drs. Donica N. Davidson and Bob Algozzine, Dr. Genevieve MansetWilliamson and Ms. Sandra Washburn, Dr. Bonnie Billingsley, and Drs. Robert H. Zabel and Mary Kay Zabel
that address some of the issues raised by the Commission Report. Dr. Ken Schneider provides a special education directors point of view for Case in Point and Jennie Reeves provides a superintendents perspective.
The CASE Executive Committee and I always welcome your feedback regarding each issue of JSEL. We
hope you enjoy this issue of the journal.
Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor
mlbosco@educ.umass.edu
42
Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002
Administrators Perceptions
of Special Education Law
Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D.
Bob Algozzine, Ph.D.
Waxhaw, NC
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Beginning administrators perceptions of legislation affecting students with disabilities were surveyed.
Opinions were solicited with regard to knowledge and understanding of special education law and
satisfaction with administrative preparation in special education law as well as the perceived need for
additional training.
Most novice administrators did not believe they had sufficient knowledge of special education law.
Most novice administrators reported dissatisfaction with their administrative training and a need for
additional preparation in special education law.
More academic training in special education law appears warranted in efforts to provide effective
leadership in managing educational programs for students with disabilities.
aw permeates every facet of our public schools

(Eads, Arnold, & Tyler, 1995; Riehl, 2000;
Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000). The political and social ramifications of our legal system have
changed over time, and this change is reflected
throughout our educational system. Special education has been particularly affected by these trends
(Eads et al., 1995; Einstein, 1983; Hines, 1993,
Russell, 1990; Schmidt, 1987; Ysseldyke et al., 2000).
Current practices in special education are driven in
part by laws that have established a provision of services to students with special needs. Mandates that
require complete compliance in educational services
for students with disabilities have dramatically
altered the role of building level administrators
(Eads et al., 1993; Yell, 1998; Ysseldyke et al., 2000).
Over three decades, the changes in federal policies and guidelines have increased the principals
responsibility from managing programs for children
to regulating educational services for students with
disabilities (Riehl, 2000; Sage & Burrello, 1994;
Ysseldyke et al., 2000). Today, the principal must
understand laws that govern special education.
Ongoing audits of the schools compliance with federal and state mandates for special education
require knowledge in practices and procedures

(Osborne, Dimattia, & Curran, 1993). If they dont
have such knowledge, principals often render inferior leadership and decision-making that commits
district resources to inappropriate and legally liable
situations (Smith & Colon, 1998).
In order to meet professional obligations and
protect the rights of all individuals involved, public
school administrators must possess a basic understanding of special education school law and how it
impacts their respective schools and school districts.
The knowledge of special education law is critical to
the building-level administrator when managing
special education programs because judicial consequences result when decisions are not in compliance
with federal mandates. This study posed the following question: What is the perception and level of
knowledge of special education law among beginning administrators?
Method
The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of special education law among beginning
school administrators. A survey was used to sample
43
Law Perceptions
opinions and to maximize the generalization of the

findings to the widest possible population.
Participants
The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program
(PFP) has existed for more than five years to ensure
that the best, most highly qualified students are
selected for a preparation and qualification program in public school administration. These
individuals are selected based on a rigorous screening and agree to a four-year commitment to the
state of North Carolina following their graduation.
Each Principal Fellow receives a scholarship loan in
the amount of $20,000 per year of full-time study
for a total of $40,000 over two years. The funding
pays for tuition, fees, and living expenses while in
the program. The scholarship loan is repaid
through service as a school-based administrator
(assistant principal or principal) at a North
Carolina public school. Principal Fellows are
enrolled full time and must remain in good standing in an MSA program at a university
participating as an approved program site, complete a full-time internship in a public school
during the second year of the program, and participate in enrichment activities provided by the PFP.
While serving as an intern, a Principal Fellow
receives a stipend in addition to the scholarship
loan, equal to the 04 step on the state salary schedule for assistant principals. Enrichment activities
that supplement the MSA program focus on leadership development. These professional development
activities are offered at the state level through the
PFP office to all Principal Fellows as well as by the
individual university programs.
The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program

(PFP) has existed for more than five years to ensure
that the best, most highly qualified students are
selected for a preparation and qualification
program in public school administration.
A group of these specially prepared beginning
administrators (n = 264) participated in this research.
One hundred and eighty graduates of Masters of
School Administration programs and 84 students in
44
a full-time internship under a master principal were

included. For the purpose of comparing subgroups
in the study, the sample was divided into four
cohorts: (1) Cohort 138 subjects, graduated four
years ago, (2) Cohort 267 subjects, graduated three
years ago, (3) Cohort 376 subjects, graduated two
years ago, and (4) Cohort 484 interns projected to
graduate at the end of the then current school year.
The positions held by most Principal Fellows
were either assistant principal (54%) or intern (31%).
Small cadres of principals (9.2%) and lead teachers
(2.5%) were among the group. The majority of the
respondents were Caucasian (83%). Most of the
respondents were females (73.3%). Principal Fellows
were mainly grouped in the 30 to 39-year-old
(40.8%) and 40 to 49-year-old (37.5%) age categories.
There were a few Principal Fellows in age categories
at opposite ends of the spectrum20 to 29 (15.8%)
and 50 to 59 years (5.8%). Almost the entire group of
Principal Fellows was certified in regular education
(89%) and not special education (6%); however, a
few were certified in both regular and special education (5%). The majority of Principal Fellows served
in their current administrative assignment for only
one to two years but spent from five to ten years in
both teaching and administration (58%). The majority of the females (58%) were assigned to elementary
schools, in contrast with the males, who were evenly
distributed between the elementary, middle, and
high school levels.
Procedure
The research was conducted using a descriptive/
comparative design. A cross-sectional survey was
administered to beginning school administrators.
The questionnaire was used to gather data on the
perceptions of special education law. Participants
were asked their perception of their level of knowledge for procedural safeguards in IDEA that govern
programs and services for children with special
needs. Demographic information was also solicited.
A single-stage sampling procedure was used to select
participants. Surveys were administered accordingly:
(1) 180 Principal Fellow graduates were mailed questionnaires from the North Carolina Principal Fellows
office; and (2) 84 student interns were administered
questionnaires during Internship/Seminar class at
their respective universities.
Law Perceptions
In an effort to obtain a high rate of return on the

interns questionnaire, the senior author contacted
the directors of the Principal Fellows Program at
each university and explained the research project.
Permission was requested to contact the professor
responsible for the Internship/Seminar during the
spring term. The senior author then contacted the
professor and requested assistance in administering
the survey during a class session. If the professor
requested assistance in administering the survey,
the senior author attended the seminar and gathered the data. If the professor agreed to administer
the survey during a seminar class, the senior author
mailed to the university a package containing the
questionnaires, endorsement letters, and directions
for each student. A self-addressed, return envelope
was provided to the professor for return of completed questionnaires. Extra envelopes were sent
with the survey package for any student who may
have been absent and would need to complete the
survey at a later date.
Instrument. A mail survey that took approximately 2530 minutes to complete was the primary
data source for this study. An instrument originally
developed in 1986 for the purpose of surveying
superintendents knowledge in special education law
and later revised to access principals knowledge was
adapted for this study (Robertson, 1996). Changes
were made to meet 1997 revisions to IDEA and make
the information applicable to local standards.
The questionnaire also contained items soliciting
demographic information, including current position in public schools, professional experience,
administrative experience, and certification area.
This information was used in comparative analysis
to determine if relationships existed between
selected characteristics and knowledge of special
education law. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used
for participants to indicate opinions as to their (1)
level of knowledge of special education law, (2)
level of need for administrative training in special
education law, and (3) level of satisfaction for previous administrative training in special education law.
Analysis of Data
Frequency distributions were used to describe the
sample. Descriptive statistics were used to describe
the (1) perceived knowledge for special education
law among beginning administrators, (2) need for

administrative training in special education law, and
(3) satisfaction from previous training in special education law. Descriptive and inferential statistics were
used to examine relations between demographic
characteristics and perceptions of knowledge.
Results
Principal Fellows were almost divided equally as to
their perceived level of knowledge of special education law. While 52.5% perceived themselves to have
a moderate or significant level of knowledge of
special education law, 47.5% believed they had a
limited to basic level of knowledge. Specifically,
13.3% indicated a limited level, 34.2% a basic
level, 41.7% a moderate level, and 10.8% a significant level (see Table 1).
Table 1: Perceived level of knowledge of special education law
Level of Knowledge
Limited
13.3
16
Basic
34.2
41
Moderate
41.7
50
Significant
10.8
13
The difference in perceptions that male and female

Principal Fellows had concerning their level of knowledge of special education law was relatively small.
The majority of both groups perceived their level of
knowledge to be at the basic or moderate levels,
with 50.0% of the males indicating a basic level and
37.5% indicating a moderate level. However,
females perceived their level of knowledge to be
higher, with 43.3% of females indicating a moderate
level and 28.4% indicating a basic level. Also, more
females (13.6%) perceived their level of knowledge to
be significant, compared to only 3.1% of males.
When asked to indicate their level of understanding for policies and procedures as mandated
under the IDEA, the percent distribution among levels was similar to the Principal Fellows perception
of their level of knowledge of special education law.
45
Law Perceptions
More than half (53.3%) of the Principal Fellows indicated a limited or basic level of understanding,
while 46.7% indicated a moderate or significant
level. Specifically, 40.0% of Principal Fellows indicated a moderate level of understanding, with
another 40.0% indicating a basic level of understanding. Percentages were lower at each of the
extremes, with 13.3% indicating a limited level
and only 6.7% indicating a significant level of
understanding for policies and procedures as mandated under IDEA.
The level of understanding that male and
female Principal Fellows had for special education
policies and procedures was similar. A high percentage of males and females indicated a basic or
moderate level of understanding for special education policies and procedures. A total of 84.4% of
the males indicated basic or moderate levels,
while 78.4% of the females perceived the same
levels. A lower percentage of male (15.6%) and
female (12.5%) Principal Fellows perceived their
level of understanding to be at the limited level.
Females (9.1%) were the only group that indicated
a significant level of understanding.
When Principal Fellows were asked to indicate
their need for administrative training in special education
law, the majority (47.5%) indicated an average need
for additional training. According to their responses, a
total of 34.2% indicated an above average or very
high need for additional training in special education
law. Ten percent of the Principal Fellows indicated a
very high need for additional training, while 24.2%
indicated an above average need for additional
training. Only 18.4% of Principal Fellows believed
additional training was not needed in special education law. Of this group, 14.2% indicated a below
average need, and 4.2% indicated a very low need.
The perceptions that male and female Principal
Fellows had for additional training in special education law are illustrated in Table 2. The majority of
both genders perceived an average or above
average need for additional training. Of females,
48.9% perceived an average need and 20.5%
perceived an above average need, compared to
43.8% of the males perceiving an average need
and 34.4% perceiving an above average need. A
higher percentage of females (11.4%) perceived a
46
Table 2: Perceived need for additional training in special education

law (by gender)
Need for Training
Very Low
Female
Male
5.7
.0
5
0
Below Average
Female
Male
13.6
15.6
12
5
Average
Female
Male
48.9
43.8
43
14
Above Average
Female
Male
20.5
34.4
18
11
Very High
Female
Male
11.4
6.3
10
2
Total
Female
Male
100.0
100.0
88
32
very high need for additional training as compared to males (6.3%).

When Principal Fellows were asked to rate their
satisfaction with preparation they received in special
education law during their administrative training,
the majority (46.7%) gave a rating below or well
below standard. While 38.3% of the Principal
Fellows rated their administrative training in special
education law to be at standard, 32.5% rated it
below standard, and 14.2% rated it well below
standard. Only 15.0% of all Principal Fellows
reported above standard (13.3%) or well above
standard (1.7%) satisfaction.
The level of satisfaction male and female
Principal Fellows had for their administrative training in special education law is presented in Table 3.
The majority of both males and females rated their
administrative training in special education law
below or well below standard, with females giving it the lowest rating. While 37.5% of all females
and 40.6% of all males rated their training at standard, 46.9% of males and 46.6% females rated their
administrative training in special education law
below or well below standard. Only 28.4%
Law Perceptions
Table 3: Satisfaction with administrative training in special

education law (by gender)
Satisfaction with Training
Well Below Standard

Female
Male
14.8
12.5
13
4
Below Standard
Female
Male
31.8
34.4
28
11
At Standard
Female
Male
37.5
40.6
33
13
Above Standard
Female
Male
13.6
12.5
12
4
2.3
.0
2
0
100.0
100.0
88
32
Well Above Standard

Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
of male and female Principal Fellows rated their

training above or well above standard.
Conclusions
Effective leadership depends upon the acquired
knowledge and understanding that a principal has
for laws, policies, and regulations governing the system as well as a responsiveness that meets the needs
of the entire organization. Principals have a significant impact on the delivery of services for students
with disabilities as a result of their knowledge of the
laws that govern special education. For a buildinglevel administrator, special education law does not
authorize educational services based on individual
interpretation. Instead, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and its implementing regulations through specific legal provisions guide the
identification, evaluation, and placement of students
with disabilities. If those who train principals
university faculties and local school system
personnelare to provide skills necessary for the
effective administration of all educational programs,
then information about the knowledge and under-
standing of special education law among school

administrators must be of paramount importance.
Otherwise, decisions that affect the educational programs and services offered to students with
disabilities could be seriously jeopardized.
Consequently, a school system could find itself in a
compromising position and threat of litigation.
Analysis of the data collected in this study suggests
that novice administrators, due to their lack of knowledge of special education law, may have difficulty in
providing leadership and effectively managing special
education. Principal Fellows, the most recent and
allegedly most well-prepared school administrators in
the state, not only perceived themselves as having only
a limited to basic level of knowledge in special education law (47%) but also reported an even lower level of
understanding of special education law (53.3%).
Knowing ones level of knowledge and understanding is critical in the application of
decision-making. If a Principal Fellow believes he or
she has the knowledge and understanding of special
education law when actually he or she does not, then
his or her rendering of decisions could vastly affect
the outcome of services. Interestingly, the data of this
study suggest that female Principal Fellows perceived
their level of knowledge and understanding of special
education law to be higher than the levels indicated
by male respondents. However, when given the
scenario-statements based on special education law,
males scored at a higher level than did the female
participants. Knowledge is power, and power enables
a person to provide either sound, competent leadership or leadership that is fragmented, confusing, and,
often, debilitating. The level of knowledge of special
education law is a factor that could ultimately affect
the type of leadership a principal demonstrates in the
management of educational programs and services
for students with disabilities.
In a review of case law, Chapman, Sorenson, and
Lobosco (1987) found that an increasing number of
parents and advocacy groups representing children
with disabilities sought relief from the courts for noncompliance of educational services provided in public
schools. Compliance issues over the services rendered
to these students could be related to the level of knowledge school administrators have of special education
law. On a daily basis, principals and assistant principals are required to make decisions that affect the lives,
47
Law Perceptions
attitudes, and perceptions of others. Principals have

indicated their need for further training in special education law to improve their skills in the administration
and management of special education.
The complexity of special education law and
variation among administrators could lead to different interpretations that, in turn, could lead to a
variety of problems. As a result, the leadership that a
principal provides could have a ripple effect on all
parties involved if the knowledge of special education law is below a minimal level. Without the
knowledge and understanding of special education
law, managing the special education program could
become frustrating and challenging for the administrator. Instead of managing special education
programs at the building level, principals with
a limited knowledge may avoid or even relinquish
their responsibility to others.
References
Chapman, D., Sorenson, G., & Lobosco, A. (1987, April).
Public school administrators knowledge of recent Supreme
Court decisions affecting school practice. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association
Conference, Washington, D.C.
Eads, P. F., Arnold, M., & Tyler, J. L. (1995). Special education legislation affecting classroom teachers and
administrators. Reading Improvement, 32(1), 912.
Einstein, V. (1983). The nature and role of school law in public
school administration. Doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University.
Hines, T. S. (1993). Florida principals and designates
knowledge of special education law. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 55(07A), 1908.
Jaeger, R. M. (1997). Survey research methods in education.
In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.). Methods for research in education
(pp. 449478). Washington, D.C.: American
Educational Research Association.
48
Osborne, A., DiMattia, P., & Curran, F. (1993). Effective

management of special education programs. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principals role in creating inclusive
schools for diverse students: A review of normative,
empirical, and critical literature on the practice of
educational administration. Review of Educational
Research, 70, 5581.
Robertson, L. R. (1996). Public school administrators knowledge
of special education law. Doctoral dissertation, Florida
International University.
Russell, R. F. (1990). Opinions toward and knowledge of
special education law: A survey of special education
administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International,
51(12A), 3984.
Sage, D., & Burrello L. (1994) Leadership in educational reform:
An administrators guide to changes in special education.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Schmidt, D. M. (1987). Illinois school administrators
knowledge of special education law and regulations.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(07A), 1614.
Smith, J. S., & Colon, R.J. (Jan.1998). Legal responsibilities
toward students with disabilities: What every administrator should know. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 4053.
Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Critical
issues in special education (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
About the Authors

Donica N. Davidson, Ed.D., is an educational consultant at 3611 Tom Greene Road, Waxhaw, NC 28173.
E-mail: mddavidson@aol.com.
Bob Algozzine, Ph.D., is a professor in the
Department of Educational Leadership at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC 28223. E-mail: rfalgozz@email.uncc.edu.
Administrators Perspectives of the Impact of

Mandatory Graduation Qualifying Examinations
for Students with Learning Disabilities
Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., and Sandra Washburn, M.A.
Indiana University
This study examined the perceptions of special education administrators and principals on the impact of
requiring a minimum competency graduation examination for students with learning disabilities.
Administrators generally agreed that access to general education is important to success on the graduation exam.
Administrators felt that, as a result of the new graduation requirement, efforts will be made to promote
and support inclusive practices.
Administrators also agreed that, although they are important for student success on the exam, additional
resources will not be increased in the near future.
The overwhelming majority of administrators felt that repeated failure on the exam will contribute to
students with learning disabilities leaving school before graduating.
tate and district assessment programs have been

a central part of public school reform for the last
fifty years (Linn, 2000). Accountability programs
based primarily on standardized tests were instituted
in an effort to affect the content and quality of education. Ideally, educators and administrators could use
test results to inform decisions about the direction of
resources and instructional effort. Increasingly, high
stakes have been attached to the exams. These stakes
may consist of the public posting of results, cash benefits or fines to schools, or loss of accreditation or of
local control. High stakes are imposed on schools by
policy makers as a way to control curricular content
and performance in schools. Politicians also use them
as a relatively simple and inexpensive way to
demonstrate a commitment to education and high
standards. Despite the proliferation of high-stakes
examinations, there is little evidence that this essentially carrot-and-stick approach to pedagogical
reform has improved public education and even less
on how it has affected students with disabilities
(Airasian, 1988; Linn, 2000). Minimum Competency
Tests (MCTs) for graduation are an example of highstakes exams where students experience the
immediate consequences. While MCTs for high
school graduation were first introduced in a few

states in the 1970s, in the last few years, a new wave
of interest in high standards has led to an increasing
numbers of states adopting minimum competency
graduation qualifying exams as a part of their
accountability program (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). In
this study, we examined administrators perspectives
of the impact of Indianas recently enacted minimum
competency test, the Gateway Qualifying
Examination (GQE), on the educational experiences
and outcomes of students with learning disabilities
(LD). Of particular interest was whether administrators felt that the conditions created by the test would
contradict efforts to provide inclusive or appropriately alternative course offerings.
Minimum Competency Graduation

Qualifying Examinations
Unlike tests that have high stakes for schools or
districts, failing to pass a high school graduation
examination has great personal significance.
Secondary students who do not pass these examinations and therefore do not receive a high school
diploma have limited career and postsecondary
educational options. Beyond the belief that high
49
Graduation Qualifying Examinations
standards will lead to better instruction, the justification for requiring students with disabilities to pass the
exit exam is one of fairness. That is, if there are going
to be high standards, the content of these standards
must be the same for all students. It suggests a tough
stance with universal high expectations and accountability. Like many high-stakes examinations, the
intent of requiring the GQE is to improve education.
That is, programming and instruction will change as a
result of the testing requirement, and all students will
graduate with the skills that will translate into success
as an adult. It has been recognized, however, that students with learning disabilities differ in many
respects from students in general. No doubt most
readers are aware that the deficits that students with
learning disabilities demonstrate in reading and
mathematics can be extreme. Although by definition
having cognitive aptitude within a normal range, secondary students with learning disabilities are, on
average, four years behind their peers in basic reading and mathematics skills. Many of these students
skills will plateau between the 5th and 6th grade levels (Cawley & Miller, 1989; Deschler, Ellis, & Lenz,
1996; Smith, 1994). Researchers provide little evidence
as to the source of this plateau, and its possible that it
varies greatly from student to student. It may be due
to the inherent limitations of the student, the move
from instructional to compensatory models in high
school special education programs, poor instruction,
or a combination of all of the above.
Like many high-stakes examinations, the intent of

requiring the GQE is to improve education.
Whether mandating a MCT will eliminate the
basic skill deficits of students with learning disabilities has not been determined. Researchers have
found that minimum competency graduation exams
have the potential for negatively affecting the educational experiences of students with learning
disabilities (MacMillan et al., 1990; Manset &
Washburn, 2000). For instance, some researchers
have found an association between dropping out of
school and the failure to pass MCTs. Students with
learning disabilities who drop out of school are at
risk for poverty, unemployment, drug abuse, and
involvement in crime (Gajar, Goodman, & McAfee,
50
1993; MacMillan, 1991; MacMillan et al., 1992).

Because schools play an essential part in the transitioning of students, when students with learning
disabilities are out of the educational system, the
support services associated with effective transition
are no longer accessible (Gajar, Goodman, &
McAfee, 1993). Minimum competency tests are
related to a narrowing of the curriculum as well
(Herman & Golan, 1990; Shepard & Doughtery, 1991;
Smith, 1991). By mandating a graduating examination, students and teachers are aware of the
particular skills to be mastered in order to graduate.
On the other hand, while these skills represented a
standard for students in general, they were not necessarily appropriate for those students with learning
disabilities who required an alternative curriculum
in order to successfully transition to adulthood. The
narrow focus of the curriculum and required remediation may have also countered attempts to include
students with learning disabilities fulltime in mainstream classrooms, although we were not able to
find research that addressed this particular issue.
There is also little research on how graduation qualifying exams affect efforts towards full inclusion in
high schools.
In this study, the perceptions of administrators
on the issue of requiring minimum competency
graduation examinations for secondary students
with learning disabilities were collected and examined. Administrators provide an important
perspective on new policies because they have more
information on (and control over) resources, staffing,
and programming than the average educator. Their
birds eye view of programs allows them a unique
perspective from which to reflect on the impact of
the new graduation requirement. The following two
questions framed this study: (1) how do administrators perceive that the new graduation requirements
impact the educational experiences and outcomes of
students with learning disabilities; and (2) what
changes did administrators perceive were needed in
order to best support students in meeting these
requirements? These questions were addressed
through a survey of high school principals and
directors of special education.
Indianas Graduation Qualifying Examination

Beginning with the graduating class of 2000, Indiana
secondary students must pass a minimum competency test (MCT) in order to receive a high school
diploma.1 The Indiana Gateway Qualifying
Examination (GQE)2 is designed to reflect the state
language arts and mathematics curriculum standards. The GQE consists of items assessing language
arts skills up to the 9th grade level and mathematics
skills through basic algebra and geometry. Permitted
accommodations include extended time and the
reading of the mathematics items to students with
disabilities. Students with learning disabilities must
read the language arts portion of the test themselves.
As with students in general, students with learning
disabilities are required to pass the exam in order to
receive a diploma. Not surprisingly, a majority of
students with disabilities are finding it difficult to
pass the examination. Results from 1998 exam show
that almost three-quarters of students with disabilities scored below the proficiency level in both the
English/language arts and mathematics portions of
the test (Indiana Department of Education, 1998).
Method
Participants
Surveys were mailed to 117 directors of special education responsible for secondary students with
disabilities in all Indiana special education planning
districts; all 358 high school principals in Indiana
also received a survey. Because some of the planning
districts are large enough to have more than one
administrator overseeing secondary programs, more
than one participant may have been sent a survey in
the larger districts. Of this initial sample, 58 directors
of special education (50%), representing 60% of the
planning districts, and 204 principals from 57% of
Indianas public high schools responded (n = 262).
Mean graduation and poverty rates for participating
high schools approximate those for the state as a
Students who meet course requirements, attend school
95% of the time, demonstrate test proficiencies, and
attempt the test when offered may receive a waiver to
the testing requirement.
2
Also referred to as the ISTEP+.
1
Table 1: Descriptive information for planning districts and high

schools represented in study
Graduation
Rate*
Percent
Students
Receiving Free
or Reduced
Lunch
Planning Districts
58
**
**
High Schools
204
88
22
SD
* Percent of 12th grade students who graduate high school

** Not available
whole (See Table 1). No other demographic data was

collected from respondents.
Survey Instrument
Two related surveys, one for directors of special education and one for principals (Manset & Washburn,
1998a, 1998b), were designed for this study, based on
an extensive review of the literature on minimum
competency examinations (Manset & Washburn,
2000). Surveys consisted of five major parts with a
total of 65 closed items. This study examines three
parts of the survey. Questions in these parts of the
survey pertained to the current and future impact of
requiring the passing of the GQE for graduation and
instructional practices and programming that predict
success on the exam. Respondents were required to
respond to statements by marking a 5-point Likert
scale, with 1 = strongly disagree or definitely false, 2
= disagree or probably false, 3 = neutral or neither
true nor false, 4 = agree or probably true, and 5 =
strongly agree or definitely true.
Data Reduction and Analysis

Within each of the three parts of the survey, the items
on the questionnaire were mathematically reduced to
the 12 factors reported here (see Tables 2 4 on pages
5253). Factors were produced through a principal
components analysis with varimax rotation for each
portion of the survey. Only factors with a minimum
eigenvalue of one were accepted. Because of the
51
Table 2: Factors for survey items related to administrators perceptions of services or resources that will predict success on GQE
Factors
Eigenvalue
% Variance
8.25
41.2
(1) Increased Inclusive Programming and Support
Greater advocacy for inclusive programming on the part of special education teachers
Increased level of administrative support for all teachers teaching in inclusive settings
Additional professional development activities and training addressing inclusive school services
Increased level of special education support to general education teachers teaching in inclusive settings
Increased time in general education
Increased teacher knowledge and utilization of instructional accommodations
.820
.763
.758
.742
.708
.690
(2) Additional Staff and Instructional Resources

Additional paraprofessionals assigned to teachers that instruct students with learning disabilities
Decreases to special educators case loads
Limiting the numbers of students in inclusive classrooms to 20 or fewer
Increased availability of tutoring services within the community
More extensive use of Teacher Assistance Teams
1.73
(3) Special Education Pullout and Related Services

