Special Issue Editors Note: Dr.

Billingsleys article is a continuation of the special series on supporting science in the schoolhouse, hosted by Dr. Jean Crockett (JLD Vol. 37, No. 3). Readers are asked to read Dr. Billingsleys article in the context of that special series.Bernice Wong

Promoting Teacher Quality and Retention in Special Education

Bonnie S. Billingsley

Abstract
Qualified special educators are needed to carry out research-based practices in schools. The shortage of special educators, the high numbers of uncertified teachers, and high attrition rates threaten the practice of science in the schoolhouse and, consequently, the education that students with disabilities receive. If teachers are to use research-based practices to benefit students with disabilities, care must be directed toward teachers, what they do, and the complex conditions in which their practice occurs. In this discussion, I focus on four factors that are important to special education teacher retentionresponsive induction programs, deliberate role design, positive work conditions and supports, and professional development. These retention-enhancing factors also serve to cultivate qualified special educators by providing the conditions in which they can thrive and grow professionally.

n the lead article of the symposium, Crockett (2004) suggested critical ideas necessary for supporting science in the schoolhouse. She guided her remarks with two interrelated questions: how can we foster the delivery of effective instruction so that (a) each student with LD [learning disabilities] receives the appropriate interventions to learn and (b) teachers receive the support they require to do their jobs and to stay with them? Although I will focus on the latter question, how well teachers are provided with necessary supports clearly influences the extent to which they can deliver effective instruction. Without professional strength in the teaching corps (Crockett, 2004) and necessary work-related supports, students with disabilities will not receive validated interventions. Creating a qualified, diverse, and stable teaching force is a critical challenge in special education today

(Billingsley, 2002a; McLeskey, Tyler, & Saunders, 2002; Tyler, Yzquierdo, LopezReyna, & Saunders, 2002). Although it is widely acknowledged that highly qualified teachers significantly increase student achievement (DarlingHammond & Youngs, 2002), finding, cultivating, and keeping good special educators has been a long-standing problem in special education. Because of teacher shortages, many uncertified teachers are hired to work with students with disabilities. According to data from the U.S. Department of Education (2003), 47,532 teachers in special education (11.4% of all teachers) lacked appropriate special education certification during the 2000 2001 school year. McLeskey et al. (2002) suggested that this represents an increase of approximately 23% from the 19992000 school year, the largest increase in the number of uncertified teachers since these data have been reported (p. 10). Moreover, uncertified

teachers are concentrated among beginning special educators, with approximately 30% of beginning teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience lacking certification for their main assignments (Billingsley, 2002b). The hiring of unqualified special educators is especially costly for students with disabilitiesthose students who need the most assistance lose critical learning opportunities as these new teachers struggle to figure out what to do. Teacher attrition is a major contributor to the shortage problem, because these teachers must be replaced, often after just a few years of teaching. Teacher retention is important not just because of the difficulty of finding replacements, but also because of the impact on instruction for students with disabilities. Murnane, Singer, and Willett (1989) stated,
Prior research indicates that teachers make marked gains in effectiveness

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES VOLUME 37, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004, PAGES 370376

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

371

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)

Although a wide range of factors have been associated with special educators decisions to leave teaching, including personal reasons (see Billingsley, 2002a, for a comprehensive review), this discussion focuses on four work-related factors that are important to special education teacher retention: (a) responsive induction programs, (b) deliberate role design, (c) positive work conditions and supports, and (d) professional development opportunities. These retention-enhancing factors also serve to cultivate qualified special educators, by providing the conditions in which they can continue to grow professionally.

Examining RetentionEnhancing Factors

If special educators are to thrive, then schools must become hospitable places for adults to work and to develop professionally (Crockett, 2004). The field of special education has a strong intervention research base that special educators need to use in their daily work. However, focusing only on intervention is shortsighted. Taking care of students with disabilities requires that care also be directed toward their teachers, what they do, and the complex and often difficult conditions in which they work. A focus on one or two aspects of special educators work conditions may help, but it will likely be insufficient to substantially increase retention. A holistic view of special educators work conditions is needed to sustain special educators commitment to their work and to make it possible for teachers to use their expertise.

