Doctoral Students in Special Education: Characteristics and Career Aspirations

Teacher Education and Special Education 2003, Volume 26, No.3, 194-205

Doctoral Students in Special Education: Characteristics and Career Aspirations

Naomi C. TYler, Deborah Deutsch Smith, & Georgine M Pion

Abstract: This study was part ofa comprehensive investigation on the supply and demand ofspeciaL education facuLty (see also Sindelar 6' lWsenberg; Pion, Smith 6' 1jler; and Smith, Pion, 1jJer, & GiLmore, -this issue). Students enrolLed in ､ ｯ ｾ ｲ ｡ Ｑ programs during the Spring of 1999 were, surveyed about their doctoraL programs, educationaL background, experiences in applying to doctoraL programs in special edu-cation, current doctoraL stud:y, post-graduation plans, and fJt:u:kground information. The survey had an 82%. ｲ･ｳｰｾｮｳ･ :ate 0,2.61 students). The study found that Jt:ctoral students were older and their ーｲ ｩ ｭ ｾ ｲ ｹ constderahon m seLectmg a doctoraL program was 7UJt havmg to relocate. Overafli,.·'s:t:udents 'were flurfy ｳ ｡ ｴ ｩ ｳ ｦ ｩ ･ ｾ with the training they ｲｾ｣･ｩｶｾ､ .in ｮＺｳ･｡ｾ｣ｨ skills" ｾｳｳ so in areas ofcoLlege tedtlfi7ig, adn:inistrati0r:! supervmon, and culturaL and Lmgutstlc diverstty. AddttIonaLLy, less than half (44%) were mterested In

faculty positions after graduation.

Special education. doctoral graduates are in great demand, in part because of meir

potential impact on me supply of special ed-ucation teachers. Legislation (e.g., IDEA, No Child Left Behind Act of2001) and reform movements (i.e., inclusion) have increased the demand for a highly qualified reaching force (Grasmick & Leak, 1997; Lindsey & Suawderman, 1995), Increasing srudem en-rollments, larger numbers of srudents iden-rified as eligible for special educarion services, and attrition rares of special education teach-ers, higher than those in general education, add to me demand for highly qualified teach-ers (Boe, Bobbit, & Cook, 1997; Brownell & Smim, 1992; McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, in press; Wescling & Whitten, 1996).

_At presem, most ofAmericas teachers and related service providers are prepared by ei-mer college and university faculty or, district-based personnel. These individuals generally have doctoral degrees. Presem and projected faculty shortages at institunons of higher ed-ucanon (Geiger, 1988; Sindelar, Buck, Car-penter, & Watanabe, 1993; Sindelar & Ro-

194

senberg, this issue; Smim & Tyler, 1994, 1997), combined with a need for knowl-edgeable, highly qualified special education directors at me local and state levels (Hehir, 1998) have fueled the demand for graduates from special education doctoral programs.

Lirerature abom special education doctOral srudents is scarce (Smim & Salzberg, 1994). The only national symposium on me supply and demand of special education faculty was held in 1988 (Kochhar, Compton, Bailey, & Barr, 1988), where issues rdared to shortages of doctoral-level personnel were discussed. Furthermore, the current Leadership Study-in SpeciaL Edttcation (discussed in Sindelar & Rosenberg; Smim, Pion, Tyler, & Gilmore; Pion, Smim & Tyler, this issue) is the only comprehensive effort since 1988 to address issues of faculty supply and demand, includ-ing me impact of me doctoral srudent pipe-line on me supply of future faculty. Almough a number of studies on isolated elemems of the supply/demand imbalance were conducr-ed previously, most focused on me 44-45 doctoral training instirutions that were mem-

'.

bers of the Higher Education Consortium in Special Educacion (HECSE). Several srudies have shown that: expanded career options for mose holding special education doccorates influence me career choices of doccoral grad-uates, otten co take positions outside of high-er education (Bunsen & Bullock, 1988; Pierce & Smith, 1994; Tyler & Smith, 1999). Concerns exist that special educacion doccoral students receive inadequate training in applied research (Greenwood, Walker, Kamps, Arreaga.-Mayer, & Cart, 1995; He-ward, Cooper, Heron, Gardner III, & Sain-ato, 1995), include few individuals from cul-rurally and linguiscica1ly diverse backgrounds (Cartledge, Gardner, & Tillman, 1995; Rousseau & Tam, 1995; Smith & Tyler, 1994; 1997), tend nor to relocate ro attend a doccoral program (Tyler & Smith, 1999), and have characteristics (e.g., lack of mobil-ity) that might hinder effortS to address in-creasing faculty shorrages (Pierce & Smim, 1994; Tyler & Smith, 1999). Concerns aboUt the shortages of doctoral graduates were initially raised in the 1980s, and find-ings indicate that the nwnber of doctoral graduates has declined since then (Pierce, Smith, & Clarke, 1992; Pion, Smith, & Ty-ler, this issue; Sindelar et al., 1993; Smith, Pion, Tyler & Gilmore, this issue).

In previous decades, doctoral graduates in special educacion tended to be slightly youn-ger than graduates from other fields; how-ever, that seems no longer to be rrue. Data indicate mat doctoral stUdents in education are entering faculty careers at an older age. The median age of those obtaining a doc-torate in education is 44.4 years (Hoffer, Du-goni, Sanderson, Sedersuom, 2001). In an investigation abour the charaCteristics of those hired at IHEs, Dil and her colleagues (Dil, Geiget, Hoover, & Sindelar, 1993) found that two-thirds of those hired between 1984 and 1988 were berween the ages of 30 and 40. Pierce & Smith (1994) found that those graduating from 1989 to 1992 aver-aged 42 years old; Tyler & Smith (1999) found the average age of graduates to be 41 years of age. Finally, Pion and her colleagues (this issue) found the median age of 1998 doctoral graduates ro be 43 years.

fu me shortage of special education fac-ulty creates a demand for doctoral graduates,

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smith & Pion

a nwnber of questions arise: What are the characrerist:ics of students in the current pipeline (students enroUed in doctoral pro-grams of special education)? How did they choose their current programs? What are the career plans of these students, and what fac-rors affect those plans? How can we reCtuit and uain more individuals? This component of the Leadership Study in SpeciaL Education attempt:ed to answer these quescions.