Increased time in pullout instruction
Increased special education related services (i.e., counselors, psychologists, etc.)
1.24
large number of items for the number of respondents, a conservative minimum loading of .6 was
used for each factor. Pair-wise deletion was used for
missing items. Items included in each factor were
combined by calculating mean responses across
items and respondents. T-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences
Loadings
8.6
.790
.699
.695
.643
.636
6.2
.691
.607
between the responses of principals and directors of

special education. A descriptive summary of
responses for participants as a whole is provided
through the reporting of percentage of administrators. Bar charts illustrating the mean of response
types on factors are provided to support the
descriptive analysis.
Table 3: Factors for survey items related to administrators perspectives of current and future impact of GQE
(1) Less Vocational and Alternative Course Choice
Eigenvalue
% Variance
4.12
34.2
Experience less choice of course selection (future)

Participate in fewer vocational or career preparation courses (future)
Enroll in less vocational or career preparation courses
Enroll in more courses that focus on basic academic skills
.752
.707
.816
.687
(2) Attend Summer School More Often

Are attending summer school more often (currently)
Will attend summer school more often (future)
1.61
(3) Increased Time in Resource or Pullout

Spend more time in resource or pullout (future)
Spend more time in resource or pullout (currently)
1.12
(4) Repeated Failure on GQE Influences Decision to Dropout
1.12
52
Loadings
13.4
.687
.849
8.5
.844
.788
8.5
.746
Table 4: Factors for survey items related to administrators perceptions of the changes that will occur over the next 3 years in response to the GQE.
Eigenvalue
% Variance
6.32
30.1
(1) Increased Inclusive Programming and Support
Increased level of administrative support for teachers teaching in inclusive settings

Greater advocacy for inclusive programming on the part of special education teachers
Additional professional development activities and training addressing inclusive school services
Increased level special education support to general education teachers working in inclusion settings
Increased willingness of general education teachers to include students in their classrooms
.741
.725
.641
.623
.622
(2) Additional Staff and Instructional Resources

Increased special education support services (i.e., counselor, psychologist, etc.)
Additional paraprofessionals assigned to teachers that instruct students with learning disabilities
Limiting the number of students in inclusive classrooms to 20 or fewer
Increased availability of tutoring services within the community
2.48
(3) Instructional Focus on GQE

Increased use of practice tests
Additional instruction in test-taking strategies
Increased availability and use of instructional materials that resemble the format of the tests
1.66
(4) Increase in Remedial Programming

Increased number of remedial courses
Mandatory ninth grade enrollment in remedial classes that focus on GQE preparation
1.27
(5) Decreased Time in Pullout Settings

Decreased time in pullout instruction
Increased time in general education
1.04
Results
Results are summarized here through a comparison
of mean responses from principals and directors of
special education. In addition, a descriptive summary of responses is provided here through the
reporting of percentage of administrators responding to the following three question types:
(1) Provisions of the following services or resources
predicts success on the GQE for students with learning disabilities; (2) As a result of the GQE, students
with learning disabilities currently/will in the
future...; and (3) The following are practices predicted to occur in the next three years in response
to the new GQE requirement....
Responses of Principals vs. Directors of

Special Education
Principals and directors of special education were
generally in agreement on their responses with the
exception of two of the factors (see Table 5 on page 54
and Figures 13 on pages 5657). The two administra-
Loadings
11.8
.783
.732
.719
.625
7.9
.894
.840
.790
6.1
.793
.756
5.0
.764
.729
tor groups differed on one factor related to the perceived impact of the GQE requirement on students
with learning disabilities and one related to changes
that would occur as a result of the new requirement.
Both groups generally agreed that repeated failure on
the GQE influenced student decisions to drop out, but
directors of special education were significantly more
likely to agree that repeated failure on the GQE influenced the decision to drop out.
There were also significant differences between
administrator groups on one of the factors related
to perceived changes that would occur in the next
three years as a result of the GQE requirement.
Principals were more likely to agree that there
would be an increase in staff and instructional
support as a result of the GQE requirement. While
neither group responded with general agreement
on this point, directors of special education
appeared much less optimistic that resources would
increase. The reader should note that, for each of
these factors, the standard deviations are fairly
large, indicating a range of perception.
53
Table 5: Means for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE on students with learning disabilities
Special Education
Director
Principal
M
SD
SD
Predicts GQE Successa

Increased inclusive programming & support
Additional staff and inst. resources
Spec ed pullout & related services
3.59
3.84
2.74
.86
.82
1.62
3.75
3.82
2.87
.84
.66
1.14
Impact of GQE Requirement on Students with LDb

Less course selection/vocational program
Attend summer school more often
More time in resource/pullout
Failure on GQE encourages dropout
2.02
2.99
3.26
3.92
.92
.83
.89
1.01
3.13
3.09
3.21
4.22*
.90
.83
.80
.75
Changes That Will Occur as Result of the GQE

Increased inclusive programming/support
Increased staff/instructional support
Increased instruction focused on GQE
Increased remedial programming
Decreased time in pullout settings
3.45
3.18
4.17
3.66
2.96
.68
.87
.73
.83
.85
3.46
2.82*
4.02
3.06
2.85
.76
.75
.59
.61
.96
Note: a1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree

b
1 = definitely False, 2 = probably false, 3 = neither true nor false, 4 = probably true, and 5 = definitely true
Provision of the following services or

resources predicts success on the GQE for
students with learning disabilities
Approximately 63% of the respondents agreed that
increased inclusive programming would enhance
GQE success for students with learning disabilities
(see Table 6 on following page). In contrast, only
24% agreed that increased special education pullout
or related services predicts success on the GQE for
students with learning disabilities. Forty percent of
respondents were neutral on this, indicating an
uncertainty around this item or an inability to make
a general statement about all students with LD or all
programs, since students with learning disabilities
vary greatly in their needs and programs differ in
their effectiveness. Seventy percent agreed as well
that additional instructional and staff resources contribute to success for students with learning
disabilities on the GQE.
54
As a result of the implementation of the

GQE, students with learning disabilities
currently or in the future will experience
the following...
Respondents appeared split about whether students
would experience less course selection and/or vocational preparation, with approximately 30% of
respondents agreeing with and 36 % of respondents
disagreeing with statements related to the factor (see
Table 6). Respondents also varied in agreement over
whether students with learning disabilities would
spend more time in summer school, with half of the
respondents indicating a neutral response. There
was disagreement over whether students with LD
would spend more time in the resource room or
pullout instruction as a result of the new graduation
requirement, with 32% agreeing and 24% disagreeing with this statement. There was much more
agreement (82% probably to definitely true) that the
requirement will influence students decision to
leave school prior to graduation.
Table 6: Percentages for administrators perspectives on the impact of the GQE requirement on students with learning disabilities
Percentage of Administrator Responses
Strongly
Disagree/
Definitely
False
Disagree/
Probably
False
Neutral/
Neither
True nor
False
Agree/
Probably
True
Strongly
Agree/
Definitely
True
Missing
Predicts GQE Success

Increased inclusive programming & support
Additional staff and inst. resources
Spec ed pullout & related services
4.2
1.5
6.5
5.3
5.3
28.2
26.0
20.6
39.7
48.5
48.5
22.1
14.5
21.4
1.9
1.5
2.7
1.5
Impact of GQE Requirement on Students with LD

Less course selection/vocational program
Attend summer school more often
More time in resource/pullout
Repeated failure on GQE influences decision to drop out
5.7
7.3
5.3
1.9
30.2
24.0
18.7
7.3
34.0
51.1
43.5
13.7
26.3
15.6
29.0
44.7
3.4
1.5
3.1
32.4
.4
.4
.8
0
Changes That Will Occur as Result of the GQE

Increased inclusive programming/support
Increased staff/instructional support
Increased instruction focused on GQE
Increased remedial programming
Decreased time in pullout settings
1.1
2.3
.4
2.3
9.5
6.5
27.9
1.5
6.5
40.1
35.1
43.1
6.9
31.7
25.6
49.6
22.9
63.0
48.9
21.4
6.5
3.1
27.1
8.4
2.3
1.1
.8
1.1
2.3
1.1
Practices predicted to occur in the next

three years in response to the new GQE
graduation requirement
These factors related to changes administrators perceived would occur over the next three years in
response to the GQE requirement (see Table 6).
Approximately 90% agreed that there would be an
increase in the instructional focus related to the
GQE, including greater use of practice materials and
instruction in test-taking strategies. A majority (56%)
agreed that there would be increased inclusive programming and support for students with learning
disabilities. Only 26% felt that there would be an
increase in instructional and staff resources. Fiftyfive percent agreed that there would be increased
required remedial programming. Few (22%) felt that
there would be a decrease in time spent in special
education pullout instruction.
Discussion
Although not universal, there is some agreement that
access to general education is important to success on
the GQE and that efforts will be made to promote
and support inclusive practices. There was little

agreement, however, over whether students will
spend more time in special education pullout programming as a response to the new graduation
requirements. While this finding is encouraging in
light of efforts to move to more inclusive programming, it is less clear as what it means for the role of
special education in preparing students for graduation exams. On one hand, it may suggest little
confidence or commitment to traditional special education programming as the appropriate means of
raising the basic skill levels needed in order to pass
the approximately ninth-grade-level examination.
This lack of confidence is found both with principals
and with directors of special education. On the other
hand, it may reflect the logistical realities, such as
problems with scheduling and accessing resources
for effective special education intervention. Success,
therefore, will be contingent on whether an appropriate, individualized curriculum is offered to students
with learning disabilities in general education classrooms in a way that maximizes their learning
potential. This leads to questions that need to be
addressed in the age of increasing accountability
through standardized testing.
55
Are General Educators Willing And Able To

Meet This Challenge?
For those students with learning disabilities who
are relatively high functioning and whose skills are
similar to low-achieving students, additional remedial, basic skills courses may be appropriate. In
fact, these courses may be more appropriate than
simply providing compensatory instruction. This
may be particularly true for those students whose
disability is a result of a maturational lag or skill
deficit exasperated by poor instruction in elementary and middle school. For these students, the
graduation examination requirement may indirectly
prove to enhance their educational experiences.
However, those students with learning disabilities
with the lowest reading skills levels entering high
56
school (anywhere from nonreaders to those reading

at a 3rd or 4th grade level) will require intensive
beginning reading instruction. The same scenario
repeats itself for mathematics. Many students will
not only require intensive instruction in algebra
and geometry but in the very basics of math computation or problem solving. The challenge will be
for secondary general education programs to offer a
form of basic intensive basic skills instruction that
will require radical changes in secondary preservice
training, curriculum, and redistribution of resources.
However, if students with learning disabilities can
be taught to read and solve math problems at this
grade level within the general education system,
why is this not occurring now?
standards imposed by the state rather than the transition planning team. Students forced to attend
unproductive remedial courses that conflict with
more appropriate coursework in order to satisfy state
requirements are denied their right to individualized
instruction and to a curriculum that will best maximize their success once they graduate.
Will There Be Enough Resources To

Ensure Success?
While a large proportion of administrators agreed
that additional instructional and staff support, such
as paraprofessionals, reduced class size, and smaller
caseloads, would contribute to the success of students with learning disabilities on the GQE, there
was little agreement that this would actually occur in
the next three years. Without needed resources, the
imposed standards are reduced to political posturing
rather than a true commitment to improving instruction for students with learning disabilities. While
resources are provided to schools in order to provide
GQE remedial courses, they are not necessarily
designed to improve accessibility in the general education classroom for students with learning
disabilities.
Will Graduation Exams Push Students

out of School?
Can We Maintain Individualized Programs?

There is also overwhelming agreement that instructional materials will begin to more heavily resemble
the content of the GQE examination, suggesting that
the exam will be a driving force in curricular
changes. While administrators anticipate that students with learning disabilities will attend more
remedial GQE-related courses, there are mixed perceptions about whether this will limit their course
selection or access to vocational programming.
Schools and districts may vary in their alternative
course offerings and in whether the schedules for
remedial courses conflict with vocational/career
classes. For those students for whom it does interfere
in appropriate programming as determined by their
transition plan, the focus of a program is dictated by
The overwhelming majority of administrators feel

that repeated failure on the GQE will contribute to
students with learning disabilities leaving school
before graduating. Currently, it is too early to have
a clear indication of whether this will in fact be the
case. Inclusive programming, curricular changes,
and support will become irrelevant issues if students
with learning disabilities leave school early on in
their high school education. In addition, once students with learning disabilities are out of school,
they are outside of the only legally dictated system
of supports that will aid their transition to adulthood. There is more to gain from a secondary
curriculum than reading and math skills. Because
students with learning disabilities are less likely to
complete school than their peers, they are particularly vulnerable to the pressures surrounding
passing of a graduation exam. As noted earlier, the
stakes are particularly high for students with learning disabilities. However, stakes may not be high
57
enough to encourage a school to refocus resources

and priorities to meet the needs of a small proportion of students likely to drop out of school
altogether. In other words, no administrator or
teacher will lose their job as a consequence of students with learning disabilities not passing this
examination.
Conclusions
The increased prevalence of high-stakes testing
poses both challenges and opportunities for educators of students with learning disabilities. While
setting minimum, consistent standards is meant to
encourage improved education for lower-achieving
students, these standards may represent unrealistic
expectations for many students with disabilities. In
some cases, however, as indicated by administrators
responses, they may serve as the impetus for increasing the accessibility of the mainstream curriculum
for secondary students with LD. However, it cant be
assumed that secondary general education will
transform to the extent that students with learning
disabilities will be better educated than they currently are by special education programs.
Because the data here represent administrators
perceptions, rather than concrete evidence, findings
should certainly be viewed with caution. They also
only represent the experience in Indianas schools of
the introduction of a graduation exam requirement
that focuses only on reading/language arts and mathematics and may not translate to the experience of
other states. Despite these limitations, the issues
raised by this study clearly have serious implications
for students with learning disabilities and deserve
further research and careful scrutiny as we head more
deeply into the realm of high-stakes assessment.
58
References
Airasian, P. W. (1988). Symbolic validation: The case of
state-mandated, high stakes testing. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 301313.
Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children
with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track
toward comprehensive programming? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 250259.
Deschler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching
adolescents with learning disabilities: strategies and
methods, (2nd ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Gajar, A., Goodman, L., & McAfee, J. (1993). Secondary
schools and beyond: Transition of individuals with mild
disabilities. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for
tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1990). Effects of standardized testing on teachers and learninganother look. Los Angeles:
Center for Research and Improvement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 738).
Indiana Department of Education. (1998). K12 school data,
1998. Available from the Indiana Department of
Education web site: http://dew.doe.state.in.us.
Linn, R. (2000) Assessments and accountability.
Educational Researcher, 29(2), 416.
MacMillan, D. (1991). Hidden youth: Dropouts from special education. Exceptional Children at Risk: CEC Mini
Library. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Children (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 339 168).
MacMillan, D., Balow, I., Widaman, K., & Hemsley, R.
(1990). A study of minimum competency tests and their
impact: Final report. Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 360 803).
MacMillan, D., Widaman, K., Balow, I., Borthwick-Duffy,
S., Hendrick, I., & Hemsley, R. (1992). Special education students exiting the educational system. The
Journal of Special Education, 26, 2036.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (2000) Equity through
accountability?: Mandating minimum competency
exit exams for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
15(3), 160167.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998a). EXIT Survey for directors of special education (DSE-EXIT). Unpublished
survey, Indiana University-Bloomington.
Manset, G., & Washburn, S. (1998b). EXIT Survey for principals (P-EXIT). Unpublished survey, Indiana
University-Bloomington.
Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991). Effects of highstakes testing on instruction. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 337 468).
Smith, C. R. (1994). Learning disabilities: The interdependence
of learner, task, and setting, (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put it to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5),
811.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Anderson, C. L. (1995).
High school graduation requirements: Whats happening for
students with disabilities? Report No. 20. Minnesota:
National Center on Educational Outcomes. [online]
Available: http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO/
OnlinePubs/Synthesis20.html.
About the Authors