Responsive Induction Programs

Over the last 2 decades, I have worked with many beginning special educators, both as a teacher educator and

as an administrator. Almost all of the beginning special educators I have worked with began their career with a great deal of optimism; they desired to make a difference in their students lives, and they eagerly anticipated the first day of school. However, many special educators do not survive the path from hopeful beginner to highly qualified, experienced teacher. Many beginning special educators leave their positions (Griffin, Winn, Otis-Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2002; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999), and nearly half leave in the first 5 years (Singer, 1992). One of the most important actions that schools can take is to provide support to beginning teachers during these vulnerable first years. This is particularly critical for the high percentage of novice teachers who are not qualified for the positions that they hold (Billingsley, 2002b). Rosenberg (1996) stated of special educators who are not prepared to work with students with disabilities, day-to-day survival typically supersedes any sustained long-term efforts related to quality control. Best practices are rarely known, much less implemented, and once again the students are the losers (pp. 209210). Inadequate preparation leads to ineffective practice, with science being left outside the schoolhouse. Mastropieri (2001) suggested that school districts offer intensive and specific professional development activities when teachers licenses and experiences do not match the positions to which they have been assigned (p. 72). Understanding what the first years of teaching are like for beginning teachers is important to providing the kinds of supports that are necessary. The beginning teacher period has been described as one of shock and survival. Beginning special educators often have unrealistic expectations (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Kilgore & Griffin, 1998), struggle with how to apply what they have learned in their preparation programs (Whitaker, 2000a), desire to be viewed as competent (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992), and are reluctant to seek help (Whitaker, 2000a). Beginning special educators must man-

age many responsibilities (e.g., instruction, resources, time management, bureaucratic responsibilities) and work with administrators, general educators, and parents who may not understand what they do or support their efforts (Boyer & Lee, 2001; Carter & Scruggs, 2001; Griffin et al., 2002). Yet this early career period is about more than struggle and survival; during this critical and often stressful period, beginning teachers establish teaching routines and practices that they will use for many years (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; Gold, 1996). In view of the fragility and importance of the early teaching years, researchers have called for responsive induction programs and supports for beginning special educators (Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Mastropieri, 2001; Rosenberg, Griffin, Kilgore, & Carpenter, 1997; White & Mason, 2001). Induction programs are built around the assumption that regardless of how well the teacher is prepared, beginning teachers face challenges that require support and assistance. Taking time to support and cultivate early career teachers is a critical leadership activity and requires systematic efforts. University and district partnerships can be particularly valuable in providing support to beginning teachers, because both university and district personnel have special expertise that can be tapped (Karge, Lasky, McCabe, & Robb, 1995), yet few models for such support systems exist in special education. In fact, it is striking that special education has such a meager literature base on the adjustment, socialization, and induction of special educators. Induction support for beginning teachers should be multifaceted and address a range of goals such as (a) facilitating teacher development and improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities, (b) reducing the isolation and stress that many beginning special educators experience, and (c) improving retention (Gold, 1996; Griffin et al., 2002; White & Mason, 2001). Novice teachers who have reasonable assignments, who receive helpful feedback, and who are given per-

372

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

sonal support are more likely to acquire the skills needed for a satisfying teaching career and to develop greater commitment to teaching (Yee, 1990). Even though most would agree that systematic induction should be a part of the first teaching years, recent findings suggest that only about 61% of beginning teachers with 5 or fewer years of experience participated in formal mentoring, and about 66% of these teachers found this support helpful (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein, in press). However, those teachers who found overall induction support helpful did reap benefits. They were more likely than others to report that their jobs were manageable. They also felt successful in providing services to students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and reported greater success in getting through to the most difficult students (Billingsley et al., in press). Whitaker (2000b) reported that satisfaction with mentoring was significantly correlated with teachers plans to remain in special education and was also related to special educators job satisfaction. Griffin et al. (2002) stated that induction support should emerge from the unique contexts in which special educators find themselves in their initial teaching years (p. 48). Beginning teachers need experienced mentors who will help them with daily issues, observe them teach and provide feedback, assist with the development of instructional strategies, and share insights (Johnson & Kardos, 2002). Although relatively little is known about the effectiveness of different types and sources of support for new teachers (Gold, 1996), special educators need special education mentors, even if that special educator works in a different school (White & Mason, 2001). Providing informal contacts, emotional support, and assistance with the mechanics of the job is a critical aspect of mentoring (Billingsley et al., in press; Whitaker, 2000b). To prepare for these roles, mentors need training, release time, and frequent contact with beginning teachers (see Griffin et al., 2002;