Method

The methodology described here is for one component (current dOCtoral students) of a comprehensive investigation on the sup-ply and demand of special education faculty! in which data were collected on special ed-ucacion faculty searches, special education dOCtOral programs, career decisions of special education doctoral graduates, and current special educarion doCtoral students. Please see Sindelar and Rosenberg (this issue), Smith et al., (this issue), and ｐ ｩ ｯ ｾ ･ ｴ ｾ Ｎ Ｌ (this issue) for descriptions of the &her study components.

Participants

In order to survey doctOral srudents, it was necessary ro obtain current students' names and addresses from their departments. Though The Survey ofDoctoral Programs £n Special Education (Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sin-delar, & Rosenberg, 2001), department chairs at the nation's 85 doctoral-level special education programs and six special education emphasis doctoral programs were asked to

provide the names and addresses of their cur-rent docroral students. Sixty-nine depart-ments (75.8%) provided this information. Sixteen departments (17.6%) could not pro-vide that information due to corUidenciality issues, bur instead agreed to disrribut:e the sealed packets containing The Survey ofDoc-toraL Students in Special Education to their students. Six departmems (7%) were unable to give names or distribute the surveys them-selves due to university policies. Inirially, ap-proximately 1,633 smdents were determined

I The Leadership Srudy io Special ｅ ､ ｵ ｣ ｾ ｴ ｩ ｯ ｮ was fundc:d by the U.S. Depr. of Education. Office: of Special Educarion Pro-grnms. Awwi H920T970006.

195

TES£, Volume 26, No.3 Summer 2003

to be possible respondents. However, not all of the inirial 1,633 were eligible for the study, as some srudents who returned the survey indicated that they were currently master's students or not studying special ed-ucacion. A  roral  of 1,511  individuals were considered eligible­sdf­reponed as  being enrolled in a special education doctoral pro-gram during the Spring semester of 1999-for  the study. 

The original mailing contained a cover let-rer  that described rhe purpose of the srudy as well  as pledges of confidentiality by  the researchers, a  stamped, self­addressed enve-lope, the questionnaire, and a $5  bill  in ap-preciation of their participation. One follow-up  mailing was conducred four weeks after the initial  mailing. The response rate for  the students after  the  follow­up  mailing  was nearly 82% (1,267 individuals). 

Questionnaire

Ten individuals with prior research expe-rience in special education leadership issues (see Smith, this issue) comprised the research srudy tearn. This  team constructed the re-search questions for  both this study and the survey instrument, the  Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education. The questions developed by  the  research srudy team ad-dressed both emerging trends as well as issues that were either not fully  answered or  not addressed in previous studies. The Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education was di-vided into six sections: type of doctoral pro-gram;  educational background; experiences in  applying to  doctoral programs in special education; current doctoral study; post­grad-uation plans; and background information. The first  two  sections verified their posirion as a doctoral student: in special education and obtained relevant information on all post-secondary studies. In  the third section, par-ticipants were asked about sources of infor-mation used to leam about doctoral pro-grams, factors that conuibuted to  their choice of doctoral programs, and relocation issues. The fourth section "Currenr Doctoral Study"  contained questions about fuli- and part­rime starus, and sources of financial sup-port:. The final  two  secrions collected infor-mation on furure employment: plans (cype of 

196 

position desired, factors influencing that de-cision, number of jobs applied for and offers received) and general demographic informa-tion  (gender, mariral  status, number of de-pendents, race/ethnicity, age, disability), The survey was ten pages long, and took an es-timared 20 minutes to complete. 

Results

Background Information

The results from  the  Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education are detailed be-low.  Information  on  general demographics and  employment: background are summa-rized. 

General Demographics

Table 1  depicts the general demographics reponed by  the survey respondents. 

Consisrent wiili  past research (Tyler  & Smith, 1999), the majority of doctoral Stu-dents (82%)  were  WOill.en.. Approximately 18% were from hisrorical;1,y!\nnderrepresenred groups, and 8% were pe­rsans with  disabili-ties. Foreign Students composed 11 %  of the population, half from Asian countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and lndia. Fifty per-cent of all doctoral students were 42 years or older. Nearly two­thirds (66%) were married or in a similar relationship, and 53% had one or more dependents. 

Employment Background

Saidents were  asked to  rec.all  their  em-ployment status ar the time iliey were apply-ing  to doctoral programs. Individuals could check mulriple  responses (e.g., a parr­time graduate srudent and teacher), so ilie sum of the responses equaled more than 100%. The majority of doctoral applicants were teachers or staff in  educational or  direct services set": rings (n = 682, 60.4%), followed by  grad-uare srudent (n = 292,  25.9%), and scaff member at a university ('71 = 188, 16.7%). Orner responses included: administrator in educational or  direCt sexvices setting (n = 117, 10.4%), Staff or administraror in orner types of setting ('71 =  79,  7.0%), not em-ployed ('71 = 26, 2.3%), and orner (n = 38, 3.4%). When a comparison was run berween full­ and part­cime enrollment and prior em-

, ' ·.

