University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Retaining special education staff in a rural consortium setting: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Retaining special education staff in a rural consortium setting: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Retaining Special Education Staff in a Rural Consortium Setting: An Evaluation Study
Andrew Schwab
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Andrew Schwab 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Andrew Schwab certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Nasser Cortez
Mike Vollmert
Darline Robles, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study used a gap analysis framework to evaluate the organizational performance related to
improving employee retention rates of certificated special education staff in a rural K–12
consortium setting. The purpose of this study was to identify the organizational influences in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization representing gaps in the ability to achieve the
organization’s goal of increasing retention of certificated special education staff. Through a
qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with members of the consortium’s advisory
committee and document analysis, the knowledge and motivation influences on the advisory
committee members’ knowing and understanding of the strategies and supports needed to
increase retention as well as the organizational influences that support or impede the
consortium’s goal were validated as assets or needs. The findings show that advisory members
need additional information, training, and assessment tools to address the gaps impeding the
organization from reaching its retention goals. Recommendations from research-based best
practices were presented in an implementation and evaluation plan utilizing a four-phased
approach to organizational change. This study begins to identify the complex challenges of
addressing special education staff retention in a rural consortium-based setting and how the
advisory committee members can respond to the identified gaps.

v
Dedication
To my two children, kid1 and kid2, I am constantly inspired by your voracious thirst for
knowledge, your boundless curiosity, and your fearlessness in the face of the unknown. When I
was in my deepest doubt with this process, you drew me back to the keyboard and glowing
screen and kept me going. I hope my finishing this journey shows you both that anything is
possible if you put your minds to it, with hard work, determination, and love.
To Pavadee, who remained my rock by my side through this long and seemingly never-ending
process. Despite the starts and stops and a global pandemic along the way, your constant
reminders and questioning of my progress got me to this day. I would never have attempted this
journey without your steadfast belief in my ability to succeed and knowing you would be there to
keep the family going through it all.
To my dad, who I know is with us in spirit. You taught me to love the art of telling stories, to
question the status quo, and to follow my own path. Thanks, Dad.
To my mom. This graduation is for you.

vi
Acknowledgments
I must first acknowledge Dr. Jacki Horejs for convincing me I should get my doctorate
and for pointing me in the direction of USC. I also must acknowledge Dr. Ana Lomas for also
believing in me and encouraging me to apply to the program. Most importantly, I have been
incredibly fortunate to have Dr. Robles guiding me through this process as my committee chair. I
cannot imagine how I would have made it through without her support and encouragement.
Through the global pandemic, transitioning into two superintendent jobs, and with some
unexpected life events along the way, Dr. Robles shepherded me through with kindness, timely
advice, and always helpful feedback. I was also fortunate to have a tremendously supportive
dissertation committee in Dr. Nasser Cortez and Dr. Mike Vollmert. I appreciate their time,
expertise, and feedback throughout this process. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Wayne
Stagnaro, who invited me to attend his Ed.D. weekend writing sessions via Zoom, which is how I
got back on track with writing Chapter 1 after COVID. CUE friends are the best friends.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................1
Organizational Performance Goal........................................................................................2
Related Literature.................................................................................................................3
Importance of the Evaluation...............................................................................................4
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ...........................................................5
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal ...........................................7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................7
Methodological Framework.................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
The National Teacher Shortage .........................................................................................10
Teacher Attrition................................................................................................................11
Teacher Retention ..............................................................................................................12
The Special Education Teacher Shortage ..........................................................................15
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................18
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................35
Conceptual and Methodological Framework.....................................................................35
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection..............................................................45

viii
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................46
Data Collection and Analysis.............................................................................................47
Trustworthiness of Data.....................................................................................................48
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................48
Limitations.........................................................................................................................48
Chapter Four: Results and Findings...............................................................................................50
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................50
Determination of Assets and Needs...................................................................................50
Results and Findings for Knowledge and Motivation Causes...........................................51
Results and Findings for Organization Causes..................................................................66
Summary of Validated Influences .....................................................................................71
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation..........................................................................74
Knowledge Recommendations ..........................................................................................74
Motivation Recommendations...........................................................................................79
Organization Recommendations........................................................................................81
Implementation and Evaluation Plan .................................................................................83
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ......................................................................90
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................90
Future Research .................................................................................................................91
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................91
References......................................................................................................................................93
Appendix A: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................103
Introduction......................................................................................................................103
Interview Questions .........................................................................................................103
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................104

ix
Appendix B: Documents Analysis Review Protocol Template ...................................................105
Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet.....................................................................106
Appendix D: Implementation Analysis and Reporting Tool Template .......................................108

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 6
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 24
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 28
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 33
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 39
Table 6: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 42
Table 7: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 44
Table 8: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the
Data 72
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 75
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 80
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 82
Table 12: Implementation Recommendations, Outcomes, and Evaluation Metrics 86
Appendix B: Documents Analysis Review Protocol Template 105

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Gap Analysis Process 36

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Since 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has required that
students with special needs receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in America’s
public schools (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The number of students qualifying for
special education services is increasing. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics (2021), the percentage of students receiving special education services in 2020–21 was
14.5%, up from 13.2% in 2015–16. In California, the state’s average annual percentage of
students receiving special education services in 2020–21 was 12.8%, up from 11.5% in 2015–16
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). While the number of students qualifying for
special education services is increasing, there is also a nationwide teacher shortage (CarverThomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Data suggest that upwards of 25% of teachers leave the
profession during their first 3 years (Boyd et al., 2008). Teachers leaving the profession impacts
districts’ ability to maintain staffing. Turnover challenges district staffing and can hinder
students’ academic outcomes (Blizard, 2021; Oketunbi & Oshinyadi, 2022). Furthermore,
Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) found that special education teachers have some
of the highest turnover rates of teacher turnover in California. School districts face continuing
pressure to hire and retain special education teachers and meet their legal obligations to provide
FAPE under IDEA.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization that is the focus of this study is the Special Education Consortium
(SEC), a pseudonym. The SEC is located between two urban regions in California and
incorporates a mix of rural and suburban communities across 1,200 square miles. The SEC is
made up of six elementary school districts and one high school district, serving approximately

2
2,000 transitional kindergarten through 12th-grade students. The SEC was founded in 2007 to
meet the seven districts’ needs in serving students who qualify for special education services.
While the consortium resembles a special education local plan area (SELPA), it is different in
that SELPAs are approved by the state and operate as compliance monitoring and oversight for
local education agencies in addition to providing services to multiple districts within their
respective areas. Compared to the local SELPA, the SEC functions as a local education agency
and provides direct services to approximately 314 students in kindergarten through 12th grade,
with 31 certificated staff supporting the member districts’ diverse student populations. The SEC
operates under a collective agreement between the member districts and is governed by an
advisory committee made up of these districts’ superintendents. The consortium’s overall
mission is to provide member districts with cost-effective, comprehensive special education
services for students through a continuum of services. To achieve this, the SEC must hire and
retain highly qualified special education staff in a competitive employment environment.
Organizational Performance Goal
The SEC’s goal is to increase the retention of certificated staff employed with the
consortium for 5 or more years to 80% by June 2026. Over the past 5 years, an average of 51%
of certificated staff have been employed with the consortium for less than 3 years. Lack of
retention, or frequent turnover, within the special education department can negatively impact
students’ educational programs (Blizard, 2021). High staff turnover can also harm a district’s
fiscal and operational health (Watlington et al., 2010). Within the consortium, the certificated
staff turnover rates have put stress on administrative staff and fiscal operations. The SEC special
education and HR/budget directors established the goal to improve retention rates after reviewing
the consortium’s retention rates over time and the effect of turnover on the consortium’s ability

3
to meet its mission. The goal will be measured through annual reviews of retention rates,
employee surveys, and staff exit interviews.
Related Literature
Staffing challenges in education are historic and persistent (Aragon, 2016). This is
particularly apparent in California. In a pre-pandemic survey of 200 school districts in the state,
Podolsky and Sutcher (2016) found that “three-quarters of the California districts surveyed by
[California School Boards Association] and [Learning Policy Institute] are struggling to find
qualified teachers” (p. 7). While Carver-Thomas et al. (2020) found that the supply and demand
ratio can vary district by district, the trend is for continued shortages in qualified teachers
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). For special education teachers, the hiring landscape is even
more challenging. According to McLeskey and Billingsley (2008), there has been a constant lack
of special education teachers. Additionally, hiring in rural areas is more of a challenge compared
to hiring in urban or suburban areas (Brownell et al., 2004). Given the chronic conditions of
hiring teachers, particularly in rural settings, teacher turnover presents challenges.
Special education turnover rates are some of the highest when compared to other
teachers. Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) projected turnover rates as high as
15.6% for special education teachers versus 10.7% for elementary teachers and 14.7% for math
and science teachers. Turnover also has fiscal implications for districts. Replacement costs for a
single teacher can exceed $20,000 (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). High turnover
rates, combined with shortages of qualified replacement teachers, result in underqualified
individuals teaching special education students (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017;
Dewey et al., 2017). The number of intern credentials, temporary permits, and waivers increased
300% in the 5 years between 2012–13 and 2017–18 (Carver-Thomas et al., 2020). In an

4
environment of high teacher turnover, understanding attrition and retention becomes important to
maintaining quality instruction.
While Billingsley and Bettini (2019) argued that retention and attrition in education make
for a complex problem, teachers’ retention rates are generally in line with similar professions
(Boe et al., 2008). Within education, considerations for special education needs are often
overshadowed by recruitment and retention policy decisions for general education staffing
(Brownell et al., 2004). General attrition factors can include salary, working conditions,
alignment with organizational values, leadership, support systems, and employee recognition
(Futernick, 2007; Gersten et al., 2001; Reitman & Karge, 2019). While approximately one-third
of special education teachers leave for roles outside education, one-third may be influenced to
stay by retention policies (Boe et al., 2008). The remaining third leaves due to retirement
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). Therefore, school districts must focus on retention policies and
best practices to retain qualified special education teachers.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance as it relates to increasing
consortium staff retention rates for a number of reasons. First, the consortium needs qualified
staff to continue to meet the federal requirements for providing FAPE to special education
students. Failure to meet FAPE requirements can result in federal program monitoring and
prescriptive interventions, which can be resource- and time-intensive to implement and oversee.
Second, the chronic teacher shortage represents a challenge to hiring replacement teachers for the
SEC. The shortages in special education teachers in rural areas further compound this challenge.
If the SEC can increase the teacher retention rate, fewer teachers will need to be hired. Third,
without understanding the factors currently influencing retention rates, the consortium will not

5
be in a position to allocate future resources effectively to meet the organizational goal. In
particular, the consortium would like to identify additional strategies for retaining certificated
special education staff. The SEC would also like to know how the superintendents advisory
committee’s (SAC) understanding of retention and its role in providing organizational support
may impact retention. Given the multiple factors at play when hiring certificated special
education staff, the SEC must address the complex issues around retaining qualified staff to
increase the retention rate of educators currently employed by the consortium.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
The SEC stakeholders include the special education director, the HR/budget director,
school principals, and the district superintendents who sit on the advisory committee. The special
education and HR/budget directors are employed by the lead district, designated as the
administrative unit (AU), for the consortium. Together with the AU’s superintendent, the special
education and HR directors are responsible for providing leadership and programming for special
education services. They are also responsible for hiring, supervising, and evaluating the special
education staff who provide services at each school site. All SEC staff are employed by the AU.
Working together with the site principals, SEC staff ensure daily service delivery and
compliance with FAPE. Principals, in turn, coordinate with the special education director to
provide site support, including facilities services, staff supervision, and parent communication.
The districts’ superintendents make up the SAC. Together, they provide leadership and
oversight on policies, programs, and funding priorities for the SEC. The advisory committee
members also provide direction to the special education director, HR/budget director, and the
AU’s superintendent on hiring, litigation, and service delivery models. The advisory committee
members also keep the member districts’ respective boards of education informed on matters

6
involving the SEC and must have enough of an understanding of operations, including staffing,
to provide timely and accurate updates to their governing bodies.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Organizational mission
The mission of the Special Education Consortium is to work collaboratively with member
districts to provide special education programs and services to individuals with exceptional
needs who reside within the districts in the valley.
Organizational performance goal
To increase the retention of certificated staff employed with the consortium for 5 or more years
to 80% by June 2026
Special education
director
By March 2024, the
special education
director will
conduct an audit of
SEC members’
knowledge and
understanding of
the current
retention strategies
and perceived
effectiveness on
staff retention.
HR/Budget director
By May 2024, the
HR/budget director
will develop a
retention plan for
the 2024-25 school
year.
School principals
By July 2024, 100%
of school principals
will implement
staff retention
strategies at their
school sites for the
2024-25 school
year.
Advisory committee
members
By June 2024, 100%
of SAC members
will know and
understand the
strategies and
supports needed to
increase retention
rates for staff.

7
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Responsibility for increasing retention of staff employed for 5 or more years to 80%
depends on many parts of the organization, from HR and the onboarding process to the special
education director and support for professional development and staff evaluation. However,
within the consortium framework, it is critical to understand the role that the SAC members play
in staff retention. As the stakeholders of focus for this study, it is important to identify the
committee member’s knowledge and understanding of staff retention. Failure to meet the
stakeholder goal of 100% of the SAC members knowing and understanding how to address
retention rates will hinder the advisory committee’s ability to make knowledgeable decisions on
budget prioritization and resource allocation as part of their oversight and administrative
responsibility. The committee members represent the decision makers for the organization.
Failure to provide appropriate resources or to make informed policy decisions to address staff
retention will result in continued challenges in meeting the goal of all SAC members knowing
and understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the organization’s performance related to
retaining the consortium’s special education employees. The analysis focused on the
organizational issues in the areas of knowledge and motivation. While a complete performance
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group for this
analysis was the members of the SAC. The following questions guided this inquiry:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation influences that impact the successful
implementation of the SEC’s goal of 100% of SAC members knowing and
understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff?

8
2. What are the organizational influences that support or impede the SEC’s goal of
100% of SAC members knowing and understanding the strategies and supports
needed to increase retention rates for staff?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practices in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
Within the context of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, I collected
qualitative data using interviews and analyzed them to evaluate the stakeholders’ understating of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to SEC staff retention. I also
analyzed the data to identify organizational factors that may affect stakeholders’ understanding
of SEC retention rates. I evaluated and provided recommendations for addressing gaps identified
in the study’s findings based on research-based solutions.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter outlined the key information
and concepts necessary to understand the context and need to retain certificated special education
staff. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap
analysis, were also introduced. A review of the literature relevant to the focus of the study is
provided in Chapter 2. Topics of special education, perceived barriers to retention, the effect of
organizational factors, and the impact of leadership on staff retention decisions are explored.
Chapter 3 details the assumed influences and methodology for selecting participants, data
collection, and analysis. In Chapter 4, the data and results from interviews and document
analysis are assessed and analyzed, and the findings are summarized. Chapter 5 provides data

9
and research-based solutions for closing the identified gaps based on the findings from Chapter
4, as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan.