Rosenberg et al., 1997; White & Mason, 2001; for more on mentoring and induction support). In summary, qualified beginning special educators are a valuable resource, and cultivating these teachers is necessary if they are to develop into educators who not only have special expertise but can work within the context of their schools to use this expertise. Beginning special educators are particularly vulnerable to work problems, inadequate supports, and competing responsibilities. Entering the schoolhouse as a beginning special educator can be a frustrating experience without a good job match, reasonable workloads, and well-trained mentors. Making schools hospitable, providing experienced and well-trained mentors, and protecting these teachers from unreasonable workloads is critical if they are to prosper and use best practices with their students.

Deliberate Role Design

Both beginning and experienced teachers may experience confusion about the role of special educators in schools today. It is increasingly difficult to find consistent viewpoints on questions such as the goals of special education programs, the roles and priorities for special educators, and the way in which special educators should organize their activities and spend their time. A recent report by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) suggested that many new special education teachers are finding that they have been prepared for jobs that no longer exist and that they are not equipped for the jobs they face (CEC, 2000, p. 19). As districts move toward greater inclusion of students with learning disabilities (LD) in their schools (McLeskey, Henry, & Axelrod, 1999), some special educators struggle with changing roles and the lack of support for their new and often increased responsibilities. Excessive and competing responsibilities make it difficult for special educators to function effectively; poor role design stymies their efforts

and prevents teachers from using their knowledge and skills. Additional focus must be given to special educators roles to help special educators develop clarity about what they are to do and to ensure that they have the conditions necessary to use validated practices. Special educators experience a range of role problems (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Morvant, Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995), and some evidence suggests that they experience significantly greater role problems than general educators (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Billingsley, Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murray, & Hendricks, 1995). Role problems include role ambiguity (necessary information is unavailable for a given position), role conflict (inconsistent behaviors are expected from an individual; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), role dissonance (teachers own role expectations differ from the expectations of others; Gersten et al., 2001), and role overload (having more to do than is reasonable; Billingsley et al., 1995). These various role problems are related. For example, role overload can lead to role conflict, with special educators feeling torn between the teaching tasks they feel are critical and the burdensome bureaucratic requirements that demand their time. Understanding the nature of these different kinds of role problems is critical to exploring how they might be addressed. For example, although the effort to reduce excessive paperwork may reduce the role overload problem, it will not address problems of role ambiguity. Although teachers should expect to experience some role problems from time to time, special educators who experience prolonged and excessive role problems are more likely to report greater stress, less job satisfaction, less commitment, and greater intent to leave than their colleagues with fewer role problems (Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). The Problem of Role Ambiguity. Role ambiguity is an issue for special

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

373

educators as their work shifts from special education classroom instruction to collaborative roles as co-teachers and inclusion specialists in general education classrooms. Although a great deal of information exists about the role of the LD resource teacher, the role of the LD inclusion specialist is not as clear and is only emerging (Klingner & Vaughn, 2002). Klingner and Vaughn illustrated how even a highly qualified, veteran LD resource teacher struggled to make sense of her new role as an LD inclusion specialist. They described the complexity of the inclusion specialists role and illustrated how the teacher had to adjust and change roles depending on the personalities and preferences of the general educators as well as the needs of the students she served. The specialist asked, I understand we are supposed to kind of like be team teachers in a way. But Id like to know, what really am I supposed to do? (p. 25). Inclusion specialists have few precedents to guide them as they enter these new partnerships (Klingner & Vaughn, 2002). This leaves teachers with new roles that have not been carefully considered and, in some instances, without the preparation they need to perform these roles. As Weiss and Lloyd (2002) concluded after examining co-teaching in secondary classrooms,
These teachers had few opportunities to plan with their co-teachers, little training, and many content areas to cover. There was also a clear lack of understanding on the special educators and the administrations part as to how co-teaching was to be used to deliver specially designed instruction. In addition, we saw little use of special educators expertise in the cotaught situation. (p. 68)