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smim & Pion

Table 1. Selected Demographic Characteriscics of Docwral StUdents Who Relocated for meir Docwral Program and Those Who Did Not Relocate

Ar,e' 30 or younger 31-40 41-50 51-60 61 and older No report:

Gender

Male Fer=1e No repon

Raceledmiciry African American AsianlPaci.fic Islander Native American Hispanic Whire No Report:

Mariral snms Married Living in marriage-like relationship Separared!divorced Widowed Never married No repon

Relocared for Docroral 5rody Did NOt Rt:locare Total

(n =" 309) (n=" 827) (N=" 1,136)

n % n % N %

56 18.1 97 11.7 153 13.5 132 42.7 273 33.0 405 35.7 87 28.2 308 37.3 395 34.. 8 28 9.0 127 15.4 155 13.7

0 0.0 9 1.1 9 0.8 6 1.9 13 1.6 19 1.7

79 25.6 131 15.8 210 18.5 229 74.1 695 84.0 924 81.3

1 0.3 1 0.1 2 0.2

29 9.4 68 8.2 97 8.5 11 3.6 30 3.6 41 3.6 10 3.2 10 1.2 20 1.8 14 4.5 38 4.6 52 4.6

236 76.4 662 80.0 898 79.0 9 2.9 19 2.3 28 2.5

142 46.0 677 64.7 677 59.6 32 IDA 83 6.3 83 7.3 39 12.6 154 24.9 154 13.6 4 1.3 11 0.9 11 1.0

90 29.1 204 13.8 204 18.0 2 0.7 5 0.6 7 0.6

Note. Percenrages may nor roral to 100.0 due to rounding. 'This refers to their age at the time of the survey (FallfWmter 1999).

ploymenr statUS, adminisrrarors in educa-cional settings were significantly more likely ro  attend school pan­rime (p  <  0.01). This is  consistem  wim  past  research (Tyler  & Smith, 1999) which showed mat administra-rors tended w maimain meir administrative posicions, attend school pan­rime, and con-tinue in the same posicion after graduation. 

Experi.en£es in Applying to Special Education Doctoral Programs

The majority of docroral stUdents (72%) applied to  only  one docroral program. Of those, most (79%) applied to programs with-in  100 miles from where the srudem was liv-ing at the time. This was in sharp contrast to  those who applied to twO  or  more pro-grams where only 59% applied to programs 

in  me local vicinity.  Applying w only  one program also meant nor relocacing; whereas 79% did  not move ro  enroll  as a  doctoral stUdent, only 46% of mose who applied ro at least cwo  schools did not move. Because relocation had such an impact on me appli-cacion process and in me choice of a doctoral program, addicional informacion is described below. 

Relocation

The ability or desire to relocate appears ro be an important factor in  the selection of a doctoral program. The average age of indi-viduals who relocated ro  enroll for  doctoral study was 38.5 years, which was significandy younger than for  those who did not relocate (mean = 42.5 years; p  <  0.001, .ES (En-

197 

> -,

TESE, Volume 26, No.3 Summer 2003

Work with a particular ｦ ｡ ｣ ｵ ｬ ｾ ｉ ］ ］

i

Be near family and fr1end

Needs of spouse and kid"11111 Program meets special need

1 J

i

• Students who did not relocate

mStudents who relocated

Attractive geographic locatio ｾｾｾＡＡｾｾｾｾｾｾＭＭＭｬＭ｟ＭＮｊＭＭＭＭｊｌ｟ＭＭｬＭ｟ＭＭｴＭＭＭｊ

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 Percent

Figure 1. R<:asons for choosing a docror:U program. Sum of responses tOtals more than 100% as srudents checked all reasons thar applied.

rollment Stams) = -0.84). Those who did not relocate were signifiCUlcly more likely to

have pursued doctoral study parr-time (p < 0.001, ES = -0.96). Whereas 50% of those who did not relocate were part-time doctoral students, only 9% of those who did move to begin doctoral srudy were enrolled part-time. Srudents with no dependents also w;ere more likely to relocate for doctoral study than meir councerparts wim children (40% versus 20%, respectively).

Significant differences also existed among the reasons listed for choosing a doctoral program (p < .001). Students who did not relocate were significantly more likely IO have chosen meir doctoral program based on not having ro relocate, proximity to family and friends, family needs, and me program's commitment to addressing the special needs of students. In comrast, those who did re-locate were significancly more likely  to have based their  program decisions on  reasons such as the amount of financial support of-fered, the program's reputation in special ed-ｾ ｣ ｡ ｴ ｩ ｯ ｮ Ｌ and me concentration of me pro-gram. Figure 1 provides more derailed infor-mation on these differences. 

Application to Only One Doctoral Program

Comparisons were made berween srudents who  applied to only  one doctoral program and those who  applied to  more than one, 

198 

­

and differences were found between me two groups. Almough a much smaller group man their peers who applied tQ;',bnly one program, those who applied to multi'ililli  programs were significancly more likely·Ji0·­obtain informa-tion  about  pOtential  programs from  bro-chures and other materials (p  <  0.001, ES =  0.53),  conversations with  those familiar about doctoral programs (p  < 0.01, ES  = 0.17), Council for  Exceptional Children Pro-fessions Clearinghouse materials (p < 0.001, ES  = 0.17), and advercisements in journals and diStributed aI  conferences (p  < 0.001, ES = 0.23). 

Only one significam factor appeared in a comparison between groups on the most im-ponant reason for  choosing a doctoral pro-gram: NOI  having IO relocate (p <  0.01, ES = 0.32). For those who applied IO  only one program, this was me primary factor in their doctoral program decision. 