10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The number of students qualifying for special education services is increasing. At the
same time, there is a shortage of qualified teachers nationwide (Carver-Thomas & DarlingHammond, 2019). Additionally, teacher turnover exceeds that of other professions, while hiring
in rural areas is even more challenging (Brownell et al., 2004). Turnover rates among special
education teachers are higher still (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). In this chapter, I will first
review the effect of the national teacher shortage on hiring. Then, I will review teacher attrition
and retention. Next, I will review the factors that influence teacher retention. I will then review
the shortage of special education teachers and the factors that influence special education teacher
retention, followed by the challenges of hiring special education teachers in rural areas. Next, I
will review the conceptual framework that guides this study. Finally, I will turn my attention to
the SAC members’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences and complete the
chapter by presenting the conceptual framework.
The National Teacher Shortage
The chronic national shortage of teachers presents several challenges for school districts
to provide high-quality student outcomes. García and Weiss (2019) identify a continued shortage
of high-quality teachers across the United States. Furthermore, the teacher shortage is real and
more prevalent than realized when accounting for high-needs areas and teacher qualifications
(García & Weiss, 2019). The supply and demand of teachers is also tied to economic cycles
(Wiggan et al., 2021). According to Wiggan et al. (2021), during times of economic busts,
people go into teaching, and during economic booms, teachers leave teaching for higher-paying
professions. Aragon (2016) also identified teacher preparation program participation as cyclical;

11
however, when viewed over the long term, there is an overall decline. Darling-Hammond et al.
(2018) found that shortages are due to a decreased inflow of new teachers into the profession.
All shortages are not created equal. Earley and Ross (2006) identify the teacher shortage
as depending on local, regional, and national factors. For example, shortages affect hiring
differently across the United States, with states in the Southwest having higher difficulty filling
teacher positions than states in the Midwest (Murphy et al., 2003). Rural schools are also more
likely to experience shortages (Aragon, 2016). Not all teachers are created equal. One of the
other local factors identified is the availability of teachers in the specialization being sought
(Earley & Ross, 2006). Both Darling-Hammond et al. (2018) and Aragon (2016) found that the
shortages in math, science, and special education teachers are more severe. An understanding of
the teacher shortage problem in school districts would not be complete without an understanding
of teacher attrition.
Teacher Attrition
Teacher attrition rates can impact demand for teachers in a chronic environment of
teacher shortages. However, while teacher attrition contributes to turnover, it is not always a bad
thing (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Schools want to retain high-quality teachers while
turning over ineffective teachers. Turnover due to involuntary or non-renewal accounted for an
average of 27% of the turnover of beginning teachers between 2008-2012 (Gray & Taie, 2015).
According to Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019), between 2016 and 2018, 9% of
teachers left public school teaching, and 3% moved from one school to another within the same
district for a total turnover rate of 12%. The rate of teachers leaving grew to 16% in 2019
(Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019). This loss has produced an increase in substandard
credentials, interns, permits, and waivers, representing half of all new credentials issued in

12
California (Carver-Thomas et al., 2020). Attrition can be mitigated by addressing the root causes
of teacher turnover (Brill & McCartney, 2008), which can be understood through teacher
retention.
Teacher Retention
Mitigating attrition and retaining high-quality teachers in an environment of teacher
shortages is critical to addressing those shortages (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Nationally, new teacher supply is not keeping up with the attrition rates of teachers in special
education and STEM fields (Goldhaber et al., 2015). Additionally, there is a financial incentive
for districts to retain teachers. Employee turnover is expensive, costing the district 30% to 50%
of an employee’s annual salary (Laddha et al., 2012). Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond
(2019) said,
Retaining teachers requires a comprehensive approach that ensures teachers are well
prepared for the challenges of teaching, compensates them adequately for their labor, and
provides the teaching and learning environments that support their growth and help them
to be effective. (p. 17)
Retaining special education teachers in today’s environment is a multifaceted challenge.
Factors of Teacher Retention
A number of factors contribute to teachers’ retention. One of the primary factors
identified consistently is salaries (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Ingersoll, 2003).
However, non-salary factors also play a role. Reitman and Karge (2019) identified six additional
factors for teacher retention beyond salaries: (a) relationships, (b) knowledge of pedagogy, (c)
perceptions of competence, (d) mentoring, (e) learning, and (f) reflection. Brill and McCartney
(2008) identified a lack of support as a primary factor in teacher attrition. Carver-Thomas and

13
Darling-Hammond (2017) also identified administrative support as a key factor in retention. The
following sections will explore factors affecting retention.
Salary
Addressing retention through salary is not as simple as increasing salaries. At a basic
level, the beginning salary level for new teachers can be an indicator of turnover and negatively
impact a district’s ability to fill teacher vacancies (Loeb & Luczak, 2013). Particularly for special
education, the single salary schedule, where there is one schedule for all teachers regardless of
credential, can also be problematic when trying to retain difficult-to-fill positions (Goldhaber et
al., 2015). However, large increases are needed to improve retention (Brill & McCartney, 2008;
Imazeki, 2005). One exception to increased salaries is that recruiting incentives may improve
retention (Steele et al., 2010). Overall, while higher salaries are important, if other factors are not
addressed, then higher salaries alone will not improve retention (Futernick, 2007). Beyond
salaries, the next key factor in retention is support.
Support
Support is a key factor in retention, and administrative support is one of the central
variables that affect a teacher’s decision to stay (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019).
Support can come in many forms. Providing staff development, hiring additional support staff,
approving extended leaves, and involving teachers in leadership and decision making that affect
the working environment are all forms of supporting teachers (Bland et al., 2016). Teacher
leadership participation and involvement in the decision-making process can increase belonging
and commitment to the organization (Aguenza & Som, 2018). Brill and McCartney (2008)
identified that providing mentoring and induction programs can develop teachers’ leadership
opportunities and help retain them.

14
In addition, providing support for new teachers and professional development in the first
5 years of their careers can affect retention (Reitman & Karge, 2019). Training and development
can also provide sustained support over a teaching career (Cloutier et al., 2015). There is also a
need for induction programs that address demographic factors due to the number of younger
teachers and teachers with less experience leaving the profession (Flynt & Morton, 2009). For
millennials, in particular, district-provided support is expected. A supportive work environment
that provides career growth and professional development drives millennials’ career expectations
(Aruna & Anitha, 2015). Millennials also expect support through recognition. Recognition
systems with rewards that reinforce organizational goals lead to higher job satisfaction, which
promotes retention (Laddha et al., 2012). Other factors, such as relationships and collegiality, can
increase retention.
Relationships and Collegiality
The first opportunity for an organization to form a relationship with an employee is
during recruiting. To retain teachers, Bland et al. (2016) found that the initial placement within a
school site when recruiting teachers was important to retention. New teachers must have a good
fit with the values and mission of the organization (Bland et al., 2016). Additionally, to build
positive relationships, they must be surrounded by competent and experienced peers (Cloutier et
al., 2015). Fitting in by establishing collegiality with peers within the work environment can
lower attrition and improve retention (Abdallah, 2009; Zeffane, 1994). While relationships and
collegiality are important, ultimately, establishing the conditions to support retention within an
organization is driven by leadership.

15
Leadership
Leaders must make conscious efforts to focus on factors that improve retention. Leaders
are specifically in positions to create environments of trust and include employees in decision
making (Aguenza & Som, 2018). Similarly, according to Finnigan (2012), effective principals
set the stage for establishing a successful school culture by establishing trust and expectations for
teachers and students. By establishing a positive school culture, principals create working
conditions that encompass many of the factors that teachers evaluate when deciding to stay or go
(Gersten et al., 2001). A meta-analysis of 131 studies found that retention is directly related to an
employee’s perception of their supervisors’ effectiveness (Grissom, 2012). Additionally,
Grissom (2012) identified that effective leadership, when paired with employee participation in
decision making, improves retention, and Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) found
that effective school leadership can mitigate the effect of teacher dissatisfaction, which can lead
to turnover. Leaders can also provide a high level of faculty autonomy and decision making to
reduce turnover (Ingersoll, 2001). Leaders can address future shortages by focusing on
alternative pathways, such as growing their own special education teachers from current staff
(Bland et al., 2016). While leadership has a tremendous impact on the conditions that affect
teacher retention, the special education teacher shortage represents additional challenges.
The Special Education Teacher Shortage
The shortages in special education teachers are higher than for general education teachers
and can be particularly challenging for school districts, given the specialized skills required to
educate students with special needs. Ingersoll (2003) found that special education teachers have
higher turnover rates than their social studies and English peers at 14.5% compared to 12.4% and
9.4%, respectively. There is also a complex relationship between local, state, and federal levels

16
of education when it comes to special education, which further complicates the teacher shortage
in this field (Petek, 2019). While Dewey et al. (2017) found a decline in the overall demand for
special education teachers from 2005 to 2012, 80% of districts in California reported an increase
in teacher shortages since 2013–14 and are filling vacancies with teachers who are less than fully
credentialed, particularly in math, science, and special education (Podolsky & Sutcher, 2016).
The future outlook is also a concern for districts, as the supply of special education teachers is
shrinking (Podolsky & Sutcher, 2016).
While there is a need for both quality and quantity of teachers to meet the increasing
numbers of special education students, there is a lack of alternative routes to certification in this
area (Boe, 2006). The need for qualified teachers extends to faculty needed to staff teacher
preparation programs as well (Evans et al., 2005). Systemic reform is necessary to recruit and
retain special education teachers nationally (Brownell et al., 2004). An analysis of 49,000 special
education teachers found that the lack of fully qualified teachers was driven by turnover and poor
working conditions (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Similarly, Futernick (2007) found that
these teachers leave due to lack of support, complicated regulatory requirements, challenges in
working conditions, and relationship issues with their general education peers. Ingersoll (2001)
found that teachers leave smaller schools at higher rates, in part due to less administrative
support, higher overall turnover, and higher levels of student discipline.
The Special Education Teacher Shortage in Rural Areas
Hiring special education teachers in rural areas presents additional challenges when
compared with urban and suburban school districts, given the remote nature and limited
resources of rural school districts. Theobald (1991) projected a lack of qualified special
education teachers in rural areas with an increase in special education students. The population

17
of diverse learners in rural communities is increasing while the shortage of special education
teachers is persistent. Rural areas now report higher shortages than their suburban peers, and the
shortages are worse in special education (Podolsky & Sutcher, 2016). A study by Cegelka and
Alvarado (2000) in a rural region of the Western United States found increased retention using
alternative pathways to credentials with support through a university-district partnership.
Teaching in rural areas is based on community appreciation and personal commitment to
education (Sindelar et al., 2018). Suggested strategies for addressing shortages in rural areas
include online professional development, online mentoring, and remote supervision (Sindelar et
al., 2018). Additionally, rural areas are diverse, and one-size-fits-all solutions for retention may
need tailoring for the particular rural community (Rude & Miller, 2018). In addition to
considering rural issues, considerations have to be taken into account when addressing the
retention of special education teachers.
Retaining Special Education Teachers
Retaining special education staff presents additional challenges to retaining teachers in
general education. Special education teacher shortages are particularly susceptible to the
increased demand and accountability needed to provide FAPE for students with special needs
(Thornton et al., 2007). Special education classrooms are also stressful working environments for
teachers, which adds to the problem of working conditions and teacher retention (Landsbergis et
al., 2018). An example of working conditions specific to special education is the volume of
required paperwork associated with maintaining IDEA compliance (Gersten et al., 2001).
Teachers are more likely to leave because of a lack of support and a lack of collaboration
between special education and general education teachers (Futernick, 2007).

18
Poor working conditions resulting in a lack of collaboration between teachers can be
alleviated with support from principals or peer teachers (Gersten et al., 2001). Gersten et al.
(2001) found that teacher autonomy and collegial support are also key in combating stress and
enhancing working conditions. Additionally, in a study of 40,000 teachers, longer internships
and a better understanding of teacher preparation programs in how to support teachers in special
education classrooms helped with retention (Sindelar et al., 2018). Incentives used to increase
retention and recruitment are more often associated with high-performing and urban districts
(Strunk & Zeehandelaar, 2011). However, rural districts may need to consider offering
incentives to be competitive (Steele et al., 2010). In addition to incentives, pay differentials are
another strategy to consider for improving special education staff retention (Goldhaber et al.,
2015).
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) conceptual framework provides a lens for assessing
organizational problems from the perspective of an organization’s current state compared to the
desired state (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is often referred to as the gap analysis framework. Within
the framework, Clark and Estes called for identifying specific performance goals that are used to
assess how far apart the organization’s current state is from the desired state. Knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences are considered when evaluating the performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study evaluated the SEC’s goal to increase the retention of
certificated staff employed with the consortium for 5 or more years to 80% by June 2026 using
the gap analysis framework. In this study, the gap analysis framework served to evaluate the
current status of the stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, as
outlined in the following section.

19
Knowledge and Skills
Organizational change requires an understanding of the skills and knowledge necessary
to overcome the barriers that may be preventing the organization from reaching a goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Similarly, Rueda (2011) identified knowledge gaps as one of the three dimensions
that impact achievement. Within the knowledge influence, Krathwohl (2002) defined four
distinct types that drive organizational change: (a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d)
metacognitive. This evaluation study also explored the knowledge and skills the advisory
committee members require to support the organization’s goal to increase the retention of
certificated staff employed with the consortium.
Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences
Declarative factual knowledge is basic foundational information, such as facts, needed to
make informed decisions (Krathwohl, 2002). Given the unique nature of the consortium’s
cooperative structure, advisory committee members need to know the factual information related
to the consortium’s operational structure and purpose to carry out their advisory role.
Additionally, they need to know the factors that can impact retention in order to support the
organization’s goal of improving retention among certificated staff.
Declarative Factual Influence: Advisory Committee Members Know the Structure
and Mission of the Consortium. Local working conditions affect teacher retention (Billingsley
& Bettini, 2019; McHenry-Sorber & Campbell, 2019), and establishing a positive work
environment can aid in retaining employees (Brill & McCartney, 2008). Similarly, teachers are
less likely to leave a position if they believe in their organization’s mission and values (Zeffane,
1994). The SEC operates as a collection of school districts that have come together for a
common purpose of providing their special education students with FAPE. The individual

20
districts provide guidance and oversight, while the district that serves as the AU operationalizes
services based on guidance from the advisory committee. Individual member districts also play a
critical role in implementing services, as the students and staff are located on school campuses
run by the member districts. Understanding the consortium’s mission, as well as the operational
structure specified in the cooperative agreement, is important for the advisory committee
members to establish a positive work environment aligned with common goals (Krathwohl,
2002). Advisory committee members also need to know the different factors that contribute to
and affect retention.
Declarative Factual Influence: Advisory Committee Members Know the Factors
That Impact Retention. A number of factors contribute to retaining educators. These include
salaries and benefits, mentoring, professional development, job satisfaction, general working
conditions, administrative support, and condition of facilities (Aruna & Anitha, 2015; CarverThomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000; Futernick, 2007; Gersten et al.,
2001; Strunk & Zeehandelaar, 2011). Some of these factors, such as salary and benefits, are
within the AU’s direct control. Other factors are within the direct control of the member districts,
such as facilities and working conditions. Still other factors are the responsibility of both the AU
and the individual member districts, such as professional development. To make informed
decisions about how to affect these factors within the organizational structure of the consortium
model, advisory committee members must first know what they are (Krathwohl, 2002).
Declarative Factual Influence: Advisory Committee Members Know What the
Consortium Is Currently Doing to Improve Retention. A lack of administrative support
hinders teacher retention (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Retention practices, as
they relate to the area of personnel, are established by the AU. Administrative support for

21
creating conditions that promote positive job satisfaction (Aguenza & Som, 2018) and engage
staff in decision making (Bland et al., 2016) contribute to positive work environments and higher
retention rates (Aruna & Anitha, 2015; Futernick, 2007). The AU is responsible for hiring,
training, and evaluating consortium employees and has plans in place to address retention. To be
in a position to evaluate the organization’s response to retention, the advisory committee
members need to know the AU’s policies, practices, and systems that contribute to a positive,
supportive environment for teachers (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
Conceptual Knowledge Influences
Advisory committee members not only need to know basic facts, but they also need to
know how different organizational roles and responsibilities relate to one another (Krathwohl,
2002). The consortium’s cooperative agreement defines how the seven districts collaborate to
carry out the organization’s mission. To support the organization’s goal of improving retention,
the advisory committee members need to understand their role in the organization as well as how
retention is currently being addressed within the organizational structure of the consortium
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Conceptual Influence: Advisory Committee Members Understand Their Role Under
the Cooperative Agreement. According to the cooperative agreement, advisory committee
members “advise the Consortium’s Director of Special Education on program management and
procedures, including make recommendations regarding any amendments to this Agreement,
membership considerations, budgetary and financial matters, and the necessity of an
improvement plan.” To effectively support the organizational goal of increasing retention,
advisory committee members need to understand their role under the SEC cooperative agreement
(Krathwohl, 2002).

