University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school complex area

(USC Thesis Other)

Special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school complex area

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 1
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER ATTRITION IN A HAWAII SCHOOL COMPLEX
AREA

by

John Edward Walje IV

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2016

Copyright 2016 John Edward Walje IV
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 2
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents for supporting me and for providing
unconditional love and guidance. Also, I want to dedicate this to my college sweetheart, best
friend, and love of my life, Kristin.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 3
Acknowledgements
First off, I’d like to thank all of the educators who have taught me over the years.
Without your support, I would not have completed this journey. I especially want to thank
Richard Bahner and Jane McMullin at Sacred Heart High School for providing me guidance,
assistance, and imparting upon me a love of teaching. I owe much gratitude to the late Dr. Paul
Rorvig, my undergraduate degree advisor. His systematic teaching practices, yet caring and
approachable demeanor helped me to become the educator that I am today.
I am fully indebted to my dissertation chair, Dr. Robert Keim. Dr. Keim’s mentorship,
flexibility, knowledge of statistics, and optimisitc approach helped me to make this dissertation a
smooth process. I want to express my appreciation to my dissertation committee - Dr. Barber,
Dr. Tobey, and Dr. Hocevar – for their valuable feedback and gift of time throughout this
process. Additionally, I want to thank all of my USC professors for their rigorous classes and
approachability. Also, I want to thank my fellow Trojan cohort members for their support and
willingness to share their professional and personal thoughts over the past three years. Fight On!
I want to thank my Wheeler Middle School ‘ohana for their support throughout this
journey. Special acknowledgement goes to Leighton, Daye, Lurline, Sam, Kaipo, Koki, and
especially Brenda for their support over the past three years.
I especially want to thank my parents, Arlene and the late John Edward III, for instilling
upon me the importance of life-long learning, education, hard work, effort, and discipline. I
thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for raising me with outstanding values,
encouragement, and love. Last but not least, I want to thank my fiancée, Kristin, for completing
this journey with me. You were my partner throughout this program and I could not have
completed it without you.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2!
Acknowledgements 3!
List of Tables 6!
List of Figures 7!
Abstract 8!
Chapter One: Introduction 9!
Background of the Problem 10!
Statement of the Problem 12!
Purpose of the Study 13!
Research Questions 14!
Hypotheses 15!
Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Models 15!
Significance of the Study 17!
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations 18!
Definitions of Terms 18!
Organization of the Study 20!
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21!
Literature Review Procedures and Selection Criteria 22!
Special Education Literature Review 22!
Historical Background of Special Education 23!
Problems with Special Education Legislation 25!
Special Education Attrition Literature Review 26!
Conceptual Framework of Special Education Teacher Attrition 28!
Shortage of Special Education Teachers 29!
Special Education Teacher Attrition 30!
Special Education Teacher Attrition in Hawaii 32!
Cost of Teacher Attrition 32!
Factors That Contribute to Special Education Attrition 34!
Thematic Approach to Literature 34!
Teacher Characteristics and Personal Factors 34!
Teacher Qualifications 36!
Work Environments 37!
Affective Responses to Work 43!
Stress 43!
Job Satisfaction 44!
Summary 45!
Chapter Three: Methodology 46!
Research Design 46!
Research Questions 47!
Hypotheses 48!
Sample and Population 48!
Geographic and District Information 49!
Instrumentation 50!
Data Collection 53!
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 5
Data Analysis 54!
Summary 55!
Chapter Four: Results 56!
Research Questions 57!
Hypotheses 57!
Introductory Analysis 58!
Research Question 1: What personal-related factors influence the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators? 60!
Research Question 2: What work-related factors influence the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators? 73!
Anecdotal Responses 76!
Summary 80!
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 81!
Background of the Problem 81!
Purpose of the Study 82!
Research Questions 83!
Discussion of Findings 83!
Research Question 1 84!
Research Question 2 85!
Limitations 87!
Timing of the Survey 87!
Obtaining Hawaii DOE Approval and Process 88!
Participants Emails from the Hawaii DOE 88!
Implications for Practice 88!
Future Research 90!
Conclusions 92!
References 93!
Appendix A: Department of Education Approval Letter 108!
Appendix B: School District Special Education Teacher Survey 109!
!

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequencies and Percentages for Participants’ Personal Characteristics and
Teacher Qualifications 59!
Table 2: Intent to Leave Within Five Years 60!
Table 3: Intent to Leave and Sex 61!
Table 4: Intent to Leave and Ethnicity 63!
Table 5: Intent to Leave and Degree Level 65!
Table 6: Intent to Leave and Years of Teaching Experience 67!
Table 7: Intent to Leave and Current Teaching Assignment 68!
Table 8: Intent to Leave and Certification Type 70!
Table 9: Intent to Leave and Current Area of Certification 72!
Table 10: Independent Samples T-Tests 75!
Table 11: Special Education Teacher Comments on Paperwork 77!
Table 12: Special Education Teacher Comments on Stress 79!

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Intent to Leave and Sex 62!
Figure 2: Intent to Leave and Ethnicity 64!
Figure 3: Intent to Leave and Degree Level 66!
Figure 4: Intent to Leave and Certification Type 71!
Figure 5: Intent to Leave and Current Area of Certification 73!

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 8
Abstract
Special education teacher attrition continues to be a pervasive concern throughout the nation.
Researchers have determined that special educators leave the profession due to personal factors,
work-related factors, and/or emotional responses to work. To date, there has been limited special
educator studies conducted within Hawaii. This quantitative study examined the factors that
influence special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district. Three hundred and seven
special educators from the Nalu School District (a pseudonym) were surveyed. Several tests,
using SPSS software, were completed to identify significant predictors of special education
teacher attrition. The goal of this study was to determine special educators’ intent to leave the
profession. Recommendations provided may enable Hawaii DOE officials and state education
policymakers to improve special education teacher retention rates within the Hawaii DOE.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
“At a time in which the success of individuals and societies depends more than ever on their
ability to learn, our survival as a strong and prosperous democracy depends on our ability to
teach. Indeed, teaching is the profession upon which all others depend” (Darling-Hammond,
1999, p. 23).