Genevieve Manset-Williamson, Ph.D., is an associate
professor of special education in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction at Indiana University, ED
3220, School of Education, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
E-mail: gmwill@indiana.edu.
Sandra Washburn, M.A., is a research associate at the
Indiana Institute on Disability and Community at
Indiana University, 2853 E. 10th Street, Bloomington,
IN 47408. E-mail: swashbur@indiana.edu.
59
Improving Special Education

Teacher Retention
Implications from a Decade of Research
Bonnie S. Billingsley, Ed.D.
Virginia Tech
The shortage of special education teachers threatens the quality of education that is provided to students
with disabilities.
Attrition plays a part in the teacher shortage problem, since these teachers must be replaced, often after
just a few years of teaching.
Efforts to increase teacher retention must be informed by an understanding of the factors that contribute
to attrition.
Eight recommendations to improve special educators' work environments and increase retention are provided.
ne of the greatest challenges I faced as a supervisor of special education in the 1980s was
recruiting and retaining qualified special education
teachers. At one point, an administrator in the urban
system that employed me asked, What's wrong?
Special education teachers are leaving in droves. I
wish I had known then what I have learned since
that time, that young, early career teachers are at the
greatest risk of leaving. Grissmer and Kirby (1987)
showed that teacher attrition patterns for both general and special educators followed a U-shaped
curve, with high levels of attrition among younger
teachers, lower attrition for teachers during the middle career years, and higher levels again as teachers
reach retirement age. Special education teachers in
our urban system were relatively young and inexperienced compared to the established cadre of general
educators. But age wasn't the only factor. Sometimes
I felt like we were the training ground for new special educators, who would later compete for
positions in the better paying and more desirable
suburban districts that surrounded us.
Today, securing a qualified special education
teaching force remains a major challenge for many
school districts. The shortage of special education
teachers has not lessened over the last two decades,
and predictions are that shortages will grow worse
(Smith et al., 2002). Recent data suggest that roughly
60
ten percent of current special educators are not qualified for their positions (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2000), and approximately 30% of beginning teachers are not certified for their main
assignments (Billingsley, 2002a).
Recently, Carlson (2001) found that administrators indicated that a shortage of qualified applicants
is the greatest barrier to finding special educators.
Local school administrators reported job openings
for 69,249 special educators in the 19992000 school
year. As of October, 1999, over 50,000 special educators were newly hired. However, at the same time,
more than 12,000 special education positions were
left vacant or filled by a substitute because of the
lack of suitable candidates.
Unfortunately, teacher attrition is a major contributor to the teacher shortage problem. Attrition
rates are estimated to be at about seven percent for
those who transfer to other positions and about six
percent for those who exit their positions (Boe,
Barkanic, & Leow, 1999). Although general and special educators exit teaching at similar rates, special
education teachers are significantly more likely
than general educators to transfer to other teaching
positions (Boe et al., 1998). Further, special educators are about ten times more likely to transfer to
general education than the reverse (Boe et al., 1998).
As Ingersoll (2001) suggests, the teacher shortage
Improving Special Education Teacher Retention
problem will not be solved by recruiting thousands

of new people into teaching if, after a few short
years, many of them leave.
Teacher retention is important not just because of
the difficulty of finding replacements but because it
must also be a priority to improve the quality of services for students with disabilities. Murnane and
colleagues (1988) state:
Prior research indicates that teachers make marked
gains in effectiveness during their first years in the
classroom. Consequently, reducing the frequency with
which children are taught by a successive stream of
novice teachers may be one step toward improving educational quality (p. 343).
Researchers in the 1990s began investigating factors that are related to attrition in larger-scale studies
using more comprehensive conceptual models
(Billingsley, 1993; Brownell & Smith, 1993). We know
that teachers leave for many different kinds of reasons, some of which are unrelated to work.
Although a range of factors influence attrition,
including personal, demographic, teacher qualifications, and work-related factors (see Billingsley,
2002b, for a recent review of the literature), the focus
of this paper is on work environment factors that
influence attrition and retention. This paper is
organized around eight major recommendations
for policy-makers and administrators.
Hire certified teachers

Certified teachers are more likely to stay or express
intent to stay than those who are not certified. In a
study of over 1,000 Florida special education teachers,
Miller, Brownell, and Smith (1999) reported that
uncertified teachers were more likely to leave than
beginning special educators. Two national studies
reported similar results. Carlson and Billingsley (2001)
reported that uncertified special educators were more
likely to indicate plans to leave, than their certified
counterparts. Boe and colleagues (1999) found that
being a partly certified teacher was associated with a
higher level of switching. Further, in another study,
Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, and Weber (1997)
reported that turnover was associated with not being
fully certified in their main assignment for special and
general educators combined. In a recent study of
beginning special educators, Billingsley (2002a)
reported that beginning special education teachers

who were not certified were more likely to indicate
intent to leave than those who were certified.
We do not necessarily know why fully certified
teachers are more likely to stay. One reason may be
that certified teachers have greater initial commitment since they completed the necessary
requirements to earn certification. Those teachers
who are not fully certified may still be looking for
positions that match their educational background.
Another possible reason that certified teachers may
be more likely to stay is that they are better able to
address the needs of students with disabilities, therefore feeling successful and reaping the intrinsic
rewards associated with special education teaching.
Use salaries and bonuses as

incentives to remain
Teachers with higher salaries are more likely to stay
than those who receive lower salaries. Boe et al. (1997)
reported that for a national sample of special and general educators, moving and leaving decreased as salary
increased. Miller et al. (1999) and Singer (1993) also
found that special educators with higher paying jobs
were more likely to stay than those who earned lower
salaries. Henke, Choy, Chen, Geis, and Alt (1997)
suggest that compensation is important for teachers
weighing the tangible and intangible costs and
benefits of remaining in the teaching field or in a
particular district or school (VI-I).
Teachers with higher salaries are more likely to stay

than those who receive lower salaries.
Many districts use financial incentives to recruit
teachers, such as cash bonuses and placement at a
higher step of the salary schedule (Carlson &
Billingsley, 2001). However, salaries do have equity
implications. Henke et al. (1997) suggest that those
districts and schools who cannot offer competitive
salaries are at a serious disadvantage when it comes
to hiring and retaining teachers.
61
Develop responsive induction

programs to support beginning
special educators
One of the most important actions that administrators can take to reduce attrition is to provide support
during the early stages of special educators' careers
when they are most likely to leave. The early career
period is often characterized as a survival period
in which optimism gives way to discouragement
and disillusionment (Gold, 1996). This may be
particularly true for the high percentage of novice
teachers who are not qualified for the positions that
they hold (Billingsley, 2002a).
Special educators face numerous responsibilities
for which they may not be adequately prepared,
such as managing paperwork and federal and state
demands, making accommodations for instruction
and testing, developing and monitoring IEPs, and
collaborating with teachers, paraprofessionals, and
other service providers (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992;
Boyer & Gillespie, 2000; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998).
Induction programs can help provide support to
teachers with these challenging tasks (Rosenberg,
Griffin, Kilgore, & Carpenter, 1997), and also help
to reduce attrition (Whitaker, 2000). Beginners who
receive higher levels of support are more likely
than those with lower levels of support to see their
roles as manageable, believe that they are successful
in providing education to students with disabilities,
and indicate that they can get through to even the
most difficult students (Billingsley 2002a, p. 5).
One of the most important actions that administrators can take to reduce attrition is to provide
support during the early stages of special educators' careers when they are most likely to leave.
Induction programs need to address the specific
support needs of beginning teachers. Recent studies
show that special educators view informal assistance
as more helpful than more formalized mechanisms
(A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, SPeNSE,
2002; Billingsley, 2002a; Whitaker, 2000), although we
do not know why this is the case. Since beginning
teachers indicate the need for emotional support
62
(Gold, 1996; Whitaker, 2000), these informal contacts

may also better foster these types of interactions.
Another important aspect of supporting beginning
teachers is to pair them with more experienced special education mentors, even if those mentors are in
other buildings (Whitaker, 2000).
Create positive work environments

and systems of support
Research results in general and special education
suggest that the climate of the school is important
to special education teacher attrition and plans to
leave (A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom,
SPeNSE, 2002; Darling-Hammond & Sclan, 1996;
Miller et al., 1999). Overall, researchers found that
when teachers judged their school/district as an
overall good place to work, they were more likely
to stay in teaching. School climate is influenced by a
range of variables, including the extent to which
administrators and colleagues support one another
in their teaching efforts.
Educational leaders are in a position to facilitate the
development of collegial and supportive environments
(Singh & Billingsley, 1998). Although administrators do
have critical roles in supporting teachers, it is limiting
to think of support as something that one person
provides and another receives. Important to the
development of a positive school climate is reciprocity
of support among special and general educators,
administrators, parents, paraprofessionals, and other
service-providers (Billingsley, 2002b).
Increase the level and quality of

administrative support
Defining administrative support is difficult since it
is a global construct with many different dimensions. Littrell, Billingsley, and Cross (1994) found
that emotional support (e.g., showing appreciation,
establishing open communication, taking an interest
in the teacher) was perceived as most important to
special educators. They also found that emotional
support and instrumental support (e.g., helping
teachers secure needed resources, space, and time
for teaching) correlated positively with both job satisfaction and school commitment. This suggests that
attention must be given to both the administrator-
teacher relationship and the specific ways that

administrators assist teachers. The context of the
working situation is important to determining what
specific supports are needed. Administrators need
to take time to listen to teachers and assist them
with their needs.
The relationship between administrative support
and teacher retention is strong, regardless of the type
of methodology used in the study (Billingsley &
Cross, 1991; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997;
George, George, Gersten & Grosenick, 1995; Westling
& Whitten, 1996). In a national study of teachers, Boe
et al. (1999) reported that those who stay in their positions are almost four times more likely than leavers to
strongly perceive administrators' behavior as supportive and encouraging. Miller et al. (1999) also found
that stayers gave higher scores for building level
administrative support than leavers. Schnorr (1995)
reports that the number-one-rated incentive to stay in
special education was a supportive principal (88%).
High levels of principal support are associated with
fewer role problems, greater job satisfaction and
commitment, and less stress (Cross & Billingsley,
1994; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001;
Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Although more of the
attrition studies specifically address the relationship
of the principal to attrition, several studies suggest
that the lack of support of central administrators also
contributes to attrition (Billingsley & Cross, 1991;
Billingsley, Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murray, &
Hendricks, 1995; Gersten et al., 2001; Morvant,
Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995).
development opportunities also experienced less

role dissonance.
A recent national study (A High-Quality Teacher
for Every Classroom, SPeNSE, 2002), found that,
although school districts support staff development
(special educators averaged 59 hours of professional
development activities in 19992000), they do not
reliably incorporate best practices, such as engaging
teachers in the learning process or allowing time to
plan how to implement new skills. Quicho and Rios
(2000) discuss the need for responsive professional
development opportunities for teachers and suggest
that they be directed toward professional nurturing, be systematic, and change over time as
professional needs change (p. 522).
Foster professional development to

encourage teacher effectiveness
Teachers are motivated by a primary goal
Educational leaders can also support teachers by

facilitating their professional development.
Professional development is critical to teachers'
involvement and growth, but it appears to influence
retention as well (Brownell, Smith, McNellis, &
Lenk, 199495; Gersten et al., 2001; Morvant et al.,
1995). In a study of teacher attrition in three urban
systems, Gersten et al. found that professional development opportunities had an indirect effect on
teachers' intent to leave and a direct influence on
teachers' commitment to the profession. Special educators who perceived greater professional
The most widely documented source of role