22
Conceptual Influence: Advisory Committee Members Know What Retention
Factors Fall Under the Responsibility of the Administrative Unit, the Individual Districts,
or Are Shared As It Relates to the Goal of Improving Retention Rates. Salary is one of the
most cited factors in teacher retention (Aruna & Anitha, 2015; Brill & McCartney, 2008; Gersten
et al., 2001; Reitman & Karge, 2019). In the consortium model, the salary for special education
teachers is based on the AU salary schedule and may differ substantially from the individual
district’s salary schedules. Individual districts have no direct ability to increase salary and must,
therefore, work within the framework of the cooperative agreement to address gaps related to
salary and retention. Similarly, teaching conditions at school sites are an important factor in
retention (McLeskey et al., 2004). However, teaching conditions are influenced by individual site
leadership, which is under the direction of the member district superintendents and outside the
scope of the AU’s operational responsibilities.
Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something as opposed to knowing what
should be done (Ambrose et al., 2010; Krathwohl, 2002). Once the advisory committee members
understand basic facts and concepts, they then need to understand the process for implementing
the steps required to achieve the goal (Rueda, 2011). Understanding how the steps are evaluated
is also important. A clearly defined accountability system is necessary to monitor progress
toward the desired outcome (Dowd, 2005). Accountability within organizations is contextual
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). According to Grubb and Badway (2005), accountability can
be imposed internally but also from external sources.
Procedural Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Know How to Hold
Themselves and Consortium Staff Accountable to Meeting Retention Goals. In the structural

23
context of the consortium, accountability is more complex compared to within a single
organization. The consortium includes both internal accountability through the individual
member districts and external accountability through the SAC (Grubb & Badway, 2005). For
advisory committee members, understanding how accountability works within the context of the
cooperative agreement model, for both the AU and member districts, is necessary to understand
how to effectively support the organizational goal of increasing retention (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004).
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Know How to
Reflect on How They Collaborate With Consortium Staff and School Leadership to Meet
the Consortium’s Retention Goals
Metacognitive knowledge is the ability to reflect on one’s knowledge and understanding
and adjust to or learn as necessary to meet a desired outcome (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
To close the gap between the existing state of the organization and the desired state, individuals
must understand, assess, and reflect on their role in influencing change within the organization
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Certificated staff are shared across the consortium’s districts. The SAC members need to
effectively collaborate with both consortium staff and school leadership to ensure that factors
that affect retention are being addressed at both levels. The ability to reflect on how well they are
collaborating and to adapt their collaboration as necessary based on changing needs across the
consortium is important to supporting the organization’s goal of improving retention among
certificated staff (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Table 2 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.

24
Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Declarative factual
Advisory committee members need to know
the structure and mission of the consortium.
Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Brill &
McCartney, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002;
McHenry-Sorber & Campbell, 2019;
Zeffane, 1994
Advisory committee members know the
factors that impact retention.
Aruna & Anitha, 2015; Brill & McCartney,
2008; Carver-Thomas & DarlingHammond, 2017; Cegelka & Alvarado,
2000; Futernick, 2007; Gersten et al., 2001;
Krathwohl, 2002; Reitman, & Karge, 2019;
Strunk & Zeehandelaar, 2011
Advisory committee members need to know
what the consortium is currently doing to
improve retention.
Aguenza & Som, 2018; Aruna & Anitha
2015; Bland et al., 2016; Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; Clark & Estes,
2008; Futernick, 2007; Krathwohl, 2002
Declarative conceptual
Advisory committee members understand
their role under the cooperative agreement.
Krathwohl, 2002
Advisory committee members need to know
what retention factors fall under the
responsibility of the AU, the individual
districts, or are shared as it relates to the
goal of improving retention rates.
Aruna & Anitha, 2015; Brill & McCartney,
2008; Gersten et al., 2001; McLeskey et al.,
2004; Reitman & Karge, 2019
Procedural
Advisory committee members need to know
how to hold themselves and consortium
staff accountable.
Grubb & Badway, 2005; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004
Metacognitive
Advisory committee members need to know
how to reflect on how they collaborate with
Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda 2011

25
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
consortium staff and school leadership to
meet the consortium’s retention goal.
Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) identified motivation as another area to explore for gaps in
organizational performance. Whereas knowledge and skills are the influencers for how to
change, motivation is what influences the willingness to change (Rueda, 2011). Motivation has
three distinct components that can be evaluated: active choice, mental effort, and persistence
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
General Theory
Active choice occurs when individuals know how to do something and decide to take
action to effect change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Mental effort refers to the amount of mental
energy and time spent engaged in the work required to complete a task, such as the acquisition of
new skills or knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, persistence measures the ability to
complete a task once it has been started (Clark & Estes, 2008). An individual with low
motivation may decide not to initiate a task or, once initiated, not dedicate sufficient mental
effort to completing the task. If the effort is there but the persistence is lacking, the individual
may procrastinate, and the task may fail to be completed due to lack of follow through. In
contrast, a high level of motivation successfully incorporates all three factors to accomplish tasks
that attain the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).

26
Stakeholder/Topic-Specific Factors
Motivation can further be categorized into different constructs based on individual
behavior. First, value plays an important role in motivation. Advisory committee members must
value the outcome to be motivated to pursue it (Pintrich, 2003). Committee members’ beliefs in
their own abilities also play a role. Advisory committee members must believe that they are
capable of performing the task or achieving a desired outcome (Bandura, 1997, 2012). Second,
when considering stakeholder self-efficacy, social cognitive theory considers the interplay
among environment, individual beliefs, and behaviors (Bandura, 2012). The shared responsibility
of the collective agreement under the consortium model is a key environmental factor
influencing committee members’ motivation. Third, self-assessing one’s effectiveness operating
within the consortium model is another key factor influencing committee member’s motivation
(Pajares, 1996, 2003). Attribution theory focuses on analyzing personal effort as it relates to
performance once a task or action has been completed (Anderman & Anderman, 2009).
Advisory committee members must believe that their efforts will contribute to the desired
outcome (Anderman & Anderman, 2009), and they must regularly assess the impact of their
decisions to determine their effectiveness (Pajares, 1996, 2003). Therefore, this evaluation study
explored the motivational areas of value, self-efficacy, and attribution the advisory committee
members require to support the organization’s goal to increase certificated staff retention.
Value Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Value the SAC’s Common Mission of
Providing Special Education Services to All Students in the Consortium
The SAC has a common mission of providing special education services to all students in
the consortium. The shared responsibility and shared costs model represent a value benefit to the
small rural districts in the consortium that otherwise would be challenged to provide special

27
education services independently (Bland et al., 2016). It is important for SAC members to
believe that participation in the consortium will achieve positive outcomes for individual
member districts (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). If advisory committee members do not see value in
the mission of a shared responsibility of services for all students, then the motivation to address
the issue of staff retention within the consortium agreement may be lacking (Pintrich, 2003). In
addition to valuing the mission of the SAC, advisory committee members must also have
confidence in their own abilities.
Self-Efficacy Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Have Confidence That They
Can Make Informed Decisions Related to Staff Retention Within the Consortium Agreement
Framework
The committee members must believe in the ability of their leadership skills to achieve
the SAC’s mission (Bandura, 2000). Maintaining staffing levels of high-quality certificated
teachers in a rural setting depends on informed leadership (Bland et al., 2016). The advisory
committee members need to have confidence in their ability to make informed decisions based
on having accurate, relevant, and timely information (Mayer, 2011). In addition to being
confident in making informed decisions, advisory committee members must also recognize that
their actions affect staff retention.
Attribution Influence: Advisory Committee Members Attribute Staff Retention Performance to
Their Actions
Staff retention is a complex problem with many factors (Kossivi et al., 2016). Addressing
this problem within the context of the consortium’s shared model of responsibility is additionally
complex. Given the complexity of the environment, leadership plays a significant role in
implementing actions that can positively impact retention (Aguenza & Som, 2018; Grissom,

28
2012). Advisory committee members need to recognize that their actions on the committee will
affect the AU’s staff retention rates (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Positive feedback is an
effective tool in reinforcing individual motivation as the advisory committee member’s actions
are implemented (Pajares, 1996, 2003).
Table 3 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.
Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Value
Advisory committee members need to value
the SAC’s common mission of providing
special education services to all students in
the consortium.
Bland et al., 2016; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000
Self-Efficacy
Advisory committee members need to have
confidence that they can make informed
decisions related to staff retention.
Bandura, 2000; Bland et al., 2016; Mayer
2011
Attribution
Advisory committee members attribute staff
retention performance to their actions.
Aguenza & Som, 2018; Anderman &
Anderman, 2009; Grissom, 2012; Pajares,
1996, 2003

29
Organization
Organizational structures contain knowledge and motivation influences. Gaps in
organizational resources and cultural influences play an interconnected role in affecting change
and goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Resources within the gap analysis framework refer to
things like time, information, and funding and are generally constrained (Clark & Estes, 2008).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), resources must be accessible to those who need them, and
the resources must also be aligned with the organization’s goals. Leaders need accurate
information in order to assess whether sufficient resources exist and are aligned effectively
(Mezirow, 1997, 2000). Having information to make informed decisions is not sufficient for
successful change. The organization’s culture may also pose barriers to change. When leaders
are not focused on outcomes, they may promote a culture that can inhibit change (Schein &
Schein, 2017). When leaders’ focus is properly aligned with the desired outcome, the culture of
an organization can be leveraged to support change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein & Schein,
2017). Culture can further be categorized into models and settings. Cultural models refer to the
shared understandings about how people behave within organizations, and cultural settings are
the structures within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings such as
staff meetings, annual performance reviews, and teacher break rooms create settings where
people interact. How people interact in cultural settings defines the norms and values of the
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Several organizational factors influence
certificated staff retention within organizations.
Stakeholder/Topic-Specific Factors
Several studies have identified effective leadership as contributing to the conditions that
increase staff retention (Aguenza & Som, 2018; Bland et al., 2016). The SAC members provide

30
leadership and direction to the AU as well as to their individual school districts. Effectively
managing change within an organization requires leaders to make informed decisions (Schein &
Schein, 2017). Committee members need resources in the form of regular status reports from the
AU staff to make informed decisions. Leaders also need to understand the context of the problem
of retention within the organization’s culture when making decisions (Schein & Schein, 2017).
Consortium staff are employed by the AU; however, staff may be assigned to multiple school
sites within the consortium. Staff may also move between school sites and across different
member districts during the school year. As a result, staff may experience different shared
expectations and operational structures as they move between the different work settings
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Therefore, this evaluation study explored organizational
influences of resources, cultural models, and cultural settings required by the advisory committee
members to support the organization’s goal.
Resources Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need Timely and Accurate Information
on Consortium Funding, Hiring Practices, and Existing Support for Employee Retention
Advisory committee members set policy and direction for the consortium, including
funding priorities and staffing decisions, that directly impact the working conditions of
employees. Informed leadership is important to maintaining staffing levels in rural settings
(Bland et al., 2016). From onboarding and training to professional development and evaluation,
advisory committee members need information about current practices to improve retention in
order to make informed decisions on what changes need to be made to current practice
(Mezirow, 1997, 2000).

31
Resources Influence: Advisory Committee Members Receive the Necessary Training and
Support to Fulfill Their Roles
The cooperative agreement defines the organizational structure and operational
conditions of the consortium. Maintaining operational consistency requires systems that support
leadership onboarding and team building within the organization (Schein & Schein, 2017).
Advisory committee members may not have prior experience with overseeing special education,
hiring staff, or leading in a shared governance model. They also need training in the factors that
influence retention as well as on the consortium agreement and special education requirements to
fulfill their roles as leaders of the consortium (Aguenza & Som, 2018; Bland et al., 2016;
Mezirow, 1997, 2000).
Cultural Models Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Understand How the
School Climate Impacts Retention
Working conditions play an important role in teachers’ decision making when evaluating
whether to stay in a job (Aruna & Anitha, 2015; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Several factors
make up working conditions for certificated staff. Support from school leadership is a factor in
deciding to stay in a teaching position (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). School
culture plays an important role in special education teachers’ perceived level of support in their
job (Gersten et al., 2001). Teachers are more likely to feel supported when they work in a climate
that provides emotional support from their peers and administrators (Abdallah, 2009; Ingersoll,
2001). Because AU staff may work at one or more school sites and may experience different
school cultures, working conditions, and employee expectations, it is important for advisory
committee members to understand school climate’s impact on retention.

32
Cultural Setting Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Understand How the
Consortium’s Employment Structure Impacts Staff Collegiality
Administrative unit staff may work on one or more school sites with unique leadership
styles, shared expectations, and different operational structures that together create working
conditions that can affect retention (Gersten et al., 2001). Futernick (2007) found that collegiality
is one area of working conditions that contributes to job satisfaction. Teachers want to work with
teachers who they feel support them and create a positive working environment (Abdallah,
2009). Because AU staff may work on one or more school sites with different staff members, it
is important for SAC members to understand the consortium’s employment structure and any
possible impact on collegiality.
Table 4 shows the stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.

33
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Resources
Advisory committee members need timely
and accurate information on consortium
funding, hiring practices, and existing
support for employee retention.
Bland et al., 2016; Mezirow, 1997, 2000
Advisory committee members receive the
necessary training and support to fulfill
their roles.
Aguenza & Som, 2018; Bland et al., 2016;
Mezirow, 1997, 2000; Schein, 2004
Cultural models
Advisory committee members need to
understand how the school climate impacts
retention.
Abdallah, 2009; Aguenza & Som, 2018;
Aruna & Anitha,2015; Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; Gersten et al.,
2001; Ingersoll, 2001; Laddha et al., 2012;
McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008
Cultural settings
Advisory committee members need to
understand how the consortium’s
employment structure impacts staff
collegiality.
Abdallah, 2009; Futernick 2007; Gersten et
al., 2001
The literature review outlined the SEC’s organizational challenge in the context of the
national teacher retention problem. Several factors that impact teacher retention were also
identified. The review then explored the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
related to the SEC’s goal of increasing retention for certificated staff. Using Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis framework, in the next chapter, the information from the literature review

34
will be used to identify gaps in the influences of the SAC members necessary to support the
organization’s goal of increasing the retention of certificated staff employed with the consortium.