Should not school-aged special needs children receive high quality instruction from a
highly qualified teacher? Why cannot all students, no matter their intellectual level, be provided
the best instruction as possible? The United States of America faces an epidemic of national
proportion. The teacher attrition rate is an increasing concern in the field of education.
Research proves that 30% of all beginning educators leave the teaching field within five years of
joining the profession (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Gonzalez, Brown, & Slate, 2008). In 2010, the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) learned that teacher attrition
rates increased over 50% in the last fifteen years. Kozleski, Mainzer, Deshler, Coleman, and
Rodriguez-Walling (2000) stated, “the single most important school influence in a student’s
education is a well-prepared, caring, and qualified teacher” (p. 3).
Even more dismal are the attrition rates of special education teachers. According to the
Center of Personnel Studies in Special Education (2004), 13% of special educators exit the field
each year, which is almost twice number of general education teachers. Additionally, Kozleski et
al., (2000) explained that 40% of all new special education teachers exit special education before
their fifth year of instructing. McLeskey, Tyler, and Flippin (2003, 2004) explained that 98% of
the nation’s school districts note special education teacher shortages.
This study concentrated on the attrition rates of special educators from a school complex
area on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. For the purpose of this study, the school district was
assigned the pseudonym Nalu School District (NSD) to protect the privacy of the location and
participants in the examination. The district hired between 216 and 298 new educators during
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 10
each of the five years prior to this study, which embodies almost 26% of all newly employed
teachers through the state (Hawaii State Department of Education, 2013a). In 2012-2013, NSD
hired 276 new teachers, 78 of which were special education teachers or almost 28% of all new
teachers. According to the Hawaii State Department of Education (2013a), attrition was high
with 1,018 teachers leaving the department in school year 2012-2013. The department noted that
59% of teachers resigned for a spouse’s job-transfer, relocation, resignation, or for personal
reasons, 30% retired voluntarily or due to disability, 11% were terminated due to not being
qualified, there being no position available, for poor performance or for not reporting to the job
site (Hawaii State Department of Education [DOE], 2013a)
Background of the Problem
The statistics on teacher attrition are astonishing. Darling-Hammond (2003) explained
that about 33% of new educators exit teaching within five years. The National Center for
Education Statistics (2010) noted that approximately 13% of teachers either change jobs or exit
education every year. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2014), almost 500,000
educators transfer or exit teaching every year, which costs the nation almost $2.2 billion per year.
As high as the teacher attrition rates are across America, the special education teacher
figures are even higher. Many researchers revealed a scarcity of special educators throughout the
United States (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004; Irinaga-Bistolas, Schalock, Marvin, & Beck,
2007; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Boe and Cook (2006) explained there has been a shortage
of special educators since the 1970s. Miller, Brownell, and Smith (1999) noted that enlarged
percentages of special education teachers can be detrimental in two ways: the substantial finance
burden it is to attract and educate new special education instructors and students will not meet
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 11
their full educational potential because they could be taught by unproven, non-certified
instructors.
Boe, Cook, and Sunderland (2007) analyzed trends in teacher turnover from 1991
through 2004 and discovered it intensified over that 13-year timeframe. Boe et al. (2007) found
that, during the 2004-2005 school year, approximately 29% of public school educators left
teaching, switched their content area, or transferred to a different school. According to Ludlow,
Connor, and Schechter (2005),
Special education is a discipline that has been plagued by a significant and
persistent shortage of appropriately trained teachers since its inception…
Since the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (the
forerunner to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975,
there have not been enough fully certified special educators to fill the positions in
the nation’s public schools. (p. 16)
McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) reported new special education instructors are two and a half
times more probable to exit teaching than are other new educators. Furthermore, teacher attrition
occurs more frequently in schools that are low performing and located in high-minority and high-
poverty communities (Ludlow et al., 2005; NCTAF, 2010). In literature, there has been scarce
empirical research toward special education attrition in Hawaii. Carlson and Thompson (1995)
conducted the only known study on special education teachers and determined 61.2% of those
surveyed intended to leave special education.
According to the Hawaii State DOE (2013a), “Hawaii teachers play a significant role in
helping students develop the knowledge necessary for being responsible and productive
community members after high school” (p. 4). However, within the Hawaii State DOE, teacher
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 12
attrition is a major concern. Vorsino (2010) stated that over 50% of the state’s public school
educators leave the profession within five years of being hired and that “of the teachers hired in
2009 (1,328 teachers), 71 percent had no teaching experience while just 9.3 percent had more
than five years experience” (Vorsino, 2010, p. 3). From 2008-2013, a total of five school years,
approximately 1,112 new teachers were hired every year (Hawaii State DOE, 2013a). In the
2012-2013 school year, 1,137 new teachers were hired within the state (Hawaii State DOE,
2013a). Within the same school year, NSD hired 276 new teachers, which was 24.3% of the new
hires within the entire state (Hawaii State DOE, 2013a). Of those 276 new teachers, 78 (27.0%)
were for special education positions (Hawaii State DOE, 2013a). The NSD had the most special
education teacher hires in the state. From 2008-2013, NSD had the highest number of newly
hired teachers in four of those five years. These numbers prove that teacher attrition is a
significant problem within NSD.
Statement of the Problem
Teacher attrition is a concern both nationally and locally. In particular, NSD has one of
the highest attrition rates in the state (Hawaii State DOE, 2013a). According to the Hawaii State
DOE (2013a), in the 2012-2013 school year, 27.0% of new hires in the NSD were for special
education positions, which made for the highest number of hires in the state.
As stated in the Hawaii State Department of Education’s (2012) strategic plan, the
department will “recruit, retain, and recognize high performing schools” and also “revise
recruiting, polices, practices, and procedures to improve the quantity and quality of the DOE job
applicants” (p. 18). On the contrary, research proves that the Hawaii State DOE is not meeting
the stated goals. Vorsino (2010) noted that half of all teachers were leaving the profession within
their first five years.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 13
Since there are high attrition rates among special educators in Hawaii, it is important to
investigate the factors that influence their intent to leave. According to the Individuals and
Education Disabilities Act (2004), every school in the United States must provide a free,
appropriate public education to all students regardless of disability. However, Hawaii students
with disabilities cannot be properly serviced if the Hawaii State DOE cannot hire and keep
highly qualified special educators. The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) requires that all
teachers be “highly qualified” or possess a state certification. However, schools find it difficult to
meet these requirements due to high attrition rates.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to evaluate the factors that influence NSD
special education teachers’ intent to leave the teaching profession. Three hundred and seven
special education teachers in the NSD were surveyed. The independent variables in this
examination were personal factors, work-related factors, and emotional responses to work. The
dependent variable was whether special educators intend to leave the field.
Research has been completed noting factors related to special education teacher attrition.
However, there has been only one known examination, which was completed over 20 years ago.
Carlson and Thompson’s (1995) examination on Hawaii’s special education teachers’ intent to
leave is the only known study in the state. According to Carlson and Thompson (1995), 300 out
of 490 (61.2%) special education teachers surveyed were planning to leave. There have been
significant changes since this study, notably the passage of NCLB (2002) and IDEA (2004),
which required special educators to be highly qualified.
The population of this study was made up of 307 elementary, middle, and high school
special education teachers in NSD. The geographic location was confined to the island of Oahu.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 14
All 307 special education teachers were asked to partake in the survey to increase the probability
of sufficient representation. This study provided a current, relevant examination of special
education teacher attrition in Hawaii through an analysis of the influence of personal, work, and
emotional factors. The goal of this examination was to help improve the academic achievement
of special education students, retain special educators in NSD, assist school education officials in
developing retention policies, improve school climate, and decrease the cost of teacher attrition
in Hawaii.
Research Questions
It is important to analyze components that are common among those who intend to
remain in the field of special education and those who intend to leave. The survey aided in
determining universal variables. The following research questions were examined in this
quantitative study:
1. What personal factors influence the career decisions of Nalu School District’s (NSD)
special educators?
a. What personal characteristics (sex and ethnicity) impact the career decisions of
NSD’s special educators?
b. What factors associated with teacher qualifications (degree level, years of
teaching experience, current teaching assignment, certification type, and teaching
in area of certification) impact the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
2. What work-related factors influence the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
a. What work environment factors (salary, administrative support, colleague
support, induction/mentoring support, and paperwork) impact the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators?
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 15
b. What emotional responses to work (stress/job satisfaction) impact the career
decisions of NSD’s special educators?
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were assumed in the study:
1. Sex, ethnicity, degree level, years of teaching experience, current teaching
assignment, certification type, and teaching in area of certification are not predictors
of special education teachers’ intent to leave special education.
2. Salary, administrative support, colleague support, paperwork, and stress/job
satisfaction are not predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special
education.
Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Models
According to Swanson and Chermack (2013) a theory “describes a specific realm of
knowledge and explains how it works” (p. 14). Furthermore, a theoretical framework is the
building that reinforces a theory in a research examination (Swanson & Chermack, 2013). For
this research study, Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s (1959) motivation-
hygiene theory will serve as the theoretical framework.
Maslow (1954) conducted research and discovered that individuals’ needs fall into five
different categories: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. These
categories range from the most basic physiological needs of living such as food, water, and sleep
to the most complex needs such as problem solving and creativity (self-actualization). Maslow’s
(1954) theory relates to teachers at their place of employment because they want to feel
supported by other teachers and by their school’s administrators. According to Maslow (1954),
people want to feel achievement and value similar to that which comes from working at a school.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 16
Challenging teachers and providing them the prospect of reaching their potential may lead to
self-actualization.
The second theoretical framework that is similar to Maslow’s (1954) theory of
physiological needs is Herzberg’s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory. Herzberg’s (1959) theory
labeled the factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction as “hygiene” and the factors that
contribute to job satisfaction as “motivators.” As it relates to a school setting, if school
administrators and/or school districts do not have good working conditions or high salaries for
special education teachers, then job dissatisfaction (hygiene) can occur. On the contrary, if
school principals empower special educators and give them responsibility, recognition, and
opportunity to grow, then job satisfaction (motivation) will improve. Ultimately, these two
theories may help explain why special education teachers decide to leave the profession.
These frameworks provide a foundation to certify that the research questions are affiliated with
the research methods of this study.
Brownell and Smith’s (1993) conceptual model was adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s
(1976) ecological model of human development. Brownell and Smith (1993) modified the model
to educators and retained four of Bronfenbrenner’s original subsystems: microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. According to Brownell and Smith (1993), the
microsystem was the educators’ classroom and relations the teachers had with the students. The
mesosystem included peer to peer and management support (Brownell and Smith, 1993). The
exosystem was the environmental factors that affect the teachers’ occupation (Brown and Smith,
1993). Lastly, Brownell and Smith (1993) noted the macrosystem included social and ethnic
opinions and the financial circumstances that affect the schools.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 17
Billingsley’s (1993) conceptual model noted three factors that affect special education
teacher attrition: personal, external, and employment factors. Personal factors comprised of
“demographic, family and cognitive/affective” reasons that could lead to attrition (Billingsley,
1993, p. 147). Billingsley (1993) noted that external factors “include societal, economic, and
institutional variables that are external to the teacher and the employing school district” (p. 147).
Finally, Billingsley (1993) explained that employment factors include the teachers’ “professional
qualifications, work conditions, work rewards, and commitment to school/district/teaching field,
and/or teaching profession” (p. 147).
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is that it delivered relevant data and feedback on how to
lower attrition rates among special education teachers. Several studies noted a scarcity of
research on special education attrition (Bay & Parker-Katz, 2009; McLeskey & Billingsley,
2008; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010). Also, scholars determined that student success
suffers as a result of inexperienced educators (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith,
2004).
Also, this study was significant because it expanded on the small quantity of literature
about teacher attrition in the Hawaii State DOE given that Carlson and Thompson (1995)
completed the only known study about special education teachers in Hawaii. The shortage of
special education teachers within NSD has been a continuous concern for many years. NSD has
had the highest total teacher attrition for four out of the five years prior to this study (Hawaii
State DOE, 2013a). The results of this study may assist Hawaii state, district, and school
superiors to find ways to retain not only special education teachers, but general education
teachers as well.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 18
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that all participants met the criteria of being
a special educator currently instructing pupils with disabilities, certified to teach in Hawaii, and
that their certification was received through a traditional or alternative route. It was also assumed
that all participants understood the directions of the survey and responded to the questions
honestly and voluntarily. In addition, it was assumed that the participants reflected the large
population of teachers being examined. Lastly, it was assumed that information gathered about
special education teachers on the island of Oahu could be applied to other parts of the state or
other states that have comparable demographics
This study was limited to special educators in the NSD who responded to the survey. It
was also limited to those who were employed during the 2015-2016 school year. This
examination was not about future special educators or those who have left the profession. The
results, therefore, are limited to special education teachers in Hawaii. Since the study was
conducted in Hawaii, the results cannot be generalized to the entire nation. Moreover, this study
is limited to factors the researcher found within the literature. Therefore, it may not encompass
all factors related to special education teacher attrition. The results of this study may be of
interest to the Hawaii State DOE, school administrators, special educators, and the researcher.
Definitions of Terms
The terms noted below were chosen to provide clarity in relation to this study. These
terms relate to special education teacher attrition.
Affective responses to work: This term refers to “negative affective reactions, such as
increased stress, lower job satisfaction, and reduced organizational and professional
commitment” (Billingsley, 2004, p. 49).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 19
Attrition: Attrition in regards to special education occurs when a current teacher decides
to transfer from special education to general education, moves to a new school, and/or exits the
teaching profession (Billingsley, 1993, 2004; Bononelos, 2008).
Special Education: This term indicates the act of educating students who have been
diagnosed as having special needs. Special education is using a variety of teaching methods to
meet the diverse needs and differences of students with disabilities. Examples of specific special
needs are academic, emotional, and behavioral disorders, and learning, developmental, and/or
physical disabilities.
Special Education Teachers: Teachers whose responsibility is to deliver academic
instruction to students with special needs as classified under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Originally called the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act. In 1975, Congress passed legislation that ensured all children
with special needs have the opportunity to receive a free and appropriate public education.
No Child Left Behind Act: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the more common name
for the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Act of 2001. This law mandated that school
districts around the nation meet certain accountability standards each year. It required that
teachers become highly qualified. According to the law, all students would be 100% proficient in
their grade level by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
Highly Qualified: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required that all teachers must
be highly qualified. To be highly qualified, a teacher must have earned at least a bachelor’s
degree, acquired a state certification or license in the state they will be teaching, and proved their
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 20
knowledge in the content area they desired to teach. IDEA (2004) focused on mandating that
special education teachers were highly qualified.
Personal Factors: This term, as it relates to attrition, can mean pregnancy, health
concerns, retirement, and/or relocation (Billingsley, 2004).
Teaching Characteristics: This term refers to teacher demographic information such as
age, gender, and race (Billingsley, 2004).
Teacher Qualifications: This term denotes the certification and academic ability of the
special education teacher (Billingsley, 2004).
Work Environment: This term refers to the conditions in which a teacher works including
aspects such as “salary, school climate, administrative support, colleague support, support
through induction and mentoring, professional development…and caseload issues” (Billingsley,
2004, p. 44).
Organization of the Study
This study consists of five chapters. Chapter One provided the statement of the problem
along with the study’s background, purpose, significance, limitations and delimitations. It also
presented the definitions of terms and the organization of the study. Chapter Two provides a
wide-ranging review of the literature and research related to teacher attrition. Chapter Three
focuses on methodology, research design, sample, data collection, population, instrumentation,
and data analysis. Chapter Four explains the findings of the research, recapitulates the data, and
examines the evidence. Chapter Five discusses the study’s results, conclusions, implications, and
provide recommendations for further research.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter One presented the background and statement of the problem, stated the purpose
and significance of this study, the research questions and hypotheses, noted limitations and
delimitations, and presented definitions of important terms as they relate to this study. Chapter
Two tackles the literature associated with teacher attrition. Creswell (2014) explained a literature
review “provides a framework for establishing the importance of the study as well as a
benchmark for comparing the results with other findings” (p. 28). Additionally, Creswell noted
that most literature reviews for dissertations incorporate relevant scholarly work, sort the
information into connected themes, and recap the texts by indicating essential topics. This
literature review accomplishes Creswell’s focus by addressing pertinent special education
teacher attrition literature.
Chapter Two starts with the definition and history of special education, notating
significant legislation. Then, attrition, retention, and teacher transfer are defined in detail. To
guide this study, this chapter presents an investigation of Brownell and Smith (1993) and
Billingsley’s (1993) conceptual frameworks. Next, the chapter explores the shortage of special
education teachers, kinds of special education teacher attrition, and the cost of teacher attrition.
Carlson and Thompson’s (1995) study is featured since it is the only known special education
teacher attrition examination in Hawaii. The last section focuses on the factors that contribute to
special education teacher attrition. Billingsley’s (2004) review of the literature is used to
structure the format of this section. Specifically, Billingsley’s format is replicated to improve the
structure and format of this review. The topics include “teacher characteristics and personal
factors”, “teacher qualifications”, “work environment factors”, and “affective reactions to work”
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 22
(Billingsley, 2004, p. 42). This literature review ends with a conclusion section and an
introduction to Chapter Three.
Literature Review Procedures and Selection Criteria
An analysis of the literature was completed using the following databases: Educational
Resources Informational Clearinghouse (ERIC), ProQuest, PsychARTICLES, PsycINFO, and
Sage Publications. The following terms were used to search the literature: special education
teachers, teacher attrition, special education teacher attrition, attrition, special education teacher
retention, special education teacher turnover, and special education teacher transfer. Resources
such as books, dissertations, magazines, and journals from the University of Southern
California’s (USC) online library system were used to discover information. Additionally,
statistical figures were mined from resources such as the NCTAF and the National Center for
Education Statistics, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The majority of the articles for this
study were empirical and published in peer-reviewed journals from the last twenty years.
Special Education Literature Review
For context and clarity, this section presents the definition of special education and notes
the population of students with disabilities in the nation and in Hawaii. Also, this section
provides the cost of special education in the nation and in Hawaii. Lastly, this section states the
number of special educators in the nation and in the state.
According to Public Law 94-142 (1975), special education is defined as “specifically
designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a
handicapped child, including classroom instruction, instruction in physical education, home
instruction and instruction in hospitals and institutions” (p. 3).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 23
According to Scull and Winkler (2011), the number of special education students in the
United States reached its peak of 6.72 million during the 2004-2005 school year, and these
students made for 13.8% of the nation’s total. However, during the 2005-2006 academic term,
the number declined for the first time since IDEA was passed (Scull & Winkler, 2011).
According to the Hawaii State DOE (2013b), 2013-2014 student enrollment count taken on
October 2, 2013, there were 17,741 special education students, which accounted for 10.4% of
Hawaii’s school-aged students.
National special education spending is very similar to the amount Hawaii spends. Scull
and Winkler (2011) explained that national special education spending encompassed
approximately 21% of all education expenditures in the year 2011. For the school year 2014-
2015, the Hawaii DOE Department’s Budget (n.d.) explained the state spent $325.5 million
dollars on special education, which is equivalent to 23% of the entire education budget.
In 2008-2009, Scull and Winkler (2011) reported there were 405,000 special education
teachers throughout the nation. In Hawaii, Scull and Winkler (2011) reported that in 2008-2009
there were 243 teachers/paraprofessionals for every 1,000 students.
Historical Background of Special Education
Before the 1970s, students with disabilities were not adequately served in public schools.
In the 1970s, significant federal laws were put into place to help students with special needs.
Afterwards, special education reforms were regularly made. For the purpose of this study,
reforms made in 1990 and 2004 are described. Also of importance was the passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which attempted to increase student and teacher accountability.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. In 1975, the United States
Congress passed Public Law 94-142, more commonly known as The Education for All
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 24
Handicapped Children Act (EHA). This law ensured financial assistance to states and school
districts that served disabled students. Furthermore, EHA (1975) ensured that all students with
disabilities have four key benefits:
(1) a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related
services to meet their unique needs, (2) to assure that the rights of handicapped children
and their parents or guardians are protected, (3) to assist States and localities to provide
for the education of all handicapped children, (4) and to assess and assure the
effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children. (p. 3)
EHA (1975) also instituted individualized educational programs (IEPs), which are the legal
documents required for students who are eligible for special education. The specific students’
educational team consists of parents, teachers, child, and/or other support staff, and these
individuals must review the IEP annually. An IEP explains the child’s specific educational
needs, current levels of performance, lists services to be provided, and sets annual goals.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush
amended EHA and signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This
updated version revamped the definition of a special needs child and noted that disability does
not automatically ensure eligibility for special education services. In 2004, President George W.
Bush passed the most updated version of IDEA, which was closely aligned with NCLB (2002),
an amended version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. One of the most significant
parts of IDEA (2004) stated that special education teachers must be highly qualified. In order to
be classified as highly qualified, a special education teacher must have state certification as a
special educator, have a license to instruct in the specific state they are teaching, have at least a
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 25
bachelor’s degree, and display subject knowledge in the academic topics they teach (IDEA,
2004).
No Child Left Behind Act. In 2001, Congress passed and President George W. Bush, in
2002, signed Public Law 107-110, more widely known as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB). NCLB mandated that all states administer annual language arts and math-standardized
tests to all students. The standardized examinations were used to measure the adequate yearly
progress (AYP) of each school. Schools must demonstrate AYP or sanctions are applied.
Additionally, NCLB (2002) required that teachers be highly qualified in the field they teach.
Lastly, NCLB (2002) noted pupils with disabilities as a subgroup, which ensured they would be
tracked under AYP for each school. By the end of the 2013-2014-school year, all special
education children were required to exhibit proficiency in all core subject areas.
Problems with Special Education Legislation
Researchers noted that, to stay in accordance with NCLB (2002) and IDEA (2004),
education officers had to guarantee every schoolchild with a disability receive his/her education
from a highly qualified special education teacher (Thorton, Peltier, & Medina 2007; Gehrke &
McCoy, 2007). Both Ingersoll (2008) and Plash and Piotrowski (2006) discussed the type of
teacher preparation necessary to be classified as highly qualified.
McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) explained that, while NCLB and IDEA were intended
to increase teaching credentials, teacher deficiency increased across the nation. Furthermore,
McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) noted NCLB had a counterproductive effect on improving
teaching in that it decreased certification conditions and allowed alternative methods toward
becoming qualified. Johnson, Humphrey, and Allred (2009) noted NCLB requirements caused
over 10% of the special education teachers in Idaho to not be fully certified. In a California
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 26
study, Patterson, Collins, and Abbot (2004) found the state noticed a shortage of instructors who
would meet certification requirements and proposed allowing interns with emergency licenses to
be classified as highly qualified. The U.S. Department of Education found the proposal would
not meet the requirements of NCLB. However, it provided evidence showing how desperate
states were to ensure they met the demands of the law.
An added concern regarding NCLB and IDEA is that all special educators must be highly
qualified in all subject areas they instruct (Quigney, 2009). According to Quigney (2009), this
specific mandate put increased stress on special education teachers who instruct in more than one
content area. For example, an inclusion or fully self-contained special educator who teaches
students in all subjects must gain special education certification in language arts, math, social
studies, and science.
Special Education Attrition Literature Review
According to Billingsley (1993), scholars define teacher attrition in a variety of ways,
making it difficult for researchers to narrow down one true definition. Grissmer and Kirby
(1987) explained that there is “no single appropriate definition of teacher attrition” (p. 7).
McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) stated that attrition occurs when “special education teachers
migrate from one teaching position to another or leave the profession” (p. 296). Boe, Cook, and
Sunderland (2007) described teacher turnover as a significant alteration in an educator’s position
from one school year to another. Boe et al. (2007) stated that turnover consists of three elements:
exiting the teaching profession (teacher attrition), moving from a position in one content subject
to one in a different teaching line (teacher area transfer), and relocating to another school
(teacher migration). Consequently, when attempting to define special education attrition,
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 27
scholars are inconsistent in their inquiries. For this study, Billingsley’s (1993) examination of the
literature provided groundwork for explaining attrition, retention, and transfer.
Billingsley (1993) created a graphical representation that defined attrition by sorting it
into three classes: “returns”, “transfer attrition”, and “exit attrition” (p. 139). Billingsley’s (1993)
first group, returns, is centered on the findings of Boe (1990). Returns refers to teachers who
remain in the exact special education position at the same institution as s/he was in during the
preceding school year. Billingsley (1993) also refers to a “return” as a “stayer” (p. 139). The
second class, transfer attrition, has two groupings: “teaching position transfer” and “teaching
field transfer” (p. 139). Teaching position transfers are educators who transfer to a different
special education job at the same school or at a different school or district (Billingsley, 1993).
Teaching field transfers are educators who transfer to a general education job (Billingsley, 1993).
Teaching field transfer is the most detrimental to students with disabilities because those
experienced teachers are no longer in the special education field. The last class, exit attrition,
refers to instructors who depart the teaching vocation (Billingsley, 1993). Boe, Bobbitt, and
Cook (1997) noted that, “the most troublesome component of turnover is exit attrition, because it
represents a reduction in the teaching force, requiring a compensating inflow of replacement
teachers” (p. 377).
Goldring, Taie, and Riddles (2014) evaluated teacher attrition in all elementary and
secondary schools using the 2012-2013 Teacher Follow-Up Survey. The survey classifies teacher
attrition in three categories: stayers, movers, and leavers. The first category, stayers, refers to
educators who remain at the same school (Goldring et al., 2014). The second category, movers,
signifies those who instruct at a different institution (Goldring et al., 2014). The last category,
leavers, insinuates educators who exited the profession.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 28
Scholars have completed research on teachers who leave the profession (Billingsley,
Bodkins, & Hendricks, 1993; Billingsley, Pyecha, Smith-Davis, Murry & Hendricks, 1995;
Miller et al., 1999; Morvant, Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995). Billingsley (1993)
explained the choices (exit, stay, transfer) that special educators made in regards to their career.
Boe, Bobbit, Cook, Whitener, and Weber (1997) completed a study on teacher retention and
turnover using a national sample of 4,798 public school educators.
Another research trend that was critical to evaluate was special education teachers’ intent
to leave the profession. Researchers completed extensive studies on instructors’ intentions to exit
special education (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Gersten, Keating,
Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001; Littrell, Billingsley, & Cross, 1994; Singh & Billingsley, 1996;
Westling & Whitten, 1996; Whitaker, 2000). An investigation toward evaluating intent to leave
is paramount for researchers because they can analyze educators’ future professional plans as
opposed to tracing teachers who have already left, which is more tedious and difficult.
Conceptual Framework of Special Education Teacher Attrition
A conceptual framework is necessary to guide a research study. Miles and Huberman
(1994) stated that a conceptual framework “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the
main things to be studies – the key factors, constructs, or variables – and the presumed
relationships among them” (p. 18). Pertinent to this study, Brownell and Smith (1993) and
Billingsley (1993) each created a conceptual framework about special education teacher attrition.
Brownell and Smith’s Model. Brownell and Smith’s (1993) conceptual model was
adapted from Bronfenbrenner’s (1976) ecology of education model. Bronfenbrenner (1976)
described an interconnection structure composed of four environmental levels: microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Brownell and Smith (1993) adapted the model to
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 29
relate to teachers. The microsystem is composed of the “teacher’s immediate setting, the
classroom, and the interactions that occur as a result of student and teacher characteristics, job
assignment, and class size” (Brownell & Smith, 1993, p. 271). The mesosystem entails “the
interrelations among several variables in the teacher workplace, such as collegiality and
administrative support” (Brownell & Smith, 1993, p. 271). The exosystem consists of “the
formal and informal social structures (e.g., socioeconomic level of the community and the nature
of the school district) that influence the teacher’s workplace” (Brownell & Smith, 1993, p. 271).
Lastly, the macrosystem contains the “cultural beliefs and ideologies of the dominant culture as
well as economic conditions that impact schools and the decisions of teachers within them”
(Brownell & Smith, 1993, p. 271).
Billingsley’s Model. Billingsley’s (1993) conceptual model explained that three factors
have an impact on special education teacher attrition: personal factors, external factors, and
employment factors. Personal factors include “demographic, family and cognitive/affective”
reasons that could lead to attrition (Billingsley, 1993, p. 147). According to Billingsley (1993)
external factors “include societal, economic, and institutional variables that are external to the
teacher and the employing school district” (p. 147). The external factors are assumed to have an
unintended effect on the educators’ employment choice (Billingsley, 1993). Lastly, Billingsley
(1993) described work factors that include the teachers’ “professional qualifications, work
conditions, work rewards, and commitment to school/district/teaching field, and/or teaching
profession” (p. 147). Billingsley (1993) reiterated that these factors could overlap and change
over a teachers’ career depending on personal circumstances.
Shortage of Special Education Teachers
For years, researchers have been analyzing special education teacher attrition, and the
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 30
data is staggering. Scholars determined there is a shortage of special education teachers in the
United States (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004; Irinaga-Bistolas, Schalock, Marvin, & Beck,
2007; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). The Center of Personnel Studies in Special Education
(2004) discovered that 13% of special education instructors leave the field each year, which is
double the number of general education educators. According to McLeskey and Billingsley
(2008), between 82% and 99% of secondary special education instructors are not highly qualified
in the subject areas they teach. Ninety-eight percent of the country’s school districts state special
education teacher deficiencies (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2003, 2004). Kozleski et al. (2000)
noted there are around 30,000 special education teaching lines in the nation occupied by people
who do not possess proper special education qualifications. Kozleski et al. (2000) stated “four
out of every ten special educators entering the field leave special education before their fifth year
of teaching” (p. 4). Over half of newly employed educators exit the vocation within their first
five years (Kaff, 2004).
Special Education Teacher Attrition
Scholars found differing data for special educators’ attrition rates. Thorton et al. (2007)
and Wasburn-Moses (2006) discovered the annual special education attrition rate with those who
have taught a year or less is between 8% and 10%. When analyzing attrition rates among those
who have taught five years or fewer, Edgar and Pair (2005) and Irininaga-Bistolas et al. (2007)
found the amount increases to between 30% and 60%. In 2007, NCTAF stated that educators’
attrition increased over 50% in the last fifteen years. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2014), there were 4,045,100 educators working in preschool through 12
th
grade in
2014. Of that number, there were 494,860 pre-school through 12
th
grade special education
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 31
teachers in 2014 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014). Special educators encompassed 8.2% of
the teaching profession that year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).
Special Education Migration and Transferring to General Education. As noted,
earlier, Billingsley (1993) explained there are several types of attrition. Billingsley (1993) noted
there are two types of transfer attrition: “teaching position transfers” and “teaching field
transfers” (p. 139). Boe, Cook, and Sunderland (2008) analyzed the migration and transfer data
of general education and special education instructors during the 1990s and early 2000s. By
using data from the National Center for Educational Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey and
the Teacher Follow-up Survey, the scholars discovered special educators migrated at higher
intervals than did general education teachers. Specifically, special education teachers’ migration
numbers were much higher than those of general education instructors (Boe, et al., 2008).
Specifically, in 2000-2001, special education teachers migrated 10.2% of the time compared to
7.4% for general education teachers (Boe et al., 2008). The scholars noted migration was
elevated in the first three years of teaching.
Edgar and Pair (2005) analyzed employee histories of 161 special education teachers who
graduated from the University of Washington between 1995 and 2001. They found that the 1995
class (25 participants) had the maximum attrition rate with 53% leaving special education.
Altogether, 28% of the teachers had left special education and 48% exited teaching but remained
in education.
Involuntary Attrition. Teacher attrition is normally considered damaging to student
success and reflects poorly on a school’s environment. However, McLeskey and Billingsley
(2008) noted not all attrition is voluntary or harmful. According to Boe et al. (2008) teacher
attrition rates are higher in the first three years because educators are trying to decide if they
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 32
have the credentials to teach effectively. Elder (2004) explained that school administrators
should have the opportunity to dismiss unproductive teachers.
Special Education Teacher Attrition in Hawaii
To date, there is only one known research study of Hawaii special education teachers.
Carlson and Thompson (1995) completed a multiple regression analysis to evaluate burnout and
teachers’ intentions to exit the field of special education. All 1,096 special education teachers in
Hawaii received a survey, and almost 63% of the teachers responded. Carlson and Thompson
(1995) discovered that “emotional exhaustion, in particular, was found to be the strongest
predictor of intention to leave special education teaching. This component has been described as
a reflection of feelings of emotional depletion…” (p. 26). Another factor that was uncovered to
be related to educators’ intention to adjust vocations was depersonalization, which is “an
emotional withdrawal or distancing in order to preserve one’s own well-being or psychological
health” (Carlson & Thompson, 1995, p. 26). Ultimately, Carlson and Thompson (1995) found
that, out of the 490 instructors tapped for data analysis, 300 (61.2%) explained they were
considering exiting special education and 190 (38.8%) noted they were not. Though this research
examination was significant, no other known study has been conducted in Hawaii.
Cost of Teacher Attrition
There have been few studies on the cost of special education teacher attrition (Boe et al.,
2008; Irinaga-Bistolas et al., 2007; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). However, there have been
numerous studies of general education teachers and the costs are extreme (Darling-Hammond,
2003; Schlichte, Yssel, & Merbler, 2005; Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). According to the
NCTAF (2007), teacher attrition costs approximately $7.3 billion each year. Darling-Hammond
(2003) concurred that instructor turnover costs the United States millions each year. Smith and
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 33
Ingersoll (2004) explained that, when educators leave teaching, school districts must expend
money enlisting, training, and employing new instructors. Carroll and Fulton (2004) stated
schools must spend nearly $50,000 to hire and coach new teachers. The NCTAF (2007)
discovered that replacing exiting educators costs approximately $4,366 for rural school districts
and upwards of $17,872 for bigger school districts.
Texas experienced an extreme teacher shortage that led to exorbitant costs for the state.
The Texas Center for Educational Research (2000) determined that the yearly turnover rate was
around 15%, which leads to school districts exhausting between approximately $329 million and
$2.1 billion each year, depending on the expense model utilized. The study further discovered
that around 43% of all new teachers leave the teaching career within the first three years of
starting (Texas Center for Educational Research, 2000). The Texas Center for Education
Research (2000) used mathematical cost formulas and detected that, for each lost educator, the
cost of teacher turnover was $11,120.
Teacher attrition costs are more than just financial. Scholars have found that it influences
student success (Darling-Hammond, 2003; NCTAF, 2007, NCTAF, 2010; Schlichte et al., 2005).
Pupil excellence has been connected to the quality of the instructor (Darling-Hammond, 2003;
McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Also, attrition is harmful toward school climate (Boe et al.,
2008; Ingersoll, 2001; Loeb & Reining, 2004; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). When teachers
leave, institutions must hire new teachers and find ways to coach and educate them on school
policy and instructional methods (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008; NCTAF, 2010). Thus, school
administrators must allot funds for new instructors that could have gone to improving students’
knowledge and success in the classroom (Barnes et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2003).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 34
Factors That Contribute to Special Education Attrition
Thematic Approach to Literature
Special education attrition literature has concentrated on personal and work-connected
factors that influence special education teachers’ occupational choices. Thus, this literature
review accentuates these factors (Billingsley, 1993, 2004; Brownell, Sindelar, Bishop, Langley,
& Seo, 2002; Major 2012). Billingsley’s (2004) work will serve as a guide for this review.
Billingsley’s (2004) themes will be simulated, such as “teacher characteristics and personal
factors”, “teacher qualifications”, work environment factors”, and “affective reactions to work”
(p. 42).
Teacher Characteristics and Personal Factors
Numerous studies noted the significance of personal factors’ effect on special education
attrition. This section describes teacher characteristics (age, gender, and race) and personal
factors that may lead to special education teacher attrition.
Age. Scholars determined that age is the solitary statistical factor repetitively connected
to teacher attrition (Boe et al., 1997; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Morvant et al., 1995). Singer
(1992) completed a longitudinal study to understand how long special educators instruct and
when they decide depart. Singer (1992) used survival analysis to track the career routes of over
6,600 recently employed special educators in Michigan and North Carolina from 1972 and 1983.
The author shadowed them for upwards of 13 years or until they no longer taught. Singer (1992)
discovered that young educators (age 30 or younger) were two times more likely to exit the
profession than were older educators (over 30 years of age). Additionally, women were more
probable to leave teaching than were men (Singer, 1992).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 35
Gender. Research showed the connection between gender and teacher attrition has been
inconsistent (Billingsley, 2004). Boe et al. (1997) completed a national probability sample of
4,798 general and special education teachers and discovered no relationship between gender and
attrition. Singer (1992) noted that female teachers leave the teaching field at a higher rate than do
their male counterparts, though they reverted back to the field with the same frequency as did
males. Morvant et al. (1995) discovered a link between gender and attrition. The unreliable data
may be due to the population studied or the methods used for research.
Race. Research on race and attrition has been inconsistent. Boe et al. (1997) conducted a
national investigation and determined that race was not related to attrition. Additionally, Miller
et al. (1999) analyzed Florida teachers and Singer (1992) studied North Carolina and Michigan
educators and discovered no link between attrition and race. Singer (1993) stated there was no
relationship between attrition and race.
However, Cross and Billingsley (1994) used a path analysis to examine 542 Virginia
special educators’ intent to leave and found that non-whites stated their intention to leave more
often than did their white colleagues. Billingsley’s et al. (1995) study stated white educators left
more frequently than did black teachers. Dworkin’s (1980) work resonated with these findings
by stating white teachers, mostly women, displayed intent to leave more frequently than did
black and Hispanic staff.
Personal Factors. Academic scholars linked personal factors to teacher attrition. Some
researchers noted that causes unrelated to occupation, such as health, pregnancy, or relocation of
spouse led to their choice to exit (Billingsley et al. 1993; Billingsley et al., 1995; Billingsley et
al., 2004; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; Edgar & Pair, 2005; Kaff, 2004; McKnab,
1994; McLeskey, 2004; McNellis & Miller, 1997; Morvant et al., 1995; Thorton et al., 2007).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 36
White and Mason (2006) conducted a survey of 244 new special educators across seven sites in
the United States and discovered 24% of new teachers exit their school after the first year due to
personal reasons such as pregnancy or moving in with a significant other. Billingsley (2007)
conducted a case study at an urban district and unearthed that 37% of teachers departed due to
personal reasons. Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Barkanic, and Maislin (1999) competed a national
examination of 477 special education teachers and learned 35% stated personal and/or personal
factors for leaving.
Teacher Qualifications
According to Billingsley (2004), scholars have not examined teacher qualifications in
depth. Blanton, Sindelar, Correa, Hardman, McDonnell, and Kuhel (2003) argued scholars and
education officials have a hard time defining teacher “quality.” Certification requirements have
changed since the passage of the No Child Left Behind in 2002. This section explains
certification, academic ability, and teacher preparation.
Certification. Research has shown there is a strong connection between certification and
special education attrition. Miller et al. (1999) randomly surveyed 1,576 Florida special
educators to analyze whether they intended to leave special education, transfer to a new school,
or stay in their current occupation. Miller et al. (1999) used a multinominal logit model and
revealed higher attrition for uncertified educators when compared to those who had certification.
In a national study, Boe et al. (1999) explained that teachers who were uncertified were more
than likely to relocation to a different school. According to Payne (2005), the field of special
education tends to have the greatest amount of unqualified educators.
Boe, deBettencourt, Dewey, Rosenberg, Sindelar, and Leko (2013) explained that, in
2006, 11.2% of special education teachers were classified as not being highly qualified.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 37
However, in 2010, that number was only 5.8% (Boe et al., 2013). Both Cook and Boe (2007) and
Boe et al. (2008) evaluated data from the National Center for Education Statistics and found that
in 1999-2000, only 46% of special educators were fully certified and partook in a customary
teacher preparation setting. McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) discovered uncertified educators
and new teachers had the highest attrition rates. Additionally, the shortage of special education
instructors amplified from 9% in the early 1990s to over 12% in 2003 (McLeskey & Billingsley,
2008). Johnson et al.’s (2009) examination revealed over 10% of special educators in Idaho were
not certified in their given field. Ultimately, there is a continuing deficiency in the amount of
certified people to instruct special education students (Boe, 2006; Boe & Cook, 2006).
Academic Ability and Teacher Preparation. There have been few studies completed
that link academic ability and teacher preparation to attrition. Singer (1992) conducted a 13-year
longitudinal study on newly hired special educators in North Carolina and Michigan and
discovered that educators who scored higher on the National Teacher Exam were two times more
likely to leave the field than were those who had lower marks. Cross and Billingsley (1994) and
Westling and Whitten (1996) both revealed that higher levels of special education teacher
training were connected to increased likelihood of departure. Conversely, Edgar and Pair (2005)
found that teachers showed lower attrition rates when enrolled in a five-year teacher preparation
program.
Work Environments
Researchers discovered that work environments are vital in terms of teachers’ career
choices (Billingsley, 2004). This section addresses salary, school climate, administrative and
colleague support, induction and mentoring, professional development, excessive paperwork,
and caseload concerns.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 38
Salary. Numerous research reports found that salary is related to teacher turnover (Feng,
2005; Imazeki, 2005; Kaff, 2004; Kelly, 2004). Connelly (2000) explained that two-thirds of
educators stated low pay as one of the reasons they left. O’Neil (2003) stated that 37% of
educators who intend on leaving the profession attribute their decision to low compensation.
Furthermore, O’Neil (2003) explained that, for instructors under the age 30, the attrition number
increases to 47%. Darling-Hammond (2003) noted that educators are more selfless than are those
in other professions. However, they are paid approximately 20% less than are other specialists
with similar educational attainment.
Boe et al. (1997) utilized national statistics from the 1989 Teacher Follow-up Survey and
conducted a probability sample on teacher retention and turnover for 4,798 school educators.
Boe et al., (1997) stated “both school transfer and attrition declined systematically and
substantially in increasing salary levels” (p. 406). According to Boe et al. (1997), salary is a
consistent variable in relation to teacher attrition.
Singer (1992) conducted research of new special education instructors in Michigan and
North Carolina and found out that those teachers who worked in districts with higher wages were
less likely to leave compared to those in lower paying districts. Through investigating research
on Wisconsin teachers, Imazeki (2005) discovered that by raising pay for new teachers, they
were more likely to stay. Since other occupations are paying high than teacher salaries, school
districts around the nation will continue to find it difficult to attract and retain educators
School Climate. Researchers concluded that, if educators perceive their school climate
favorably, they are more likely to remain in the teaching field (Billingsley, Carlson, & Klein,
2004; Fall & Billingsley, 2011; Miller et al., 1999). Researchers have steadily detailed that the
first few years of instruction for educators are demanding and taxing (Billingsley, Griffin, Smith,
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 39
Kamman, & Israel, 2008; Billingsley & Tomchin, 1992; Boyer & Lee, 2001; Griffin, Winn, Otis-
Wilborn, & Kilgore, 2003; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Griffin et al. (2003) noted several
reasons that lead to concerns for new special education instructors include “role ambiguity,
students posing complex challenges coupled with high caseloads, insufficient resources,
inadequate administrative support, insufficient time, lack of opportunities to collaborate, lack of
opportunities for professional development, procedural demands and excessive paper work, and
inadequate preparation” (p. 5).
Specifically, Miller et al. (1999) randomly surveyed 1,576 Florida special education
instructors to analyze what teacher and school factors were meaningful predictors of the
instructors’ choice to stay, leave or transfer from the field of special education. Miller et al.
(1999) followed the teachers for 2 years using a multinominal logit model. Miller et al. (1999)
discovered incomplete certification, professed extreme stress, and declared poor school
atmosphere as reasons why teachers left special education.
McNellis, Miller, Smith, and Brownell (1997) completed a qualitative (phone interviews)
examination of 93 Florida special education leavers (those no long teaching special education).
McNellis et al. (1997) categorized the leavers into three types: “disgruntled leavers,”
“nondisgruntled leavers,” and “unable to discern” (pp. 147-148). The “disgruntled leavers” were
aggravated by the requirements of instructing pupils with disabilities, an absence of
encouragement for their occupation, elevated cases, paperwork, and legality issues (McNellis et
al., 1997). The “nondisgruntled leavers” stated they liked teaching special education but left
because of external factors such as other employment chances, low salary, complication with or
lack of certification, family obligations, or retirement (McNellis et al., 1997).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 40
McNellis et al. (1997) described the experience of Susan, a “disgruntled leaver,” who left
teaching after 15 years because she found it difficult to survive hazardous students and an unsafe
environment. Susan stated,
It was very clear that the kids were not wanted there. They had the worst of everything.
The kids lacked security. They did not even have a permanent classroom, and they had to
move from room to room. They knew they were not wanted. And there was a lack of
administrative support. I felt unsafe. I had no buzzer or phone. Some of my kids were
very dangerous (McNellis et al., 1997, p. 148).
Administrator Support. Scholars determined that special educators are more probable
to express their intent to leave the field if they do not have encouragement from school
administration (Billingsley & Cross, 1991; Greiner & Smith, 2006; Ingersoll, 2003; Kaff, 2004;
Liu & Meyer, 2005, McKnab, 1994; Nance & Calabrese, 2009; Tye & O’Brien, 2002; Worthy,
2005). Borman and Dowling (2008) defined administrative support as “the school’s effectiveness
in assisting teachers with issues such as student discipline, instructional methods, curriculum,
and adjusting to the school environment” (p. 380). Billingsley’s (2007) study of 99 special
education leavers in an urban school district placed lack of administrator support as their primary
reason for exiting. Kozleski et al. (2000) explained that administrators do not receive proper
training about students with disabilities, and that reflects on the special education teacher. Cross
and Billingsley’s (1994) study used a path analysis to evaluate work-connected issues that test
the intent of 542 Virginia educators to stay in special education. Cross and Billingsley (1994)
found that principal support has an impact on teachers’ job satisfaction. Boe et al.’s (2008)
examination discovered that one of the most significant factors that led special education
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 41
instructors toward exiting their teaching position was the shortage of administrator support at
their previous institution.
Colleague Support. Scholars discovered assistance from other special education teachers
was vital to success (Billingsley, 2007; Bozonelos, 2008; McLeskey et al., 2004). Billingsley et
al. (2004) surveyed 1,153 newly hired special educators and found over 80% believed informal
support from coworkers was helpful. Miller et al. (1999) revealed that those special educators
who noted low levels of colleague assistance were more likely to leave and those with high
levels of support were likely to stay. Kozleski et al. (2000) explained that special education
teachers should have two professional groups at their school: one with general education teachers
and the other with their special education partners. Kozleski et al. (2000) stated special educators
