The purposes of this research were to quantify trends in three components of teacher turnover and to investigate claims of excessive teacher turnover as the predominant source of teacher shortages. Attrition and teaching area transfer rates were comparable in special and general education and increased substantially from 1991-1992 to 2000-2001. School migration was stable over years, but higher in special than general education. Although annual turnover was high and increased to 1 in 4 teachers (25.6%) by 2000-2001, teacher attrition was lower than in other occupations. Evidence suggests that retention is unlikely to increase without dramatic improvements in the organization, management, and funding of public schools. Until then, an increased supply of qualified teachers is needed to reduce teacher shortages. Disciplines Education CommentsReprinted from Exceptional Child, Volume 75, Issue 1, September 2008, pages 7-31.We have contacted the publisher regarding the deposit of this paper in ScholarlyCommons@Penn. No response has been received.This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/ 184 ----------------i_------------

In view of the paucity of national data on the associations between predictor variables and teacher retention, school transfer, and attrition in special education, we sought to provide such data from a national probability sample of 4,798 public school teachers from the 1989 Teacher Followup Survey (Faupel, Bobbitt, & Friedrichs, 1992). The analysis focused on teacher retention and turnover (i.e., school transfer and attrition) of special education teachers (SETs) in comparison with general education teachers (GETs). Results showed that teacher turnover decreased as the following variables increased: teacher age (until retirement age), the number of dependent children, the level of certification, the number of years since the last degree was earned, teaching experience and salary level. The importance of these and other relationships for designing strategies to maximize teacher retention is discussed.

The current U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) emphasis on the preparation of teachers in content knowledge, and de-emphasis on pedagogy and teaching practicums, constitutes a major issue concerning how best to prepare a sufficient supply of highly qualified teachers. By contrast, federal policy represented by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes both full certification and content knowledge. Our research was based on data from the Schools and Staffing Survey for beginning teachers in both special and general education (separately). Results showed that extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching was more effective than was only some or no preparation in producing beginning teachers who (a) were fully certified, (b) secured in-field teaching assignments, and (c) reported being well prepared to teach subject matter and well prepared with respect to pedagogical skills. Thus, contrary to the USDOE perspective emphasizing preparation in content knowledge, extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching contributed to the attainment of the two key NCLB indicators of a highly qualified teacher: full certification and in-field teaching. AbstractThe current U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) emphasis on the preparation of teachers in content knowledge, and de-emphasis on pedagogy and teaching practicums, constitutes a major issue concerning how best to prepare a sufficient supply of highly qualified teachers. By contrast, federal policy represented by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) emphasizes both full certification and content knowledge. Our research was based on data from the Schools and Staffing Survey for beginning teachers in both special and general education (separately).Results showed that extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching was more effective than was only some or no preparation in producing beginning teachers who (a) were fully certified, (b) secured in-field teaching assignments, and (c) reported being well prepared to teach subject matter and well prepared with respect to pedagogical skills. Thus, contrary to the USDOE perspective emphasizing preparation in content knowledge, extensive preparation in pedagogy and practice teaching contributed to the attainment of the two key NCLB indicators of a highly qualified teacher: full certification and in-field teaching.

This study addresses the chronic and increasing national shortage of fully certified special education teachers (SETs) in comparison with general education teachers (GETs). The data sources were the 1987-1988 through 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Surveys and the Data Analysis System for special education for school years 1987-1988 through 2001-2002. The study found that (a) the shortage of fully certified SETs increased from 7.4% in 1993-1994 to 12.2% in 2001-2002 (2%-4% greater than the shortage of fully certified GETs), (b) the number of additional fully certified SETs needed almost doubled from 25,000 in 1993-1994 to 49,000 in 2001-2002, (c) (GETs). The data sources were the 1987-1988 through 1999-2000 Surveys and the Data Analysis System for special education for school years 1987-1988 through 2001-2002. The study found that (a) the shortage of fully certified SETs increased from 7.4% in 1993-1994 to 12.2% in 2001-2002 (2%-4% greater 25,000 in 1993-1994 to 49,000 in 2001-2002, (c) Exceptional Children

In view of the paucity of national data on teacher retention, transfer, and attrition in special education, and the importance of these phenomena to teacher demand and shortage, we sought to provide such data from a national probability sample of 4,798 public school teachers from the 1988–1989 Teacher Followup Survey (Faupel, Bobbitt, & Friedrichs, 1992). The analysis focused on two main teaching fields (special and general education) and various aspects of teacher turnover. Results showed higher annual turnover for special education teachers (SFTs) than for general education teachers (GETs), in terms of both attrition from public school teaching (SETs = 8%; GETs = 6%) and transfer among public schools (SETs = 13%; GETs = 7%). However, the SET-GET difference in attrition percentages was modest in absolute terms, and lower than those reported from several states. SETs and GETs who left teaching did not differ significantly in postteaching activities or plans to return to teaching. The relationships between teacher turnover and teacher demand, shortage, recruitment, retention, and preparation are discussed.