35
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the organization’s performance related to
consortium special education staff retention rates. The analysis focused on the organizational
issues in the areas of knowledge and motivation. While a complete performance evaluation
would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group for this analysis
was the members of the SEC SAC. The following questions guided the inquiry:
1. What are the knowledge and motivation influences that impact the successful
implementation of the SEC’s goal of 100% of SAC members knowing and
understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff?
2. What are the organizational influences that support or impede the SEC’s goal of
100% of SAC members knowing and understanding the strategies and supports
needed to increase retention rates for staff?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practices in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The gap analysis framework provides a structure for assessing organizational problems
from the perspective of the organization’s current state compared to the desired state (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The difference in organizational states is referred to as the gap that needs to be
addressed. To bridge the gap, Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework identifies root causes and
breaks down potential areas for study and improvement into knowledge, motivation, and
organization (KMO). According to Clark and Estes (2008), specific knowledge, in the form of
information and skills, is required to achieve desired outcomes. In addition to knowing how to do
something, a high level of motivation, defined as active choice, mental effort, and persistence, is

36
also required (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, the framework defines potential organizational
influences that may be impeding progress toward closing the gap as either related to materials,
processes, or culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Once identified, the gap analysis framework then
calls for recommended solutions and an evaluation plan to assess the impact on closing the gaps.
Figure 1 outlines the evaluative process for identifying and assessing the gaps for improvement
in the KMO influences.
Figure 1
The Gap Analysis Process

37
This study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework to identify and evaluate
gaps in KMO influences related to the SAC members, as outlined in Chapter 2, that may be
impacting the organization’s ability to achieve the goal of increasing retention of certificated
special education staff. The results of the evaluative study were used to develop an evaluation
plan with recommended solutions for addressing identified gaps in the KMO influences.
Knowledge Assessment
Organizational change requires an understanding of the knowledge and skills necessary
to affect change within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002) defined four
distinct knowledge types that drive organizational change: (a) factual, (b) conceptual, (c)
procedural, and (d) metacognitive. The study assessed the gaps in the knowledge influences of
the SAC members as outlined in Chapter 2. The identified knowledge gaps were addressed
through the development of an evaluation plan.
Factual Knowledge Assessment
Declarative factual knowledge is basic foundational information, such as facts, needed to
make informed decisions (Krathwohl, 2002). Advisory committee members need a basic
understanding of how the consortium functions as well as the factors that impact retention.
Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed the SAC member’s basic
understanding of the consortium’s mission, as well as the operational structure specified in the
cooperative agreement. Interviews were also used to identify the SAC member’s knowledge of
the different factors that contribute to and affect the retention of certificated special education
staff.

38
Conceptual Knowledge Assessment
Advisory committee members not only need to know basic facts, but they also need to
know how different organizational roles and responsibilities relate to one another (Krathwohl,
2002). Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed the SAC members’
understanding of their role in the consortium as well as how retention is currently being
addressed by the different member districts within the consortium’s organizational structure.
Procedural Knowledge Assessment
Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something as opposed to knowing what
should be done (Ambrose et al., 2010; Krathwohl, 2002). In addition to understanding what the
consortium model is and their role in it, SAC members must also know how to hold each other
accountable. Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed the advisory
committee members’ understanding of how accountability works within the context of the
cooperative agreement model for both the AU and member districts.
Metacognitive Knowledge Assessment
Metacognitive knowledge is the ability to reflect on one’s knowledge and understanding
and then adjust to or learn as necessary to meet a desired outcome (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed the SAC members’ ability
to reflect on how effectively they collaborate with both consortium staff and school leadership to
ensure that factors affecting retention are being addressed at both levels.

39
Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed knowledge
influences
Interview items Document
Declarative factual
Advisory committee
members need to know the
structure and mission of
the consortium.
Describe the structure and
mission of the consortium.
Consortium cooperative
agreement
Advisory committee
members know the factors
that impact retention
What factors impact
certificated special
education staff retention?
Advisory committee
members need to know
what the consortium is
currently doing to improve
retention.
What is the consortium
currently doing to improve
staff retention?
Employee handbook,
professional development
plan, salary schedule,
operational handbook
Declarative conceptual
Advisory committee
members understand their
role under the cooperative
agreement.
What is your role as an
advisory committee
member under the
cooperative agreement?
Consortium cooperative
agreement
Advisory committee
members need to know
what retention factors fall
under the responsibility of
the AU, the individual
districts or are shared as it
relates to the goal of
improving retention rates.
What retention factors fall
under the responsibility of
the AU, the individual
districts, or are shared by
both?
Consortium cooperative
agreement, monthly SAC
agenda packets, operational
handbook
Procedural
Advisory committee
members need to know
how to hold themselves
and consortium staff
accountable.
Describe how committee
members hold each other
and consortium staff
accountable.
Cooperative agreement, SAC
Meeting Agendas

40
Assumed knowledge
influences
Interview items Document
Metacognitive
Advisory committee
members need to know
how to reflect on how they
collaborate with
consortium staff and
school leadership to meet
the consortium’s retention
goal.
Describe how you reflect on
the collaboration between
your school leadership and
consortium staff as it
relates to staff retention.
SAC meeting agendas, monthly
meeting notes with special
education director
Motivation Assessment
In addition to assessing gaps in knowledge and skills, Clark and Estes (2008) identified
motivation as another area to explore for gaps in organizational performance. Whereas
knowledge and skills are the influencers for how to change, motivation is what influences the
willingness to change (Rueda, 2011). To be motivated to implement change, SAC members must
value the outcome (Pintrich, 2003). The SAC members must also believe that they are capable of
implementing the change (Bandura, 1997, 2012). Additionally, SAC members must believe that
achieving the desired outcome will be attributed to their efforts (Anderman & Anderman, 2009).
The study assessed the gaps in the motivational areas of value, self-efficacy, and attribution
influences of the SAC members, as outlined in Chapter 2. The identified motivation influence
gaps were then addressed through the development of an evaluation plan.
Value Assessment
To address gaps in the organization, advisory committee members need to see value in
the shared mission of the consortium to provide services for all students with special needs in the

41
valley (Pintrich, 2003). Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed the SAC
members’ understanding of the value the consortium provides for the valley and their
understanding of how the consortium provides that value through services to the member
districts.
Self-Efficacy Assessment
The committee members must believe in the ability of their own leadership skills to
achieve the SAC’s mission (Bandura, 2000). If the SAC members do not feel confident in their
ability to make informed decisions about retention, they will be less likely to be engaged as
active decision makers on the committee (Bandura, 2012). Through interviews and document
analysis, the study assessed the SAC members’ confidence in their ability to make informed
decisions about retention and identified potential barriers to their confidence in making informed
decisions.
Attribution Assessment
Advisory committee members need to recognize that their actions on the committee will
affect the staff retention rates of the AU (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Committee members
who believe they can impact the outcomes will be more likely to engage in addressing the
identified gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Through interviews and document analysis, the study
assessed whether the SAC members attribute their actions to having an effect on staff retention
rates.

42
Table 6
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed motivation
influences
Interview items Document
Value
Advisory committee members
need to value the SAC’s
common mission of
providing special education
services to all students in
the consortium.
Describe how the consortium
provides services to all
special education students
and why that is valuable.
Cooperative agreement
annual approval, SAC
budget approvals, SAC
meeting minutes
Self-Efficacy
Advisory committee members
need to have confidence
that they can make
informed decisions related
to staff retention.
Do you feel confident in your
ability to make informed
decisions about staff
retention? Why or why not?
What additional
information would be
helpful in making informed
decisions?
SAC meeting agendas,
operational handbook,
professional development
plan
Attribution
Advisory committee members
attribute staff retention
performance to their
actions.
Tell me what actions, if any,
you have taken as an SAC
member that have impacted
staff retention.
SAC meeting agendas,
consortium staff meeting
minutes, consortium HR
exit interview notes
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
Once gaps in knowledge and motivation have been identified, the availability of
resources and the organization’s culture must be evaluated. Clark and Estes (2008) identified
organizational culture as a potential source of performance gaps within an organization. Culture
can be further broken down into models and settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).

43
Resources within the gap analysis framework refer to things like time, information, and funding
and are generally constrained (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gaps in organizational resources and
cultural influences play an interconnected role in affecting change and goal attainment (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Resources Assessment
Advisory committee members need information about current practices to make informed
decisions on what changes need to be made to them (Mezirow, 1997, 2000). Through interviews
and document analysis, the study assessed whether committee members have timely and accurate
information on consortium funding, hiring practices, and existing support for employee retention.
The study also assessed whether committee members receive the necessary training and support
to fulfill their roles.
Cultural Models Assessment
Cultural models refer to the shared understandings about how people behave within
organizations, and cultural settings are the structures within an organization (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Through interviews and document analysis, the study assessed whether
advisory committee members understand how the school climate impacts retention.
Cultural Settings Assessment
Cultural settings such as staff meetings, annual performance reviews, and teacher break
rooms create settings where people interact. How people interact in cultural settings defines the
norms and values of the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Through interviews and
document analysis, the study assessed whether advisory committee members understand how the
consortium’s employment structure impacts staff collegiality.

44
Table 7
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization
influences
Interview items Document
Resources
Advisory committee members
need timely and accurate
information on consortium
funding, hiring practices,
and existing support for
employee retention.
What kind of information are
you provided by the
consortium, if any,
regarding funding, hiring
practices, and existing
support for retaining
consortium employees?
SAC meeting agendas,
consortium staff meeting
notes
Advisory committee members
receive the necessary
training and support to
fulfill their roles.
Tell me about the training and
support, if any, you receive
as a member of the
committee to help you
fulfill your role.
SAC meeting agendas,
operational handbook,
professional development
plan
Cultural models
Advisory committee members
need to understand how the
school climate impacts
retention.
Describe how school climate
impacts employee
retention.
What impact, if any, does the
culture of the school and/or
district have on employee
retention?
Consortium HR exit surveys
Cultural settings
Advisory committee members
need to understand how the
consortium’s employment
structure impacts staff
collegiality.
Describe how the staffing
structure of the consortium
impacts the collegiality
between consortium staff
and school staff.
Consortium HR exit surveys,
operational handbook

45
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this study consisted of the members of the SAC. As
the stakeholders of focus for this study, it was important to identify the committee member’s
knowledge and understanding of staff retention. The committee members represent the decision
makers for both the consortium and the individual member districts. Failure to provide
appropriate resources or to make informed policy decisions to address staff retention will result
in continued challenges in meeting the goal of all SAC members knowing and understanding the
strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for consortium-certificated special
education staff.
Sampling
The study employed a purposeful approach to sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
There are seven members of the consortium’s SAC, each representing one of the member
districts. The members from this group were selected because of their leadership role in decision
making within the consortium and the member districts.
Recruitment
Given the small sample population and focus on the SAC’s KMO influences, the more
participants from the group, the more accurate the gap analysis will be. I had existing peer
relationships with the members of the SAC. The SAC members received an invitation to
participate in the study through a direct email invitation. Five of the six members participated.
Participant disclosures regarding confidentiality and safeguards around withdrawal and
personally identifiable information were part of the institutional review board process. While
confidentiality was a priority, the population size made guaranteeing absolute confidentiality
difficult. Incentives for participating were not provided.

46
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for this study was a combination of interviews and document
analysis. Documents and artifacts can be used to provide additional context with minimal impact
on the research setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Relevant documents included items such as
the cooperative agreement, SAC budget approvals, SAC meeting agendas, the operational
handbook, the professional development plan, oral reports of employee exit interviews, and
meeting minutes. Combined with the interview data, document analysis allowed for validating
interview responses without relying only on interviewees’ perceptions.
Interview Protocol Design
I interviewed each participating member of the SAC individually. I used a semistructured approach to provide flexibility in the responses while still allowing the process to be
constrained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using the KMO framework, the interview questions
were broken down into knowledge, motivation, and organization areas of focus as outlined in
Appendix A (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The initial questions focused on what knowledge SAC members have related to the
consortium as well as how the organization supports the retention of special education staff.
Also, from an organizational perspective, the protocol included questions that asked the
participant to explore the impact of their participation on the SAC on supporting retention efforts
in the consortium. I avoided leading questions to elicit more descriptive responses (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Document Analysis Design
A systemic approach to document analysis was used to assess the KMO influences of the
documents available to the investigator (Bowen, 2009). Documents included agreements,

47
agendas, meeting notes, handbooks, professional development plans, and exit interview oral
reports. The documents were categorized by their KMO influences using the template in
Appendix B (Clark & Estes, 2008). The documents were assessed for the KMO influence and
coded with a Y or N based on the assessment to indicate the presence or absence of the specified
influence.
Data Collection and Analysis
This qualitative study sought to determine what systemic issues may be inhibiting the
retention of special education teachers in a rural consortium setting and what supports may
increase their retention. A qualitative study is generally identified by a relatively small sample,
purposeful selection, and lack of generalizability of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Following approval by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB), I
solicited participants by email using their SAC email addresses. All participants received
informed consent information, included in Appendix C, explaining the purpose of the study and
the procedures regarding their participation.
Interviews
I arranged stakeholder interviews based on individual availability. I conducted the
interviews via Zoom, and these took approximately 45 to 60 minutes. I solicited permission to
record the interview for use in post-interview data analysis. I informed the participants of the
ability to withdraw from the interview at any time and the confidentiality of their responses. I
analyzed interview transcripts for evidence of KMO influences and cross-referenced them with
available documents as part of the document analysis process outlined below. Interview
responses were reviewed, and common themes were identified.

48
Document Analysis
I gathered relevant documents available to all members of the SAC, including the
cooperative agreement, SAC budget approvals, SAC meeting agendas, the operational handbook,
professional development offerings, and meeting minutes. I followed applicable protocols for
accessing relevant documentation. I requested documents that were only available to the AU,
such as HR exit interview notes, from the superintendent of the AU.
Trustworthiness of Data
To maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this study, I used triangulation for both
the results of interviews and the document analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Given that this
was a qualitative study, its reliability depended on the quality of the research tools used, and the
validity was determined by what the study measured. Triangulation validated the data from both
interviews and document analysis.
Role of Investigator
I am a member of the SAC. While I did not have direct supervisory or evaluative
authority over the participants, I considered the nature of my position as a SAC member when
assessing the reliability of responses. I coordinated interview schedules and requested documents
for purposes of conducting the study. I ensured the interviews were conducted using ethical
means, including getting informed consent and maintaining confidentiality and data security.
Limitations
The limitations of this study can be found in the unique configuration of the organization,
a consortium of small rural school districts providing special education services, and as such, this
study’s results may not be generalizable. Due to the organization’s size, the size of the focus
group was under 10, which may impact the validity of the conclusions. A more comprehensive

49
study would include interviews and focus groups with teachers, administrators, and parents
within the consortium. Additionally, I am a member of the stakeholder focus group and a current
superintendent of a consortium member district, which may have presented a bias when
evaluating the results of the interviews and document analysis.

50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the SAC performance as it relates to
supporting the retention of certificated special education staff within the consortium. The
analysis focused on assumed causes in the areas of knowledge and motivation within the
organizational context of the consortium model utilizing Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework. The stakeholder group for this analysis was the SAC members. The assumed causes
are categorized under knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges. Data were collected
through semi-structured qualitative interviews. Assumed causes were triangulated with document
analysis after the interviews had been conducted.
Participating Stakeholders
All members of the SAC, excluding me, were invited to participate through email. Five
out of the six agreed to be interviewed. I conducted the interviews online using Zoom and
generated transcripts for each interview after the interviews by the Zoom platform. Participants
were four females and one male, with two being 1st-year members of the consortium, one being
in their 6th year, one in their 7th year, and one being in their 2nd year. One of the participants
serves a dual role as a member of the SAC and as the superintendent for the AU. Two also serve
in the dual superintendent/principal role in their districts. Each stakeholder was assigned a
participant number; however, given the small sample, participants’ demographic information or
current role on the SAC were associated with the participant number to maintain anonymity.
Determination of Assets and Needs
Data for this research project was collected through interviews with the SAC members
and triangulated with document analysis informed by the interview responses. Interviews were
45–60 minutes in length, depending on the extent of the answers and any follow-up questions.