Cun-ent Doctoral Study

In Spring 1999, 58% of doctoral students reponed mat they had primarily been full-rime students during me course of their doc-toral study, and 52% were presencly enrolled full­time  at  the lime  of me survey. When asked about their progress IOward complet-ing the degree, 43 % still were taking courses as parr of their degree requirements. Another 14% had completed ali courses and were pre-

­

I -_ ' -

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smith & Pion

Table 2. Types of Financial Support for Special Education: DoctOral Students by Typical Enrollmem Status

Full-rime Part-rime Type of Financial SuPPOrt (n == 634) (n = 457) p ES

iksearch assisnm:ship Teaching assistantship Traineeship FelJowship Grant for dissertation research Paid internship or praccieum Loan Earnings from outside johs Personal savings Spouse's or parmers earnings Assistance or ruirion reimbursement from employer Ocher (e.g., mili=y benefits)

42.2 112 .001 0.73 36.4 13.6 .001 0.53 173 7.7 .001 030 56.5 27.1 .001 0.61 5.5 2.4 .05 0.16 4.7 3.9 ns 0.04

43.1 20.6 .001 0.49 52.8 60.2 .01 -0.15 562 60.4 ns -0.09 44.1 32.3 .001 0.14

7.4 30.2 .001 -0.61 7.4 6.6 ns 0.03

ｎｯｴｾＮ Survey respondents were smdenrs who were u.s. cici= or permanent residems and were enrolled in a. special education doCtoral programs as of Spring 1999.

paring for exams, 18% had passed qualifying or comprehensive exams, and 26% had an approved disserration proposal. The average number of years that they had spent in doc-toral StUdy was 3.4.

The majority of current doctOral students viewed their doctoral training experiences as positive. Approximately 26% were complete-ly satisfied, 48% were mostly satisfied, and 20% had mixed emotions; very small per-centages were either mostly or completely dissatisfied (5% and 1%, respectively). Sat-isfacoon levels were highest in terms of uain-ing in consultation and education where 91 % were either compleeely or mostly satis-fied. Training in research and evaluation and in intervention strategies ranked second and third (79% and 74% were satisfied, respec-tively). Saosfaction levels were lower with re-gard to the program's performance in equip-ping mern with skills associaeed with college teaching (71 %), diagnosis and assessmem (70%), elementary and secondary school eeaching (66%), dealing with issues associ-ated with cultUral and linguistic diversity (64%), and administration and supervision (62%). These views did noe significantly dif-fer for those planning academic careers ver-sus other types of leadership roles.

The Role ofFinancial Aid

Respondents were asked to describe the various sources of support used to fund their

graduate education. MoS! frequemly report-ed were cwo generic types: (1) universiry-ad-ministered support, including research assis-tantships, teaching ｡ ｳ ｳ ｩ ｳ ｴ ｡ ｮ ｴ ｾ ｨ ｩ Ｌ ｰ ｳ Ｌ fellow-ships, and traineeships; and Ｈ ｾ ［ Ｇ ｪ Ａ ｩ ･ ｲ ｳ ｯ ｮ ｡ ｬ re-sources such as earnings from .outside jobs, spouse or partners' salaries, personal savings, and Ｎ ｬ ｯ ｾ ｳ Ｎ As ｳｾｯｷｮ in Table 2, universiry-administered asSIStance supported the major-ity of doctoral stUdems. Slightly more than rwo-fifrhs (44%) of current doctoral stUdentS indicated that fellowships had helped finance their doCtoral stUdy, 27-29% had served as a teaching or research assistant, and 13% had been appointed to a uaineeship. Looking across these four classifications, approximate-ly 69% of stUdentS had been supporred by at least one of mese sources ae some tim.e during their doctoral study.

However, the role of personal resources appears substantial. Nearly rhree-fi..fi:hs of the stUdents rdied on outside jobs (e.g., posi-tions in school disuicts) and their personal savings ro help pay for their graduate edu-cation. For rwo-fifths of the respondems, me earnings of spouses, partners, or other family members also wem roward meeting educa-tional expenses. Approximately 34% had ob-tained educaeional loans. In faCt, 19% of all ｾｯ｣ｴｏｲ｡ｬ srudenrs paid for meir uaining en-weIy through some combination of outside employmenr, family earnings. savings, and loans and received no support from the doc-toral institUtion.

199

-TESE, Volume 26, No. 3 Summer 2003

Table 3. Comparison of Students Planning Faculty Careers and Graduat:es Who Became-Faculty Members

StudentS with Recent ｇ ｲ ｡ ､ ｵ ｡ ｾ ･ ｳ in Characreriscic Academic Plans Tenure-Une Positions

ｐ･ｲ｣ｾｴ who were female 81.2 77.6 Percent who were an underrepresented minoriry* 21.7 16.2 Age at beginning doctoral study (mean years)'" 36.6 35.6 Years between master's and beginning docroral srudy 6.3 5.6 Percent who relocated to begin doctoral srudy"' 35.9 45.3 Percent who were typically enrolled full-time 69.3 N/a Percent who had a TA, RA, uaineeship, or fellowships* 75.8 60.9 Percent who has/had outside job to suPPOrt doctoral srudy"' 57.1 17.7

Note. Data on studentS are from the Su.nrey of Docroral StudentS in Special Education, and information on faculty is from the Survey of Career ｅ ｸ ｰ ･ ｲ Ｎ ｩ ｾ ｣ ･ ｳ of Recenr DoctorateS.

'" p < 0.05

Post-Graduation Plans

The most: popular intended career of doc-wral srudents enrolled in Spring 1999 was to

work in academe (44%). Careers in admin-. istration (18%) and public school teaching (14%) were me next most popular (although distant) choices. Seven percem indicated an imerest in research positions; an additional 7% listed "Orner" career plans (e.g., work in clinics br private practice) and 10% were un-decided..

