Alterable Job Aspects for Teachers of Students with Functional Disabilities

1. Alterable Job Aspects for Teachers of Students with Functional Disabilities Mary Pearson, M.Ed. University of Kansas

2. Imagine…… you are a teacher. The faculty at the school where you work is in their regular faculty meeting. A teacher is presenting about an important curriculum change that all the teachers in the school are now required to adopt into their teaching. Although your students all have significant disabilities, you are required to know the current curriculum standards for each grade, link the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals to these standards, and modify the standards to meet your student’s individual needs in any regular education classes they may attend. The teacher who is presenting at the meeting proceeds to hand out documents about this curriculum. You are sitting near the front, close enough that she walks past you as she hands out the papers. The teacher walks past and does not give you a paper. At first, you think this is because she just forgot, but in just a few minutes you realize that everyone in the faculty meeting is holding the papers, except you. So, you raise your hand. She notices your up-raised hand and asks you what you need. You proceed to tell her that you did not receive the handout. In response, she says “Oh, well your kids don’t do this, so you don’t need one.”

3. Imagine…. • How would you feel if such treatment was something that occurred often with in your job? • Would you want to stay in that position or job for an extended period of time? • Would such treatment help, or harm how you did your job? • Can such things be changed within the framework of alterable job aspects?

4. Background • Little study has occurred into working conditions for teachers of students with functional disabilities (Gersten, Keating, Yavonoff, & Harniss, 2001) • The field of special education has incredibly high attrition, and low retention levels (Muller & Markowitz, 2003) • Special educators leave to pursue a range of fields inside and outside of education. Others who do not leave report high rates of job transferring and apathy toward full involvement and engagement while on the job (Gersten et al, 2001) • All of these components have led to a continual national shortage of highly trained and qualified special education teachers in the functional area (Muller & Markowitz, 2003; Brownell, Hirsch, & Seo, 2004; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller [abstract], 1997)

5. Background continued… “Seriously addressing the design of the special educator’s job is a critical national need” (Gersten et al, 2001, p. 13).

6. Purpose and Hypothesis The purpose of this study is to identify those job aspects that could be altered in order to change the working conditions for teachers of students with significant disabilities. To do this, the study looks specifically at identifying and investigating alterable job aspects (AJAs) of this job.

7. Definition of Alterable Job Aspects (AJAs) The parts of the job that could be changed in order to improve working conditions and productivity for educators. Initially theorized by Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yavonoff, P., & Harniss, M.K. (2001). (Published in Exceptional Children)

8. Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 1. Concept: Alterable Job Aspects 2. Openly identify and label the different AJAs 3. Identified 11 AJA themes; triangulated with identified existing theories. 4. Divided into themes and areas 5. Return to Concept with themes of Alterable Job Aspects MethodsConceptual Framework

9. Other Methods • Participants a. Convenient sample—teachers asked to volunteer b. Included 3 special educators who work with students with functional disabilities c. 2 teachers—elementary; 1 teacher—secondary d. All worked in Midwest e. All within their first 2 years of being a special education teacher f. All of their students were located in regular education schools g. 2 teachers had background in general education h. 2 teachers becoming certified • Confidentiality a. Procedures utilized originated from J. & J. Blasé (2003) b. Study explained to each participant; each seemed to find special significance in telling their experiences

10. Other Methods c. Interviews held privately d. Recording occurred after permission given e. Used pseudonyms f. Built trust upon prior relationship (convenient sampling) 3. Interviews a. Held in location outside educator’s schools b. Attempts made for interview to occur at convenient time for participant c. Interview protocol designed as a guide; allowed interviews to build trust by providing relaxed conversations d. Interviews lengthy; occurred because of comfort participants seemed to have within the interviews e. Thank you gifts of teaching supplies sent after interviews

11. Other Methods 4. Rigor a. Each interview recorded b. One interview transcribed; then triangulated interviews by repetitively analyzing other interviews with transcription c. Analyzed through open and axial coding e. Prior research analyzed through open and axial coding f. Further triangulation of interview coding with research coding

12. Other Methods **Important: Most prior research utilized quantitative methods where results had been narrowed to short, specific lists of poorly defined reasons for attrition/retention; Such narrowing to a subjective level was avoided in original coding process to achieve the goal of expanding the theories about special educator attrition and retention levels. 6. Saturation a. Emerging themes considered saturated once each reached a pre-decided validity agreement level of repeated appearance while triangulating the interviews and prior research 7. Document analysis a. Each teacher was asked to produce a list of regular job duties they complete b. Quantitative data were gathered from lists; Qualitative themes also gathered and triangulated with interviews and research

13. Results Job Duties: a. 25 Job Duty Categories emerged b. Overall, teachers described 112 total duties, with some overlap of duty categories Categories with the most Overlapping Job Duties Included: --create or accommodate/modify curriculum --special education meetings --teach/instruct --communicate --work on therapy/other related service activities --school meetings/ --prepare for paraeducators professional development/ --make accommodations/modifications for regular education become highly --collaborate with regular education qualified --clean/manage classroom --plan --paperwork --prepare

14. Results “A holistic view of special educations’ work conditions is needed to sustain special educators’ commitment to their work and to make it possible for teachers to use their expertise” (Billingsley, 2004b, p. 371). Emergent Themes

16. Bias--3 individual types emerged from this theme--

17. Theories “Revolving Door” Theory Ingersoll, 2001 “Component Building” Theory Slavin, 1984 “Quantity versus Quality” Theory Boe, 2006 “Supply and Demand” theory Ingersoll, 2004 School Climate Theory AFT; Monteith, 2000 “Gap” Theory Billingsly, 2004b Culture of special education and general education theory American Association on Mental Retardation, 1994; Thornton, Peltier, & Medina, (need year); DiPaola & Walhther-Thomas, 2003. Working Conditions theory SECTO, 2004 “Student Pathways” theory Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002.

18. Examples of 11 Themes

19. Important Points • Each teacher stated that the most favorite part of their job was working with the students!!! • Each teacher mentioned paperwork as stressful, but that the burden that was most stressful was that of working with other people (and dealing with this related to biases about their students) • All 3 teachers discussed times when they felt their job or students were considered less important than other’s within the school

20. Further Research • Could outlining and training others about these alterable aspects of the jobs of teachers of students with functional disabilities be used to help identify teachers headingtoward burnout? • Could making sure every special education teacher has a paid, student free preparation period decrease teacher attrition and increase retention? • How can these special educators be better involved in designing their jobs? • What are the long term effects on students with significant disabilities of high teacher attrition and low retention? • How can better understanding of the culture of disabilities, which these teachers are entrenched in, be understood within regular education, and accepted? • How can these teachers be viewed through a more equal lens by all educators?

21. Future Research 7. Where do special educators actually spend most of their time throughout the day—especially these teachers? • What is the actual impact (positive, and stress related) of having students with significant disabilities included in regular education schools? How could including special educators in, and planning for such impacts make a difference to everyone involved? • How can study into alterable job aspects affect placement of students in less restrictive settings? • How could teachers who have to make strong advocacy efforts in order to protect their student’s legal rights, have their jobs (and treatment on the job) better protected? • How can administrative training and understanding be increased? • How much systematic, subtle, and blatent discrimination is occurring within public schools toward students with significant disabilities and their teachers? How does such treatment effect teacher’s abilities to utilize effective practices?

22. Conclusions Limits to this study: --Small, qualitative study --Small amount of participants --Rigor because of size of study --Limited member checks/interobserver interview analysis --One final interview did not occur, as author was unable to contact participant