51
Saturation of the interviews was achieved after five of the six SAC members were interviewed.
To determine whether an influence was a need or an asset, if four or more participants confirmed
the presence of an influence, then it was determined to be an asset. Otherwise, it was determined
to be a need. In determining criteria for document analysis, documents were reviewed for KMO
influences and used to validate interview responses.
Results and Findings for Knowledge and Motivation Causes
This section presents findings for Research Question 1 regarding the knowledge and
motivation influences that impact the successful implementation of the SEC’s goal of 100% of
SAC members knowing and understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase
retention rates for staff. The results and findings are reported using the knowledge and
motivation categories and assumed causes for each category as outlined in Chapter 3.
Declarative Factual Knowledge
Participant interviews and document analysis were used to assess SAC members’ factual
knowledge related to staff retention and their role as advisory committee members within the
consortium. The findings and summaries are organized by influence, as outlined in Chapter 3.
Influence 1. Advisory Committee Members Need to Know the Structure and Mission of the
Consortium
For Declarative Factual Knowledge Influence 1, participants were asked to describe the
structure and mission of the consortium. The cooperative agreement and the SEC’s mission and
vision were also reviewed.
Interview Findings. All participants were able to explain that the mission of the
consortium was to provide collective support for special education students in the valley.
Participant 1 shared that the purpose of the consortium was “working collaboratively and sharing

52
resources to meet the special education needs of the students in their respective districts,” while
Participant 5 said the mission was to “meet all the goals of student needs that have IEPs.” When
it came to explaining the structure, all were able to share that the consortium was made up of
member districts, while three of the interviewees specifically identified the role of the AU in
addition to the other member districts within the collective. Participant 4 said, “All of the local
districts in the valley work together to handle special education,” and Participant 2 elaborated
that the consortium “effectively pooled resources.” Participant 3 summed it up by saying,
“together, we make a difference.”
Document Analysis. Its website defines the SEC’s mission: “The SEC is an association
of school districts who work collaboratively to provide special education programs and services
to individuals with exceptional needs who reside within the districts that comprise the
Consortium.” The cooperative agreement outlines the collective responsibilities of the member
districts as well as the AU to provide special education services for all students in the member
districts.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know the
structure and mission of the consortium was validated as an asset. The SAC members understand
that the mission of the consortium is to collectively provide special education services to all
students and that the consortium is made up of the member districts within the valley. There was
a universal understanding that providing special education services is a shared responsibility
within the consortium and that the collective responsibility lies among the member districts.

53
Influence 2: Advisory Committee Members Know the Factors That Impact Retention
For Declarative Factual Knowledge Influence 2, participants were asked to identify the
factors that impact certificated special education staff retention. Monthly SAC meeting agendas
and meeting minutes were reviewed.
Interview Findings. Four participants indicated salary or pay as one factor impacting
retention in the consortium. Participant 2 shared, “Salary has to be some part of it. So,
competitive salary because we’re losing people, too. That’s at least my understanding that there
are other places that pay better than we do.” Similarly, Participants 1 and 5 said “Salary.”
Participant 4 identified the “cost of living in the valley.” Lack of support was also identified by
three of the five interviewees. Participant 3 said there is a “real shortage of teachers with
appropriate credentials in special education,” while Participant 5 said, “I would just say the
factors to retain them would be the support for their program. When you don’t have the support,
you don’t have the retention. They get burned out, and they, you know, tend to move on.”
Document Analysis. A review of the monthly SAC agendas from November 31, 2021,
April 26, 2022, February 23, 2023, and May 23, 2023, did not find a dedicated agenda item for
discussing retention issues during the meetings. The agendas did include regular updates on open
positions and the salary negotiations status of the AU. Also included in the agendas were
meeting notes in which issues about salary concerns were documented as part of hiring
discussions in two of the four agendas reviewed.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members know the factors
that impact retention was validated as a need. While four identified the Number 1 factor
impacting retention as salary, other factors were not identified by the majority of participants.
Given the number of additional factors associated with retention, as identified in the current

54
literature from Chapter 2, there is a gap in knowledge of the SAC members when it comes to the
factors that impact retention within the consortium.
Influence 3. Advisory Committee Members Need to Know What the Consortium Is Currently
Doing to Improve Retention
For declarative factual knowledge influence 3, participants were asked to identify what
the consortium is currently doing to improve staff retention. Professional development offerings,
salary schedules, and retention stipends were also reviewed.
Interview Findings. A majority (four of five) mentioned that the consortium was
working on increasing salaries and providing stipends to increase pay for hard-to-fill positions.
Participant 2 said, “I do think that they have increased their salary,” while Participant 5 said, “I
think they’re trying to entice their employees by giving them stipends to help retain them.” All
five talked about how the consortium is providing support and training, with one specifically
mentioning training for superintendents. Participant 1 shared that “they added an additional
coordinator so that there could be more support” and that they are “making a concerted effort to
have standardized training.” Participant 1 also shared,
They are making a concerted effort to make sure that all the administrators understand the
structure of the consortium, and how it is, and making sure that all the administrators and
business personnel have the opportunity to share their thoughts on it.
Participant 4 said, “they are offering some training.” Participant 2 emphasized,
They work really hard at being supportive of the team ... They communicate well with the
[superintendents] and with their staff. I know that my school psychologist, for example,
has regular meetings with them, and they point … they ask her, what can, what else could
we be doing to support you?

55
Participant 3 said they see “more messages about how important people are, how much we care
about them and want them to be successful, but, honestly, it’s money. It’s all about
compensation.” Participant 5 also shared,
[They] hired a TOSA to help support them [staff] in their IEP writing process … And,
you know, making sure that they’re available for IEPs in meetings, or just the
collaboration portion of it. So, they’re not feeling like they don’t have that support.
Document Analysis. A review of the professional development offerings outlined in four
sampled monthly agenda packets indicates a number of training opportunities for staff, including
IEP bootcamps, orientations, and job-alike meetings. The AU-certificated salary schedule
increased 8.66% in 2022–23 and 6.0% in 2023-24. Additionally, the AU put in place signing and
retention stipends for special education teachers in the amount of $6,000 for the 2023–24 school
year.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know what
the consortium is currently doing to improve retention was validated as a need. Participants
know that the consortium is working on improving retention through increased salary, stipends,
and support and training. However, they are unable to articulate all of the factors that impact
retention beyond those three factors currently. This influence goes hand in hand with the
previous influence and the need to better understand all factors that can impact retention.
Conceptual Knowledge
As with declarative factual knowledge, participant interviews and document analysis
were also used to assess SAC members’ conceptual knowledge related to staff retention and their
role as advisory committee members within the consortium. The findings and summaries are
organized below by influence, as outlined in Chapter 3.

56
Influence 1. Advisory Committee Members Understand Their Role Under the Cooperative
Agreement
For conceptual knowledge influence 1, participants were asked to define their role as an
advisory committee member under the cooperative agreement.
Interview Findings. All participants articulated a basic concept of providing advisory
and oversight roles for the Consortium’s mission. Participant 1 said they
advise, provide feedback in the bigger situations [and] work alongside the [AU]
superintendent … as well as the director in trying to identify mutually agreeable solutions
to potential settlements. Also, to be looking at ways in which we can improve as a
consortium as a whole. So, always looking for ways to improve and provide better
support to staff whenever possible while also being fiscally responsible.
Within the advisory role, two participants specifically called out budget oversight and approval,
while another mentioned approval of hiring and settlements. Participant 2 shared, “I don’t know
how often, I can’t remember ever voting for anything other than when we are increasing, like,
when we wanted to have an additional coordinator, or we’re voting to. But I guess we must
approve the budget.”
Participant 5 said, “Our role or my role would be to work together with the other
superintendents in the valley to ensure that our consortium is running properly and servicing the
students throughout the valley under special education.” Participant 3 summed it up as “the
superintendent’s advisory is just that.”
Document Analysis. The cooperative agreement provides a definition and role of the
SAC as the following:

57
The [SAC] is a committee comprised of the superintendent of each Participating District.
The [SAC] will convene a monthly meeting to discuss matters related to this Agreement
and to advise the Consortium’s Director of Special Education on program management
and procedures, including make recommendations regarding any amendments to this
Agreement, membership considerations, budgetary and financial matters, and the
necessity of an improvement plan.
The agreement further specifies, on page 3 under Section 2, Purpose of Agreement, that “Any
fiscal and human resources advisement per a consensus of the SAC is brought forth to the [AU’s]
board of education for approval.” Based on the document analysis, the role of the SAC members
is to provide program direction to the director, oversee the agreement, and make
recommendations regarding human resources and budget to the AU.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members understand their
role under the cooperative agreement was validated as a need. While the participants could
articulate a basic understanding of their role as providing advisory and oversight, they could not
clearly define their roles and responsibilities in the context of the cooperative agreement
definitions. This definition is more nuanced than the basic understanding of advisory and
oversight articulated during the interviews.
Influence 2. Advisory Committee Members Need to Know What Retention Factors Fall Under
the Responsibility of the Administrative Unit, the Individual Districts or Are Shared As It
Relates to the Goal of Improving Retention Rates
For conceptual knowledge influence 2, participants were asked to identify the retention
factors that fall under the responsibility of the administrative unit, the individual districts, or are
shared by both.

58
Interview Findings. The findings were mixed with the delineation between site, AU, and
shared factors lacking a majority consensus, with the exception of salaries. Salaries were clearly
identified as an AU responsibility by all participants. Participant 2 said, “I think the salary one is
pretty tied to the [AU].” Participant 5 said the need to increase salaries would be a SAC
discussion but also acknowledged that it would need to be ultimately negotiated by the AU. They
explained, “That would be, I think, the advisory committee, … so the AU is kind of in charge of
the negotiation process.” Participant 3 said, “Compensation and professional development.
Theoretically, they’re shared responsibilities, but in reality, they’re the responsibility of the AU.”
Three participants indicated that instruction was a shared responsibility. Participant 4
said, “What [is] shared by both is the responsibility to ensure that there’s proper instruction
going on and that the kids are safe, and that the IEPs are worthy of the kid and defensible.”
Participant 5 also indicated that the instructional program was a shared responsibility, saying,
“Well, I think it’s shared by both. I mean, obviously, I think if the district has that responsibility
to make sure that their special ed program is run properly, or that consortium makes sure that it’s
run properly.”
There was no consensus on whether feeling included in the site was the responsibility of
the member districts or a shared responsibility. Participant 1 said, “So I think the feeling of
connectedness and staff morale is the district of residence for the staff member.” Participant 3
said, “I really do see it as being shared, and, you know, that message, like, we talked about that
second class that gets communicated in different cultures, different ways.”
Document Analysis. A review of the operational handbook, cooperative agreement, and
a sampling of four SAC meeting agendas showed that the documents do not specifically address
retention responsibilities. The cooperative agreement outlines human resources and budget

59
advisory roles as being responsibilities of the SAC with the implication that implementation is
the responsibility of the AU. The operational handbook provides more specificity of the AU staff
roles and responsibilities, with working condition factors being shared by the sites and the
consortium.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know what
retention factors fall under the responsibility of the AU, the individual districts, or are shared as
it relates to the goal of improving retention rates was validated as a need. While all participants
identified several retention factors, there was not a clear majority consensus on the specific
factors or on which factors were site, AU, or shared, with the exception of salaries. A review of
the documents found that the roles are not clearly delineated in an easily accessible location for
the SAC members. This finding is again associated with the need to better understand all factors
that can impact retention within the consortium.
Procedural Knowledge Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Know How to
Hold Themselves and Consortium Staff Accountable
For the procedural knowledge influence, participants were asked to describe how they
hold each other and consortium staff accountable. The SAC’s meeting agendas, meeting minutes,
and the cooperative agreement were reviewed.
Interview Findings
When asked about holding themselves and staff accountable, Participant 2 said, “I don’t
know,” while Participant 3 said the challenge with accountability was related to “group
dynamics. … People are very careful about how they treat their colleagues.” Two of five
participants said they held each other accountable by asking questions. Two also said they hold

60
staff accountable through meetings, with Participant 4 specifying “some one-on-ones with the
director.” Participant 5 said, “Well, first of all, we have to attend the meetings.”
Document Analysis
In reviewing the cooperative agreement and SAC meeting agendas from November 31,
2021, April 26, 2022, February 23, 2023, and May 23, 2023, the documents do not include
evidence that would indicate there is accountability between SAC members. The SAC’s meeting
agendas include meeting minutes, which indicate decisions made by consensus. However, none
of the interviewees referenced this resource for accountability. The cooperative agreement
includes a section entitled Improvement Plan, which implies an accountability mechanism for
member districts related to cost containment; however, there is no information included about
staff evaluation, SAC evaluation, or anything of that nature.
Summary
The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know how to hold
themselves and consortium staff accountable was validated as a need. There was no consensus
that this was happening, and a majority of participants could not speak to it in the context of their
role as a SAC member or in relation to staff accountability.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Know How to
Reflect on How They Collaborate With Consortium Staff and School Leadership to Meet
the Consortium’s Retention Goal
SAC members’ metacognitive knowledge was also assessed through interviews and
document analysis. Participants were asked to describe how they reflect on the collaboration
between their school leadership and consortium staff as it relates to staff retention. SAC meeting
agendas were reviewed.

61
Interview Findings
Three interviewees discussed trying to address local issues collaboratively with
consortium staff and site leadership. One described it as “more event-driven.” Participant 1 said,
“I think, to me, … one of the benefits of the consortium is it’s like an insurance policy.”
Participant 3 said their approach was to “monitor the way my site admin interacts with
consortium staff.” Participant 5 shared, “As far as the collaboration portion of it, or meeting with
them on a regular basis, I do not.”
Document Analysis
A review of the SAC Meeting Agendas from November 31, 2021, April 26, 2022,
February 23, 2023, and May 23, 2023, did not indicate evidence of any reflective practices by
SAC members regarding collaboration between consortium staff and school leadership.
Summary
Participants could not articulate how they reflect on the collaboration with consortium
and school leadership. Several participants described their efforts to support collaboration, but
none indicated that they had spent any time reflecting on how successful those efforts were. The
assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know how to reflect on how they
collaborate with consortium staff and school leadership to meet the consortium’s retention goal
was validated as a need.
Value Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Value the SAC’s Common
Mission of Providing Special Education Services to All Students in the Consortium
Participant interviews and document analysis were used to assess SAC members’
motivation related to staff retention and their role as advisory committee members within the
consortium. For the value influence, participants were asked to describe how the consortium

62
provides services to all special education students and why that is valuable. Annual approvals of
the cooperative agreement, district budget approvals, and quarterly invoice payments were
reviewed.
Interview Findings
All five participants indicated support and a recognition of the value of the common
mission of providing special education services to all students in the consortium. Three
participants specifically identified the consortium as an insurance policy. Four out of five said
that value was in the ability to provide the continuum of services. Participant 1 said, “They [the
consortium] have a tiered level of supportive services. … They have a menu of options that, as a
small district, I wouldn’t be able to have.” Participant 2 shared that “the value comes in the
unknown. That’s where I feel, like, why the consortium serves me best. Because, in effect, you
know, we talk about the insurance policy.” Participant 3 identified “the full continuum of
services. We’re fortunate in being able to do that.” Participant 4 said, “We’ve got the ability to
place students with our own staff within the constraints of our own costs.” Participant 5 shared,
Well, they [the consortium] provide services to all special ed. All special ed students that
have extra services that are written in their IEP. So, if they need OT services, they get
OT. If they need speech services, they get speech services.
Document Analysis
In reviewing the annual approval of the cooperative agreement, none of the member
districts had taken the agreements for annual approval at the time of the study. However, upon
further research, this was due to the member districts being in the process of reviewing and
updating the agreement, which further indicates a commitment to the importance of the
agreement and the collective mission of the consortium. The AU approves the consortium budget