work in solitude and feel helpless.
Support Through Induction and Mentoring. It is important to provide support and
guidance to beginning educators because they are the ones mostly like to leave special education.
Whitaker (2000) studied the regularity and perceived efficiency of mentoring programs for 156
first-year special educators in South Carolina. Whitaker (2000) discovered that having a mentor
who is also a special educator was significant. Overall, Whitaker (2000) found the effectiveness
of the mentoring program was related toward the educator’s intent to stay in special education.
Babione and Shea (2005) conducted a mentoring study among seven veteran teachers and
five inexperienced special educators at two small, low revenue public school districts. The
researchers discovered the novice teachers appreciated the collegial nature of the experienced
teachers. White and Mason’s (2006) examination found that mentoring was successful and 70%
of new special educators desired assistance with IEP paperwork.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 42
Professional Development. Many scholars learned there is a link between professional
development and attrition (Billingsley, 2004; Morvant et al., 1995). Gerstan et al. (2001)
conducted a study of 887 special educators at three urban districts and discovered special
educators desire to acquire new information about their profession. The amount and frequency of
professional development a special education teacher receives influences his/her intent to leave
the field (Gerstan et al., 2001). Kozleski et al. (2000) noted that many administrators and school
districts often overlook special education professional development. Furthermore, special
educators do not receive the chance to stay updated on the latest research about their profession
(Kozleski et al., 2000).
Paperwork. Special education teachers feel burdened by the amount of paperwork they
must complete (DeMik, 2008; McKnab, 1994). For every special education child in a teacher’s
classroom, the teacher must complete progress reports and is required to complete a document
outlining the student’s individualized education program (IEP), which consists of several pages.
The Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs,
n.d.) explained that special education teachers devote a minimum of five hours a week
completing paperwork. These documents do not comprise lesson planning or grading lessons.
Kozleski et al. (2000) described the “average length of the typical IEP is between 8 and
16 pages, with an estimated 4 hours of pre-meeting planning time into each IEP conference” (p.
6). According to Kozleski et al. (2000), the bulk of special education teachers admit to devoting
at least a day or more on form-filling and 83% testify to using at minimum a half a day each
week for IEP conferences. Berry (2012) completed a phone survey of 203 special educators from
randomly chosen rural districts in 33 states and discovered that 43% noted they were dissatisfied
or strongly dissatisfied with the amount of paperwork they do. Kaff (2004) issued a
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 43
questionnaire to 400 Kansas special educators and 52% of the teachers stated they had too much
paperwork. According to Kaff (2004), one educator stated, “I want to teach the children, instead
of spending hours doing paperwork. I feel we cheat the children. They come after the
paperwork” (p. 12).
Caseload Concerns. According to Billingsley (2004), there is no empirical evidence that
link the amount of student caseloads and the intention to leave. However, researchers have found
that many special education teachers report caseload issues as concerning and a reason for
leaving (Billingsley et al., 1995; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Lenk, 1994, 1995; Morvant et al.,
1995; Schnorr, 1995; Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997). Billingsley’s (2007) examination of 99
special educators who exited special education in an urban school district noted caseload issues
as one of the highest reasons for leaving. Russ, Chiang, Rylance, and Bongers (2001) noted
additional caseloads meant more paperwork and required meetings. As a result, Russ et al.
(2001) explained that special educators’ higher caseloads result in fewer opportunities for student
achievement.
Affective Responses to Work
Scholars determined there are emotional responses related to teaching students with
disabilities (Billingsley, 2004). Notably, Emery and Vanderberg (2010) noted, “special educators
teach high risk children and, ironically, have become a high risk group themselves. They are
prone to low job satisfaction, low self-efficacy, as well as increased stress and burnout” (p. 126).
This section looks at literature related to special educators’ stress and job satisfaction.
Stress
Teaching has been mentioned as one of the most stressful occupations, and educators are
departing because of the burden and toll (DeMik, 2008; Fredricks, 2005; Hanushek, 2007; Jarvis,
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 44
2002; McKnab, 1994). Furthermore, several researchers noted stress as a reason special
educators state they intend to leave the field (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cross & Billingsley,
1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Nichols & Sonsnowsky, 2002; Schnorr, 1995; Singh & Billingsley,
1996). Miller et al.’s (1999) examination of Florida special education teachers revealed
perceived stress as a predictor of attrition. Morvant et al.’s (1995) study revealed approximately
80% of educators who intended to leave felt extreme stress on a weekly or daily basis, and this
proportion encompassed over 50% of those who were remaining the special education. Frank and
McKenzie (1993) conducted a longitudinal research study on 41 special education teachers (38
females and 3 males) who taught for 5 years after graduating college. Frank and McKenzie
(1993) discovered that the special education teachers’ stages of burnout intensified the longer
they taught. According to Nance and Calabrese (2009), the amount of paperwork, high levels of
stress, and seemingly constant state of change, create a culture of frustration” (p. 436).
Additionally, educators who instructed pupils over the age of twelve and those diagnosed with
behavioral disorders felt the greatest emotional exhaustion (Frank & McKenzie, 1993).
Job Satisfaction
Research indicates there is a strong connection between job satisfaction and attrition.
(Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Billingsley et al., 1995; Brownell et al., 1997; Cross & Billingsley,
1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Westling & Whitten, 1996; Whitaker,
2000). Berry’s (2012) investigation of 203 rural special education instructors over 33 states
found that 67% of teachers were dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied with the non-teaching part of
their profession. Billingsley, Carlson, and Klein (2004) found that new special educators who
were not provided time to work with coworkers noted high levels of job dissatisfaction.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 45
Summary
Chapter Two provided a comprehensive review of literature that revealed special
education teacher attrition persists throughout the United States and is a lingering educational
concern. Chapter Two provided a historical overview of special education, noted two conceptual
models, and outlined significant legislation that has an impact on teacher attrition. Associated
factors of teacher attrition include excessive paperwork, lack of administrative supports, age,
personal factors, certification, salary, school climate, colleague support, caseload concerns,
professional development, stress, and job satisfaction.
A significant shortcoming of this literature review is the limited amount of research about
special education teacher attrition in Hawaii. Carlson and Thompson (1995) conducted the last
known study when they analyzed the special education teachers’ intent to leave the field. Further
research is needed in Hawaii so education officials can design effective retention plans to ensure
special education teachers stay in the profession, thus improving the academic achievement of
students with disabilities.
Chapter Three will provide an overview of the research methodology for this quantitative
study. The chapter starts with an explanation of the sample population that includes the
description and background of the population and why the population was chosen for this
project. Also included in Chapter Three are the research questions that guide the study,
hypotheses, instrumentation practices that highlight reliability and validity, data collection, and
data analysis.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 46
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The literature review in the previous chapter noted that special education teacher attrition
is a national concern. There is little empirical evidence that exists about Hawaii special education
teachers and why they decide to leave the profession. It is essential to investigate the reasons
special educator attrition occurs, therefore making this research project noteworthy.
Chapter Three describes the methodology and research design of this study, which
examined the factors that influence special education teacher attrition. Chapter Three begins with
an explanation of the sample and population that includes the description and background of the
population and why it was chosen for this project. Also, Chapter Three includes the research
questions, hypotheses, instrumentation utilized for data collection and analysis and the manner in
which reliability and validity were determined. The purpose of this study was to determine the
factors that influence special education teacher attrition in the Nalu School District (NSD).
Carlson and Thompson’s (1995) inspection of Hawaii’s special educators’ intent to leave the
profession is the only evident examination completed within the state and given the high special
education attrition rates in Hawaii, further research is needed to determine why they leave.
Research Design
Creswell (2014) proposed the researcher must analyze several elements when deciding
among a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approach. According to Creswell (2014),
the researcher must contemplate the research problem, questions about the subject, the
preparation and background of the individual conducting the research, and the audience that will
review the information. After careful review of the information, this study is more suitable to a
quantitative examination.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 47
This study used a quantitative research design to discover connections among the
variables measured. Creswell (2014) explained that quantitative research “is an approach for
testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables” (p. 4). Specifically,
this research analyzed the personal, work-related, and emotional factors influencing special
education teacher attrition in Hawaii.
A survey was utilized to obtain the data for this study. Fink (2013) explained, “surveys
are information collection methods used to describe, compare, or explain individual and societal
knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and behavior” (p. 2). Creswell (2014) noted that
surveys are vital because the data can create generalizable outcomes that could be used for an
entire population. For the purpose of this study, the goal was to gather enough information about
the NSD that could potentially be applied to all special education teachers in Hawaii. Creswell
(2014) asserted that surveys are beneficial because data can be collected and the results can be
provided in a short amount of time. This project was completed in a relatively short time frame
(within a year); therefore, it was a cross-sectional survey which means the data was gathered at
one specific point in time (Creswell, 2014).
Research Questions
The following research questions were examined in this quantitative study:
1. What personal factors influence the career decisions of Nalu School District’s special
educators?
a. What personal characteristics (sex and ethnicity) impact the career decisions of
NSD’s special educators?
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 48
b. What factors associated with teacher qualifications (degree level, years of
teaching experience, current teaching assignment, certification type, and teaching
in area of certification) impact the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
2. What work-related factors influence the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
a. What work environment factors (salary, administrative support, colleague
support, induction/mentoring support, and paperwork) impact the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators?
b. What emotional responses to work (stress/job satisfaction) impact the career
decisions of NSD’s special educators?
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were assumed in the study:
1. Sex, ethnicity, degree level, years of teaching experience, current teaching
assignment, certification type, and teaching in area of certification are not
predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special education.
2. Salary, administrative support, colleague support, paperwork, and stress/job
satisfaction are not predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special
education.
Sample and Population
The target population for this study was 307 elementary, middle, and high school special
education teachers in the NSD. The special educators differed in ethnicity, sex, and teaching
years of experience. The number of special education teachers in NSD was obtained by a Hawaii
DOE state official. NSD was chosen because it is the largest school district in the state.
Therefore, it has the most special education teachers, thus providing a larger sample size and
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 49
allowing an opportunity to generalize for other districts and/or the entire state’s population of
special educators. The participants were chosen on the basis of both purposeful sampling and
convenience sampling. The respondents met the defined criteria needed for this study and were
convenient for the research because they were special education teachers within NSD. Also, data
obtained from the Hawaii DOE Employment Report (2013) indicated that NSD has the highest
attrition rate in the state; therefore, research needs to be conducted to determine the reasons this
occurs. This examination was limited to only special educators in the NSD.
All 307 special education teachers in NSD received a survey. Through the use of an
online sample size calculator, Creative Research System, it was discovered that 190 surveys
would be required in order to be truly representative of the entire population. This information is
predicated on the confidence interval set at 4.39 and the confidence level at 95%. Though this
information cannot be generalizable to the entire state due to a low population versus sample
size, it can be generalizable to other school districts in Hawaii.
Creswell (2014) advocated that random sampling is the best method for choosing
participants because they have an equal chance to be chosen. However, this research project had
a short timeline. Therefore, a nonprobability or convenience sample was utilized (Creswell,
2014). For the researcher, the respondents were in close geographic proximity and were easily
accessible.
Geographic and District Information
The Hawaii DOE consists of eight districts and 288 schools spread out over six islands.
According to the 2013-2014-student enrollment count, there were 185,273 students in the state
with 17,741 of them classified as recipients of special education (Hawaii State DOE, 2013b).
NSD, considered the largest school district in the state, encompasses 29 schools spread out over
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 50
three sub districts. A complex area superintendent is in charge of each of the sub districts. NSD
is located on the island of Oahu. During the 2013-2014 academic term, there were 40,959
students in the NSD and of that total, 3,845 of the students (9%) have special needs (Hawaii
State DOE, 2013b). NSD has three of the five highest student enrollment high schools in the
state. Students and families of low socioeconomic status comprise the majority of the district.
Instrumentation
For this research project, a survey was administered to all 307 special educations teachers
in the NSD. According to Fink (2013), surveys are data collection instruments that help the
researcher obtain information about targeted participants. In order to effectively gather data, the
researcher needs to focus on the sample (number and descriptions of the people) and design
(frequency tool is administered) of the survey (Fink, 2013). Creswell (2014) noted “a survey
design provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a
population by studying a sample of that population” (p. 155). For this investigation, a survey
design was suitable because it enabled an analysis of special education teachers that focused on
the factors that influence their intent to leave the profession.
The “Hawaii School District Special Education Teacher Survey” (Appendix B) was used
as the instrument for collecting data. This survey is an existing survey that was modified from
that of the originator, Dr. Berna Levine (2001). Levine (2001) conducted special education
teacher research within Cobb County, Georgia. Dr. Paulette Cherron Bullock France (2008) later
modified the survey for special educators in a Virginia school district. Levine (2001) tested the
survey and found it both reliable and valid. Specifically, Levine (2001) established content
validity by having 25 special education faculty members at the Cobb County School District in
Georgia review and make modifications to the original survey. To establish reliability, Levine
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 51
(2001) employed Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha (1951) to test the survey. Levine (2001)
determined that the coefficient Alpha was .81, which was higher than the .65 needed for groups.
Levine (2001) determined that, for individuals, “the reliability factor of .81 exceeds the norm”
(p. 63). For the participants in this study, Cronbach’s Alpha was .84, which is reliable. In order
to fit the requirements of this research study, slight modifications, such as changing the names of
schools and district, were made to the survey. The modified survey is included in the appendix
section.
Part 1 of the survey (Questions 1-7) ask the respondents to answer teacher demographic
information, which are nominal scale questions. For example, they were asked their sex,
ethnicity, degree level, and other pertinent questions. Robinson Kurpius and Stafford (2006)
explained, “nominal measurement scales are used to name or label things or to depict categories”
(p. 1). Part 2 of the survey (Question 8) evaluated the respondents’ satisfaction with the schools’
delivery of special education services, variety of delivery models, teacher expectations, and
evaluation methods. Part 2 used a Likert scale in which a response of 1 means the respondent
was “not very satisfied,” a response of 2 means the respondent was “somewhat satisfied,” a
response of 3 means the respondent was “satisfied,” and a response of 4 means the respondent
was “very satisfied.”
Part 3 of the survey (Question 9) evaluated the respondents’ satisfaction of the schools’
vision, mission, educational goals, teacher morale, sharing of information by administrators, and
paperwork responsibilities. Part 3 used a Likert scale in which a response of 1 means the
respondent was “not very satisfied,” a response of 2 means the respondent was “somewhat
satisfied,” a response of 3 means the respondent was “satisfied,” and a response of 4 means the
respondent was “very satisfied.” Part 4 of the survey (Question 10) evaluated the adequacy of
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 52
training and preparation given to the teacher prior to entering the NSD. Part 4 used a Likert scale
in which a response of 1 means the respondent thought the training was “not very adequate,” a
response of 2 means the respondent thought the training was “somewhat adequate,” a response of
3 means the respondent thought the training was “adequate,” and a response of 4 means the
respondent thought the training was “very adequate.”
Part 5 of the survey (Question 11) explored the special education teachers’ answers to
factors that would influence their intent to leave or stay in the profession. Part 5 used a Likert
scale in which a response of 1 means the respondent thought it was “not very important,” a
response of 2 means the respondent thought it was “somewhat important,” a response of 3 means
the respondent thought it was “important,” and a response of 4 means the respondent thought it
was “very important.” Part 6 of the survey (Question 12) asked the respondents to determine
which factors would be influential to their decision to leave or stay in the profession. Part 6 used
a Likert scale in which a response of 1 means the respondent thought it was “not very
influential,” a response of 2 means the respondent thought it was “somewhat influential,” a
response of 3 means the respondent thought it was “influential,” and a response of 4 means the
respondent thought it was “very influential.” Next, the survey asked the special education
teachers to answer the binary, dichotomous question, “Do you intend to leave the field of special
education within the next 5 years?” The answer choices were “Yes” and “No.” Lastly, the special
educators were asked two open-ended questions. The first asked respondents to list additional
reasons they would stay in the NSD, and the second asked them to list additional reasons they
would leave their current position for a general education teaching position or a different school
system in addition reasons they would exit the teaching profession entirely.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 53
This survey aligns with the research questions because it was aimed at determining
special education teachers’ intent to leave the profession. These characteristics are grounded in
Billingsley’s (2004) review of the literature. For the purpose of this study, the independent
variables were the personal factors, work-related factors, and emotional responses to work. The
dependent variable is the last survey question, which asks whether the special education intends
to leave the field of special education.
Data Collection
In June 2015, the University of Southern California (USC) granted institutional review
board (IRB) approval to conduct research on human subjects. After IRB endorsement, steps had
to be completed to get the Hawaii DOE’s permission to conduct the study within the NSD. A
memorandum of understanding between USC and the Hawaii DOE was established to streamline
research approval. First, the researcher met with each of the three complex area superintendents
(CAS’s) to get their endorsement via signature. Next, the researcher submitted a research
proposal, the CAS’s signatures, and proof of USC’s IRB to the Hawaii DOE Data Governance
and Analysis Branch. After USC and Hawaii DOE IRB approval was given in September 2015
(Appendix A), a Hawaii DOE state representative within the Data Governance and Analysis
Branch provided the researcher with a list of names and Lotus Notes email addresses of all
special education teachers in the NSD. When not in use, the list was kept in a locked storage
cabinet in the researcher’s office and/or on a password-protected laptop.
In September 2015, the researcher emailed all special education teachers in the NSD an
URL link to the survey via Lotus Notes. The survey was created through a survey data system
called USC Qualtrics. Once the participants accessed the survey, they had the opportunity to
review notice of informed consent and mark the appropriate box indicating whether they agreed
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 54
to participate in the study. Only participants who consented (agreed) to the survey were allowed
to complete the questionnaire.
Teachers were encouraged to voluntarily participate in the survey, which took between
10 and 15 minutes to finish. Participants were given two weeks to complete the survey. Two
follow-up emails were sent out in five-day intervals to increase the number of participants in the
study. The survey was administered in the last week of September and ended in early October
2015.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is vital when completing a research study. Cooper and Schindler (2003)
explained, “data analysis usually involves reducing accumulated data to a manageable size,
developing summarizes, looking for patterns, and applying statistical techniques” (p. 87). Once
the survey data was collected, each of the independent variables were coded and the data was
analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), which is a predictive
analytics software program. Pallant’s (2014) SPPS book helped guide the data analysis of this
research.
The data was analyzed by completing two tests: chi-square tests for independence and
independent samples t-test. According to Pallant (2013), chi-square test for independence is used
“to explore the relationship between two categorical variables” (p. 225). Furthermore, Pallant
(2013) noted, “this test compares the observed frequencies or proportions of cases that occur in
each of the categories, with the values that would be expected if there was no association
between the two variables being measured” (p. 225). For this study, chi-square tests for
independence was completed to determine if there was an association between personal factors
and intent to leave (Research Question 1).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 55
The second test used to examine the data was independent samples t-test. According to
Pallant (2013), “an independent samples t-test is used when you want to compare the mean
score, on some continuous variable, for two different groups of participants” (p. 247). For this
study’s purposes, independent samples t-tests were used to examine if there was a difference
between special educators who stated they intent to leave and those who intent to stay as it
relates to work-related factors (Research Question 2).
Summary
Chapter Three explained the methodology for collecting and analyzing data for this
quantitative research study. Chapter Four presents the findings of the survey. It also presents an
analysis of the results as these relate to the research questions and hypotheses. Chapter Five
discusses the findings and implications of the research and provides recommendations for future
study.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 56
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine the factors that influence special
education teacher attrition in the Nalu School District (NSD). Carlson and Thompson’s (1995)
analysis on Hawaii’s special educators’ intent to leave the profession is the only known
examination completed within Hawaii. Given the high special education attrition rates in Hawaii,
further research is needed to determine why special education teachers are leaving.
Chapter One discussed the background of the problem, stated the purpose of this study,
and introduced the research questions. Chapter Two provided an in-depth literature review about
special education attrition. Chapter Three discussed the research design, population data
collection, and methodology of this study. This chapter, Chapter Four, presents the results of the
study. The results are derived from the “Hawaii School District Special Education Teacher
Survey” (Appendix B), which was administered to the 307 elementary, middle, and high school
special education teachers in the NSD. Of the 307 NSD special educators who were asked to
voluntarily take part in the survey, 173 (56.4%) completed the survey.
Chapter Four is separated into three parts: introductory analysis, results, and summary.
Chapter Four includes the demographic data and statistical analysis of each partaker’s answer as
it relates to the research questions. The results were analyzed by employing the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), which is analytics software. Afterwards, themes, which
emerged from the open-ended questions included at the end of the survey, are presented. To
close the chapter, a conclusion of Chapter Four is noted.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 57
Research Questions
The following research questions were examined in this quantitative study:
1. What personal factors influence the career decisions of Nalu School District’s special
educators?
a. What personal characteristics (sex and ethnicity) impact the career decisions of
NSD’s special educators?
b. What factors associated with teacher qualifications (degree level, years of
teaching experience, current teaching assignment, certification type, and teaching
in area of certification) impact the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
2. What work-related factors influence the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
a. What work environment factors (salary, administrative support, colleague
support, induction/mentoring support, and paperwork) impact the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators?
b. What emotional responses to work (stress/job satisfaction) impact the career
decisions of NSD’s special educators?
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were assumed in the study:
1. Sex, ethnicity, degree level, years of teaching experience, current teaching
assignment, certification type, and teaching in area of certification are not predictors
of special education teachers’ intent to leave special education.
2. Salary, administrative support, colleague support, paperwork, and stress/job
satisfaction are not predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special
education.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 58
Introductory Analysis
The special education teachers differed in sex, ethnicity, degree level, years of teaching
experience, type of certification, and teaching in area of certification. Of the 307 NSD special
education teachers surveyed, 173 (56.4%) completed the survey. The frequencies and
percentages of the demographics and employment details are displayed in Table 1. There were
33 (17.9%) male and 151 (82.1%) female teachers. Most, 79 (43.2%) of the partakers were
Asian, 46 (25.1%) were Caucasian, 26 (14.2%) were Native Hawaiian, 19 (10.4%) were Mixed,
7 (3.8%) were Hispanic, and 6 (3.3%) were African American. The largest group, 92 (50.5%)
have a master’s degree, 87 (47.8%) obtained a bachelor’s degree, and 3 (1.6%) earned a
doctorate. The majority of the participants 47 (25.5%) had between 13 and 20 years of teaching
experience, 45 (24.5%) had less than 4 years’ experience, 38 (20.7%) had between 8 and 12
years’ experience, 27 (14.7%) had between 4 and 7 years’ experience, and 27 (14.7%) had 21 or
more years’ experience. The majority of the special educators, 160 (87.4%), were certified in
general education, 16 (8.7%) were certified in special education, and 7 (3.8%) received
alternative certification. Lastly, 163 (88.6%) were teaching in their area of certification and 21
(11.4%) were not.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 59
Table 1
Frequencies and Percentages for Participants’ Personal Characteristics and Teacher
Qualifications
Variable N %
Sex
Male 33 17.9
Female 151 82.1