Srudents most frequemly cited me degree of interesting or rewarding work (89.2%, n = 974), salary (78.9%, n = 860), and work-ing conditions (64.7%, n = 706) as factors that influenced meir furure career choices. Almough srudents who chose careers outside of academe were not asked why they would not consider a faculty position, comments from many srudents indicated that: their per-ceptions of academe as a workplace were both negative and disillusioned.

Significant differences emerged berween srudents planning faculry and non-faculty ca-reers. Those planning faculty positions were more likely to plan their career choice based on working conditions (70.4%, n = 324, p < 0.001, ES = 0.19), staffwim whom mey wouJd be working most: closely (67.4%, n = 310, p < 0.001, ES = 0.35), job securiry (55.4%, n = 225, P < 0.001, ES = 0.20), and geographic location, which included cul-rural and recreational opportunities (40.0%, n = 184, P < 0.001, ES = 0.23). Srudems planning non-academic careers based those plans on populations wirh whom they would

200

be working (51.4%, n = 324, p < 0.001, ES = -0.22).

Predictive Factors and FacuLty Positions

Doctoral students planning academic and other leadership ｰ ｯ ｳ ｩ ｴ ｩ ｯ ｮ ｾ were compared on many of the same ｶ ｡ ｲ ｩ ｡ ｢ ｬ ｾ Ｑ ｩ ｬ ｩ ｡ ｴ distinguished current faculty trom ｮ ｯ ｮ ｾ ｡ ｩ ｃ ｵ ｬ ｴ ｹ (Pion et: al., t:h.is issue). Srudents intending to become as-sisrant professors differed from their fellow graduat:e srudents planning to work in other roles on many of the same variables iliat dis-tinguished current Faculty tram their non-ac-ademic counterparts (see Pion et al., t:h.is is-sue). As with current faculty, docroral sru-dents with faculry aspirations were more like-ly to relocate to begin docroral srudy (35.9%, p < 0.05). They also were more likely to be enrolled full-time (69.3%, p < 0.05) and to

have received teaching assistantships, re-search assistantships, or fellowships (75.8%, p < 0.05).

The Likelihood ofAccepting a FacuLty Position

The characterisrics of smdenrs who re-porred academic career plans differ from mose of recent graduat:es who actually be-came faculty (Pion et. al, this issue). The re-sults of this analysis show mat: srudents in me pipeline wim faculty aspiracions look slightly different from recem graduates in faculty positions (see Table 3). In facr, mree specific characterisrics of mese srudents mOre closely resemble mose of graduates who se-

- -

lected non-facuhy careers. First, individuals in the pipeline were, on average, nearly one year older than were current faculty when mel' firSt entered their docwral program. In fact, iliey were closer w the age of those who chose careets outside of higher education (the mean for non-faculty was 36.7 years). Second, a smaller proportion of StUdents (36%) relocated to begin their docwral srud-ies than did their facuJ ty predecessors (44%)-another variable that distinguishes faculty from non-faculty. Finally, the per-centage of doctoral srudenrs receiving TAs, RAs, traineeships, or fellowships declined from 87% for recent graduates in faculty po-sitions to 76% of those aspiring co be aca-demics. Students also reported more involve-ment in outside jobs to support their doc-toral studies than did graduates who are fac-ulty (5]% versus 40%, respectively). In summary, when considering variables that are somewhat ptedictive of acceptance of faculty jobs, the Students in the pipeline who in-tended to become faculty actually had char-acreriStics more in concert with those who accepted positions outside of academe; a pos-sible worrisome signal for future supply and demand imbalances.

Discussion

Limitatio1tS

As with all survey merhodology, one basic limitation of this srudy relates co non-re-sponse bias. The source of this bias is those that did not respond and rhose who auended programs who did not patticipate. As such, there could be a critical number of non-re-spondents whose charaCteriStics could have skewed the resultS. However, given me 82% response rate, the impact of any non-re-sponse bias should be minimal.

Secondly, this survey did not ask stude.nts aboUt the specific sources of their funding (i.e.. OSEp, SEA, LEA), and mere seemed to

be confusion among respondenrs regarding the terms assistantJhip and feLlowship. There-fore, no specific conclusions regarding the impact of federal funding can be drawn from exisring data. Studenrs were also not asked w specifically liSt reasons why they would not consider careers as faculty members, so any conclusions aboUt the undesirability of fac-

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smirh & Pion

ulty positions is drawn from anecdotal com-menrs made on the survey by the respon-dentS.

Diversity

The presence of culturally and linguisti-cally diverse (CLD) faculty have a positive impact on bOth the recruitment and reren-tion of smdenrs from diverse backgrounds into special education teacher preparation programs (Tyler, Yzquierdo, Lopez-Reyna, & Flippin, in press). A persistent and significant predictor of enrollment and graduation of di-verse students is the presence of diverse fac-ulty (Blackwell, 1984). Faculty of color pro-vide diverse educational experiences for teacher uainees (Sileo, 2000) and afford the potential to increase research in the educa-tion field' about Students of color (Frierson, 1991).

Therefore, one disturbing finding of rhis study is thar only 18% of the special edu-cation doctOral students are from historically underrepresented groups. It is reasonable w assume mat, if their career plans are consis-tent with those of rhe entire doctoral Student sample, less man half can be expected to as-sume faculty positions after graduation. This small number of individuals would be insuf-ficient (0 address the demand for faculty from diverse backgrounds (Sindelar & Ro-senberg, this issue). Consequently, the lack of diversity in the doctoral pipeline could re-sult in fewer teachers of color recruited into teacher prepara tion programs, and less knowledge generated about the educational ourcomes for students with disabilities from hisrorically underrepresented groups.

The Impact ofNon-Mobility

Consistent wirh past research (Pierce & Smith, 1994; Tyler & Smith, 1999) and even more significam in the present srudy, rhe re-luctance to relocate is the predominant con-sideration for the majority of doctoral stu-denrs, If at one point in the history of our field ir was common for Students to move across the COUntry to srudy in a particular program, or with a specific faculty member, then rimes have decidedly changed. Today, it appears fewer docroral studems come from a narional pool; instead many arrend docroral

- , . -;.--

201

2

TESE, Volume 26, No.3 Summer 2003

programs dose to their work and residence. In many cases these students attend the same school for Master's and doctoral training, and are subsequemly less likely to relocate after graduacion. The greatest majority of those currently enrolled in docroral programs choose their university because of its prox-imity to where they live.  How does this lack of mobility  impact the  profession overall? Some would argue that students who receive consecutive degrees from  the same inscitu-cion are not exposed to diverse viewpoints or training (Tyler,  1996). This limited perspec-rive  would men translate to  their students through the course comem in their own clas-ses (Tyler,  1996). This is  a valid point, bUt is  it necessarily a problem? And if it  is prob-

_lematic, what can be done to address it? Giv-en the overwhelming impact of lack of mo-bility  on the decisions of doctoral students, those with a stake in leadership training must address Ulls  issue. 

Recruitment Efforts are also Impacted by Mobility Issues

Departments of special education brain-storm, conduct stUdent surveys, spend scant resources on attractive recruianem materials, and even hire consulting firms  to help with recruicment. However, these efforts are pos-sibly in  vain. That is,  brochures and adver-tisements were used primarily  by  the small minoriTy  of  studenrs who  did  relocate. Three­fourths of the location­bound students based their program decisions on not having to relocate. When one considers the number of states that have no doctoral programs or the vast areas of the counery that are not in proximity  to  any existing programs, it be-comes obvious mat large numbers of poten-tial doctoral students may not even consider the possibility of earning a doctorate because of relocation issues. Given these findings, it ｩ ｾ hard to see why departmentS should spend more resources in better or more broad­based recruiting. Instead, strategies need to  be de-veloped that are designed to  increase mobil-ity. 

Recruiting younger students­who have not accumulared me assorted responsibilities that tend to come with age and subsequenrly influence relocation decisions­is one logical 

202 

approach that might lessen the mobility bar-rier (Smith et al., 2003). Recruiting srudentS at a younger age, geuing them through me pipeline faster, with  reduced classroom ex-perience, is an  attracrive option  for  many reasons. First,  it  might increase the chances of mobility;  as such, the chance of becoming a faculty member might increase as well. Sec-ond, it  increases me longevity of one's career in higher education, thus maximizing the po-tential for  impact on the field.  Third, once the  "recruit­younger" approach is  institu-tionalized, current faculty who  teach at the undergraduate or  Master's level  programs could be  encouraged to  actively search for potencial doctoral studems among their Stu-dent and gradu.ate ranks. However, it  is par-ticularly important that prospective students are cognizant of the demands of a doctoral program and the various post­graduate career opportunities and expectations in  order to

avoid future disappoinanent, frustration, or attrition (Golde & Dore, 2001). 

While older students ｾ ｮ have personal situations that  ｣ ｯ ｭ ｰ ｬ ｩ ｡ Ｌ ［ Ｌ ｾ Ｌ Ｎ ｲ ･ ｬ ｯ ｣ ｡ ｴ ｩ ｯ ｮ Ｌ they also  have  professional characteristics that make  them  ideal  candidates for  doctoral study. Many of these individuals have spent considerable time gaining experience in  the classroom or  other  direct  service settings. This experience can personalize the content of doctoral studies to  make it  more mean-ingful  and can  play  an  invaluable role  in post­doctoral employment­whether uain-ing furore teachers (e.g., in methods courses, in supervision) or making administrative de-cisions at the state and local levels. Since re-location is  a primary factor in  doctoral pro-gram  selection and post­graduate employ-ment, ways to mitigate the confounding var-iables  associated with  relocation and a subsequent career change fOt  older students must be  tested. School districts nationwide are  successfully implementing creacive re-cruiting  strategies such as  salary  bonuses, mortgage dosing costS, and moving costs to 

recruit  special education teachers (Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 2001). Similarly, possi-ble strategies to encolliage relocacion for doc-toral srudems could include: moving expens-es, spousal employment, higher stipend lev-els, and dependent allowances. 

Consideration of  "front­end"  strategies 

- -

chat focus on increasing che docroral pipeline are nOt enough..Alchough those straTegies may increase che numbers of special educa-tion doctorates, the numbers entering aca-deme will remain low if subsrnntial changes do nor occur within che higher education workplace. The benefirs associated with fac-ulty positions in educaTion are low compared ro business and industry. Even in education, higher-level administrarors (i.e.. school su-perintendenrs) usually relocate for cheir po-sitions--ciespite age-related family responsi-bilities-because che benefirs of the new po-sition outweigh the cosrs of relocation. The cost-benefit ratio of accepting a faculty po-sition in special education must be adjUSTed if the shottage problem is to be solved.

Funding

Finances play a crucial role in boch doc-roral study and post-docroral employment. Increasing che number of stipends awarded and the amOUnT provided for each fellowship is a StarT. Stipends have barely increased over che last few decades, and docroral studenrs can no longer suppon themselves-let alone a family-on raday's stipends. Tawney & DeHaas-Warner (1993) calculated chat a $2,500 assistanrship in 1%0 would be worth approximately $32,000 in 1993. If we cal-culare for inflation, chen raday's doctoral StU-denrs should be receiving annual stipends of approximately $39,400. Instead, annual sti-pend levels hover around $15,000.

Increasing stipends alone, however, may not be sufficiem, and docroral programs may need to develop creative strategies, particu-larly for older doctoral students with fami-lies. Financing campus visirs, reimbursement for relocation COStS, and help finding and fi-nancing dependent care may help ro reduce me relocacion barrier.

Conclusion

The end result or outcome of a special ed-ucation docrorate must become worch the investment. According to Ingersoll (2001), me nation's teaching force experiences a 14-1S% turnover rate per year. Teachers cite rea-SOns such as poor salaries, lack of adminis-uative SUppOH, smdem discipline problems, and lack of autonomy as precipitating factors

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smith & Pion

in cheir decisions ro leave. Sadly, for many newly graduated doctorates, working under these conditions is preferential ro accepting a faculey posicion at a college or university (Pion et al.,chis issue). Srudems in special education docroral programs are subject to

the same career dilemmas, and many choose similar career paths. Alchough it is easy to discuss solutions such as increased salaries, better working conditions, and enhanced prestige, the realiey of higher edllcation makes it difficult to implemem such changes. Effecrive long-term solutions to increase the numbers of individuals who a) pursue doc-toral study, and b) aspire to faculty positions are needed. These solutions will req uire a unique collaborative effort among such di-verse entities as; che academic community; federal, state and local educaTion agencies; professional and parem organizations; and disabiliey advocates.

In summary, the currem cadre of doctoral studenrs is older and less mobile chan their predecessors, and base ､ｯ｣ｴｯｲ｡ｬｾ program-choice decisions on issues of relocacion. Less chan half express an interest in faculty careers after graduation. It does nOT appear that this pipeline is sufficient ra meet che demand for higher education faculey. Shortages of special education teachers have resulted in alterna-tive certification programs ro meet the in-creasing demand from school districrs. Are similar programs on the horiz.on for special education doctorates?

References

Blackwell, J. E. (1984, Occober). IncTel1Sing a.cws and retention ofminority students in graduate flndproftJrional Khools. Paper presenred ar the Educational Tesring Ser-vices lnviucional Conference on Educational Srand:uds, Testing, and Access. New York, NY.

Brownell, M.]. & Sroirh, D.D. (1992). Amitionlce-tenoon of special education reachers: Cririque ofcurrenr research and recommendarions for retention efforrs. Teacher EdZlcacion flnd Special Education. 15(4), 229-248.

Boe, E.E., Bobbir. SA. & Cook, L.H. (1997). "W'hirher didst rhou go? Retention. reassignment, migra-cion and arrririon ofspecial and general education teach-ers fcom a national perspeerive. The JOllrnal of Special Edllcation, ＳｾＴＩＬ 371-389.

Bunsen, T, BL Bullock. L.M. (1988). Current SUtus

ofleadership training. In C. A. KoehlLac (Ed.), Excellence in doctoral leadmhip rraining: Special educarion and re-

Ｍｾ

203

I , '

TESE, Volume 26, No.3 Summer 2003

ｉ ｡ ｾ ､ sUI/ice. Report of a 7U1tional conference, (pp.  8-11). Washington, D.C.: George Washington Universiry.

Cartledge, G., Gardner, R., & Tillman, L. (1995). African Americans in higher education special educa-cion:  Issues in  recruitment and reremion. Teachn Edu-cation and Special Educarion, 18(3), 166­178. 

D.il, N., Geiger, WL.,  Hoover, J.J., & Sindelar, PT. (1993). Available special educacion faculty positions in higher eduCltiOn. Teacher Education and Special Educa-tion, 16(3), 230­239. 

Frierson, H. T.  (1991). Inrervencion can make a dif-ference: The impact on sr.andudiz.ed restS and classroom performance. In W  R. Allen, & E. G. Epps (Eels.), Col-legr in black and white: African American rtudents in pre-ｾ ｭ ｩ ｮ ｡ ｮ ｴ ｬ ｹ white and in historically black public univer-sities (pp.  225­238). Albany,  NY:  Sure University of New York Press. 

Geiger, WL.  (1988). An overview of docroral pro-grams in special education. In c.A. Kochhar (Ed.), Ex-ce/Lmce in ｾ ｣ ｴ ｯ ｲ ｡ ｬ leadership training: pecial education and I?lated service. Report if' a national conference, (pp. 49­54). Washington, D.C.: George Washington Uni-versity. 

Golde, C.M. & Dore, T.M.  (2001). A; cross-purposes: What the aperimceJ ofｾ ･ ｴ ｯ ｲ ｡ ｌ students reveal about ｾ ｣ ﾭloral education (www.phd­survey.org).Philadelphia.PA: A  report prepared for  The Pew Charitable Trum. 

Grasmick, N.S., & Leak, L.E.  (1997). What romor-row's teachers really need from higher education.: A view from me trenches. Educational hcord, 78(2), 23­29. 

Greenwood, CR, Walker, D.,  Kamps, D., Acreage-Mayer, c., & Can J.J. (1995). Posr­doCtoral fellowship at  the Juniper Gardens Children's ProjeCt: Developing research leadership in special edu'cacion. Teachn Ed.uca-tion and Special Education, 18(3), 205­217. 

Hehir, T.  (1998, July).  Grtetingr from OSEE Presen-urion at me 1998 OSEP Leadership Training Confer-ence, Washington, DC. 

Heward, WL.,  Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E.,  Gardner III,  R.,  & Sainato, D.M.  (1995), Preparing research leaders for  special educacion: A Ph.D. program with an emphasis in applied behavior analysis. Teacher Education and SpeciaL Education,. 18(3), 19.2­204. 

Hirsch, E., Koppich, L & Knapp, M.  (2001). Revis-iting what stateJ are ｾｩｮｧ to improve the qudity ofteach-ing: An upt:/Jm on patterns and rrends. Searcle, WA. Uni-versity ofWashingron, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. 

Hoffer, T.B.,  Dugon!, B.L.,  Sanderson, A.R., Seder-st«)m, S., Ghadialy, R., & Rocque, P.  (2001). Doctorate ｾ ｣ ｩ ｰ ｩ ･ ｮ ｴ ｳ from United States univtrrities: SummiZl)' report 2000. Universicy of  Chicago, National Opinion Re-

. search Cenrer. Ingersoll,  R.M.,  (2001).  Teacher turnover, teacher

ｳｨｯｲｴ｡ｾＬ and the organizations eifschooLr (R­01­1). Seat-rIe, WA:  Universiry ofWashingron, Cemer for the Study of Teacrung and Policy. 

KochMr, CA, Compron, D.,  Bailey, D.,  & Barr, V. 

204 

(1988). Search for  quality in docroral leadership nam-ing: A coment analysis of 87­88 OSEP­DPP leadership grams. In  C.  A.  Kochhar (Ed.), Excellmce in doctoral leadership training; Special Education and Related Service. Report ofa National Conference, (pp.  55­92). Washing_ ton, DC:  George Washington University. 

Lindsey, P.,  & Strawderman, C.  (1995). The quesr for  reachers: On reviewing a deCIde of reform efforts. Teacher Education and Special Education, 18(4), 253-261. 

McLeskey, J., Tyler,  N., & Flippin,  S.S. (in  press). The supply of and demand for  speci.al education reach-ers: A review  of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal eif Special Education.

Pierce, T.B.,  & Smith, D.D.  (1994), Career choices of recent special educacion graduares holding doCtOral degrees. Teacher Education and Special Educatum, 17(2), 129­136. 

Pierce, T.B., Smith, D.D., & Clarke, J.  (1992). Spe-cial educarion leadership: Supply and demand revisited. Teacher EdUCtUion and Special Education, 15(3), 175­' 182. 

Pion, G.M., Smith, D.D., & Tyler, N.C. (2003). Ca-reer choices of recent doCtorates in  special educarion: their  implications  for  addresosing faculty shonages. Teacher Education and Speeia/f;.Iil/ucation, 26(3),  194-205. 

Rousseau, M.K,  & Kai Yung Tam,  B.  (1995). An apprenriceship model to  recruit and ptepare minority stUdents to  enter special education doCtoral progtams. Teacher Education and Special Ed=ation, 18(3),  179-19l. 

Sileo, T. W.  (2000). Refimn and. restructuring in pecia/ education teacher preparation: Multicultural considerations and pedagogical !trategies. Nashville,  TN:  Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, Alliance Projecr. 

Sindelar, PT., Buck, G.H., Carpenter, S., & Waran.-abe, A.K (993). Supply and demand ofleadership per-sonnel in  special educacion: A  follow­up  stUdy with analysis of failed searches. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(3), 240­248. 

Sindelar, PT., & Rosenberg, M.S.  (2003). The de-mand for faculty in special education: A study ofsearth-es conduCted in  1997­1998. Teacher Education and Spe-cial Educatum, 26(3), 165­171. 

Smith, D.D., Pion, G.M., Tyler, N.C., & Gilmore; R.  (2003). Docroral progr.uns in special education: The nation's supplier. Teacher Education and Special Education.

Smith, D.D., Pion, G., Tyler, N.C., Sindelar, P.T., & Rosenberg, M.S. (2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with  particular actemion co the professoriare. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. 

Smim, D.D., & Sal:Lberg, C. (1994). The shorrageof special educarion faculty:  Toward a ben:er undersrand-mg.  Teachn Education and Special Education, 17, 52-61. 

Smith. D.o., & Tyler, N.C. (1994). Pipeline dam for docroral studenrs from historically underrepresenred groupS ancnd.ing HECSE colleges and universiries. HECSE Reporr. Universiry of New Mexico.

Smidt, D.D.. & Tyler. N.C. (1997). Special educa-r;on dOCTOral srudencs' diversiry. OSEP ｌ ｾ ｡ ､ ｭ ｨ ｩ ｰ Con-firellce (}Vlollograph). Balrimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-

sicy. Tawney, J.W, & DeHaas-Warner. S. (1993). Assess-

ing demand for special educacion: A pilor study and prororype for a narional regiscry. Hacher Education and Special Education, 16,(4) 283-293.

Tyler. N.C. (1996). An anaiyw offtuum which affected the care" decisions of recmt doctoral grruIl/AteJ in pecial ed"carion. Albuquerque. NM: Universiry of New Mo.-ico.

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smith & Pion

Tyler, N.C.. & Smith. D.O. (1999). Career decisions of doc(OraJ graduaces in special education. Teacher Ed-

'tcation and Special Edu£an0l1, 210), 1-13. Tyler, N .• Yzquierdo. Z., Lopez-Reyna. N .. & Flip-

pin. S.S. (in p.ress). Culcural and linguistic diversiry in dte special educarion workforce: A crirical overview.

Journal ofSpecial Ed'u:ation. WeHling, D.L.. & Whirren, TM. (1996). Rural spe-

cial educarjon reachers' plans to concinue or leave rheir reaching positions. Exceptional Child"m, 62(4), 319-335.

Naomi C Tyler, Deborah Deutsch Smith, dr Georgine M Pion, Vanderbilt University.

205

Ｎ ｾ ,

- ｾＭ -. .