overload is clearly the paperwork associated with
special education teaching (e.g., CEC, 2000;
Billingsley, Bodkins, & Hendricks, 1993; Billingsley
et al., 1995; Brownell et al., 199495; George et al.,
1995; Morvant et al., 1995; Westling & Whitten,
1996). For example, Schnorr (1995) found that 71%
of special educators indicated that paperwork is a
major deterrent to teaching in special education.
Billingsley et al. (1995) reported that, in their threeyear study, whenever teachers were given an
open-ended opportunity to express concerns,
Structure teachers roles so they can

focus on student learning
Teachers are motivated by a primary goal helping
their students learn. Special educators' efforts to help
their students are thwarted when their time becomes
dominated by nonteaching tasks, such as paperwork
and meetings. Many special educators do not see
their roles as manageable, and role overload has
been linked to attrition, perhaps more than any other
factor (Billingsley, 2002b). Role overload can lead to
role conflict or dissonance, meaning that special
educators feel tension between the bureaucratic
requirements they must fill and the teaching tasks
they feel are most important.
helping their students learn.
63
paperwork was sure to emerge as one of their

greatest frustrations (p. 7.14). In a recent report on
paperwork (Paperwork in Special Education, SPeNSE,
2002), researchers found that the typical special
educator reported spending five hours per week
on paperwork. Moreover, the more paperwork that
teachers reported, the less manageable their jobs
were perceived as being.
Other role-related problems that have been
linked to attrition include high numbers of students
on caseload, lack of resources, and problems implementing inclusion (Billingsley & Cross, 1991;
Morvant et al., 1995). In a recent study, Carlson
and Billingsley (2001) reported that teachers who
planned to leave as soon as possible were significantly more likely to teach students with four or
more different primary disabilities (42%), compared
to all special education teachers (32%).
The more paperwork that teachers reported,

the less manageable their jobs were perceived
as being.
It is important to emphasize that role overload
and conflict are not usually the result of a single
problem. Billingsley et al. (1995) state that multiple
problems interact and create what teachers sometimes view as stressful, overwhelming work
situations (p. 7.21). Gersten et al. (2001) pose
practical questions for those interested in designing
reasonable role expectations: Does the job, with
all it entails, make sense? Is it feasible? Is it one that
well-trained, interested, special education professionals can manage in order to accomplish their
main objectiveenhancing students academic,
social, and vocational competence? (p. 551).
Provide programs to help teachers

deal with work stress
The combination of multiple, interacting, workrelated problems (e.g., role overload, lack of support)
clearly weakens teachers' ability to be effective and
therefore reduces their opportunities for the positive
intrinsic rewards. Chronic work problems can lead
to stress, dissatisfaction, and reduced organizational
64
and professional commitment. Research suggests

that stress is clearly related to both burnout (Cooley
& Yovanoff, 1996) and attrition (Billingsley & Cross,
1992; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Miller et al., 1999). In
addition to efforts to create supportive environments
and reduce role problems, administrators should
also consider helping teachers to mediate the effects
of stress. Cooley and Yovanoff (1996) found that
stress management workshops and a peer collaboration program increased job satisfaction and
organizational commitment and reduced burnout
among special educators.
The Challenge
The research on attrition and retention clearly points
to specific areas that will improve work conditions
as well as increase retention. It is time to address the
challenge of creating better work environments for
special educators. Special educators need to feel
that their work is meaningful, and they must be
able to focus their attention on helping their students
succeed. The most important actions that school districts can take to reduce attrition is to hire qualified
teachers, pay them well, and create work environments that are characterized by supportive
relationships, reasonable role expectations, and
opportunities for professional growth. It is especially
important to focus on early career special educators,
since they are the most likely to leave. Attention to
these eight recommendations should not only
improve attrition, it should lead to better outcomes
for students with disabilities as well.
References
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in
special and general education. A critical review of the
literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27(2),
137174.
Billingsley, B. S. (2002a). Beginning special educators:
Characteristics, qualifications, and experiences. SPeNSE
Factsheet. Retrieved March, 2002, from
www.spense.org.
Billingsley, B. S. (2002b). Special Education Teacher Retention
and Attrition: A Critical Analysis of the Literature,
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on
Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Billingsley, B. S., Bodkins, D., & Hendricks, M. B. (1993).

Why special educators leave teaching: Implications
for administrators. Case in Point, 7(2), 2338.
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1991). Teachers' decisions
to transfer from special to general education. The
Journal of Special Education, 24, 496511.
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in
teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 453471.
Billingsley, B. S., & Tomchin, E. M. (1992). Four beginning
LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 7, 104112.
Billingsley, B., Pyecha, J., Smith-Davis, J., Murray, K., &
Hendricks, M.B. (1995). Improving the retention of special education teachers: Final report. Research Triangle
Institute (Prepared for Office of Special Education
Programs, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, The U.S. Department of
Education under Cooperative Agreement
H023Q10001).
Boe, E. E., Barkanic, G., & Leow, C. S. (1999). Retention and
attrition of teachers at the school level: National trends and
predictors. Center for Research and Evaluation in
Social Policy, Graduate School of Education,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. (ERIC
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 and general
education teachers from a national perspective. The
Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 390411.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. A., Weber, A. L. (1998).
Retention and attrition of teachers at the district level:
National trends in special and general education. Reston,
VA: National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special
Education.
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., Cook, L. H., Barkanic, G., &
Maislin, G. (1999). Teacher turnover in eight cognate
areas: National trends and predictors. Philadelphia:
Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy.
Boyer, L. & Gillespie, P. (2000). Keeping the committed:
The importance of induction and support programs
for new special educators. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 33(1), 1015.
Brownell, M., & Smith, S. (1993). Understanding special
education teacher attrition: A conceptual model and
implications for teacher educators. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 16, 3, 370382.
Brownell, M., Smith, S.W., McNellis, J., & Miller, M.D.

(1997). Attrition in special education: Why teachers
leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality,
7(3), 143155.
Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., McNellis, J., & Lenk, L.
(199495). Career decisions in special education:
Current and former teachers personal view.
Exceptionality, 5(2), 83102.
Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M. S., & Riley, T.
(1997b). Teachers working together: What teacher
educators and researchers should know. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 20 (4), 340359.
Carlson, E. (2001, February). Preliminary results from the
study of personnel needs in special education (SPeNSE):
Local administrator's efforts to fill job openings for special
education teachers. Paper presented at the OSEP
Personnel Preparation Conference, Washington, D.C.
Carlson, E., & Billingsley, B. (2001, July). Working conditions in special education: Current research and
implications for the field. Paper presented at the OSEP
Project Directors' Conference, Washington, D.C.
Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout
and improve retention of special educators.
Exceptional Children, 62, 336155.
Council for Exceptional Children, (2000). Bright futures for
exceptional learners: An action agenda to achieve quality
conditions for teaching and learning, Reston, VA: Author.
Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. (1994). Testing a model of
special educators' intent to stay in teaching.
Exceptional Children, 60(5), 411421.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches
and why: Dilemmas of building a profession for
twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, &
Guyton, E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 67101). New York: Simon & Schuster.
George, N. L., George, M. P., Gersten, R., & Grosenick, J.
R. (1995). To leave or to stay? An exploratory study of
teachers of students with emotional and behavioral
disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 16(4),
227236.
Gersten, R., Keating T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K.
(2001). Working in special education: Factors that
enhance special educators' intent to stay. Exceptional
Children, 67(4), 549567.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, &
Guyton, E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548594). New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1987). Teacher attrition: The
uphill climb to staff the nation's schools. Santa Monica,
CA: The RAND Corporation.
65
Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Naomi Alt,
N. (1997). Teachers in the 1990s: Profile of a Profession
(NCES 97-460). Berkeley, CA: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
A High-quality teacher for every classroom (n.d.). SPeNSE
Factsheet. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from
www.spense.org.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages
and the organization of schools (Document R-01-1).
University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Kilgore, K. L., & Griffin, C. C. (1998). Beginning special
educators: Problems of practice and the influence of
school context. Teacher Education and Special Education,
21(3), 155173.
Littrell, P., Billingsley, B., & Cross, L. (1994). The effects of
principal support on special and general educators'
stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health,
and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special
Education, 15, 297310.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S.W. (1999). Factors
that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional
Children, 65 (2), 201218.
Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake,
G. (1995). Attrition/retention of urban special education
teachers: Multi-faceted research and strategic action planning. Final performance report, Volume 1. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 154)
Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1988). The
influences of salaries and opportunity costs on
teachers career choices: Evidence from North
Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3).
Paperwork in special education (n.d.). SPeNSE Factsheet.
Retrieved January 9, 2002, from www.spense.org.
Quicho, A., & Rios, F. (2000). The power of their presence:
Minority group teachers and schooling. Review of
Educational Research, 70(4), 485528.
66
Rosenberg, M. S., Griffin, C. C., Kilgore, K. L. &

Carpenter, S. L. (1997). Beginning teachers in special
education: A model for providing individualized
support. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(4),
301321.
Schnorr, J. M. (1995). Teacher retention: A CSPD analysis
and planning model. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 18(1), 2238.
Singer, J. D. (1993). Are special educators career paths
special? Results from a 13-year longitudinal study.
Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with emotional disorders
versus other special educators. Remedial and Special
Education, 17(1), 3747.
Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1998). Professional support
and its effects on teachers commitment. The Journal of
Educational Research, 91(4), 229239.
Smith, D., McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders, N. (2002).
The supply and demand of special education teachers: The
nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers.
Gainesville, FL.: University of Florida, Center on
Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE).
Smith-Davis, J., & Billingsley, B. (1993). The
supply/demand puzzle. Teacher Education and Special
Westling, D. L., & Whitten, T. M. (1996). Rural special
education teachers' plans to continue or leave their
teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62, 319335.
Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attrition.
About the Author

Bonnie S. Billingsley, Ed.D., is an associate professor
in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the
College of Human Resources and Education at
Virginia Tech, 309 War Memorial Hall, Blacksburg,
VA 24061-0313. E-mail: bbilling@vt.edu.
Burnout Among Special Education Teachers and

Perceptions of Support
Robert H. Zabel, Ph.D., and Mary Kay Zabel, Ph.D.
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
Shortages of special education teachers are exacerbated by professional burnout.

There is a relationship between burnout and teachers perceptions of support from administrators and parents.
Differences exist in perceptions of support by teachers in urban, rural, and suburban locales.
Special education administrators need to provide explicit support for special education teachers,
particularly in locales where other sources of support are less apparent.
hortages of special education personnel have

been persistent (Boe, Cook, Bobbitt, & Terhanian,
1997; Brownell & Smith, 1993; National
Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education,
1995; Smith-Davis & Billingsley, 1993) and result
from several forces that affect the number of teachers
prepared and retained in the field. Since passage of
the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in
1975, the number of teachers needed for students
with disabilities has out paced supply. At the same
time, the number of students enrolled in both general and special education teacher preparation
programs has decreased in recent years (Center &
Callaway, 1999), partly due to expanding employment opportunities outside of education for the
traditional cohort group for teachers.
With increased job opportunities in general education, many special education teachers have moved
to general education positions, and fewer prospective teachers are choosing special education as an
alternative. In response to shortages of trained special education teachers, most states grant emergency
and/or conditional endorsements (Boe et al., 1997;
Smith-Davis & Billingsley, 1993), which allow persons without preparation as special educators, and
in some instances even as general educators, to teach
students with disabilities. However, even these
changes have not met personnel needs. It appears
that ...the most essential challenge for special education in the 21st century is to attract and retain
potentially competent special educators (Simpson,

Whelan, & Zabel, 1993, p. 10).
Attrition of trained teachers has exacerbated
teacher shortages. Although teachers leave the field
for a variety of reasons, including the aforementioned alternative professional opportunities, the
role of job-related stress and professional burnout in
attrition is an on-going concern. Like other social
services professionals, such as nurses, physicians,
police officers, and social workers, special education
teachers intense involvement with persons who
have psychological, social, or physical challenges
places them at risk for professional burnout. Since
the early 1980s, there have been examinations of the
influence of job-related stress and burnout on special
educators (e.g., CEC, 1999; Fimian, 1986; Greer &
Greer, 1992).
An early study examined the effect of a number
of personal and job-related factors on the experience
of burnout by over 600 special education teachers
(Zabel & Zabel, 1982, 1983). Those analyses suggested that younger, less experienced, less educated
special education teachers experienced greater
burnout than older, more experienced, more educated teachers. In addition, the incidence of burnout
was correlated with student category (EBD and
ECSE were highest; gifted was lowest) and service
delivery model (the most restrictive setting [institutional] and the least restrictive setting [consulting]
produced the highest burnout scores).
67
Special Education Burnout and Support
The study also revealed clear relationships

between teacher burnout and support from others,
especially from administrators but also from other
teachers and students parents. A consistent pattern
was that greater burnout was reported by teachers
who gave lower ratings of support from all three
sources. Subsequent studies of burnout among
special educators have generally supported those
findings (e.g., Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Fimian, 1986;
Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999; Singer, 1993).
A recent replication of the early study revealed
some markedly different characteristics among
todays special educators (Zabel & Zabel, 2001).
For example, teacher age, the amount of special
education teaching experience, and the amount of
preparation increased markedly between the two
studies. In the earlier study, 45% of special educators
were under the age of 30, and just 24% were over the
age of 40. In the current sample, just 14% are under
30, and 64% are over 40 years of age. Although the
mean number of years of regular teaching experience
decreased slightly (from 3.7 to 2.9 years), the amount
of special education teaching experience increased
dramatically (from 5.3 to 11.0 years). About 70% of
special education teachers now have masters degrees,
compared to 59% in the earlier study.
For example, teacher age, the amount of special