63
as part of its required budget adoption cycle, with approval of the original adopted budget in
June, the first interim report approval prior to December 15th, and the second interim report
approval prior to March 15th of each fiscal year. Budgets were approved by the AU and reported
to the SAC in the monthly agendas. Member districts provided and paid consortium invoices,
indicating a commitment to fiscal responsibility for the consortium, which supports the mission
of providing special education services to all students.
Summary
The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to value the SAC’s
common mission of providing special education services to all students in the consortium was
validated as an asset. There is a significant agreement among participants that they value the
consortium and the ability to provide special education services to all students. Document
analysis supports that through regular budget approvals and reviews, the SAC members value the
services being provided.
Self-Efficacy Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Have Confidence That
They Can Make Informed Decisions Related to Staff Retention
For the self-efficacy influence, participants were asked about their confidence in their
ability to make informed decisions about staff retention as well as what additional information
they felt would be helpful in making informed decisions. The SAC’s monthly agendas and the
operational handbook were reviewed.
Interview Findings
Two participants indicated that they could make informed decisions related to retaining
staff, with both speaking primarily about the decisions for staff on their sites. Participant 1 stated,
“I can make an informed decision on the teachers who are working on my campus. And then, if

64
we go to those positions that are housed at the [AU] district’s office, … I feel even less
equipped.” Participant 3 shared,
I have been proud of the fact that we have not retained people in probationary status just
because we had to keep positions filled. That the quality of the services provided really
matter, and the character of the individuals providing those services matters as well. So,
yeah, I feel comfortable with it.
Two participants indicated that they could not make informed decisions related to staff
retention. Participant 4 said, “I’m going to say, not really. No, because I don’t do the exit
interviews. I don’t know why all the people are moving around all the time,” while Participant 5
said, “I don’t feel like I have the power … to be able to help retain a teacher when the final say is
the consortium director or administrator.” Participant 2 said, “I guess that depends.”
Document Analysis
The monthly SAC meeting agendas include information on current consortium staff open
positions, budget updates, and professional development, which all have an impact on retention.
The operational handbook provides guidance on how staff address issues related to retention but
does not specifically address the SAC member’s responsibility. The consortium does not conduct
formal exit interviews, so no exit interview notes were available to review.
Summary
The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to have confidence that
they can make informed decisions related to staff retention was validated as a need. Only two
participants felt confident in making informed decisions related to staff retention and more so in
their role as district administrators than as SAC members. All members of the committee need to
feel confident in making informed decisions about issues affecting the consortium.

65
Attribution Influence: Advisory Committee Members Attribute Staff Retention
Performance to Their Actions
For the attribution influence, participants were asked to identify any actions they have
taken as an SAC member that have impacted staff retention. SAC monthly agendas and meeting
minutes were reviewed.
Interview Findings
None of the participants indicated that they could attribute staff retention to their actions
as SAC members. Participant 4 said, “No.” Participant 2 said, “No, I think I’ve only added to the
staff, not retention.” Participant 1 said, “other than if it’s adding an administrator position.”
Participant 3 and Participant 5 both indicated they could attribute actions as individual
Superintendents for staff retention but not as SAC members. Participant 3 specifically shared,
“not as a SAC member.”
Document Analysis
A review of the documents did not find evidence of SAC member actions related to
retention and supported the participants’ claims that they could not attribute their actions as SAC
members to staff retention performance. A review of the oral report from informal exit
interviews identified salary and cost of living as primary reasons for teachers leaving the
consortium. Secondary reasons included better alignment with children’s school holiday
schedules for teachers who live outside the consortium districts’ boundaries. Teachers
consistently mentioned the high level of support and training provided by the Consortium.
Summary
The assumed influence that advisory committee members attribute staff retention
performance to their actions was validated as a need. The participants did not see their actions as

66
SAC members as having an impact on staff retention within the consortium. Two participants did
discuss recent administrative hearings as being attributed to decisions the SAC made, indicating
the possibility of the SAC members’ attributing their actions to decisions within the consortium.
An analysis of the reasons teachers provided for leaving the consortium during exit interviews
would point to potential actions the SAC members could be taking to address retention if they
believed their actions could make a difference.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
This section presents findings for Research Question 2 regarding the organizational
influences that support or impede the SEC’s goal of 100% of SAC members knowing and
understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff. The results
and findings are reported using the organizational categories and assumed causes for each
category as outlined in Chapter 3.
Resources
Participant interviews and document analysis were used to assess the organizational
influences that support or impede the organization’s goal as it relates to SAC members knowing
and understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff. The
findings and summaries are organized by organizational influences below.
Influence 1. Advisory Committee Members Need Timely and Accurate Information on
Consortium Funding, Hiring Practices, and Existing Support for Employee Retention
For Resources Influence 1, participants were asked to describe the information they are
provided by the consortium regarding funding, hiring practices, and existing support for retaining
consortium employees. SAC meeting agendas were reviewed.

67
Interview Findings. Participant 3 said, “This is part of every agenda, and those are key
issues on every agenda that are provided to superintendents for the advisory committee Meetings
monthly.” Four of the five participants focused their responses primarily on the funding part of
the question. Participant 4 said they received “updates on cost and or costs and services from the
consortium in the sac meetings.” Participant 5 said, “Well, we don’t hear a lot about the funding
that comes through from the state just here and there.” Participant 1 said that information was
provided through monthly meetings with their assigned coordinator and the monthly SAC
meeting agenda packets but then shared that the information is not always timely, saying,
“Here’s our problem. … It’s more kind of after the fact damage is done.” For information about
hiring, one participant shared that they were regularly invited to interviews for hiring consortium
staff.
Document Analysis. The monthly SAC meeting agendas include information on current
consortium staff open positions, budget updates, and professional development. Regular agenda
items around hiring, staffing, and budget were also present. However, there was no specific
agenda item dedicated to the discussion of retention and no evidence that information specific to
retention is regularly provided to SAC members.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members need timely and
accurate information on consortium funding, hiring practices, and existing support for employee
retention was validated as a need. Overall, the participants could not share specific information
provided by the consortium to the SAC members that specifically addressed staff retention, and
the document analysis supported this finding.

68
Influence 2. Advisory Committee Members Receive the Necessary Training and Support to
Fulfill Their Roles
For Resources Influence 2, participants were asked to describe the training and support
they receive as members of the committee to help them fulfill their role. The cooperative
agreement, the operational handbook, and professional development offerings were reviewed.
Interview Findings. Four participants did not recall receiving training to fulfill their
roles as SAC Members. Participant 2 recalled, “No, I feel like I had more training when I was a
principal…” Participant 4 shared, “I don’t think we really had any training on how to do our role.
We get the cursory SELPA training on what the SELPA is. The only real support in making
those decisions, I would say, was reading through the cooperative agreement.” Participant 1
recalled that “[the] first meeting we had [was] a meeting where we were given a giant binder,
and then we actually went through the agreement.” Participant 5 did not recall receiving training,
saying, “We just get the packet and go through it, and then we vote on it if we like it or not.” One
participant talked about a new member orientation provided by the consortium special education
director. Participant 3 said, “new individuals on the advisory committee would go through that
orientation. It could be a couple of hours. But there’s also annual meetings with superintendents
that I know that our director does as well.”
Document Analysis. The documents reviewed included the cooperative agreement, the
operational handbook, and the professional development offerings. All were silent on provisions
for training for the SAC members.
Summary. The assumed influence that advisory committee members receive the
necessary training and support to fulfill their roles was validated as a need. It was not clear if the
orientation process described by Participant 3 was formal or something that was done informally

69
for new members of the SAC. Participants who were new to the SAC did not recall the
orientation, while participants who had served on the SAC for over 5 years could not point to
specific training on how to fulfill their roles on the committee, pointing to a need to formalize
and document orientation and annual training for members of the committee.
Cultural Models Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Understand How the
School Climate Impacts Retention
For the cultural models influence, participants were asked to describe how the school
climate impacts employee retention. No documents were reviewed for the influence.
Interview Findings
Five out of five participants indicated that a positive school climate was important to
retaining quality staff. Participant 4 shared,
Well, school climate is actually pretty critical. Because if people feel valued and seen and
supported, they will do extraordinary things for you, including not taking that job that
might pay them a little bit more. They’ll come back and do summer school.
Participant 3 said, “I actually think school climate is more important than compensation.”
Participant 1 shared,
I think a positive school climate can help counteract differences in salary. If people like
where they’re working. I mean, you have to get them in the door. But then, what if they
like it? They’re not going to go through the whole interview and possibly leave. If they
enjoy the people they work with, the little perks that they might have. You know, they get
to eat free lunch and not have to pay, or you know, little things.
Participant 2 said, “I think they feel valued. I really do appreciate them. I hope that they feel that
way. I hope they all feel that way, … but I see that that’s where I have the most impact.”

70
Participant 5 said, “we try to make our school site like a family where everybody feels a part of
it.”
Document Analysis
No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary
All participants talked about how important school climate is to retention. The assumed
influence that advisory committee members need to understand how the school climate impacts
retention was validated as an asset.
Cultural Settings Influence: Advisory Committee Members Need to Understand How the
Consortium’s Employment Structure Impacts Staff Collegiality
For the cultural settings influence, participants were asked to describe how the staffing
structure of the consortium impacts the collegiality between consortium staff and school staff.
The operational handbook was also reviewed.
Interview Findings
All participants articulated how the consortium’s employment structure impacted staff
collegiality at their district’s school sites. Participant 1 said, “[I] think it makes it very difficult
because … you’re not on the same salary schedule as the Gen Ed people… I think if you don’t
have the culture, it makes it even harder to have a positive climate.” Participant 1 further went on
to discuss, “How do you include them in that professional development when they’re not fulltime even on your campus.” Participant 2 noted, “I just think the collegiality piece is the difficult
part.” Participant 4 said, “I think the split of campuses for some staff makes it difficult to really
fill a part of a site.” Participant 3 shared, “I think this is one of the hardest things about the
consortium, … and even though we hire them and go through that onboarding process, then their

71
daily life and work is out in a different space in a different environment.” Participant 5
recognized the importance of being seen as part of the site, sharing,
I mean, they come and want support from my school administrator when he’s there or
when I was there. Especially my resource teacher. She’ll come in and want to utilize her
school well and feels like she can, you know, come and have lunch with our other staff
members. In fact, today, they all came in.
Participant 5 went on to share that with turnover, “It’s hard for them to feel like they’re a
part of the family until they’ve been there for a while.”
Document Analysis
The document analysis did not specifically address how the employment structure affects
staff collegiality. However, the operational handbook does define how staff absences are filled
when there are staff shortages, indicating that the concerns raised by participants about
consortium staff being seen as part of a site are potentially impacted by the organizational
process of filling absences.
Summary
The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to understand how the
consortium’s employment structure affects staff collegiality was validated as an asset. The SAC
members have direct experience with the impact of the employment structure on staff collegiality
and articulated the impacts on their school sites.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 8 shows the KMO influences for this study and their determination as assets or
needs.

72
Table 8
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Assumed KMO influence Asset or need
Declarative factual knowledge
Advisory committee members need to know the structure
and mission of the consortium.
Asset
Advisory committee members know the factors that impact
retention.
Need
Advisory committee members need to know what the
consortium is currently doing to improve retention.
Need
Declarative conceptual knowledge
Advisory committee members understand their role under
the cooperative agreement.
Need
Advisory committee members need to know what retention
factors fall under the responsibility of the AU, the
individual districts or are shared as it relates to the goal of
improving retention rates.
Need
Procedural knowledge
Advisory committee members need to know how to hold
themselves and consortium staff accountable.
Need
Metacognitive knowledge
Advisory committee members need to know how to reflect
on how they collaborate with consortium staff and school
leadership to meet the consortium’s retention goal.
Need
Motivation: Value
Advisory committee members need to value the SAC’s
common mission of providing special education services
to all students in the consortium.
Asset
Motivation: Self-efficacy
Advisory committee members need to have confidence that
they can make informed decisions related to staff
retention.
Need

73
Assumed KMO influence Asset or need
Motivation: Attribution
Advisory committee members attribute staff retention
performance to their actions.
Need
Organization: Resources
Advisory committee members need timely and accurate
information on consortium funding, hiring practices, and
existing support for employee retention.
Need
Advisory committee members receive the necessary
training and support to fulfill their roles.
Need
Organization: Cultural models
Advisory committee members need to understand how the
school climate impacts retention.
Asset
Organization: Cultural settings
Advisory committee members need to understand how the
consortium’s employment structure impacts staff
collegiality.
Asset
Based on the validated influences identified by this study, as outlined in Table 8,
empirical evidence-based solutions to close the identified gaps are presented in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 also addresses the final question of this study pertaining to the recommendations for
organizational practices in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources.

74
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This chapter will address the recommendations for organizational practices in the areas of
KMO resources based on the validated influences identified in Chapter 4. Using Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, 14 influences were assessed, with 10 validated as needs
within the organization. Recommendations that address the identified needs are organized by the
corresponding KMO influences: knowledge, motivation, and organization. An implementation
plan with evaluation criteria is also provided based on the four-phase theory of organizational
change from Burke (2018) and grouped under three major implementation themes: (a) training,
(b) information, and (c) assessment. The following are recommendations for best practices to
address the identified KMO gaps.
Knowledge Recommendations
This study validated six knowledge influences as areas with need. Two influences were
validated as assets. Based on the assets identified, the findings suggest a strong understanding
among the SAC members of the mission of the SEC and the value of the collective services
provided to provide special education services for all students. The six influences validated as a
need suggest a lack of foundational knowledge related to staff retention and the role of SAC
members in supporting retention within the consortium. Additionally, the lack of foundational
knowledge about factors that influence staff retention was apparent throughout the remainder of
the study. Table 9 identifies the assumed knowledge influences validated as a need with their
evidence-based principles and context-specific recommendations for addressing the gap. The
sections that follow provide more detail about the recommendations for each influence.

75
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or need
Theme
(information,
training,
assessment)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Factual
Advisory committee
members know the
factors that impact
retention.
Need Training
Information
Assessment
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with
prior knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered more
accurately because
it is elaborated
with prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide
information on
retention factors
to the SAC.
Survey consortium
staff on
satisfaction
related to factors
and present to
SAC.
Implement exit
interviews and
provide quarterly
summaries to
SAC.
Advisory committee
members need to
know what the
consortium is
currently doing to
improve retention.
Need Information Information learned
meaningfully and
connected with
prior knowledge is
stored more
quickly and
remembered more
accurately because
it is elaborated
with prior learning
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Add Retention
information/disc
ussion agenda
item to monthly
SAC meetings.
Advisory committee
members understand
their role under the
cooperative
agreement.
Need Training How individuals
organize
knowledge
influences how
they learn and
Host an annual
retreat and
review the roles
and
responsibilities

76
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or need
Theme
(information,
training,
assessment)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
apply what they
know (Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
as outlined in the
cooperative
agreement.
Advisory committee
members need to
know what retention
factors fall under the
responsibility of the
AU, the individual
districts or are shared
as it relates to the
goal of improving
retention rates.
Need Training To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component skills,
practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Review retention
factors and
collectively
identify which
factors are site,
AU, and shared.
Procedural
Advisory committee
members need to
know how to hold
themselves and
consortium staff
accountable.
Need Information
Assessment
The use of
metacognitive
strategies
facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).
Develop an annual
SAC selfassessment tool.
Metacognitive
Advisory committee
members need to
know how to reflect
on how they
collaborate with
consortium staff and
school leadership to
meet the
consortium’s
retention goal.
Need Assessment Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set goals,
monitor their
performance, and
evaluate their
progress toward
achieving their
goals (Ambrose et
al., 2010; Mayer,
2011).
Include
collaboration
metric on the
SAC selfassessment tool.