1995; Weiss & Lloyd, 2002). If special educators are not able to use their expertise, as Weiss and Lloyd suggested, role dissonance may occur, creating a gap between what teachers know about effective practice for students with disabilities and what they are able to do. Teachers of students with LD who are well versed in validated intervention models (Swanson, 2001) may well become discouraged if they find themselves doing the work of paraprofessionals (Weiss & Lloyd, 2002), serving as case managers (Morvant et al., 1995), or trying to integrate interventions in settings that were designed with other goals in mind (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995). Embich (2001) reported that special education teachers who work primarily in general education classrooms are at greater risk of burnout than teachers who work in special education settings because of having wider ranging responsibilities, being insufficiently prepared, and working where they are not wanted. The Problem of Role Overload. Another major issue for special educators is the problem of role overload. Special educators efforts to help their students are thwarted when their instructional time is reduced because of nonteaching tasks, such as paperwork. Excessive bureaucratic requirements, particularly problems with paperwork, have been widely documented in special education (e.g., Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Lenk, 19941995; CEC, 2000; Morvant et al., 1995; Zabel & Zabel, 2001). Special educators who plan to leave teaching as soon as possible are significantly more likely to rate their workload as not at all manageable compared to those who indicate intent to stay (Carlson & Billingsley, 2001). Morvant et al. (1995) reported that only about half of the teachers in three urban districts felt that their workload was manageable, and 68% felt they had too little time for their work. A recent research report stated that the typical special educator reported spending 5 hours per week

on paperwork; those reporting more paperwork also found their jobs to be less manageable (Paperwork in Special Education, n.d.). In conclusion, educational opportunities for students with disabilities will be reduced if teachers are confused about their roles, if teachers roles are structured in ways that do not allow them to use their expertise, and if substantial teaching time is lost because of nonteaching tasks. Poor role design also has costs for the organization and the teacher. As Gersten et al. (2001) stated,
For an organization, poor job design results in failure to achieve valued goals. For an individual, it results in frustration and work-related stress, which in turn may lead to lowered self-efficacy and increased employee attrition. Negative responses to dayto-day work may also lead teachers to remain in their positions but simply reduce their overall involvement and effort, and to lower their expectations for students. (p. 552)

Intentional and thoughtful role design provides special educators with a clearer sense of purpose and, if conditions are supportive, allows teachers to direct their energies toward valued goals. In considering role design, it is helpful to ask, Does the job, with all it entails, make sense? Is it feasible? Is it one that well-trained, interested, special educational professionals can manage in order to accomplish their main objectiveenhancing students academic, social, and vocational competence? (Gersten et al., 2001, p. 551).

Positive Work Conditions and Supports

Teachers who view their schools as good places to work are more likely to stay in teaching. Positive work conditions include a wide range of variables, including a positive school climate (A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, n.d.; Miller et al., 1999), the extent to which administrators support teachers, and the extent to which colleagues

The Problems of Role Dissonance and Role Conflict. Inclusion specialists may experience a lack of needed supports, inadequate opportunities to collaborate, and pressure to conform to external pressures (Klingner & Vaughn, 2002; Morvant et al.,

374

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

support one another in their teaching efforts. Principals and district administrators have an influence on teacher retention, although a greater number of studies have focused solely on the role of the principal in retention (Billingsley, 2002a). The finding that central office administrators influence retention is to be expected, given that these administrators often play a critical role in establishing local policies, regulating Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements, and determining how special education services are implemented in the district. Greater levels of administrative support are associated with fewer role problems, greater job satisfaction and commitment, and less stress among special educators (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Teachers who stay in their positions are almost four times more likely than teachers who leave to strongly perceive administrators behavior as supportive and encouraging (Boe, Barkanic, & Leow, 1999). Although administrative support has a strong relationship to teacher retention, it is difficult to define. We do know that both the administrator teacher relationship and the specific ways that administrators assist teachers are important (Billingsley, 2000a). Supportive leaders listen to teachers needs and help with needed supports. Emotional support (e.g., showing appreciation, establishing open communication, taking an interest in the teacher, developing trust) is perceived as most important to special educators (Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994) and beginning teachers (Gold, 1996; Whitaker, 2000b). Littrell et al. also found that emotional support and instrumental support (e.g., helping teachers secure needed resources, space, and time for teaching) are positively correlated with job satisfaction and school commitment. Because administrators are in a powerful position to shape the organizational conditions in which teachers work (Rosenholtz, 1989), they have an

impact on many different dimensions of school life, such as school climate, teacher roles, and resources. In particular, educational leaders who are successful in facilitating shared goals, values, and professional growth opportunities help create collaborative environments in which all members of the school can help to support and to learn from each other (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). The collective impact of both principal and colleague support (Gersten et al., 2001) can do much to reduce some of the problems that special educators experience in their buildings and to provide the supports that special educators need in order to use research-based practices. In summary, positive work conditions are critical to special educators job satisfaction and retention. Central office administrators and principals are key players in fostering science in the schoolhouse; they help improve student learning by helping teachers succeed (Glickman, 2002). In particular, principals support special educators by facilitating positive school climates, fostering collegial environments, and ensuring that teachers have the supports needed for their work. Although the responsibility for supervising special education is often the responsibility of building-level administrators, Crockett (2002) pointed out that these principals often have limited knowledge about special education. Helping principals develop a basic understanding of the aims of special education instruction and the challenges that special education teachers experience is critical if they are to foster teacher growth and retention.

Professional Development
Professional development is a critical support for all teachers and is necessary to student growth and achievement. Deshler et al. (as cited by Crockett, 2004) recognized the critical role that professional development plays in their student success formula: Student Success = Validated Interventions + Service Delivery Systems +

Professional Development Programs. Teachers desire new challenges because they want to learn, develop better skills, and obtain greater knowledge about their practice (Rosenholtz, 1989). Greater levels of expertise, in turn, will allow teachers to be more effective with their students. Professional development appears to influence retention as well (Brownell et al., 19941995; Gersten et al., 2001; Morvant et al., 1995). According to Gersten et al., professional development opportunities have a direct influence on special educators commitment to the profession and an indirect effect on teachers intent to leave. Not all special educators receive professional development opportunities, and some who receive these opportunities do not find them helpful. For example, Morvant et al. (1995) noted that more than half of the special educators surveyed did not feel there were many opportunities to learn new techniques and strategies in their districts. Although special educators participated in an average of 59 hours of professional development activities in 19992000, many school districts do not reliably incorporate best practices, such as engaging teachers in the learning process or allowing time for them to plan how to implement new skills (A High-Quality Teacher for Every Classroom, n.d.). Contemporary models of professional development emphasize the importance of learning communities that are grounded in inquiry, reflection, and experimentation (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Johnson & Kardos, 2002). DarlingHammond emphasized that effective professional development must be connected to and derived from teachers work with their students, and be ongoing, intensive, and supported by modeling, coaching, and the collective solving of specific problems of practice (p. 598). These learning communities have the potential to benefit teachers by preventing burnout, heightening teachers sense of efficacy, and improving teachers practice (Brownell, Yeager, Rennells, & Riley, 1997).

VOLUME 37, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

375

Conclusion
For some special educators, multiple, interacting, work-related problems (e.g., role ambiguity, too much paperwork, too little support) create prolonged experiences of stress, which can lead to burnout and attrition. Teachers who feel stressed, overburdened, and unsupported will also have less energy for new learning, supporting others, and trying new approaches to teaching. As Malouf and Schiller (1995) stated,
Teachers work environments are not conducive to the implementation of research knowledge. Factors such as externally imposed curriculums and materials, relative isolation and lack of collegiality, heavy workloads, ambiguity about goals, and insufficient time and resources combine to limit teacher incentive and flexibility for learning about or trying researchbased innovations. (p. 418)

and retention. Address: Bonnie Billingsley, School of Education, 309 WMH, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, V 24061-0313; e-mail: bbilling@ A vt.edu
REFERENCES