Ethnicity
Caucasian 46 25.1
African American 6 3.3
Hispanic 7 3.8
Asian 79 43.2
Native Hawaiian 26 14.2
Mixed 19 10.4

Degree Level
Less than a Bachelor’s 0 0
Bachelor’s 87 47.8
Master’s 92 50.5
Doctorate 3 1.6

Years of Teaching Experience
Less than 4 years 45 24.5
4 to 7 years 27 14.7
8 to 12 years 38 20.7
13 to 20 years 47 25.5
21 or more years 27 14.7

Type of Certification
Special Education 160 87.4
General Education 16 8.7
Alternative 7 3.8

Teaching in Area of
Certification

Yes 163 88.6
No 21 11.4

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 60
In order to have distinct data on the number of special educators who intend to leave or
stay, the participants were asked, “Do you intend to leave the field of special education within
the next 5 years?” The choices were “yes” (coded as a 1) and “no” (coded as a 2). Table 2
displays that 77 (44.5%) indicated they intend to leave the field of special education within five
years and 96 (55.5%) intend to stay in the field of special education.
Table 2
Intent to Leave Within Five Years
Variable n %
Intent to Leave Within Five Years
Yes 77 44.5
No 96 55.5

Research Question 1: What personal-related factors influence the career decisions of
NSD’s special educators?
The first research question asked, “What personal factors influence the career decisions of
Nalu School District’s special educators?” In order to address whether there is an association
between personal characteristics and intent to leave and between teacher qualifications and intent
to leave, chi-square tests for independence were conducted. These tested the hypothesis that
personal factors are not predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special
education. The demographic variables used for Research Question 1 were sex, ethnicity, degree
level, years of teaching experience, current teaching assignment, certification type, and teaching
in area of certification. Results of the chi-square tests for independence show an association
between intent to leave and ethnicity. Also, there is an association between intent to leave and
teaching in area of certification. The results demonstrate that intent to leave and certification type
approached significance. Lastly, test results show there is no relationship between intent to leave
and the following variables: sex, degree level, years of teaching experience, and current teaching
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 61
assignment. The following tables below explicitly note the association of variables, or lack
thereof, as these relate to intent to leave.
A chi-square test of independence was performed on the intent to leave and sex. In Table
3, male participants are coded as 1 and female participants are coded as 2. The results show that
there is no association between intent to leave and sex, x
2
(1)=.772, p>.05.
Table 3
Intent to Leave and Sex
Crosstab
Count

Sex
Total 1 2
Intent 1 16 61 77
2 15 81 96
Total 31 142 173

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .772
a
1 .380
Continuity
Correction
b

.461 1 .497
Likelihood Ratio .768 1 .381
Fisher's Exact Test

.428 .248
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.767 1 .381

N of Valid Cases 173

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.80.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 62

Figure 1. Intent to Leave and Sex
A chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the association between
intent to leave and ethnicity. Table 4 is coded as follows: Caucasian (1), African American (2),
Hispanic (3), Asian (4), Native American (5), Mixed (6). The results discovered that an
association exists between intent to leave and ethnicity, x
2
(5)=11.213, p<.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 63
Table 4
Intent to Leave and Ethnicity
Crosstab
Count

Ethnicity Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Intent 1 14 5 3 37 14 4 77
2 29 1 4 36 12 13 95
Total 43 6 7 73 26 17 172

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.213
a
5 .047
Likelihood Ratio 11.696 5 .039
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.352 1 .553
N of Valid Cases 172
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
2.69.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 64

Figure 2. Intent to Leave and Ethnicity
A chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the association between
intent to leave and degree level. Table 5 is coded as follows: less than a bachelor’s (1),
bachelor’s (2), master’s (3), and doctorate (4). The participants had the choice of whether they
earned a bachelor’s degree, but no one chose that as an option. According to the data, all
participants had earned at least a bachelor’s degree. The results discovered that no association
exists between intent to leave and degree level, x2(2)=4.510, p>.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 65
Table 5
Intent to Leave and Degree Level
Crosstab
Count

Degree
Total 2 3 4
Intent 1 29 46 1 76
2 51 42 2 95
Total 80 88 3 171

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.510
a
2 .105
Likelihood Ratio 4.535 2 .104
Linear-by-Linear
Association
3.226 1 .072
N of Valid Cases 171
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.33.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 66

Figure 3. Intent to Leave and Degree Level
A chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the association between
intent to leave and years of teaching experience. Table 6 is coded as follows: less than 4 years
(1), 4 to 7 years (2), 8 to 12 years (3), 13 to 20 years (4), 21 or more years (5). The results show
that an association exists between intent to leave and ethnicity, x
2
(4)=7.161, p>.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 67
Table 6
Intent to Leave and Years of Teaching Experience
Crosstab
Count

Years
Total 1 2 3 4 5
Intent 1 12 9 17 25 14 77
2 29 15 19 21 12 96
Total 41 24 36 46 26 173

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.161
a
4 .128
Likelihood Ratio 7.305 4 .121
Linear-by-Linear
Association
6.618 1 .010
N of Valid Cases 173
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.68.

A chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the association between
intent to leave and current teaching assignment. Table 7 is coded as follows: elementary (1),
middle school (2), and high school (3). The results discovered that no association exists between
intent to leave and current teaching assignment, x
2
(2)=1.840, p>.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 68
Table 7
Intent to Leave and Current Teaching Assignment
Crosstab
Count

Assignment
Total 1 2 3
Intent 1 30 13 33 76
2 45 19 32 96
Total 75 32 65 172

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.840
a
2 .399
Likelihood Ratio 1.837 2 .399
Linear-by-Linear
Association
1.591 1 .207
N of Valid Cases 172
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.14.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 69

Figure 3. Intent to Leave and Current Teaching Assignment
A chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the association between
intent to leave and type of certification. Table 8 is coded as follows: special education (1),
general education (2), and alternative (3). The results discovered that intent to leave and
certification type approached significance, x
2
(2)=5.897, p>.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 70
Table 8
Intent to Leave and Certification Type
Crosstab
Count

Type
Total 1 2 3
Intent 1 61 11 4 76
2 89 5 2 96
Total 150 16 6 172

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.897
a
2 .052
Likelihood Ratio 5.912 2 .052
Linear-by-Linear
Association
4.997 1 .025
N of Valid Cases 172
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.65.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 71

Figure 4. Intent to Leave and Certification Type
A chi-square test of independence was calculated on the special educators’ intent to leave
and whether they were working in their area of certification. Table 9 is coded as follows: yes (1)
and no (2). The results discovered that there is an association exists between intent to leave and
area of certification, x2(1)=3.845, <=p.05.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 72
Table 9
Intent to Leave and Current Area of Certification
Crosstab
Count

Certification
Total 1 2
Intent 1 64 13 77
2 89 7 96
Total 153 20 173

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.845
a
1 .050
Continuity
Correction
b

2.964 1 .085
Likelihood Ratio 3.840 1 .050

Fisher's Exact Test .058 .043
Linear-by-Linear
Association
3.822 1 .051
N of Valid Cases 173
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.90.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 73

Figure 5. Intent to Leave and Current Area of Certification
Research Question 2: What work-related factors influence the career decisions of NSD’s
special educators?
In order to analyze whether there is a relationship between work-related factors and intent
to leave, independence samples t-tests were conducted to answer the question as to whether there
is a difference between special education teachers who say they intend to leave and those who do
not intend to leave with respect to the scale variables. These tests tested the hypothesis that
work-related factors are not predictors of special education teachers’ intent to leave special
education. Specifically, independent samples t-tests (Table 10) were used to compare those who
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 74
intend to leave or not (two groups) to specific variables such as excessive paperwork
(excessive2), stress from demands of the job (stress2), lack of collegial support (collegial2), lack
of administrative support and guidance (support2), and more money/better benefits elsewhere
(money).
The independent samples t-test results show that excessive paperwork and stress were
significant for special educators who intend to leave. Specifically, the results show there is a
significant difference in the mean and standard deviation for intent to leave (M=3.32, SD=.898)
and intent to stay (M=2.85, SD=1.026) as it relates to excessive paperwork. Table 10 noted the
results of the t-tests for excessive paperwork. The results indicated a statistically significant
difference, t(170) = 3.095, p=.002. Additionally, the results show there is a significant difference
in the mean and standard deviation between intent to leave (M=3.42, SD=.735) and intent to stay
(M=3.08, SD=.981) as it relates to stress. Table 10 denotes the results of the t-tests for stress.
The results display a statistically significant difference, t(170) = 2.497, p=.013. The independent
samples t-test discovered that the following variables were not statistically significant: lack of
collegial support, lack of administrative support and guidance, and more money/better benefits
elsewhere.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 75
Table 10
Independent Samples T-Tests
Group Statistics

Intent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Excessive2 1 76 3.32 .898 .103
2 96 2.85 1.026 .105
Stress2 1 76 3.42 .735 .084
2 96 3.08 .981 .100
Collegial2 1 76 2.54 .901 .103
2 96 2.53 1.123 .115
Support2 1 76 3.04 .886 .102
2 96 3.00 1.076 .110
Money 1 77 3.09 1.015 .116
2 96 3.09 .907 .093

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
Excessive2 F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Equal variances assumed 2.100 .149 3.095 170 .002 .462
Equal variances not assumed 3.144 168.261 .002 .462
Stress2
Equal variances assumed 3.027 .084 2.497 170 .013 .338
Equal variances not assumed 2.581 169.536 .011 .338
Collegial2
Equal variances assumed 9.059 .003 .052 170 .959 .008
Equal variances not assumed .053 169.966 .958 .008
Support2
Equal variances assumed 5.816 .017 .258 170 .797 .039
Equal variances not assumed .264 169.720 .792 .039
Money
Equal variances assumed 1.144 .286 -.019 171 .985 -.003
Equal variances not assumed -.019 153.958 .985 -.003
!
!
!
!
!

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 76

Table 10, continued
Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Excessive2
Equal variances assumed .149 .167 .756
Equal variances not assumed .147 .172 .751
Stress2
Equal variances assumed .135 .071 .605
Equal variances not assumed .131 .079 .596
Collegial2
Equal variances assumed .158 -.304 .321
Equal variances not assumed .154 -.296 .313
Support2
Equal variances assumed .153 -.263 .342
Equal variances not assumed .150 -.256 .335
Money
Equal variances assumed .146 -.292 .286
Equal variances not assumed .148 -.296 .290

Anecdotal Responses
At the end of the survey, the participants were asked two open-ended questions. The
question that pertained specifically to intent to leave was, “Please use the space below to list any
additional reasons why you would leave your current position for a general education teaching
position, a different school system, or exit the teaching profession entirely.” Table 11 and Table
12 noted responses that are relevant to this study and relate directly to Research Question 2.
Specifically, Table 11 codes the participants’ response as they relate to paperwork and Table 12
presents the special educators’ thoughts on stress/job satisfaction.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 77
Table 11
Special Education Teacher Comments on Paperwork
Participant Comment
8
I'd leave for a gen ed pre-k position if Hawaii decided to offer public pre-k to
all, because the SpEd paperwork is onerous. Although, my understanding of
current paperwork for gen ed teachers is that under the new eval system, their
paperwork is far worse than it used to be. :(
13
The amount of paperwork required for proper IEP preparation and
implementation takes all of my time, and I scarcely have any time for teaching
or for true professional development. Everything just seems to be done to avoid
due process, and I don't feel truly effective as an educator towards supporting
my students’ academic goals because I am so busy with IEP paperwork all of
the time--during classes, after-school and at home.
15
I would leave my current position for a general education teaching position
because I would not have to spend my personal time to write up IEPs, let alone
attend long IEP meetings after contracted hours. General education teachers are
given a planning period and have better resources to support learning. For
example, in our school, general education teachers have classrooms that are
well equipped with technological devices including a smart board. However,
none of the special education classrooms in our school have smart boards and it
is difficult to reserve laptop carts due to general education classes reserving
them since they have more students. More importantly, general education
teachers do not have to worry about all of the paperwork demands that come
with being a special education teacher.
29
The demands of the job is very time and task consuming. It adds a lot of stress
and anxiety; even for a well seasoned SpEd teacher. Parents are becoming more
knowledgeable about the IDEA law and become very demanding. It is difficult
to have a contentious case because it consumes your whole time and takes away
from your class time with your students. As SpEd teachers, we ALSO do not
get a differential in pay. We prepare, draft and finalize administrative
paperwork that are duties outside of teaching when we are creating the IEP
components that the state of Hawaii requires us to do. We should get paid more
but we don’t! This stress and piles of paperwork of being a SpEd teacher is not
worth it; but educating special needs students is worth it! I'm in it for the kids!!!
33
Would LOVE to get out of Special Education because of all the paperwork and
extra time spent at IEP meetings (with no compensation). Also, the lack of
support from Regular Ed teachers when it comes to attending IEP meetings and
Admin not following up on Reg Ed teachers.
36
Lack of support and an increase of responsibilities and paper workloads without
being compensated.
38
Pay is less than teachers in other states, stress, IEP paperwork, cost of living in
Hawaii

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 78
Table 11, continued
39
1) More pay 2) IEP's meetings and paperwork is very time consuming. We
have the same expectations as general education teacher but are not given
additional times to take care of the demands of working in special education. 3)
Although many of our students are many grade levels below there are still
expected to perform as their general education counterparts. It would be
wonderful if growth could be measured instead of solely determining
achievement based on standards.
49
Some parents ask for too much stuff when they know their child and they
expect their child's teacher to have a magic wand and their child will be fixed; if
pay doesn't keep up with the rest of the economy; when teaching is no longer
fun because we have to do all this other stuff like paperwork, high-stakes
testing, state-mandated curriculum.
50
Flexible work hours, more autonomy, more mature students, less paperwork,
less bureaucracy (federal and state)
60
Too much paperwork, no clear curriculum of what I am to teach, no help with
IEPs, lack of new teacher support, no time to lesson plan, feeling like I am not
setting my students up for success since they do not get a high school diploma.
75 Too stressful, extremely large caseload, excessive paperwork
77 Too stressful, extremely large caseload, excessive paperwork
78
The teacher evaluation system, a lot of paper work in addition to IEP’s, and
mismanagement of placement of students and caseloads.
88
Horrendous paper work, too much people to deal with, needs time for planning
(setting up meeting schedules, running assessments, collecting data)
92 The excessive paperwork and administration.
94
The paper work involved including EES demands along with lack of
administration support and retirement.
97
I would leave because my background is not in education at all let alone special
education, also I found out that tis school is the only one to have all of the
written responsibilities to fall on the SpEd teachers instead of the SSC’s.
98
Too much stress for too little pay. I went into teaching to help change students'
lives. Instead, I am burdened with paperwork, dealing with crazy parents and
trying to protect myself against them.
103
Job is highly stressful, demands of completing paperwork, and threats of always
going to court.
110
Too much extra work doing IEP's. Hard enough trying to teach the Algebra 1
standards to Special Education students, because of paperwork, I will be taking
the Math Praxis to get out of SpEd.
132 Excessive paperwork and lack of time to do it. Too many data meetings.
136
There is not enough support navigating THOROUGHLY through the processes
required under IDEA and then filing/sending appropriate paperwork to people
and places. Not enough time for planning or devoting yourself to the strengths
of students. Communication is lagging.
185
Lack of support from Administration, Lack of air conditioned classrooms, too
much paperwork, too many on caseload, low pay.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 79
Table 12
Special Education Teacher Comments on Stress
Participant Comment
17
Retirement, health--when the job impacts my overall health due to
stress/working conditions then it is time to leave.
18 Too much stress or cutting teacher benefits/wages
25 Too much stress/not enough pay to live in Hawaii
26
This job has taken a physical toll on me and many of my other fellow Special
education teachers. They have begun exhibiting various stress related health
issues.
29
The demands of the job is very time and task consuming. It adds a lot of stress
and anxiety; even for a well-seasoned SpEd teacher. Parents are becoming more
knowledgeable about the IDEA law and become very demanding. It is difficult
to have a contentious case because it consumes your whole time and takes away
from your class time with your students. As SpEd teachers, we ALSO do not
get a differential in pay. We prepare, draft and finalize administrative
paperwork that are duties outside of teaching when we are creating the IEP
components that the state of Hawaii requires us to do. We should get paid more
but we don't! This stress and piles of paperwork of being a SpEd teacher is not
worth it; but educating special needs students is worth it! I'm in it for the kids!!!
38
Pay is less than teachers in other states, stress, IEP paperwork, cost of living in
Hawaii
51
I've been a general education teacher before and although it a nice break from
the SpEd side of things, I always return to SpEd. I might do general education
for a couple years (if I had the chance) but go back to SpEd as soon as I could.
I would look into a different school system just to see how "green the grass is
on the other side of the fence" and then probably come right back to Leeward
District because I've been in Leeward for so long. The only way I would leave
the teaching profession entirely is if my health was at risk due to the stress of
work or if my family needed me more than I needed to work (e.g., serious
illness).
56 Conflicts of moral beliefs, stress, and/or lack of inspiration.
68
If I found a higher paying position that also didn't leave me exhausted
emotionally and physically at the end of the day, I would my current job.
75 Too stressful, extremely large caseload, excessive paperwork
76 Even though I love my students, the amount of stress is very difficult to handle.
83
General education is somewhat boring after being in special education for so
long. It seems like it would be easier but the grass is NEVER on the other side.
I have the most seniority in my dept. I won't give that up for more of the same
at another school with the same problems and different faces. I enjoy teaching
too much to leave due to stress. Every job has stress, I choose the stress that is
going to make a difference in our society.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 80
Table 12, continued
98
Too much stress for too little pay. I went into teaching to help change students'
lives. Instead, I am burdened with paperwork, dealing with crazy parents and
trying to protect myself against them.
103
Job is highly stressful, demands of completing paperwork, and threats of always
going to court.
119 If more workload and stress was to be added, in addition to what we already do
153
There is a strong reliance in this profession on the fact that teachers love their
students and thus won't leave. However, there will come a time, if it isn't the
case already, that the non-direct instruction tasks and lack of compensation
outweighs the love for the kids. I think most special education teachers suffer
from low morale, financial stress (low pay, high cost of living, and extra cost
implications of teaching in Special Education), and task stress form being over-
burdened and subjected to compliance issues.
164 Stress