77
Factual Knowledge
The assumed influences that advisory committee members need to know the factors that
impact retention and what the consortium is currently doing to improve retention were both
identified as needs. In addition to salaries, which were identified by a majority of SAC members
as a factor that impacts retention, a number of other factors contribute to retaining educators,
including mentoring, professional development, job satisfaction, general working conditions,
administrative support and the condition of facilities (Aruna & Anitha, 2015; Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; Cegelka & Alvarado, 2000; Futernick, 2007; Gersten et al., 2001;
Strunk & Zeehandelaar, 2011). When new information is learned for a specific purpose and
connected with prior knowledge, it is more readily available for decision making (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Advisory committee members need to know about these other factors to
make informed decisions about how to improve retention within the consortium. The
recommendations include (a) providing information on retention factors to the SAC, (b)
surveying consortium staff on satisfaction related to factors and presenting the results to SAC,
and (c) implementing exit interviews and providing quarterly summaries to SAC.
The assumed influence that advisory committee members understand their role under the
cooperative agreement was validated as a need. To effectively support the organization’s goals,
advisory committee members first need to understand their role within the organization
(Krathwohl, 2002). The recommendation is for the AU to host an annual retreat for the SAC and
to review the roles and responsibilities as outlined in the cooperative agreement with members
during the retreat.
The assumed influence that advisory committee members need to know what retention
factors fall under the responsibility of the AU, the individual districts or are shared as it relates to

78
the goal of improving retention rates was validated as a need. In the consortium model, several
retention factors, including setting salaries for special education teachers, hiring, and program
assignments, are under the direction of the AU. The SAC members have limited ability to affect
these factors directly within the framework of the cooperative agreement. Similarly, teaching
conditions at school sites are an important factor in retention (McLeskey et al., 2004) and are
influenced by individual site leadership and not by the SAC as a whole. The complexity of
retention factors due to the consortium structure increases the need for SAC members to
understand the areas of responsibility for each part of the organization. The recommendation is
for the AU to conduct a study session for SAC members to review retention factors and
collectively identify which factors are site, AU, and shared responsibilities.
Procedural Knowledge
Advisory committee members need to know how to hold themselves and consortium staff
accountable. This influence was identified as a need because accountability is required to
effectively support organizational goals (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). In the structural
context of the consortium, accountability is more complex because the consortium includes
individual member districts, the AU, and the SAC members (Grubb & Badway, 2005). Learners
need to be given opportunities to engage in guided self-monitoring and self-assessment (Baker,
2006). Therefore, the committee members need to understand how to hold themselves
accountable within the context of the consortium and the cooperative agreement to effectively
support the organization’s goals (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). The recommendation is to
develop an annual SAC self-assessment tool that members can use to hold themselves
accountable.

79
Metacognitive Knowledge
Advisory committee members need to know how to reflect on how they collaborate with
consortium staff and school leadership to meet the consortium’s retention goal. This influence
was validated as a need as certificated staff are shared across participating districts within the
consortium. Leadership reflection is important in supporting organizational goals (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011). The SAC members need to effectively collaborate with consortium staff and
school leadership to ensure the factors affecting retention are addressed at the site and
consortium levels. To improve learning and motivation, SAC members need to monitor their
performance through reflection and evaluate their progress toward achieving their goals
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Mayer, 2011). The recommendation is to include a collaboration metric
on the SAC self-assessment tool.
Motivation Recommendations
This study validated two of the three motivation influences as areas with need. The value
influence was validated as an asset and suggests there is significant agreement among SAC
members that they value the consortium’s ability to provide special education services to all
students. Based on the two influences identified for need, the findings suggest a gap in
motivation in serving in the role of a SAC member. Table 10 identifies the assumed motivation
influences validated as a need with their evidence-based principles and context-specific
recommendations for addressing the gap. The sections that follow provide more detail about the
recommendations for each influence.

80
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Asset or
need
Theme
(Information,
training,
assessment)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Self-efficacy
Advisory committee
members need to
have confidence that
they can make
informed decisions
related to staff
retention.
Need Information
Assessment
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
1996, 2003).
Review the roles
and
responsibilities
related to staff
retention as
outlined in the
cooperative
agreement at
the annual
retreat.
Include
confidence
metric on the
SAC selfassessment tool.
Attribution
Advisory committee
members attribute
staff retention
performance to their
actions.
Need Assessment Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals
attribute success
or failures to
effort rather than
ability.
(Anderman &
Anderman,
2009).
Include SAC
member impact
on staff
retention metric
on the SAC
self-assessment
tool.

81
Self-Efficacy
Advisory committee members need to have confidence that they can make informed
decisions related to staff retention. This influence was validated as a need because the committee
members must believe in the ability of their own leadership skills to achieve the SAC’s mission
(Bandura, 2000). Positive expectancies for success enhance learning and motivation (Pajares,
1996, 2003). Based on the research findings in Chapter 4, a majority of SAC members did not
express confidence in their ability to make informed decisions about retention. The
recommendation is for the SAC to review the roles and responsibilities related to staff retention
as outlined in the cooperative agreement at the annual retreat and to annually assess member
confidence in making informed decisions using a self-assessment tool.
Attribution
Advisory committee members attribute staff retention performance to their actions. This
influence was validated as a need because the complexity of the consortium environment means
that SAC leadership plays a significant role in implementing actions that can positively impact
retention (Aguenza & Som, 2018; Grissom, 2012). Attributing success to effort enhances
individual learning and motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). The recommendation is for
the SAC to annually assess SAC members’ impact on staff retention using a self-assessment tool.
Organization Recommendations
This study validated two of the four organization influences as areas with need. The
cultural models and cultural settings were both validated as assets, demonstrating organizational
strength in the areas of school climate and collegiality within the consortium. Based on the two
influences identified for need, the findings suggest a gap in resources for SAC members in their
role in supporting staff retention. Table 11 identifies the assumed organization influences

82
validated as a need with their evidence-based principles and context-specific recommendations
for addressing the gap. The section that follows provides more detail about the recommendations
for each influence.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or need
Theme
(Informatio
n, training,
assessment)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Resources
Advisory
committee
members need
timely and
accurate
information on
consortium
funding, hiring
practices, and
existing
support for
employee
retention.
Need Assessment
Information
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources
(equipment, personnel,
time, etc.) needed to do
their job and that if there
are resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Annually survey
SAC members
on thoroughness
and timeliness of
information and
discuss/review at
annual retreat.
Include feedback
on Agenda
information on
the SAC selfassessment tool.
Advisory
committee
members
receive the
necessary
training and
support to
fulfill their
roles.
Need Training Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources
(equipment, personnel,
time, etc.) needed to do
their job and that if there
are resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Formalize
orientation
process for new
members.
Include a refresh
of orientation
material on the
annual retreat
agenda.

83
Resources
Two organizational influences were validated as needs. The first was that advisory
committee members need timely and accurate information on consortium funding, hiring
practices, and existing support for employee retention. The second was that they need training
and support to fulfill their roles. Advisory committee members set policy and direction for the
consortium that directly affects retention factors. From onboarding and training to professional
development and evaluation, advisory committee members need information about the current
practices in place to improve retention (Mezirow, 1997, 2000). New advisory committee
members may not have prior experience with overseeing special education services or with
leading in a shared governance model. To support effective change, everyone within the
organization needs the resources, including training and information, to do their job (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The recommendation is for the AU to set aside time and resources to provide
formal orientations and annual training for SAC members and to regularly survey members to
ensure the SAC has the information needed to make informed decisions.
Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The SEC is a complex organizational environment made up of seven distinct school
districts and governed by a cooperative agreement and seven individual superintendents with
varying levels of knowledge and experience with special education programs. Addressing
certificated staff retention within the collaborative organization of the SEC is a multifaceted
leadership challenge. According to Burke (2018), change is a leadership function driven through
four phases: (a) prelaunch, (b) launch, (c) postlaunch, and (d) sustaining. In the prelaunch phase,
leaders gather the information necessary to define the needed change and outline the direction to
take (Burke, 2018). Next, communication and key activities are initiated in the launch phase

84
(Burke, 2018). In the postlaunch phase, leaders continue to reinforce the messaging and direction
of the change (Burke, 2018). Finally, in the sustaining phase, leaders continue the momentum
and address any unforeseen issues (Burke, 2018). This study identified 10 KMO influences as
areas of need for the leaders of the SEC. Following Burke’s (2018) four-phase approach to
change, the recommendations outlined below address the KMO gaps associated with 100% of
SAC members knowing and understanding the strategies and supports needed to increase
retention rates for staff, as identified in this study.
Main Implementation Themes
The implementation recommendations are grouped into three main themes: training,
information, and assessment. Each theme contains recommendations that support the identified
gaps for that theme. First, under the training theme, the recommendations address the need to
provide additional knowledge and motivation support to SAC members through training. The
information theme contains recommendations for providing the additional information needed
for SAC members to make informed decisions. Finally, the assessment theme contains
recommendations to help SAC members address accountability and confidence in their work
while also assessing the progress being made with the implementation plan.
Training
The findings identified a need for additional training to provide the knowledge and
motivation needed to support the SAC’s goal that 100% of members will know and understand
the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff. The recommendations
include the following:
● Establish a formal orientation process for new SAC members.
● Hold an SAC annual retreat.

85
● Conduct a study session on cooperative agreement responsibilities and retention
factors.
Information
In addition to training, the findings also identified a need for additional information to
provide the knowledge needed to support the SAC’s goal that 100% of members will know and
understand the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates for staff. The
recommendations include the following:
● Implement HR exit interviews with documented notes.
● Provide quarterly reports on HR exit interviews.
● Conduct staff surveys on working conditions.
Assessment
In addition to training and information, the findings also identified a need for reflection to
provide the motivation and peer support needed to support the SAC’s goal that 100% of
members will know and understand the strategies and supports needed to increase retention rates
for staff. The recommendation is to create a SAC self-assessment tool to include the following
metrics for SAC members:
● Collaboration
● Confidence
● Agenda feedback
In the following table, the recommendations are grouped by the three major themes
outlined above and identified in the four phases of a leader’s role in driving organizational
changes, as identified by Burke (2018). Additionally, evaluation metrics based on Burke’s

86
(2018) characteristics of the open systems concept of information input and feedback have been
identified to assess the implementation of the recommendations.
Table 12
Implementation Recommendations, Outcomes, and Evaluation Metrics
Recommendation Expected outcome Phase (Prelaunch,
launch, postlaunch,
sustaining)
Evaluation metric
Training
AU conducts a study
session for SAC to
review retention
factors and
collectively
identify which
factors are site,
AU, and shared.
SAC members
understand factors
that impact
retention and where
those factors lie
within the
consortium
structure
Prelaunch 100% of SAC
members are able
to explain the
factors that impact
retention and where
those factors lie
within the
consortium
structure on an exit
survey conducted at
the end of the study
session
AU to host an annual
retreat and review
of the roles and
responsibilities as
outlined in the
cooperative
agreement.
Review the roles and
responsibilities
related to staff
retention as
outlined in the
cooperative
agreement at the
annual retreat.
Launch, sustaining AU hosted an annual
retreat, and SAC
reviewed the roles
and responsibilities
as outlined in the
cooperative
agreement, as
evidenced by
retreat schedule and
agenda.

87
Recommendation Expected outcome Phase (Prelaunch,
launch, postlaunch,
sustaining)
Evaluation metric
Formalize orientation
process for new
members.
Include a refresh of
orientation material
on the annual
retreat agenda.
Postlaunch AU presents formal
orientation process
to SAC at regular
SAC meetings, as
evidenced by
agenda
Information
SAC revise
cooperative
agreement to define
SAC role in staff
accountability.
Prelaunch Member district
board approvals of
revised cooperative
agreement
AU implements exit
interviews by the
special education
director and
provides quarterly
summaries to SAC
at monthly SAC
meetings.
Launch, sustaining AU special education
director conducts
HR exit interviews
SAC reviews
quarterly
summaries at
regular SAC
meetings as
evidenced by
agenda.
Survey consortium
staff on satisfaction
related to factors
and present to
SAC.
Launch, sustaining AU created and
conducted survey
and results
presented regular
SAC meeting, as
evidenced by
agenda.
Add retention
information/discuss
ion agenda item to
monthly SAC
meetings.
Launch, sustaining AU added retention
information/discuss
ion item to regular
SAC meeting, as
evidenced by
agenda
Annually survey SAC
members on
Sustaining AU created and
conducted survey

88
Recommendation Expected outcome Phase (Prelaunch,
launch, postlaunch,
sustaining)
Evaluation metric
thoroughness and
timeliness of
information and
discuss/review at
annual retreat.
and results
presented and
reviewed at annual
retreat, as
evidenced by
agenda.
Assessment
Develop an annual
SAC selfassessment tool and
annually conduct
self-assessment.
Include collaboration
metric on the SAC
self-assessment
tool.
Include confidence
metric on the SAC
self-assessment
tool.
Include feedback on
agenda information
on the SAC selfassessment tool.
Launch, sustaining SAC created selfassessment tool as
evidenced by the
self-assessment
tool results and
regular meeting
agenda discussing
the assessment
results
Evaluation Tools
The main evaluation tool will be the self-assessment tool developed by the SAC to assess
their progress toward improving their understanding of the factors that affect retention.
Information and particularly negative feedback are important for organizational leaders to affect
change (Burke, 2018). A periodic review of the SAC meeting agendas and annual retreat and
orientation meetings by the AU will provide further evidence of implementation of the

89
recommendations. Finally, the consortium’s annual certificated special education staff retention
rates will be used to evaluate progress toward improving retention rates across the organization.
Data Analysis and Reporting
In the four phases of organizational changes outlined by Burke (2018), Phase 4,
sustainability, outlines the need for continuous assessment of the change process. The key
indicator for the success of this implementation plan is the participation of the SAC members in
the creation and completion of an annual assessment tool. Second is the scheduling of the study
sessions, orientations, and annual retreats by the AU staff. Finally, the generation of additional
information around exit interviews and reports to the SAC by the AU staff will also indicate
implementation success. Appendix D identifies an implementation and reporting checklist for
AU staff to use to report implementation progress to SAC members.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The four-phase theory of organizational change from Burke (2018), grouped under the
three major implementation themes of training, information, and assessment, was utilized to
develop an implementation and evaluation plan to address the 10 influences identified as areas of
need by this study. Organizational change is primarily a function of leadership (Burke, 2018).
Given that the focus of this study was the SAC stakeholder group and as the leaders of the
consortium, framing the implementation and evaluation plan from a leadership perspective made
sense in this organizational context. The success of the implementation is primarily based on
SAC members taking the leadership role in the implementation of the recommendations, which
is reflected in the evaluation metrics.

90
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework aided in identifying gaps in KMO
influences preventing the SEC from achieving the goal of increasing certificated staff retention.
The study primarily focused on the SAC members’ role in the organization and their impact on
retention from a collective leadership perspective. The strength of the framework in providing
clearly defined areas of focus in relation to the identified problem was evident in the approach.
Once the gaps were identified, common themes around implementation became apparent, which
fell outside the gap analysis framework’s KMO definitions. It then became necessary to find an
implementation and evaluation approach that could present the recommendations within the SAC
members’ leadership role while maintaining the integrity of the themes. I used the four phases of
leadership-driven change outlined by Burke (2018) for that purpose. While Burke (2018) does
not identify specific evaluation steps within the four phases, the specific recommendations
included evaluation metrics based on available information and feedback for use by the SAC and
the AU to assess implementation effectiveness.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study were the small sample of the stakeholder group and the lack
of comparable organizations for reference. Out of seven members of the SAC, one was
unavailable to participate as the researcher of this study, and five ultimately participated.
Additionally, expected documentation in the form of exit interviews and meeting notes was not
available; however, oral reports for exit interviews were able to substitute and provide additional
data for triangulation.
The primary delimitation was a result of my decision to research the consortium as a
current member. Specifically, I conducted interviews with SAC members directly while also

91
being a SAC member. Because of this, I had to refrain from making inferences or asking leading
questions during interviews. One area for improvement would have been to have the research
and evaluation performed by an independent agent. The other delimitation is due to the lack of
similarly structured organizations to apply the findings. Due to the consortium’s collective
nature, specific findings related to the SAC members would need to be considered in the context
of other organizations’ leadership structures.
Future Research
The challenges presented for small rural districts in addressing the factors that impact
special education staff retention deserve more in-depth study. There remains a need to
understand how small rural school districts can effectively meet the needs of special education
students and reliably staff their programs with highly qualified teachers. Due to the unique nature
of the consortium, future research focused on the individual challenges of small school districts
in retaining special education teachers could be beneficial to more districts. The interplay
between site-based leadership and district, or central, leadership also deserves further
exploration. Given the importance of leadership and school climate in retention, more research
on the effect of central leadership decisions on special education retention could also be
warranted. Additionally, further exploration of the differences between special education
teachers’ work environments compared to general education teachers could provide more insight
into the challenges with specific working conditions that impact special education retention.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the SAC’s performance and make
recommendations for improving the SEC’s organizational practices in the areas of KMO
resources to support the goal of increasing the retention of certificated staff employed with the

92
consortium for 5 or more years to 80% by June 2026. Chapter 1 outlined the national teacher
shortage and framed the problem of practice within the context of the organization. Next,
Chapter 2 explored the problem in depth and outlined the conceptual framework based on the
literature. In Chapter 3, the study’s approach was framed using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework and KMO influences. The results of stakeholder interviews and document
analysis were detailed in Chapter 4, and 10 KMO influences were identified as validated needs.
SAC members had four KMO influences validated as assets, representing a strong belief in the
mission and vision of the SEC and a recognition of the importance of culture and climate on
retention. Chapter 5 identified recommendations for addressing the gaps and outlined an
implementation and evaluation plan. The study’s findings reinforced the importance of the
organizational leaders within the SEC to understand the factors influencing retention and meet
the organization’s mission of providing special education programs to students in rural areas.
The recommendations presented in this study reflect best practices for leading organizational
change.

93
References
Abdallah, J. (2009). Lowering teacher attrition rates through collegiality. Academic Leadership:
The Online Journal, 7(1), 24.
Aguenza, B. B., & Som, A. P. M. (2018). Motivational factors of employee retention and
engagement in organizations. International Journal of Advances in Agriculture Sciences,
1(6), 88–95.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Meyer, R. E.
(2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. JosseyBass.
Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (Eds.). (2009). Psychology of classroom learning: An
encyclopedia (1st. ed.). Macmillan Reference USA.
Aragon, S. (2016). Teacher shortages: What we know (Teacher shortage series). Education
Commission of the States.
Aruna, M., & Anitha, J. (2015). Employee retention enablers: Generation Y employees. SCMS
Journal of Indian Management, 12(3), 94.
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Continuum.
Bandura, A. (1997). The anatomy of stages of change. American Journal of Health Promotion,
12(1), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606

94
Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review
of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
Bland, P., Church, E., & Luo, M. (2016). Strategies for attracting and retaining teachers.
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(1), 545.
Blizard, Z. D. (2021). Teacher turnover, student proficiency, and economic mobility: The case of
Forsyth County, NC elementary schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 44(4), 31–54.
Boe, E. E. (2006). Long-term trends in the national demand, supply, and shortage of special
education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 138–150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030201
Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition,
teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75(1), 7–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500101
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who leaves? Teacher
attrition and student achievement (No. w14022). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.
Politics & Policy, 36(5), 750–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2008.00133.x
Brownell, M. T., 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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010501

95
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice. SAGE.
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what
we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/454.278
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How
teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36),
36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699
Carver-Thomas, D., Kini, T., & Burns, D. (2020). Sharpening the divide: How California’s
teacher shortages expand inequality. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/sharp-divide-california-teacher-shortagesreport
Cegelka, P. A., & Alvarado, J. L. (2000). A best practices model for preparation of rural special
education teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 19(3-4), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870500019003-403
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cloutier, O., Felusiak, L., Hill, C., & Pemberton-Jones, E. J. (2015). The importance of
developing strategies for employee retention. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and
Ethics, 12(2), 119.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Sutcher, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Teacher shortages in
California: Status, sources, and potential solutions (Research brief). Learning Policy
Institute.

96
Dewey, J., Sindelar, P. T., Bettini, E., Boe, E. E., Rosenberg, M. S., & Leko, C. (2017).
Explaining the decline in special education teacher employment from 2005 to 2012.
Exceptional Children, 83(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916684620
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for
Education.
Earley, P. M., & Ross, S. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: How do we get and keep
teachers. National Evaluation Systems.
Evans, S., Eliot, M., Hood, J., Driggs, M., Mori, A., & Johnson, T. (2005). Assessing the special
education faculty shortage: The crisis in California—A statewide study of the
professoriate. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4), 7–21.
Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2009). The teacher shortage in America: Pressing concerns.
National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 19(3), 1–5.
Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look through
the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183–202.
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream. Retaining California’s teachers so all students can
learn. California State University.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than
we thought (The first report in “The Perfect Storm in the Teacher Labor Market” Series).
Economic Policy Institute.

97
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education:
Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 549–
567. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700408
Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J., Theobald, R., & Brown, N. (2015). Refueling the STEM and special
education teacher pipelines. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(4), 56–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715619921
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years:
Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007-08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal
Study (First Look. NCES 2015-337). National Center for Education Statistics.
Grissom, J. A. (2012). Revisiting the impact of participative decision making on public
employee retention: The moderating influence of effective managers. American Review
of Public Administration, 42(4), 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011404209
Grubb, W. N., & Badway, N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California community colleges. Higher Education Evaluation and Research
Group.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, 2004(Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Imazeki, J. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4),
431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.07.014
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499

98
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? The Consortium for Policy Research
in Education and The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kossivi, B., Xu, M., & Kalgora, B. (2016). Study on determining factors of employee retention.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(5), 261–268. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.45029
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Laddha, A., Singh, R., Gabbad, H., & Gidwani, G. D. (2012). Employee retention: An art to
reduce turnover. International Journal of Management Research and Reviews, 2(3), 453–
458.
Landsbergis, P., Zoeckler, J., Kashem, Z., Rivera, B., Alexander, D., & Bahruth, A. (2018).
Organizational policies and programs to reduce job stress and risk of workplace violence
among K-12 education staff. New Solutions, 27(4), 559–580.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291117739420
Loeb, S., & Luczak, L. D. H. (2013). How teaching conditions predict: Teacher turnover in
California schools. In J. W. Guthrie & M. G. Springer (Eds.), Rendering school resources
more effective (pp. 48–99). Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McHenry-Sorber, E., & Campbell, M. P. (2019). Teacher shortage as a local phenomenon:
District leader sensemaking, responses, and implications for policy. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 27(87). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4413
McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching
force influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on the teacher shortage in

99
special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 293–305.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312010
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Saunders Flippin, S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special
education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special
education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010201
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Mezirow. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.7401
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, P., DeArmond, M., & Guin, K. (2003). A national crisis or localized problems? Getting
perspective on the scope and scale of the teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11, 23. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v11n23.2003
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-withdisabilities?tid=4
Oketunbi, O. A., & Oshinyadi, P. O. (2022). Relationship between teacher attrition rates and
pupils academic performance in Ijebu north-east local government area of Ogun State.
African Journal of Educational Management, 22(1), 155–172.
http://journals.ui.edu.ng/index.php/ajem/article/view/696

100
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Petek, G. (2019). Overview of special education in California. California Legislative Analyst’s
Office. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/4110/overview-spec-ed-110619.pdf
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Podolsky, A., & Sutcher, L. (2016). California teacher shortages: A persistent problem.
Learning Policy Institute.
Reitman, G. C., & Karge, B. D. (2019). Investing in teacher support leads to teacher retention:
Six supports administrators should consider for new teachers. Multicultural Education,
27(1), 7–18.
Rude, H., & Miller, K. J. (2018). Policy challenges and opportunities for rural special education.
Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 21–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517748662
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

101
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Sindelar, P. T., Pua, D. J., Fisher, T., Peyton, D. J., Brownell, M. T., & Mason-Williams, L.
(2018). The demand for special education teachers in rural schools revisited: An update
on progress. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37(1), 12–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517749247
Steele, J. L., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2010). Do financial incentives help low‐performing
schools attract and keep academically talented teachers? Evidence from California.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 451–478.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20505
Strunk, K. O., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2011). Differentiated compensation: How California school
districts use economic incentives to target teachers. Journal of Education Finance, 36,
268–293. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2011.0002
Theobald, N. D. (1991). A persistent challenge: Staffing special education programs in rural
schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(3), 39–50.
Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 233–
238. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). About IDEA. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
Watlington, E., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving:
An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22–37.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40704404 https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.0.0028

102
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Wiggan, S., Smith, D., & Watson-Vandiver, M. J. (2021). The national teacher shortage, urban
education and the cognitive sociology of labor. The Urban Review, 53(1), 43–75.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00565-z
Zeffane, R. M. (1994). Understanding employee turnover: The need for a contingency approach.
International Journal of Manpower, 15(9), 22–37.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729410074182

103
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used in this study.
Introduction
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today and answer some questions about
retention in the consortium. As you know, I am conducting a gap analysis study on improving
retention rates for special education teachers within the consortium for my dissertation program
with the Rossier School of Education. I will be asking a series of questions about KMO
resources as they relate to your role as a member of the SAC. The interview will take
approximately 60 minutes to complete. Do I have your permission to record the interview for
purposes of accuracy? (Pause for response). During the interview, I will not refer to your name.
Your responses will be anonymous, and your name will not be referenced in the study. Your
participation is voluntary, and you may choose to stop the interview at any time. Do you have
any questions before we get started? (Pause for response). Ok, let’s start with some questions
about the consortium.
Interview Questions
1. Describe the structure and mission of the consortium.
2. What factors impact certificated special education staff retention?
3. What is the consortium currently doing to improve staff retention?
4. What is your role as an advisory committee member under the cooperative agreement?
5. What retention factors fall under the responsibility of the administrative unit, the
individual districts, or are shared by both?
6. Describe how committee members hold each other and consortium staff accountable.

104
7. Describe how you reflect on the collaboration between your school leadership and
consortium staff as it relates to staff retention.
8. Describe how the consortium provides services to all special education students and why
that is valuable.
9. Do you feel confident in your ability to make informed decisions about staff retention?
Why or why not? What additional information would be helpful in making informed
decisions?
10. Tell me what actions, if any, you have taken as an SAC member that have impacted staff
retention.
11. What kind of information are you provided by the consortium, if any, regarding funding,
hiring practices, and existing support for retaining consortium employees?
12. Tell me about the training and support, if any, you receive as a member of the committee
to help you fulfill your role.
13. Describe how school climate impacts employee retention.
14. What impact, if any, does the culture of the school and/or district have on employee
retention?
15. Describe how the staffing structure of the consortium impacts the collegiality between
consortium staff and school staff.
Conclusion
This concludes the interview. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. Do
you have any questions for me at this time? (Pause for think time). Should you have any
questions, please feel free to email me directly.

105
Appendix B: Documents Analysis Review Protocol Template
KMO influence
assessed
Document KMO influence
present: Y/N
Reviewer notes
Appendix B: Documents Analysis Review Protocol Template

106
Appendix C: Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089
RETAINING SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF IN A RURAL CONSORTIUM SETTING:
AN EVALUATIONSTUDY
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the organization’s performance related to employee
retention rates of consortium special education staff. The analysis will focus on the SEC
superintendents advisory committee’s impact on retention and any performance gaps in
knowledge, motivation, or organizational influences that may need to be addressed to improve
retention within the organization.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-minute interview.
The interview may be conducted in person or remotely via Zoom due to scheduling or
accessibility. The interview will focus on your individual knowledge, motivation, and
understanding of the organizational influences that may impact retention within the organization.
With your permission, the interview will be recorded, and the recording will only be used by the
interviewer to ensure information is accurately captured. You may decline to have the interview
recorded prior to or at any time during the interview without affecting your participation in the
study. There is no cost to you for taking part in this study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
I will publish the results in my thesis. Participants will not be identified in the results. I will take
reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

107
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Principal Investigator is Andrew Schwab, schwaban@usc.edu, 209-617-8147. The Faculty
Advisor is Darline P. Robles PhD, dprobles@rossier.usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (323) 442-0114 or hrpp@usc.edu

108
Appendix D: Implementation Analysis and Reporting Tool Template
Recommendation Implemented: Y/N Notes
AU conducted a study
session for SAC to review
retention factors and
collectively identify
which factors are site,
AU, and shared.
AU hosted an annual retreat
and review of the roles
and responsibilities as
outlined in the
cooperative agreement.
SAC reviewed the roles and
responsibilities related to
staff retention as outlined
in the cooperative
agreement at the annual
retreat.
AU formalized orientation
process for new members.
SAC included a refresh of
orientation material on
the annual retreat agenda.
SAC revised cooperative
agreement to define SAC
role in staff
accountability.
AU implemented exit
interviews by the special
education director and
provided quarterly
summaries to SAC.
AU surveyed consortium
staff on satisfaction
related to factors and
presented to SAC.
AU added retention
information/discussion

109
Recommendation Implemented: Y/N Notes
agenda item to monthly
SAC meetings.
AU annually surveyed SAC
members on thoroughness
and timeliness of
information and
discuss/review at annual
retreat.
SAC developed an annual
SAC self-assessment tool.
Included collaboration
metric on the SAC selfassessment tool.
Included confidence metric
on the SAC selfassessment tool.
Included feedback on
Agenda information on
the SAC self-assessment
tool.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study

PDF

The attrition and lack of medical follow-up of patients in research in a primary care setting: a gap analysis

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

An evaluation study of the retention of company grade officers in the Western Volunteer Rifles

PDF

Retaining female field grade officers in the USAF: an evaluative study

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Raising special needs: an evaluation study of respite care for medically fragile children living with autism and other illnesses

PDF

Don’t leave: a safety net hospital’s response to retain nurses during a nursing shortage

PDF

Looking through the staff lens: membership retention strategies in 501c6 nonprofit organizations

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women general officers in a U.S. military reserve component

PDF

Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover

PDF

Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Lack of African-American undergraduate male student retention: an evaluation study on perspectives from academic advisors

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Schwab, Andrew Theodore (author)

Core Title Retaining special education staff in a rural consortium setting: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 02/08/2024

Defense Date 01/22/2024

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

Tag certificated,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,rural,special education,Teachers

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Cortez, Nasser (committee member), Vollmert, Mike (committee member)

Creator Email anotherschwab@gmail.com,schwaban@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113825939

Unique identifier UC113825939

Identifier etd-SchwabAndr-12660.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SchwabAndr-12660

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Schwab, Andrew Theodore

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240208-usctheses-batch-1125 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu