Doctoral Students in Special Education: Characteristics and Career ...

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 of a 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 do~ra1 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%. resp~nse :ate 0,2.61 students). The study found that Jt:ctoral students were older and their prim~ry constderahon m seLectmg a doctoraL program was 7UJt havmg to relocate. Overafli,.·'s:t:udents 'were flurfy satisfie~ with the training they r~ceiv~d .in n:sea~ch skills" ~ss 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.

pecial education. doctoral graduates are in great demand, in part because of meir S potential impact on me supply of special ed­ ucation teachers. Legislation (e.g., IDEA, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) 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

sen berg, 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

'.

Doctoral Students in Special Education Tyler, Smith & Pion 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,

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 Pio~ et~., (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 of Doctoral 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 Educ~tion 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

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 eligible-sdf-reponed 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, self-addressed 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 follow-up mailing was nearly 82% (1,267 individuals). to

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; post-grad­ 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 part-rime 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, mari ral 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 pe-rsans 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 two-thirds (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 parr-time 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 part-cime 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 Relocared for Docroral 5rody (n

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

="

Did NOt Rt:locare

Total

(n=" 827)

(N=" 1,136)

309)

n

%

n

%

N

%

56 132 87 28 0 6

18.1 42.7 28.2 9.0 0.0 1.9

97 273 308 127 9 13

11.7 33.0 37.3 15.4 1.1 1.6

153 405 395 155 9 19

13.5 35.7 34.. 8 13.7 0.8 1.7

79 229 1

25.6 74.1 0.3

131 695 1

15.8 84.0 0.1

210 924 2

18.5 81.3 0.2

29 11 10 14 236 9

9.4 3.6 3.2 4.5 76.4 2.9

68 30 10 38 662 19

8.2 3.6 1.2 4.6 80.0 2.3

97 41 20 52 898 28

8.5 3.6

142 32 39 4 90

46.0 IDA 12.6 1.3 29.1 0.7

677 83 154

64.7 6.3 24.9 0.9 13.8 0.6

677 83 154

2

11

204 5

11

204 7

1.8

4.6 79.0 2.5 59.6 7.3 13.6 1.0 18.0 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 pan-rime (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 pan-rime, and con­ tinue in the same posicion after graduation.

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.

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

Relocation

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

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

>

-,

1 J

i

TESE, Volume 26, No.3

Summer 2003

Work with a particular facul~I== i

Be near family and fr1end Needs of spouse and

kid"11111

Program meets special need Attractive geographic locatio

• Students who did not relocate

mStudents who relocated ~~~!!~~~~~~---l-_-.J----JL_--l-_--t---J

o

10

20

30

40

60

50

70

60

Percent

Figure 1.

all

R