Science in the schoolhouse cannot exist without qualified, motivated teachers who have the work circumstances needed to do their work well. Keeping and cultivating committed special educators requires that we prepare qualified teachers, provide responsive supports as they enter teaching, work with them to establish reasonable roles, create work environments that are characterized by supportive relationships, and provide opportunities for professional growth. A holistic view of teachers work conditions is needed to sustain special educators commitment to their work. These recommendations will not only improve retention; they will lead to better outcomes for students with disabilities as well.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bonnie S. Billingsley, EdD, is an associate professor of special education in the School of Education at Virginia Tech. Her current research interests include the induction of beginning special educators and the creation of work enviroments that sustain teachers commitment

A high-quality teacher for every classroom (SPeNSE Factsheet). (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl. edu/spense/ SummaryReportserviceproviders.pdf Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 163180. Boe, E. E., Barkanic, G., & Leow, C. S. (1999). Retention and attrition of teachers at the school level: National trends and predictors. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 436 485) Billingsley, B. (2002a). Research summary: Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Billingsley, B. (2002b). SPeNSE summary sheet. Beginning special educators: Characteristics, qualifications, and experiences. Retrieved March 15, 2002. Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (in press). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children. 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., Pyecha, J., Smith-Davis, J., Murray, K., & Hendricks, M.B. (1995). Improving the retention of special education teachers: Final report. Research Triangle Institute, Chapel Hill, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 860) Billingsley, B. S., & Tomchin, E. M. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their experiences suggest for trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 104112. Boyer, L., & Lee, C. (2001). Converting challenge to success: Supporting a new teacher of students with autism. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 7583.

Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., McNellis, J., & Lenk, L. (19941995). Career decisions in special education: Current and former teachers personal views. Exceptionality, 5, 83102. Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E., Rennells, M. S., & Riley, T. (1997). Teachers working together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 340359. 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, DC. Carter, K. B., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Thirtyone students: Reflections of a first-year teacher of students with mental retardation. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 100104. Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). Bright futures for exceptional learners: An action to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning. Reston, VA: Author. Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special educations role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 157168. Crockett, J. B. (2004). Taking stock of science in the schoolhouse: Four ideas to foster effective instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 189199. Cross, L. H., & Billingsley, B. (1994). Testing a model of special educators intent to stay in teaching. Exceptional Children, 60, 411421. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597 604. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 113. Embich, J. L. (2001). The relationship of secondary special education teachers roles and factors that lead to professional burnout. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 5869. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995, March). Whats special about special education? Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522530. Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special

376

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

educators intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549567. Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and induction. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548594). New York: Simon & Schuster. Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2002). New teacher induction in special education. Research summary: Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 1216. Karge, B., Lasky, B., McCabe, M., & Robb, S. (1995). University and district collaborative support for beginning special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18, 103114. 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, 155173. Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2002). The changing roles and responsibilities of an LD specialist. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 1931. 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. Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 414424. Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by first-year special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 6674.

McLeskey, J., Henry, D., & Axelrod, M. (1999). Inclusion of students with learning disabilities: An examination of data from reports to Congress. Exceptional Children, 66, 55 66. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders, S. (2002). The supply and demand of special education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. 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, 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, Vol. 1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 154) Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1989). The influence of salaries on teachers career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 325346. Paperwork in special education (SPeNSE Factsheet). (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/ Results.html Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 130163. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 421439. Rosenberg, M. S. (1996). Current issues facing teacher education and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 209210. 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, 301321.

Singer, J. D. (1992). Are special educators career paths special? Results from a 13year longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262279. 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, 37 47. Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 229239. Swanson, L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34, 116. Tyler, N., Yzquierdo, Z., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Saunders, S. (2002). Diversifying the special education workforce. Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved June 5, 2003, from www.ideadata.org Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2002). Congruence between roles and actions of secondary special educators in co-taught and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 5868. Whitaker, S. D. (2000a). What do first-year special education teachers need? Implications for induction programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 2836. Whitaker, S. D. (2000b). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Children, 66, 546566. White, M., & Mason, C. (2001). Mentoring induction principles and guidelines (draft). Retrieved October 12, 2002, from http:// www.cec.sped.org/spotlight/udl/mip_ g_manual_11pt.pdf Yee, S. M. (1990). Careers in the classroom: When teaching is more than a job. New York: Teachers College Press. Zabel, R. H., & Zabel, K. (2001). Revisiting burnout among special education teachers: Do age, experience, and preparation still matter? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 128139.

Copyright of Journal of Learning Disabilities is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.