Summary
Chapter Four depicted the statistical analysis used to determine the factors that influence
special education teacher attrition in a school district in Hawaii. This study examined the 173
responses of the NSD special educators from the “Hawaii School District Special Education
Teacher Survey” (Appendix B). The results were analyzed using SPSS, and two specific tests
were completed on data: chi-square test for independence and independent samples t-test.
Results of the chi-square test of independence show an association between intent to leave and
both ethnicity and teaching in area of certification. Also, the results of the chi-square test of
independence show that intent to leave and type of certification was approaching significance.
The independence samples t-test discovered statistical significance in terms of intent to leave and
both excessive paperwork and stress. The next chapter, Chapter Five, reviews the findings of the
study, notes new limitations that arose as the study was conducted, explains the implications for
practice, and discusses the need for future research based on the findings of this examination.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 81
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Chapter One discusses the background of the problem, states the purpose of this study,
and introduces the research questions and hypotheses. Chapter Two provides an in-depth
literature review about special education attrition. Chapter Three discusses the research design,
population data collection, and methodology of the study. Chapter Four presents the results of
the study, which stemmed from the special education teachers’ responses to the “Hawaii School
District Special Education Teacher Survey” (Appendix B). The survey was administered to the
307 elementary, middle, and high school special education teachers in Nalu School District
(NSD). The data was examined by employing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). Then, themes are presented as they emerged from the two open-ended questions
included at the end of the survey. This chapter, Chapter Five, briefly reviews the background of
the problem, purpose of the study, and the research questions. Additionally, Chapter Five
discusses the findings of the study, new limitations, implications for practice, and the need for
future research.
Background of the Problem
Across the United States, special education teacher attrition rates are high. Scholars have
discovered a scarcity of special educators throughout America (Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004;
Irinaga-Bistolas, Schalock, Marvin, & Beck, 2007; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). According
to Boe and Cook (2006), there has been a scarcity of special education teachers since the 1970s.
Moreover, new special education instructors are two and a half times more likely to depart
teaching than are other new teachers (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). According to Kozleski et
al. (2000), “four out of every ten special educators entering the field leave special education
before their fifth year of teaching” (p. 4).
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 82
Within the Hawaii State DOE, teacher attrition is a major key concern. Over half of the
state’s public school teachers exit the field within five years of being hired (Vorsino, 2010).
Additionally, according to Vorsino (2010), “of the teachers hired in 2009 (1,328 teachers), 71
percent had no teaching experience while just 9.3 percent had more than five years’ experience”
(p. 3). In regards to special education teacher attrition literature, there has been only one
examination in Hawaii. Carlson and Thompson (1995) discovered that 61.2% of those surveyed
intended to leave special education. Within a five-year period (2008-2013), NSD had the largest
number of newly hired teachers, with an elevated number being special educators (Hawaii State
DOE, 2013a). Therefore, special education teacher attrition is a concern.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was to evaluate the factors that influence special
education teachers’ intent to leave the teaching profession in NSD. Special education teacher
attrition is high in the NSD; therefore, this examination analyzes the possible reasons it is
occurring. Three hundred and seven special education teachers in the NSD were surveyed. The
independent variables in this examination are the personal factors, work-related factors, and
emotional responses to work. The dependent variable is whether special education teachers
intend to leave the field of special education. Data analysis was conducted using a SPPS data
software program and results were derived.
Research has been completed noting factors related to special education teacher attrition.
However, no comprehensive analysis has been done in Hawaii in the last twenty years.
According to Carlson and Thompson (1995), 300 out of 490 special education teachers surveyed
were planning to leave special education, which is 61.2% of those examined. The results of the
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 83
study discovered that 77 (44.5%) of the 173 special educators’ surveys stated they intended to
leave the field within the next five years.
Research Questions
The following research questions were examined in this quantitative study:
1. What personal factors influence the career decisions of Nalu School District’s special
educators?
a. What personal characteristics (sex and ethnicity) impact the career decisions of
NSD’s special educators?
b. What factors associated with teacher qualifications (degree level, years of
teaching experience, current teaching assignment, certification type, and teaching
in area of certification) impact the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
2. What work-related factors influence the career decisions of NSD’s special educators?
a. What work environment factors (salary, administrative support, colleague
support, induction/mentoring support, and paperwork) impact the career decisions
of NSD’s special educators?
b. What emotional responses to work (stress/job satisfaction) impact the career
decisions of NSD’s special educators?
Discussion of Findings
This section provides a discussion of the results as they relate to the research questions.
The research questions were addressed by successfully administering the “Hawaii School
District Special Education Teacher Survey” (Appendix B), using appropriate methodology,
completing SPSS on the survey data, and matching the data to the variables of research. Survey
data from the 173 participants who gave responses provided the foundation for data analysis and
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 84
the discussion findings. The following paragraphs detail the specific variables found to be
statistically significant to the study.
Research Question 1
The data analysis discovered that certain personal factors do influence the career
decisions of NSD’s special education teachers. The results, discovered using chi-square tests of
independence, are listed below.
Intent to Leave and Ethnicity. Results of the chi-square test of independence
discovered that there was an association between intent to leave and ethnicity, x
2
(5)=11.213,
p<.05. There have been a number of studies on race and ethnicity. However, the research is not
consistent. On one hand, Miller et al. (1999) analyzed Florida teachers and Singer (1992) studied
North Carolina and Michigan educators and discovered there was no connection between
attrition and race. Also, Singer (1993) stated there was no relationship between attrition and race.
However, the results of this study better align with Cross and Billingsley’s (1994) path
analysis examination of 542 Virginia special educators’ intent to leave and discovered that non-
whites stated their intention to leave more often than their white colleagues did. Billingsley’s et
al. (1995) study detailed that Caucasian (white) educators left the field more often than black
teachers did. Dworkin (1980) reverberated the findings by affirming that white teachers, mostly
women, displayed intent to leave more frequently than black and Hispanic staff members did.
Intent to Leave and Teaching in Area of Certification. The chi-square test of
independence found an association between intent to leave and teaching in area of certification,
x
2
(1)=3.845, <=p.05. This result is consistent with past literature. Miller et al. (1999) conducted
a multinominal logit model on 1,576 Florida special education teachers’ survey responses and
revealed higher attrition for uncertified educators when compared to those who had certification.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 85
According to McLeskey and Billingsley (2008) uncertified educators and new teachers had the
most frequent attrition rates. Also, Johnson et al.’s (2009) study discovered over 10% of special
educators in Idaho were not certified in their given field. Ultimately, both Boe (2006) and Boe
and Cook (2006) found there is a continuing deficiency in the number of certified people to
instruct special education students.
Intent to Leave and Type of Certification. Results of the chi-square test of
independence reveal intent to leave and type of certification approached significance,
x
2
(2)=5.897, p>.05. There is little to no known literature on intent regarding type of certification.
This may be because other studies did not find significance or their focus was not to look at
intent to leave and type of certification. Both Cook and Boe (2007) and Boe et al. (2008)
assessed data from the National Center for Education Statistics and learned that, during the 1999-
2000 academic term, only 46% of special educators were fully certified and partook in a
customary teacher preparation setting.
Research Question 2
The data analysis found that specific work-related factors do have an influence on the
career decisions of NSD’s special education teachers. The outcomes, produced by completing
independent samples t-tests, are noted below.
Intent to Leave and Excessive Paperwork. The independent samples t-test discovered
that intent to leave and excessive paperwork are statistically significant. Specifically, the results
show there is a significant difference in the mean and standard deviation for intent to leave
(M=3.32, SD=.898) and intent to stay (M=2.85, SD=1.026) as related to excessive paperwork.
The results indicate a statistically significant difference, t(170) = 3.095, p=.002.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 86
Empirical research is consistent with this examination. Special educators feel saddled by
the quantity of paperwork they must complete (DeMik, 2008; McKnab, 1994). For every special
education child in a teacher’s classroom, the teacher must complete progress reports and is
required to complete a document outlining the student’s individualized education program (IEP),
which consists of several pages. According to the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education
(U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, n.d.), special educators spend at least five hours a
week on paperwork unrelated to lesson planning or grading work. Kozleski et al. (2000) noted
the “average length of the typical IEP is between 8 and 16 pages, with an estimated 4 hours of
pre-meeting planning time into each IEP conference” (p. 6). Furthermore, Berry’s (2012) phone
survey examination of 203 special educators from randomly chosen rural districts in 33 states
found that 43% noted they were dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied about the amount of
paperwork. Lastly, Kaff (2004) distributed a questionnaire to 400 Kansas special educators, and
52% of the teachers noted they had too much paperwork.
Intent to Leave and Stress. An independent samples t-test found there is a significant
difference in the mean and standard deviation for intent to leave (M=3.42, SD=.735) and intent
to stay (M=3.08, SD=.981) as related to stress. The results display a statistically significant
difference, t(170) = 2.497, p = .013.
The results of this study aligned with previous literature about intent to leave and stress.
Many researchers noted stress as a reason special educators state they intend to leave the field
(Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cross & Billingsley, 1994; Gersten et al., 2001; Nichols &
Sonsnowsky, 2002; Schnorr, 1995; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Several researchers (DeMik,
2008; Fredricks, 2005; Hanushek, 2007; Jarvis, 2002; McKnab, 1994) noted teaching as a
stressful occupation, which leads to attrition. Miller et al.’s (1999) examination of Florida special
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 87
education teachers discovered perceived stress as predictor of attrition. Morvant et al.’s (1995)
examination found approximately 80% of educators who intended to leave felt extreme stress on
a weekly or daily basis. Frank and McKenzie (1993) examined 41 special education teachers for
five years after they graduated college and found that their stages of burnout intensified the
longer they taught. According to Nance and Calabrese (2009), “the amount of paperwork, high
levels of stress, and seemingly constant state of change, create a culture of frustration” (p. 436).
Limitations
There were several limitations that may have impeded the results of the study.
Timing of the Survey
One area of concern is the timing of the survey, which was during the last two weeks of
the first quarter of the school year. This is a busy time in that many teachers are finishing grades,
administering exams, and preparing to meet deadlines. Even though the majority (56.4%) of
those who received the survey participated, the amount of surveys completed may have been
higher if they had been given at alternative time.
Additionally, special educators’ opinions about their occupation, especially new teachers,
may still be not fully formed given the early point in the school year. Therefore, they may have
not developed or experienced the full gambit of what it takes to be a special educator. Due to the
earliness of the survey, results (variables) may have not surfaced yet. The results might have
been different if the survey had been administered later in the year. For example, special
educators may experience more stress as the year progressed, or they may feel less stress as they
become more familiar with their position.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 88
Obtaining Hawaii DOE Approval and Process
The process to earn research approval within the Hawaii DOE was lengthy and time
consuming. The Hawaii DOE Data Governance and Analysis Branch was in a transition period
as a new employee was in training to take over research approvals. Additionally, the researcher
had to gain consent (signatures) from three complex area superintendents and one state
superintendent. This process was drawn and delayed. Once approved, a Hawaii DOE Data
Governance and Analysis official provided the researcher a list of emails that included all special
educators in the Nalu School District.
Also, it was the researcher’s responsibility to send the survey to all participants. The
Hawaii DOE Governance and Analysis Branch did not recommend contacting principals to gain
their support with the focus toward promoting the need to complete the survey. If the principals
would have been able to promote the importance of the survey to their special education
teachers, it is possible that the participation rate could have increased.
Participants Emails from the Hawaii DOE
It is unclear how current the list of special education teachers’ emails was when it was
provided to the researcher. Since this study was conducted earlier in the year, many special
education positions had not been filled. Therefore, it may be possible that, had the survey been
conducted later in the school year, there may have been more participants to survey.
Implications for Practice
There are implications this investigation has to offer. The implications of this
examination contribute to the increasing amount of knowledge about special education teacher
attrition. By executing some of the strategies listed below and further comprehending the
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 89
challenges that special education teacher attrition causes, school officials may be able to decrease
special education teacher attrition and discover ways to improve retention.
One implication of practice of this study is that NSD’s special educators shared they
have excessive paperwork and a need for additional support. School officials will need to
examine the reasons NSD special educators believe they have excessive paperwork. Steps could
be taken to help lessen the amount of paperwork they are required to complete. For example,
school administrators can hire additional clerical staff to complete the paperwork, evaluate the
necessity and/or amount of paperwork they complete, and provide district training to improve
paperwork efficiency.
Another implication of practice is that NSD special education teachers noted they are
stressed. School districts will need to analyze the specific causes of stress and develop ways to
improve job satisfaction. School district officials can create professional development programs
that analyze the roles and responsibilities of special education teachers and provide stress
management techniques. Additionally, school administrators can provide mentoring
opportunities for special educators at their school that many include district trainings that focus
on improving teaching resiliency, classroom observations, and frequent collaborative planning
time. School administrators can meet each special educator one-on-one and/or as a department to
ensure they feel encouragement. Ultimately, school administrators must ensure they provide
support to their special education department and to ensure its members are successful with the
children they service.
Due to the excessive paperwork and stress, it is hopeful that this study could inform and
guide university education officials to ensure they provide appropriate supports, teacher training,
and real-world observations for future special educators. The Hawaii DOE and Hawaii colleges
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 90
and university can develop a partnership that enhances the development of future special
educators in the state. Hawaii DOE leadership, including school administrators, could meet with
college professors to develop real-life curriculum to assist future special educators. College
professors may need to provide resiliency training to future graduates to improve their grit when
they enter the classroom. Furthermore, the Hawaii DOE and Hawaii universities can provide
more job shadowing experiences for future special education student teachers prior to their
graduation. Therefore, the student teacher will be more well-rounded and prepared when they
become a special educator. If colleges improve their teacher training programs to produce high
quality special educators, then school administrators will have effective and qualified special
educators to hire.
Future Research
The results of this investigation emphasize a need for further research into special
education teacher attrition. This study found that 77 (44.5%) of special education teachers in the
NSD intend to leave within five years. Given the high special education attrition rates in Hawaii,
further research is needed to determine why special education teachers are leaving. The
following recommendations may assist in creating additional understating about special
education teacher attrition and may assist in retaining special educators in the future:
This study could be replicated in other school districts throughout Hawaii or similar
geographical areas in order to determine the factors that influence special education teachers’
intention to leave the field. In addition, similar parts of this study’s components could be
replicated, but, instead, the methodology could be qualitative or mixed-methods instead of a
quantitative. By altering the methodology of the study, it may possible to get a view of the
special education teachers in their more natural environment. A qualitative examination could
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 91
employ interviews of the participants, which would record their experiences as special educators.
This would enable teachers to expand on their thoughts and feelings about their profession.
The Hawaii DOE could establish two mandates. First, it could mandate exiting special
education teachers complete an exit survey to determine the reasons they are leaving the field.
Therefore, the Hawaii DOE will have data that can be used to track the causes of attrition and
use the results to improve retention. Secondly, it should mandate specific induction and
mentoring that explicitly focus on special education teachers. Curriculum coaches,
administrators, counselors, and other school staff members can work on providing positive and
productive coaching and support to special education teachers that may have the potential to
reduce stress and increase job satisfaction. School officials could ensure that a veteran special
educator mentors an inexperienced special education teacher. This may include collaboration
activities and observations that focus on best practices.
The state, school district, and/or specific schools could hire education aides, clerical staff,
and/or paraprofessionals and then train them to complete IEPs and other pertinent paperwork to
help ease the burden of excessive paperwork.
This study also provides groundwork for future studies. These could be conducted at
Hawaii colleges and universities to examine how well faculty and curriculum prepare graduates
for the demands of teaching in the field of special education. Additionally, the Hawaii DOE
could conduct research in the areas of special education teacher preparation, recruitment and
retention, satisfaction and motivation, and administrative and colleague support to improve the
overall well-being of the special educator. A pre- and post-study could be conducted on the same
population of this study to learn whether any personal and/or work-related factors have arisen or
decreased as the school year progressed.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 92
Future research could be conducted on the reasons special education teachers are
retained. For example, it is of interest to learn why special educators who continue to teach
children with disabilities stay in the field. Once those strengths and strategies are discovered,
they might be used to teach new teachers and improve retention. Further research also needs to
be conducted to pinpoint the types of stress special educators feel. Stress can be displayed in
various ways: job satisfaction, lack of administrative and collegial support, low compensation,
excessive paperwork, and increased caseload. Therefore, studies need to be conducted to identify
the specific stressors.
Conclusions
The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the personal, work, and emotional
factors that influence special education teachers in the NSD. By completing a statistical data
analysis on the survey data, this study provides a current and relevant examination of special
education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district. The goal of this examination was to
provide results that can lead to retaining special education teachers in the NSD and within
Hawaii, improve the academic achievement of special education students, assist school education
officials in developing retention policies, improve school climate, mentoring, and induction, and
decrease the cost of teacher attrition within Hawaii. The findings of this examination lead to
several significant recommendations for Hawaii DOE officials and school administrators. The
results suggest that school officials may need to review the amount of paperwork NSD’s special
education teachers have to complete and analyze how much stress they endure in their teaching
position. If school districts improve special education teacher attrition, then students will be
provided a stable and consistent learning environment that will increase their success and
improve society.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 93
References
Alliance for Excellent Education (2014). Teachers & Leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/issues/teachers-leaders/
Babione, C., & Shea, C. (2005). Special education mentoring within the context of rural schools.
Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(2), 3-9.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school
districts: A pilot study. Arlington, VA: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future.
Bay, M., & Parker-Katz, M. (2009). Perspectives on induction of beginning special educators:
Research summary, key program features, and state of state-level policies. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 32(1), 17-32.
Berry, A. (2012). The relationship of perceived support to satisfaction and commitment for
special education teachers in rural area. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 3-14.
Billingsley, B. S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special education and general
education: A critical review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 137-
174.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of
the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.
Billingsley, B. (2007). A case study of special education teacher attrition in an urban district.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 20(1), 11-20.
Billingsley, B. S., Bodkins, D., & Hendricks, M. B. (1993). Why special educators leave
teaching: Implications for administrators. Case in Point, 7(2), 23-38.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 94
Billingsley, B. S. & Cross, L. H. (1991). Teachers’ decisions to transfer from special education
to general education. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 496-511.
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induction support of
early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 333-347.
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, 453-471.
Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C., Smith, S. J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2008). A review of
teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions.
National Center to Inform Policy and Practice in Special Education Professional
Development, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Billingsley, B., Pyecha, J., Smith-Davis, J., Murray, K., & Hendricks, M. B. (1995). Improving
the retention of special education teachers: Final report. Prepared for Office of Special
Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.
Department of Education, under Cooperative Agreement H023Q10001. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED379860)
Billingsley, B. S., & Tomchin, E. M. (1992). Four beginning LD teachers: What their
experiences suggest for trainers and employers. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 7, 104–112.
Blanton, L., Sindelar, P. T., Correa, V., Hardman, M., McDonnell, J., & Kuhel, K. (2003).
Conceptions of beginning teacher quality: Models of conducting research. (COPSSE
Document Number RS-6). Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 95
Boe, E.E. (1990, November). Comprehensive retention and attrition model (CRAM). Paper
presented at the Research Forum on Differing Approaches to Defining and Measuring
Personnel Supply and Demand, Washington, DC.
Boe, E. E. (2006). Long term trends in the national demand, supply, and shortage of special
education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 138–150.
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. H. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Retention,
reassignment, migration, and attrition of special and general education teachers in
national perspective. The Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 371-389.
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., Cook, L. H., Barkanic, G., & Maislin, G. (1999). Teacher turnover in
eight cognate areas: National trends and predictors. Center for Research and Evaluation
in Social Policy, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
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, 390-411.
Boe, E. E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully-certified teachers
in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72, 443–460.
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2007). Trends in the turnover of teachers from
1991 to 2004: Attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. (Data Analysis
Rep. 2007-DAR2). Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy, University of
Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Boe, E., Cook, L., & Sunderland, R. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching
area transfer, and school migration. Council for Exceptional Children, 75(1), 7-31.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 96
Boe, E. E., deBettencourt, L. U., Dewey, J., Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Leko, C. (2013).
Variability in demand for special education teachers: Indicators, explanations, and
impacts. Exceptionality, 21(2), 103-125.
Borman, G. & Dowling, M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409.
Bozonelos, J. (2008). Retention in special education: Reducing attrition through supportive
administrative interventions. The International Journal of Learning, 15(1), 149-156.
Boyer, L., & Lee, C. (2001). Converting challenge to success: Supporting a new teacher of
students with autism. Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 75–83.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher,
5(9), 5-15.
Brownell, M., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. (2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special
education teachers during severe shortages: What should policymakers consider? The
Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 56-61.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Bishop, A. G., Langley, L. K., & Seo, S. (2002). Special
education teacher supply and teacher quality: The problems, the solutions. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 35(2), 1-16.
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(3), 270-282.
Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., McNellis, J., & Lenk, L. (1994–1995). Career decisions in
special education: Current and former teachers’ personal views. Exceptionality, 5, 83–
102.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 97
Brownell, M. T., Smith, S. W., McNellis, J., & Miller, M. D. (1997). Attrition in special
education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7, 143-
155.
Carlson, B. & Thompson, J. (1995). Job burnout and job leaving in public school teachers:
Implications for stress management. International Journal of Stress Management, 2(1),
15-29.
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE, 2004). Retaining qualified special
education teachers: Understanding why teachers leave and what school districts can do
about it. Special Education Workforce Watch: Insights from Research. Gainesville, FL:
Author.
Carroll, T., & Fulton, K. (2004). The true cost of teacher turnover. Threshold, 16-17. Retrieved
from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/nctaf/CTT.graphic.pdf
Connelly, R. (2000). Why do good teachers leave the profession? What can be done to retain
them? Momentum, 9(2), 55-57.
Cook, L., & Boe, E. (2007). National trends in the sources of supply of teachers in special and
general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(4), 217-232.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-
Hill.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 98
Cross, L. & Billingsley, B. (1994). Testing a model of special educators’ intent to stay in
teaching. Exceptional Children, 60(5), 411-421.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). America’s future: Educating teachers. The Education Digest,
64(9), 18-23.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Why it matters, what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 7-13.
DeMik, S. (2008). Experiencing attrition of special education teachers through narrative inquiry.
High School Journal, 92(1), 22-32.
Dworkin, A. G. (1980). The changing demography of public school teachers: Some implications
for faculty turnover in urban areas. Sociology of Education, 53, 65-73.
Edgar, E. & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher attrition: It all depends on where you are
standing. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 163-170.
Elder, C. (2004). Dismissal doesn’t have to be difficult: What every administrator and supervisor
should know. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special education teacher burnout and ACT.
International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 119-131.
Fall, A. & Billingsley, B. (2011). Disparities in work conditions among early career special
educations in high and low poverty districts. Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 64-
78.
Feng, L. (2005). Hire today, gone tomorrow: The determinants of attrition among public school
teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Retrieved from http://garnet.acns. fsu.edu/-1ff6254/job_market_paper_10.pdf
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 99
France, P. C. B. (2008). Factors affecting special-education teacher retention and attrition in a
School district in Virginia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix).
Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R. (1993). The development of burn-out among special educators.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 161–170.
Fredricks, J. (2005). Why teachers leave. Education Digest, 66(8), 46-48.
Gehrke, S.R. & McCoy, K. (2007). Sustaining and retaining beginning special educators: It takes
a village. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 490-500.
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, 549-567.
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the
2012-13 teacher follow-up survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Gonzalez, L., Brown, M., & Slate, J. (2008). Teachers who left the teaching profession: A
qualitative understanding. The Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1-11.
Greiner, C.S., & Smith, B. (2006). Determining the effect of selected variables on teacher
retention. Education, 126(4), 653-659.
Griffin, C. C., Winn, J. A., Otis-Wilborn, A., & Kilgore, K. L. (2003). New teacher induction in
special education. Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Grissmer, D. W., & Kirby, S. N. (1987). Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation’s
schools. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 100
Hawaii State Department of Education Department’s Budget. (n.d.) The Department’s Budget.
Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/Organization/Budget/Pages/home.a
spx
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2013a). Employment Report. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/State%20Reports/EmploymentRep
ort2012-13.pdf
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2013b, October 2). “Hawaii public school enrollment
grows by 2,000 students – Official Enrollment Count 2013-2014.” Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/ConnectWithUs/MediaRoom/PressReleases/PagesH
awaii-public-school-enrollment-grows-by-2,000-students.aspx
Hanushek, E. A. (2007). The single salary schedule and other issues of teacher pay. Peabody
Journal of Education, 82(4), 574-586.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B., (1959, reprint 1993). The motivation to work. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Imazeki, J. (2005). Teacher salaries and attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 431-
449.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 499–534.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2008). A researcher encounters the political realm: A personal tale. Phi Delta
Kappan, 89(5), 369-371.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 101
Ingersoll, R.M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do induction and mentoring matter? National
Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28-42.
Irinaga-Bistolas, C., Schalock, M., Marvin, R., & Beck, L. (2007). Bridges to success: A
developmental induction model for rural early career special educators. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 26(1), 13-22.
Jarvis, M. (2002). Teacher stress: A critical review of recent findings and suggestions for future
research directions. Stress News, 14(1), 12-16.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain
their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.
Johnson, E., Humphrey, M., & Allred, K. (2009). Online learning and mentors: Addressing the
shortage of rural special educators through technology and collaboration. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 28(2), 17-21.
Kaff, M. (2004). Multitasking is multitaxing: Special educators are leaving the field. Preventing
School Failure, 48(2), 10-17.
Kelly, S. (2004). An even history analysis of teacher attrition: Salary, teacher tracking, and
socially disadvantaged schools. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(3), 195-220.
Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R., Deshler, D., Coleman, M.R., Rodriguez-Walling, M. (2000). Bright
futures for exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 56-69.
Levine, B. S. (2001). An examination of the factors related to the attrition and retention of
special education teachers in Cobb County, Georgia (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Alabama).
Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets: What we know and
why it matters. Education Policy Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 102
Littrel, P., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (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, 297-310.
Liu, Y., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: A multilevel analysis of the
teacher Follow-Up Survey for 1994-95. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 985-1003.
Ludlow, B. L., Conner, D., & Schechter, J. (2005). Low incidence disabilities and personnel
preparation for rural areas: Current status and future trends. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 24(3), 15-24.
Major, A. E. (2012). Job design for special education teachers. Current Issues in Education,
15(2), 1-8.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
McKnab, P., (Ed.). (1994). Special education personnel attrition in Kansas: Information on
Personnel Supply and Demand. Reston, VA: National Clearinghouse for Professions in
Special Education. Retrieved from ERIC Clearinghouse. (EC306006)
McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B.S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching
force influence the research-to-practice gap? Remedial and Special Education, 29, 293-
305.
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply and demand for special
education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special
education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 5-21.
McNellis, J. R., Miller, M. D., Smith, S. W., & Brownell, M. T. (1997). Attrition in special
education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7(3),
143-155.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 103
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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,
201-218.
Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake, G. (1995). Attrition/retention of
urban special education teachers: Multi-faced research and strategic action planning.
Final performance report, Volume 1. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction
Service. (ED338154)
Nance, E. & Calabrese, R. (2009). Special education teacher retention and attrition: The impact
of increased legal requirements. International Journal of Educational Management,
23(5), 431-440.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2007). Policy brief: The high cost of
teacher turnover. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-
Cost-of-Teacher-Turnover-2007-policy-brief.pdf
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2010). Who will teach? Experience
Matters. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Who-
Will-Teach-Experience-Matters-2010-Report.pdf
Nichols, A. S., & Sonsnowsky, F. L. (2002). Burnout among special education teachers in self
contained cross-categorical classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1),
71-86.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), 20 USC 6301 § 1-9601.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 104
O'Neil, J. (2003). Who we are, why we teach: A portrait of the American teacher. NEA Today,
22(1), 26-32.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Patterson, J., Collins, L., & Abbott, G. (2004). A study of teacher resilience in urban schools.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 3-11.
Payne, R. (2005). Special education teacher shortages: Barriers or lack of preparation? The
International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 88-91.
Plash, S., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Impact of No Child Left Behind Act in Alabama: A review.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 223-227.
Public Law 94-142. (November 29, 1975). Education of All Handicapped Children Act. 94
th
Congress. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-
89-Pg773.pdf
Public Law 94-142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, November 29, 1975.
Public Law 101-476. (October 30, 1990). Individuals with Disabilities Act.
Public Law 108-446. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
Quigney, T. (2009). The status of special education teachers at the secondary level: Effects of the
“Highly Qualified Teacher” standard. American Secondary Education, 37(2), 49-61.
Robinson Kurpius, S. E. & Stafford M. E. (2006). Testing and Measurement: A User-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Russ, S., Chiang, B., Rylance, B. J., & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special education: An
integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, 67, 161-172.
Schlichte, J., Yssel, N., & Merbler, J. (2005). Pathways to burnout: Case studies in teacher
isolation and alienation. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 35-40.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 105
Scull, J. & Winkler, A. M. (2011). Shifting trends in special education. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Sindelar, P., Brownell, M., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education
research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education,
33(1), 8-24.
Singer, J. D. (1992). Are special educators’ career paths special? Results from a 13-year
longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.
Singer, J. D. (1993). Are special educators’ career paths special? Exceptional Children, 59, 262-
279.
Singh, K. & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with
emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17,
37-47.
Smith, T. M. & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Schnorr, J. M. (1995). Teacher retention: A CSPD analysis and planning model. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 18(1), 22-38.
SPSS Inc. (2013). Statistical Package for the Social Science [computer software]. Prentice Hall.
Stronge, J., Richard, H., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Swanson, R. A., & Chermack, T. J. (2013). Theory Building in Applied Disciplines. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Texas Center for Education Research. (2000). The cost of teacher turnover. Austin, TX: Texas
State Board for Teacher Certification.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 106
Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage.
The Clearing House, 80(5), 233-238.
Tye, B. B. & L. O'Brien. (2002). Why Are Experienced Teachers Leaving the Profession? Phi
Delta Kappan, 84(1), 24-32.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). May 2014 National Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates United States. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
United States Department of Education. (2006). Frequently asked questions about No Child Left
Behind. Retrieved from http://answers.ed.gov
United States Office of Special Education Programs. (n.d.). Paperwork in special education.
Retrieved from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/Paperwork.pdf
Vorsino, M. (2010, September 7). Teacher Dropouts. Honolulu Star Advertiser. Retrieved from
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100907_teacher_dropouts.html?id=102324689
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2006). A practical proposal for special education teacher induction. Mid
Western Educational Researcher, 19(4), 20-23.
Westling, D. L. & Whitten, T. M. (1996). Rural special education teachers’ plans to continue or
leave their teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62, 319-335.
Wisniewski, L. & Gargiulo, R. M. (1997). Occupational stress and burnout among special
Educators: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325-347.
Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to
attrition. Exceptional Children, 66, 546-566.
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 107
White, M., & Mason, C. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning
special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and mentors. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 29(3), 191-201.
Worthy, J. (2005). “It didn’t have to be so hard”: The first years of teaching in an urban school.
International of Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3). 379-398.