education teaching experience, and the amount
of preparation increased markedly between the
two studies.
The increased age, experience, and preparation
of special education teachers would be expected to
enhance the quality of programs for students with
disabilities. However, the aging of the profession suggests that the already inadequate supply of qualified
special educators may be exacerbated by attrition
due to retirements over the next 1015 years.
Also, in the 20 years since the first study was
published, special education has matured into an
integral feature of public education. One of the most
pervasive changes has been the increase of inclusionary service delivery models, where special education
teachers operate in collaborative roles with general
education teachers and administrators. They are also
68
more likely to supervise paraeducators, to work with

team teachers, and to be supervised by both general
education and special education administrators.
Because of these changes and the concern over
shortages of special educators, the authors believed
it was time to reexamine the relationships between
burnout and support. And, because teachers often
have different roles and responsibilities according
to their school locale, the influence of teachers
urban, rural, or suburban school location on both
burnout and support was also examined. This report
analyzes the relationships between burnout and
perceptions of support from others in the context
of teachers service delivery model, school locale,
and the colleagues with whom they work. Another
report (Zabel & Zabel, 2001) using these data has
emphasized the influence of the participants age,
amount of regular/special teaching experience,
certification status, and amount of professional
preparation on the three dimensions of burnout.
Method
Participants
Questionnaires were mailed to 420 current special
education teachers selected from Kansas State Board
of Education records. In Kansas, teachers are listed
according to the classification of students with whom
they are reported to be working. Equal numbers
(n = 70) were randomly selected from each of the six
largest classificationsBehavior Disorders, Early
Childhood Special Education, Gifted, Learning
Disabilities, Mental Retardation, and Interrelated. The
last of these, Interrelated (multicategorical), was not
included in the earlier study because it was not a
common classification at that time. Now, however,
teachers in Interrelated programs comprise the largest
classification. Teachers in low incidence classifications
were not included in the current study because their
numbers were too small to permit statistical analyses.
Three weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up
was sent to nonrespondents. Within six weeks 301
(71.4%) completed questionnaires were returned.
This return rate was nearly as high as the 78.6%
(n = 601) in the earlier study and provided a representative sample that was sufficient to perform
relevant statistical analyses.
Questionnaire
Participant characteristics. Recipients of the questionnaire were asked to respond to questions included
in two sections. In the first section were questions
about themselves, including age, amount of professional preparation, certification status, and amount
of experience in both general and special education.
They were asked about conditions of their jobs,
including their primary service delivery model (selfcontained, resource, consulting, itinerant, other), age
level of the majority of their students (early childhood, primary, intermediate, middle school, high
school), and the colleagues with whom they work
(paraeducators, team teachers). Also, participants
were asked to characterize the locale of their
school(s) as urban, rural, or suburban.
In addition, participants were asked:
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by your
school administrators?
special education administrators?
Overall, how do you rate the support provided by other
teachers?
students parents?
Ratings were recorded on a Likert-type scale (i.e.,

1 = excellent, 2 = above average, 3 = ok, 4 = below
average, and 5 = poor).
Burnout measure. The second section of the
questionnaire was the Maslach Burnout Inventory Educators Survey (MBI-ES). The MBI-ES is a reliable,
valid measure of three dimensions of professional
burnoutemotional exhaustion, depersonalization,
and personal accomplishmentthat has been widely
used by researchers in education and other fields to
measure professional burnout (Maslach, Jackson, &
Leiter, 1996). The MBI-ES is an updated version of
the instrument used in the earlier study. Minor adaptations made to the MBI by the researchers (e.g.,
changes in terminology from recipient to student) had subsequently been incorporated into
the Educators version.
The MBI-ES consists of 22 statements reflecting
personal feelings and attitudes about ones job
conditions. The Emotional Exhaustion (EE) subscale
includes statements such as I feel emotionally
drained from my work and I feel frustrated by
my job. The Depersonalization (DP) subscale

includes statements such as Ive become more
callous toward people since I took this job and I
dont really care what happens to some students.
The Personal Accomplishment (PA) subscale
includes statements such as I deal very effectively
with the problems of my students and I have
accomplished many worthwhile things in this job.
Respondents indicate the frequency of their feelings
about each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e.,
0=Never; 6=Every Day).
The MBI-ES consists of 22 statements reflecting

personal feelings and attitudes about ones
job conditions.
There are no cut-off scores on the MBI-ES to indicate an educator is burned out. Rather, scores on the
EE, DP, and PA subscales reflect points along a continuum. Higher scores on the EE and DP subscales
and lower scores on the PA subscale indicate greater
burnout; lower scores on the EE and DP subscales
and higher scores on the PA subscale indicate less
burnout (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996).
Composite scores on the EE and DP subscales
of the MBI-ES are positively correlated with one
another and both are negatively correlated with PA
subscale scores (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996). In
this study, there was a positive correlation between
composite scores on the EE and DP subscales (r =
.52; p = .0001) and negative correlations between the
both the EE and PA (r = -.32; p = .0001) and the DP
and PA (r = -.27; p = .0001) subscales. (In these and
other statistical analyses an alpha of .05 was considered significant.)
Results
Participants
Of the 301 returned questionnaires, three were from
persons who were not currently in teaching roles.
These were deleted, resulting in an effective sample
of 298. Return rates from the six disability classification groups were similar and ranged from 61.4% for
teachers of students with BD to 77.1% for teachers of
students who are gifted. Most participants were
69
Caucasian (95.3%) females (85.9%), and 90.6% were

currently fully endorsed (certified) in special education, which also requires regular teaching
certification in this state. Most respondents
answered all questions, although there were a few
missing responses to some items, either because participants did not answer (e.g., three did not indicate
race/ethnicity) or because they provided multiple
responses to single response questions.
Participants primary service delivery models
were as follows: self-contained32.8%; resource
42.4%; consulting/itinerant15.2%; and
other9.5%. Age level of respondents students
were as follows: early childhood17.4%; primary15.8%; intermediate15.1%; middle school26.8%;
and high school24.2%.
In response to the question about their school
locale, 26.9% said it was urban, 35% said it was suburban, 36.7% said it was rural, and 1.4% said it was
other. A majority (61.8%) work with paraeducator(s), 21.8% work with both paraeducator(s) and
team teacher(s), 9.5% work with team teacher(s)
only, and just 6.9% work with neither
paraeducator(s) nor team teacher(s).
Support from Others

On the 5-point scale (1 = excellent; 5 = poor), mean ratings of support ranged from a high of 2.29 (SD = 1.19)
for school administrators to a low of 2.61 (SD = 1.02)
for parents. To determine if there were differences in
support ratings according to the source of support, an
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted. There
were no significant differences in the ratings of support for school administrators, special education
administrators, other teachers, and students parents.
In addition, a majority of participants rated the
support high (excellent or above average) from
each potential source. However, as shown in Table 1,
when the percent of those who gave high ratings was

compared with those who gave low ratings (below
average or poor), different response patterns were
apparent. Special education administrators received
the most high ratings (76.9%). Support from other
teachers was rated high by 68.8% of participants,
but fewer school administrators (60.4%) and parents
(59.7%) received high ratings. Special education
administrators also received more low ratings (20.1%)
than any of the other groups, while just 11.7% gave
other teachers low ratings of support.
Burnout and Support from Others

To examine relationships between the three burnout
subscales and ratings of support, Pearson correlation
coefficients were calculated. These correlations were
statistically significant in all but one instance. Emotional
Exhaustion was negatively correlated with support from
school administrators (r = -.28, p = .0001), special education administrators (r = -.26, p = .0001), other teachers
(r = -.19, p = .002), and parents (r = -.22, p = .0001).
Depersonalization was also negatively correlated with
support from three potential sources: school administrators (r = -.22, p = .0003); special education administrators
(r = - .13, p = .028); and parents (r = -.35, p = .0001).
However, there was no significant correlation between
DP and support from teachers. Personal Accomplishment was positively correlated with support from all
four sources: school administrators (r = .21, p = .0005),
special education administrators (r = .13, p = .035), other
teachers (r = .18, p = .004), and parents (r = .28, p = .0001).
Although differences in the correlations between
the burnout subscales and support from the four
sources were not pronounced (see Table 2), the
negative correlations between EE and support from
school administrators (r = -.28), special education
administrators (r = -.26), and parents (r = -.24) were
somewhat higher than between EE and support
Table 1: Percent of above average and below average ratings of support

Source of Support
Ratings
Excellent/Above Average
O.K.
Below Average/Poor
70
School
Administrators
Special Ed
Administrators
Teachers
Parents
60.4
23.2
16.4
76.9
3.0
20.1
68.8
19.5
11.7
59.7
22.0
18.3
Table 2: Correlations between burnout measures and ratings of support from special education administrators, school administrators, other
teachers, and students parents
Burnout Measure
Ratings
Source of Support
School
Administrators
Emotional Exhaustion
Depersonalization
Personal Accomplishment
Special Ed
Administrators
-.28***
-.22**
.21**
-.26***
-.13*
.13*
Teachers
Parents
-.19**
-.35***
.18**
-.22***
-.07 (NS)
.28***
*** probability < .001

** p < .01
* p < .05
from teachers (r = -.19). The highest negative correlations between DP and support were for parents
(r = -.35) and school administrators (r = -.22). PA
was most highly correlated with support from parents (r = .28) and least correlated with support from
special education administrators (r = .13).
Support According to School Locale

To determine if ratings of support differed according
to participants school locale (i.e., urban, rural, suburban) an Analysis of Variance was conducted. The
ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for support from school administrators (p = .0003), with
suburban teachers rating them higher than either
rural (p = .014) or urban teachers (p = .001). Locale
had no significant effect on ratings of support from
special education administrators.
There was a significant main effect of school
locale on participants ratings of parent support
(p = .001), with suburban teachers again rating
parent support higher than either rural (p = .03)
or urban (p = .0003) teachers. Rural teachers rated
parent support marginally, though not significantly,
higher than urban teachers (p = .09).
Suburban teachers ratings of support from other
teachers were marginally, though not significantly,
higher than either rural (p = .054) or urban teachers
(p = .058).
Support According to Service

Delivery Model
ANOVAs also revealed significant effects of the
service delivery model on participants ratings of
support. Consulting/itinerant teachers rated special
education administrators higher than did either

resource (p = .03) or self-contained (p = .038) teachers. Resource teachers ratings of support from other
teachers were higher than those of self-contained
teachers (p = .014). Both consulting/itinerant and
resource teachers considered parents more supportive than did teachers in self-contained programs
(p = .0002 and p = .003, respectively).
Support According to Whom Teacher

Works With
ANOVAs also indicated significant main effects
according to whether participants work with paraeducators, team teachers, both paraeducators and team
teachers, or neither on their ratings of support from
all sources-school administrators (p = .016), special
education administrators (p = .032), other teachers
(p = .016), and parents (p = .026).
School administrators were rated higher by those
who work with team teachers and those who work
with both paraeducators and team teachers than by
teachers who work only with paraeducators (p =
.012 and p = .015, respectively).
Special education administrators were rated
higher by teachers who work with both team teachers
and paraeducators and with neither team teachers nor
paraeducators than by those who work with paraeducators only (p = .038 and p = .02, respectively).
Teachers who work with team teachers rated
support from other teachers higher than teachers
who work with paraeducators only (p = .03), with
both paras and team teachers (p = .002), or with
neither (p = .044).
71
Those who work with team teachers also rated

parent support higher than did teachers who work
with paraeducators only (p = .03) or with both paras
and team teachers (p = .03). And teachers who work
with neither team teachers nor paraeducators rated
parent support higher than those who work with
both (p = .004).
Discussion
Major Findings
Support and burnout. It is encouraging that, as a
group, participants gave high marks to all four
potential sources of supportschool administrators,
special education administrators, other teachers, and
students parents. For the sample as a whole, there
were no significant differences in mean ratings of
support from each source. However, a closer examination did reveal differences in the distribution of
ratings for each source of support. For example,
support ratings of special education administrators
represent a somewhat bi-modal distribution, with a
high percentage (76.9) given high ratings, a smaller,
but relatively high percentage (20.1) rated low, and
very few (3%) rated average. Fewer school administrators, teachers, and parents were considered to
provide either high or low levels of support.
Although a majority of special educators believe
they are well-supported by colleagues and parents,
the sizable proportions who rated support below
average or poor are a concern. It would be unreasonable to expect a Lake Wobegon effect where
everyone is judged above average. However, even
though low ratings were given to just 12% of teachers, 16% of school administrators, 18% of parents,
and 20% of special education administrators, these
numbers are cause for concern, because perceived
lack of support is closely related to teacher burnout.
It would be unreasonable to expect a Lake

Wobegon effect where everyone is judged
above average.
In fact, participants ratings of support covaried
significantly with all three subscales of the MBI-ES.
Perceptions of less support were significantly corre-
72
lated with both greater emotional exhaustion and

depersonalization and with a diminished sense of
personal accomplishment. Given this relationship,
one would expect that teachers who believe they
receive insufficient support from supervisors, colleagues, and parents are more likely to suffer the
effects of professional burnoutdiminished performance and attrition from the field.
An unanswered question is whether there is a
cause-effect relationship between support and
burnout. Does lack of support contribute to burnout
or does burnout influence perceptions of support
from others? Another unanswered question is the
correspondence between perceived and real support.
Some teachers may experience job-related stress for
reasons unrelated to support from others (e.g., inadequate preparation for professional responsibilities,
inappropriate expectations about their own and others roles) but may blame others for those problems.
Teachers who are more burned out may be less able
to recognize existing support.
It is also uncertain exactly what special educators consider support from each of the potential
sources. It is likely, for example, that support from
special education administrators and parents would
be conceptualized differently. Additional study is
needed to determine exactly what special education
teachers consider to be support from each of these
potential sources.
Urban, rural, and suburban differences. A major
finding was that suburban teachers tend to judge
the support from others more favorably than rural
and, especially, urban teachers. In some cases, rural
teachers also rate their support higher than urban
teachers. These differences confirmed the
researchers expectations based on first-person
reports from teachers in these different locales.
Because suburban schools tend to have more financial support, personnel, and other resources than
either rural or suburban schools, it is no surprise
that suburban teachers consider their colleagues and
parents as more supportive.
While a major difference between suburban districts and their rural/urban counterparts is financial
resources, it may be that support also reflects attitudes. The clear finding that administrative support
is a major factor in reducing teacher burnout, coupled with urban/rural teachers perceptions of less
support, should encourage administrators, especially

in those locales where support from other sources is
missing, to explicitly communicate supportive attitudes to their teachers.
A major change in the teaching profession over
the past 20 years has been the shift from the lonely
teacher (Lortie, 1975) to team member engaged in
collaborative and cooperative arrangements. This
has been especially true for special educators, who,
due to inclusion, rarely work in isolation or with
their own students. While few mourn the passing
of the solitary teacher, at least that teacher knew the
primary source of his or her professional reinforcementstudents. As teachers spend more time in
consultation, collaboration, and supervision and less
time in direct interaction with students, potential
reinforcement from that source may be less available. If professional burnout (and its corollary,
attrition) of special education teachers is to be
reduced, support from special education and general
education administrators, as well as colleagues and
parents, appears to be a key factor.
References
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in
special and general education: A critical review of the
literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 137174.
Boe, E. (1995). Retention, transfer, and attrition of special
and general teachers in national perspective. (ERIC
Boe, E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S. A., & Terhanian, G. (1997).
The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and
general education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 21, 121.
Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1993). Understanding
special education teacher attrition: A conceptual
model and implications for teacher educators. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 16, 270282.
Center, D. B., & Callaway, J. M. (1999). Self-reported job
stress and personality in teachers of students with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 25, 4151.
The Council for Exceptional Children (1999, June/July).
Special educators share their thoughts on special education teaching conditions. CEC Today, 5(9), 1, 5.
Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. S. (1994). Testing a model of
special educators intent to stay in teaching.
Fimian, M. (1986). Social support and occupational stress

in special education. Exceptional Children, 52, 436432.
Greer, J. G., & Greer, B. B. (1992). Stopping burnout before
it starts: Prevention measures at the preservice level.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 168174.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach
Burnout Inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Miller, M. D., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999).
Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or
transferring from the special education classroom.
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special
Education. (1995). The need for special education and
related services professionals: Some projections. Reston,
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993).
Special education personnel preparation in the 21st
century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special
Education, 14, 712.
Singer, J. D. (1993). Are special educators career paths
special? Results from a 13-year longitudinal study.
Smith-Davis, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (1993). The
supply/demand puzzle. Teacher Education and Special
Zabel, M. K., & Zabel, R. H. (1983). Burnout among special education teachers: The role of experience,
training, and age. Teacher Education and Special
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (1982). Factors in burnout
among teachers of exceptional children. Exceptional
Children, 49, 261263.
Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, M. K. (2001). Burnout among special education teachers: Do age, experience, and
preparation matter? Teacher Education and Special
About the Authors

Robert H. Zabel, Ph.D., is Professor of Special
Education, 359 Bluemont Hall, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
E-mail: h2oski@ksu.edu.
Mary Kay Zabel, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair of
Special Education, 308 Bluemont Hall, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS 66506.
E-mail: mkz@ksu.edu.
73
Superintendents Commentary
May You Live in Interesting Times
Jennifer Esler Reeves, Ed.D.
Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida
lthough the originator of the ancient curse May

you live in interesting times couldnt have envisioned public education in the 21st century, a more
fitting axiom would be hard to find. Never in the
history of mankind has so much been expected from
so many with so little support. Educational reform
has called on public educators to leave no child
behind. State requirements for graduation qualifying exams expect college entrance performance from
all students, regardless of their academic goals, and
states defame schools that cannot produce successful
graduates in four calendar years regardless of their
circumstances. In states like Florida, all high school
students must attain a high level of performance
without accommodation and regardless of their
exceptionality or home language. The challenge
is daunting to the most enlightened educator.
The good news in all of this is that no child
left behind means just that. Every child, no matter
where he lives, what language he speaks, or what
learning difficulties he faces, can be left awash in a
sea of low expectations.
We can no longer afford to place special education
programs in the back hall and expect that someone
from the district office will work with those teachers
and those students. General educators can and must
become special educators in every sense of the word.
Historically, too many principals in regular education settings saw special education as a place to
house the children who did not fit in regular education classes. They hired certified teachers when they
were available and uncertified when they were not
to take on the responsibility of ensuring that the
identified students received an appropriate education. Many times our most needy children were
placed with the least qualified teachers. If we were
74
not able to work with the children, the answer was

to seek a more restrictive environment.
In fairness, most principals never received in
their formal leadership training more than a cursory
view of special education, and the primary focus of
that training was law, not curriculum. As a result of
this lack of preparation, special education teachers
were loaded with multiple classroom and individual
preparations to meet the requirements of the law
with minimal support. This trend attributes to the
shift, reported by Bonnie Billingsley, of teachers
moving from special education to general education.
Ironically, special education students are increasingly mainstreamed into regular education classes
where teachers may or may not have received the
training to adequately teach them.
If we are to get serious about educating all children we have to stop looking at special education
programs and begin focusing on the special needs
of individual children. Rigorous standards demand
that we look to include exceptional children in all
classrooms where appropriate. To do this effectively
will require that everyone who impacts the education of our children be better trained and supported
in working with special populations.
We must begin with preservice training for all
teachers that focuses on the recent advances in brain
research and in understanding how children learn.
We must complement this training with in-service
instruction for teachers currently in the field that
syncs their learning with that of teachers entering
the field. All teachers must see themselves as teachers of exceptional children.
Second, we must train our administrators not
only in special education law but, more importantly,
in best practices in curriculum and behavioral sup-
May You Live in Interesting Times
port. If we expect our principals to support our

teachers we must first teach them what it is to
appropriately teach all children. Programs must be
developed at the university and district level to educate our leadership if they are to lead. We must blur
the lines of turf management between special education and general education departments in school
districts. Special and general educators must work
together to make the training pragmatic and meaningful in the actual life of a school if it is to change
practice within our schools. Too great a reliance on
theory and not enough emphasis on practicality will
defeat our efforts before they begin.
Principals and other leaders in schools live in
demanding and fast-paced environments that leave
less time for reflective practice than we would like to
admit. Exposure to other demanding and fast-paced
environments where challenging, exceptional students are successfully included in mainstream
classrooms will sell the plan better than any treatise
or theory. Practitioners believe in successful practice.
Once they understand what is possible, most will
strive to make it happen.
If we are to retain our regular education teachers,
as well as our special education teachers, we must
next look at the on-going training and support we
give to all teachers who work with exceptional children as challenges arise in practice. No general
preservice or in-service training can prepare a teacher
for the complexities of including individual children
with Downs syndrome or autism or other complex
issues in a classroom. Each student brings his own
unique challenge to the classroom teacher. Specialists
must be made available as needed to assist teachers
with the modification of curriculum, behavioral support, and assessment of student progress. When
principals and teachers struggle with the challenge,
we must have specialists available to promote the
efficacy and resilience of the teachers in the classroom. The general education professionals must
believe that the experts that are brought in to assist
them are capable of performing themselves the job
that they are coaching others to do.
All teachers must be helped to believe they are
capable of exceeding traditional expectations. If we
expect our teachers to do what we believe is possible
with these children, we must provide the support to
them to make it happen.
Additional professional support is needed for

principals and for all teachers working with parents
of the exceptional child, as well as for parents of the
other children in the classrooms where exceptional
children are included. Training in meaningful collaboration among parents and teachers would greatly
improve our efficacy. Anxious parents may come from
many directions expecting specialized treatment and
services for their exceptional children that may impact
the quality of teaching available to the other students
in the inclusive classroom. Parents of general education students may not understand why the exceptional
students are included in the classroom, especially if
behaviors of the children are unique or potentially
disruptive. Principals and teachers may need assistance striking a balance and even reconciling that all
reasonable accommodations have been made.
With the appropriate support for principals, teachers, students, and parents, many students have been
successfully included in general classrooms in ways we
never dreamed possible ten years ago. We have the
opportunity, if we have the will, to improve the education of special students in our public schools.
Improvement will require that we challenge our traditional thinking about what an exceptionality is and
what limitations it should be allowed to place on our
expectations of students. Real improvement will require
that we invigorate through our allocation of resources
the training, the professional consultation, and the specialized personnel allocations to meet the demands of
inclusive practices in general education classrooms.
If all of our children are to have an opportunity
to participate fully in our society under the increased
demands of accountability in our public schools, we
have a moral obligation to investigate our own practices. We cannot be afraid to break the mold of
traditional special education practices, but, most
importantly, general educators and special educators
must make the commitment to work collaboratively
on behalf of all children.
About the Author

Jennifer Esler Reeves, Ed.D., is the Area
Superintendent for the Central Learning Community
of the Orange County Public Schools, 1200 W.
Colonial Drive, Orlando, FL 32804.
E-mail: reevesj@ocps.net.
75
CASE IN POINT:
Same Song and Verse or Will the Melody Change?
Kenneth E. Schneider, Ed.D.
Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida
he concerns related to recruitment, retention,

burnout, and attrition of personnel working in
the field of special education have been well documented in the literature. Whether you have been in
the field for thirty years or are just beginning, the
issue remains the samethere are not enough certified and qualified special education teachers to go
around. One merely needs to look at the data. The
number of teachers being trained by preservice training programs has not been able to keep pace with
the number of students requiring specialized services. I have yet to hear a school district proclaim
that they have not had to struggle at some point in
time with personnel issues. In the state of Florida all
areas of special education have been identified as
critical shortage areas. Just recently, school psychologists have been added to the list. Being on the
critical shortage list probably sounds better than
being on the endangered species list. At first glance,
one might say that not much has changed over the
yearswe continue to have a shortage. However,
what has changed are the reasons why the critical
shortages in the field exist today.
The difficulty in finding qualified staff in the mid
to late 1970s is in many respects different from today.
For one, the number of training programs was few
in number, and the programs werent available
everywhere in the country. Today, special education
training programs are plentiful and located throughout the country, but the competition for graduates is
keen. Second, P.L. 94142, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, was just beginning to
affect school districts in terms of identification,
establishing programs, and locating teachers. Today,
the issue is not whether there are students with disabilities in need of services, but whether enough
76
teachers, let alone qualified teachers trained in special education, can be recruited to take a position in
any one school district and stay there. Thirty years
ago, salaries offered by districts were probably not
the sole determinant in the decision-making of a
prospective employee as it often is today. One can
only begin to wonder about the amount of a signing
bonus in 1977, when the salary was only $12,200.
With the evolution of special education during
the past 2530 years came litigation, placing
educators in the compromised position they find
themselves in today. Additional rules and regulations
resulting from litigation at the federal and state levels
caused changes at the local school district level.
Whether it was the increase in number of forms to
be completed or the unending threats by parents to
pursue legal action, teachers and, to some extent,
administrators have reached their limit and have
begun to question the purpose of special education.
Too often teachers are spending more time in IEP
meetings, in-service training, and in filling out forms
than on instructing students. There is no question
that the amount of time available for teaching has
diminished over time and has fallen into the hands
of those less prepared. Not only has the instructional
time of the most qualified teachers diminished, but
also their energy has been misguided into activities
that may have little or no impact on improving student learning. We are far too involved with the
process of educating students and not the engagement of learning itself. Often general and special
education teachers and principals ask me to participate in question and answer sessions on, as an
example, topics such as Am I allowed to say this to
a parent? And too often I hear, I can work with the
child, but the legal requirements are constraining.
The other culprit that teachers face is the continual procedural changes that take place in our field.
The latest entry to impact our teachers is minimum
competency tests (MCT) for graduation. In this issue
of JSEL, Manset-Williamson and Washburn have conducted a survey on the impact of requiring a
minimum competency examination for students with
learning disabilities. Their results and discussion will
prove invaluable as teachers and administrators
begin to see the impact on students with disabilities.
As discussed in the article, there is both positive and
negative potential for students with disabilities,
depending on the direction taken by teachers and
administrators. In Florida, the high-stakes testing
data on most students with disabilities are disaggregated from the schools statistics. A negative result
due to disaggregating might be an increase in referrals to have students staffed into special education.
The better the scores, the higher the grade assigned
to the school and, therefore, the more status and cash
rewards. Likewise, those low-performing/lowgraded schools risk negative media, teachers fleeing
to other schools, and, possibly, the loss of funding
and students to private schools in the form of vouchers. If the desire is to increase the performance of
students with disabilities on MCTs, then the issues of
increasing student time in the general education setting and the need for additional resources will need
to be discussed. The question of whether the amount
of instruction geared toward passing a MCT meets
the future needs of students with disabilities must
also be considered. Add to the issue of MCT the
allowance or not of accommodations, and you have
the potential of additional legal precedents.
The latest entry to impact our teachers is minimum

competency tests (MCT) for graduation.
It is one thing to improve your product, but
the continual insertion of new procedures (e.g.,
extended school year, functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention plans, alternate
assessment, diploma options, status reports on
goals/benchmarks) in the absence of not removing
any of the current duties and responsibilities only
adds to the weight teachers are carrying on their
shoulders. The result of the evolution of special
education legislation has been a decline in teachers

entering the field and an increase in those leaving or
quickly burning out.
In 1998, the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC) appointed a Presidential Commission on the
Conditions of Special Education Teaching and
Learning. Their purpose was to identify and address
the barriers to high-quality special education. The
most pressing issues identified were:
Ambiguous and competing responsibilities
Overwhelming paperwork
Inadequate district and administrative support
Significant teacher isolation
Insufficient focus on improved student outcomes
Increased demand for well-qualified special
educators
Poorly prepared new general and special educators
Fragmented state and provincial licensing systems
The impact of these issues on special education
teachers has resulted in a critical shortage. The document (Bright Futures for Exceptional Learners: An
Action Agenda to Achieve Quality Conditions for
Teaching and Learning, CEC, 2000) indicates that
Four out of every ten special educators entering the
field leave special education before their fifth year of
teaching. Outlined in the study are the most pressing issues and reasons for the attrition rates.
Billingsley, in this issue of JSEL, makes an important
statement about transitioning from the issue of
teacher attrition and teacher shortages to the issue
of quality of services for students with disabilities.
If students are to receive quality services, teachers
must be trained and have a wide variety of classroom experiences, which would come from
remaining in the field for more than a couple of
years. To this point it appears that the burden of providing services falls totally on the back of the special
education teacher. As with the development of an
Individual Education Plan (IEP), it is not just the
special education teacher who is responsible for the
development and implementation but everyone who
works with the student (e.g., general education
teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators). The role
of the building-level administrator and the level of
support provided to the special education teacher
are critical elements when the issues of attrition,
burnout, and performance levels are discussed.
77
The issue of support and its ties to burnout has

been researched and discussed in a variety of studies. In this issue of JSEL, Zabel and Zabel report on
an investigation in 1982 and 1983 into the relationships between a number of personal and job-related
factors for 600 special education teachers. Their findings showed a connection between teacher burnout
and support from othersadministrators, teachers,
and the students parents. The lower the perception
of support, the number of teachers experiencing
burnout increases. Zabel and Zabel have now replicated their earlier study and expanded the variables
to service delivery model, school locale (urban, rural,
and suburban), and the other professionals with
whom the teachers work. A review of the findings
points to conclusions similar to those found in their
previous study. Teachers are more likely to experience burnout if they perceive a lack of support from
others. The authors delve into the difficulty of how
one interprets lack of support. Perhaps a future
study can delineate what teachers mean when they
express that they do not feel supported. It is even
more important that administrators recognize teachers when they express a lack of support and address
the issue of concern. Is it possible that the perception
of lack of support by teachers is a result of principals not feeling comfortable about special education
issues and thus appearing distant when approached
by special education teachers for assistance?
Most coursework leading to certification in school
administration has not included sufficient coverage of
special education. Because of the potential liability of
not being informed, it is extremely important that
steps be taken to provide principals with the information they need to make proper decisions. Poor
decisions as a result of not being informed have
resulted in lawsuits being filed against the individual
teacher as well as the school district. Over the next ten
years, statistics indicate that there will be a large number of new administrators. A review of Davidson and
Algozzines study (see this issue of JSEL) on
Administrators Perceptions of Special Education
Law points to the need for additional training. The
role played by the principal is the key to meeting the
needs of special education teachers and, ultimately,
the delivery of programs and services for students
with disabilities in their schools. As instructional leaders they must understand the issues pertaining to
78
accommodations and modifications, best practices

and the laws, and policies that govern the IEP and its
implementation. For, without this knowledge, the
consequences can be costly. More importantly though
is the harm that comes to the students when school
leaders are not informed.
Every state department of education, school
district, and higher education institution across this
country has been actively involved in seeking solutions
to the issues of teacher shortages in the field of special
education. Millions of dollars in federal and state
grants have been allocated to address the problem. The
private sector has been involved as well, through donations. Recruiting efforts by school districts have
resulted in signing bonuses, discounts on mortgage
rates, negotiated salaries, etc. To address the issue of
retention, a variety of measures have been taken. For
example, mentors have been provided to assist new
teachers, and grants have paid for teachers to take
additional coursework and obtain a higher degree. The
issue of recruitment and retention is of such magnitude
that the Florida Board of Education has identified their
first strategic imperative for 20022003: increasing the
supply of highly qualified K12 instructors. An action
plan has been recommended and will be carried out
through various projects.
Every state department of education, school

district, and higher education institution across
this country has been actively involved in seeking
solutions to the issues of teacher shortages in the
field of special education.
An additional resource that is available to states
through federal funds is the Comprehensive System
for Personnel Development (CSPD) Council. The
CSPD Council is composed of representatives from
higher education, public school personnel, parents,
state department of education personnel, and agency
personnel from such organizations as Children
Medical Services and the Down Syndrome
Association. Its mission is to review the critical
needs related to special education personnel issues,
develop activities, and fund projects that will support issues such as recruitment and attrition.
The quality of programs and services that will be

available to special education students in the future
depends upon everyone, including teachers, administrators, students, parents, school board members,
and members of the community, working together
on the issues shared in this publication. Unless
changes occur, we can expect the same pattern in the
futurefewer teachers entering the field and greater
numbers leaving. Its time to change this melody.
About the Author

Kenneth E. Schneider, Ed.D., is the Director for
Exceptional Student Services in the South Learning
Community for the Orange County Public Schools,
6501 Magic Way, Building 700, Orlando, FL 32809.
E-mail: schneik@ocps.k12.fl.us.
79
Call For Papers

Manuscript Guidelines
and Editorial Policies
The Journal of Special Education Leadership, published
by the Council for Administrators of Special
Education, seeks articles that capture an administrators attention by providing useful information that
stimulates new ways of thinking about managing
and leading. Only articles that have been validated
and accompanied by accepted theory, research, or
practice are sought.
The Journal of Special Education Leaderships
goals are:
1. To provide fresh ideas and perspectives,
grounded in recent advances in administrative
theory and research, on contemporary issues that
administrators must face.
2. To become a primary source of useful ideas for
those who seek to educate present and future
administrators of special education programs.
3. To become a forum through which practicing
administrators of special education programs can
challenge the meaningfulness of translations of
administrative theory and research.
Contributors to each issue will include practicing
administrators, researchers, policymakers, or others
interested in special education administration. The
purpose of this arrangement is to encourage interaction among individuals within those roles in developing articles. Interactions may include any of the
following: a jointly authored manuscript, an interview preceded or followed by commentary written
by the interviewer, and a follow-up article that is
specifically linked to the theory and/or research
article that provides examples from the field and
implications for administrators in similar situations.
A typical article might begin with a brief case
illustrating the primary theme or posing certain
questions and issues that special education administrators need to address. A typical article will also
satisfy the academic reader who seeks more than just
opinions and wants to see a serious effort at connecting ideas to accepted theory and research.
80
With respect to style and format, manuscripts

should:
Be accompanied by a letter signed by the
author(s),
Have a separate title page that identifies the
authors (the names(s) of the author(s) should not
appear anywhere on the manuscript, except on
the title page),
Be written in clear, straightforward language,
avoiding jargon and technical terms,
Conform to APA format (see Appendix B of
APA Publication Manual, 4th edition, 1994),
particularly:
- Entire manuscript is double spaced, with
margins.
- All pages are numbered in sequence, starting
with the title page.
- All references in text are listed and in complete
agreement with text citations.
- All author identification information, including
professional title and affiliation, address, and
phone number, is on the title page only.
- Cover letter states the manuscript is original,
not previously published, and not under
consideration elsewhere.
Include at the beginning an Executive Overview
of 35 bulleted major points made in the article,
Use subheadings but not the traditional ones
such as Introduction; use, instead, The Future
Challenge or Do Seamless Delivery Systems
have a Future?
For the purpose of documentation, cite notes in
the body of the paper using superscript note
numbers, and
Include a biographical sketch of each author that
includes name, title, and place of employment.
Authors are encouraged to get feedback from
colleagues and practitioners on early drafts. A paper
can be improved dramatically when knowledgeable
reviewers are asked for reactions in advance of
submission.
Manuscripts should be double-spaced and no
more than 15 pages in length, including figures.
When questions arise regarding issues of
Call for Papers
grammar or style, authors should refer to the

Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, 4th edition.
The Journal of Special Education Leadership is
published two times per year. The issues vary with
some being thematic. Each issue includes 45 articles
and 12 administrative briefs/technical notes.
Review Process
Selection of manuscripts for publication is based
on a blind peer review process. However, all
manuscripts are screened first by the editor. Those
manuscripts that do not meet the manuscript
requirements, or that are not consistent with the
purpose of the journal, are not forwarded for peer
review. The author is either notified that the manuscript is not acceptable for the Journal of Special
Education Leadership or requested to make changes in
the manuscript so that it meets requirements. Copies
of the manuscript are not returned to the author in
either case.
Manuscripts that are consistent with the purpose
of the journal are sent out for peer review. Reviewers
will not know the identity of the author.
Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of Special
Education Leadership editor will communicate the
results of that review to the author. The decision
that is communicated to the author will be one of
the following:
Acceptable, with routine editing
Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor
Unacceptable
When a decision is made that a manuscript is
unacceptable for the Journal of Special Education
Leadership, it may be recommended that it be sent
to a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This
recommendation does not mean that the manuscript
would be automatically accepted by a Division
journal; the manuscript would have to go through
the review process again.
Author Responsibilities Following

Publication Acceptance
After a manuscript is accepted for publication in the
Journal of Special Education Leadership, the author is
responsible for completing the following:
Obtaining publication clearance, if needed,

for a manuscript first presented at a professional
meeting;
Acknowledging the funding agency for
supported research;
Verifying the authenticity of all quoted material
and citations and for obtaining permission from
the original source for quotes in excess of 150
words or for tables or figures reproduced from
published works;
Preparing camera-ready copies of all figures
included in the article;
Assigning literary rights to CASE by signing a
Copyright Transfer Agreement;
Sending two (2) paper copies of the revised
manuscript to the Journal of Special Education
Leaderships Editorial Office; and
Sending an exact copy of the revised manuscript
to the Editorial Office on a floppy disk (3 1/2),
with the document saved in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, or WordPro format, if possible.
(Acceptable alternatives are ASCII format, on a
DOS or Mac platform, however these formats are
not preferable.)
Author Checklist
Before sending a manuscript, please complete the
Author Checklist below. This will help ensure that
your manuscript is not screened out or returned
before review.
Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of
the journal.
Manuscript is no longer than 15 pages total.
Manuscript conforms to APA format (see
Appendix B of APA Publication Manual,
4th edition, 1994).
Send 5 copies of manuscript and file copy on a
3 1/2 floppy disk to:
Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor
175 Hills-South
School of Education
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript
will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of your
manuscript will occur within 6 weeks.
81
Subscribe to the
Photocopy and mail to:
CASE
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
If you are already a member of
CASE, you will automatically receive
the Journal of Special Education
Leadership as part of your membership. However, you can subscribe if
you are not a member of CASE.
Subscription Notes:
The Journal of Special Education
Leadership is published by the
Council of Administrators of
Special Education in conjunction
with Sopris West
Copy requests should be made to
CASE at the address above
For more information on this journal or other Sopris West publications and services, visit our
website at www.sopriswest.com
Single copies may be purchased.
Orders in multiples of 10 per
issue can be purchased at a
reduced rate.
Call CASE for membership
information: (800) 585-1753
or (478) 825-7667.
Or visit our website at
http://www.casecec.org
Council of Administrators
of Special Education
1005 State University Drive
Fort Valley, GA 31030
Yes, I want to subscribe to the

Journal of Special Education Leadership!
Single Issue: $25
Full Subscription: $40 (includes two journals)
Institution/Library Subscription: $60 (includes two journals)
Payment Information:
Check/Money Order (payable to CASE, in U.S. dollars)
Please bill my credit card:
MasterCard
VISA
Card Number___________________________ Exp. Date________

Cardholder Signature______________________________________
Ship to:
Name ______________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Phone ______________________________________________________
***INDICIA will change, given the

new address. Ask Pat Preston at
Americomm for permit #.***
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 489

Burnout Among Special Education Teachers

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Burnout Among Special Education Teachers

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Volume 15, Number 2

Administrators Perceptions of Special Education Law ..............................................43

Administrators Perspectives of the Impact of Mandatory Graduation

Improving Special Education Teacher Retention: Implications

Burnout Among Special Education Teachers and Perceptions of Support ................67

Assistant to the Editor

Board of Associate Editors

Dr. Pia Durkin

Dr. Thomas M. Skrtic

CASE Executive Committee 20022003

Dr. Shirley R. McBride

Steve Milliken, President-Elect

Dr. Harold McGrady

Christy Chambers, Secretary

Dr. Jonathan McIntire

Emily Collins, Representative

Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlin

Cheryl Hofweber, Canadian

Dr. Tom Parrish

Jerry Hine, Policy & Legislation Chair

Dr. David P. Riley

Beverly McCoun, Past President

Thomas Jeschke, Representative to CEC

Eileen McCarthy, Membership Chair

The Editorial Mission

Journal of Special Education Leadership

Sopris West Educational Services

Phone: (303) 651-2829

Published in partnership with:

A Letter from the Editor

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

Bob Algozzine, Ph.D.

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

aw permeates every facet of our public schools

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

require knowledge in practices and procedures

opinions and to maximize the generalization of the

The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program

a full-time internship under a master principal were

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

In an effort to obtain a high rate of return on the

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

law among beginning administrators, (2) need for

The difference in perceptions that male and female

Table 2: Perceived need for additional training in special education

very high need for additional training as compared to males (6.3%).

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

Table 3: Satisfaction with administrative training in special

Well Below Standard

Well Above Standard

of male and female Principal Fellows rated their

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

standing of special education law among school

attitudes, and perceptions of others. Principals have

Osborne, A., DiMattia, P., & Curran, F. (1993). Effective

About the Authors

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

Administrators Perspectives of the Impact of

tate and district assessment programs have been

Journal of Special Education Leadership 15(2) November 2002

school graduation were first introduced in a few

Minimum Competency Graduation

Graduation Qualifying Examinations