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 108
Appendix A
Department of Education Approval Letter

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 109
Appendix B
School District Special Education Teacher Survey
Part I

1. Sex:
a. Male
b. Female

2. Ethnicity:
a. Caucasian
b. African American
c. Hispanic
d. Asian
e. Native Hawaiian
f. Mixed

3. Degree Level:
a. Less than a Bachelors
b. Bachelors
c. Masters
d. Doctorate

4. Years of Teaching Experience:
a. Less than 4 years
b. 4 to 7 years
c. 8 to 12 years
d. 13 to 20 years
e. 21 or more years

5. Current or most recent work assignment in [BLANK] Districts’ special education:
a. Elementary
b. Middle School
c. High School

6. Type of Certification
a. Special education
b. General education
c. Alternative

7. Are you currently teaching in your area of certification?
a. Yes
b. No
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 110
Part II
How satisfied are you with the way the [BLANK] District addresses each of the
following items:

For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not very satisfied
2 – Somewhat satisfied
3 – Satisfied
4 – Very Satisfied

Delivery of special education services 1 2 3 4

Variety of delivery models 1 2 3 4

Expectations regarding inclusion/collaboration 1 2 3 4

Clarification of teaching expectations 1 2 3 4

Evaluation of teaching methods 1 2 3 4

Evaluation of student outcomes 1 2 3 4

Part III
How satisfied are you with the way that your school addresses each of the following
items?

For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not very satisfied
2 – Somewhat satisfied
3 – Satisfied
4 – Very Satisfied

School vision and mission 1 2 3 4

Educational goals 1 2 3 4

Quality of education 1 2 3 4

Teacher morale 1 2 3 4

Sharing of information by local administration 1 2 3 4

Paperwork responsibilities 1 2 3 4
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 111
Part IV
Prior to your employment in the [BLANK] District, how adequate was your training
in the following areas?

For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not very adequate
2 – Somewhat adequate
3 – Adequate
4 – Very Adequate

Curriculum planning 1 2 3 4

Behavior Management techniques 1 2 3 4

Implementing modifications 1 2 3 4

Working as part of a team 1 2 3 4

Preparing Individual Education Plans (IEPs) 1 2 3 4

Conducting IEP reviews 1 2 3 4

Assessing student achievement 1 2 3 4

Writing eligibilities 1 2 3 4

Interpreting assessment results and using 1 2 3 4

Information in planning instruction

Implementing the Individuals with Disabilities 1 2 3 4

Education Act (IDEA)

Implementing the NCLB requirements 1 2 3 4
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 112
Part V
How important would be the following in your decision to terminate employment
within the [BLANK] District?

For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not very important
2 – Somewhat important
3 – Important
4 – Very Important

Relocating as a result of spouse’s job 1 2 3 4

Care of children or other family members 1 2 3 4

Pursuing graduate studies 1 2 3 4

Personal reasons 1 2 3 4

More money/better benefits elsewhere 1 2 3 4

Better working conditions elsewhere 1 2 3 4

Change of career 1 2 3 4

NCLB 1 2 3 4

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 113
Part VI
A number of issues have been identified in previous studies as contributing to a
shortage of special education teachers. FIRST, indicate whether these issues were a
problem in your last work setting as a [BLANK] District special educator.

For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not a problem
2 – Somewhat of a problem
3 – A problem
4 – Very much a problem

Lack of administrative support and guidance 1 2 3 4

Lack of administrative knowledge of special education 1 2 3 4

Lack of collegial support 1 2 3 4

Inadequate preparation or staff development 1 2 3 4

Limited opportunities to provide input 1 2 3 4

Excessive paperwork 1 2 3 4

Class size/caseload size 1 2 3 4

Inadequate planning time 1 2 3 4

Lack of parent and/or community support 1 2 3 4

Stress from demands of the job 1 2 3 4

Wide diversity of student needs 1 2 3 4

Demands associated with IDEA compliance 1 2 3 4

Demands associated with NCLB compliance 1 2 3 4

SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 114
SECOND, indicate how influential these issues were or would be on your decision to leave
your position
For each item, please use the following scale:

1 – Not very influential
2 – Somewhat influential
3 – Influential
4 – Very influential

Lack of administrative support and guidance 1 2 3 4

Lack of administrative knowledge of special education 1 2 3 4

Lack of collegial support 1 2 3 4

Inadequate preparation or staff development 1 2 3 4

Limited opportunities to provide input 1 2 3 4

Excessive paperwork 1 2 3 4

Class size/caseload size 1 2 3 4

Inadequate planning time 1 2 3 4

Lack of parent and/or community support 1 2 3 4

Stress from demands of the job 1 2 3 4

Wide diversity of student needs 1 2 3 4

Demands associated with IDEA compliance 1 2 3 4

Demands associated with NCLB compliance 1 2 3 4

Do you intend to leave the field of special education within the next 5 years?

1. Yes

2. No
SPED TEACHER ATTRITION IN HAWAII 115
Please use the space below to list any additional reasons why you would stay in the
[BLANK] District.

Please use the space below to list any additional reasons why you would leave your current
position for a general education teaching position, a different school system, or exit the
teaching profession entirely:

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Special education teacher attrition continues to be a pervasive concern throughout the nation. Researchers have determined that special educators leave the profession due to personal factors, work-related factors, and/or emotional responses to work. To date, there has been limited special educator studies conducted within Hawaii. This quantitative study examined the factors that influence special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district. Three hundred and seven special educators from the Nalu School District (a pseudonym) were surveyed. Several tests, using SPSS software, were completed to identify significant predictors of special education teacher attrition. The goal of this study was to determine special educators’ intent to leave the profession. Recommendations provided may enable Hawaii DOE officials and state education policymakers to improve special education teacher retention rates within the Hawaii DOE.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Factors influencing special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district

PDF

A wellness paradigm to attenuate attrition

PDF

The voices of teacher attrition: Perceptions of retention and turnover at an international school in Thailand

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

Understanding science and math teacher retention in Hawai‘i public schools

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

Examining mathematics anxiety and mathematics teaching self-efficacy of elementary school teachers in a Hawaii school district

PDF

The role of divisional principals in teacher retention in East African international schools

PDF

The relationship between employee value propositions and teacher employment decisions

PDF

An analysis of the rise of special education legal costs in one Southern California suburban district

PDF

Examining teacher retention and attrition in novice teachers

PDF

Online student attrition in blended learning programs

PDF

The impact of principal leadership on teacher retention in K-4 charter schools in South Los Angeles

PDF

Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

An examination of the direct/indirect measures used in the assessment practices of AACSB-accredited schools

PDF

Urban teacher persistence: self-efficacy, affect, and values

PDF

A case study analysis of high school principals' criteria in the teacher selection process

PDF

Examining the relationship between doctoral attrition and a redefined fatherhood: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Walje, John Edward (iv)

Core Title Special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school complex area

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 02/22/2016

Defense Date 01/21/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag attrition,Hawaii special education teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education,special education teacher attrition,special education teacher retention,special education teacher turnover,special education teachers,teacher attrition

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Keim, Robert (committee chair), Barber, Shelley (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email john.walje@gmail.com,waljeiv@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-210166

Unique identifier UC11278082

Identifier etd-WaljeJohnE-4123.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-210166 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WaljeJohnE-4123.pdf

Dmrecord 210166

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Walje, John Edward, IV

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA