A longitudinal study (2001-2008) of perceived teacher supply at the state and national level: A higher education perspective

Kevin G. Kula

The Ohio State University Jessica D. Cunningham University of Kentucky

Kelly D. Bradley University of Kentucky William E. Loadman

The Ohio State University Please address all correspondence to: Kevin Kula The Ohio State University School of Educational Policy and Leadership Room 310 Ramseyer Hall 29 West Woodruff Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43228 (614)688-5413 kula.8@osu.edu

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association

San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 2009

1

A longitudinal study (2001-2008) of perceived teacher supply at the state and national level: A higher education perspective

Kevin G. Kula

The Ohio State University Jessica D. Cunningham University of Kentucky

Kelly D. Bradley University of Kentucky William E. Loadman

The Ohio State University AAEE Supply and Demand Survey responses from 3,433 higher-education institutions collected between 2001 and 2008 were analyzed. With a focus on perceived demand in educator fields, the major goals of this investigation were to: analyze fields of noticeable shortage (e.g., math, science, and special education) and focus analyses at the state level; observe meaningful state and national trends over the eight-year period; and use program offering and open-ended response data to support interpretability of these findings. Results can be used to inform policymakers, teacher education institutions, and teacher candidates on the current trends across teaching fields, as portrayed by the perceived demand of higher education institutions.

Founded in 1934 as the National Institutional Teacher Placement Association, the American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) is an international, professional organization focused on easing the challenges of matching school employment opportunities and staff. Over the past three decades, AAEE has conducted an annual survey of over 1,000 U.S. higher education institutions preparing teachers (AAEE, 2006). The 32nd annual AAEE study of teacher supply and demand in the United States was conducted in 2008.

Teacher supply and demand is a priority in the U.S. (Murphy & DeArmond, 2003; Phillips, 2002). Studies have suggested that a teacher shortage is not a collective national concern, but instead, the problem exists in the distribution of teachers across subjects, e.g., math, science, and special education (Velez-Rodriguez & Miles, 2004), region, e.g., southeast and midwest, and area, e.g., rural and urban. For this reason, a focus of perceived demand in educator fields in high-need is needed to examine this uneven distribution of teachers and to equip state and higher education policymakers with data-driven decision making tools.

Emblematic factors influencing teacher supply and demand include recruitment, teacher quality, regional variation, certification requirements, mobility of teachers, incentives to teach, retention of teachers and retirement (Ingersoll, 1997; Loeb & Reininger, 2004; Muller & Markowitz, 2003). Here, an emphasis is placed on the impact of institutions preparing teachers, notably the responsibility to supply quality teachers with specializations in high-need areas.

2

Effects on Teacher Supply and Demand

A wide range of plausible factors exist that may be impacting teacher supply and demand including: decisions to offer needed fields at institutions preparing teachers across the nation, teacher certification requirements, recruitment of quality candidates into the teaching profession, proper advisement of students to distribute across subject fields, quality training to prepare teachers for the classroom, and development of mentors and support system for graduates.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 set the goal of ensuring

that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects, making teacher education programs a significant factor in teacher supply and demand (Ingersoll, 2005). More so, legislation, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), which was reauthorized in 2004, calls upon the individualization of curriculum and assessments for students with disabilities, placing additional pressure on those training special education teachers.

Subject area shortages and surpluses

While teacher education programs may be supplying the number of teachers needed in

general, studies have suggested particular fields, like special education and mathematics, are consistently recognized as being in high-need (Velez-Rodriquez & Miles, 2004). Much of the literature describes special education as a field in “severe, chronic shortage” (McLeskey, Tyler & Flippin, 2004; Murphy & DeArmond, 2003; Velez-Rogdriguez & Miles, 2004), which is no surprise considering every state and the District of Columbia requires special education teachers to be licensed and have a specialty certificate.

In 2004, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics predicted shortages in special education over

the next ten years, noting public schools currently serve more than 6 million students with disabilities with a growing enrollment. This is due both to the growing number of students being placed in special education programs and teachers leaving the field to pursue general education or an alternate career (The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2006). Additionally, the NCLB requirements pose complications for special education teachers, as they now must meet highly qualified status in special education as well as the content areas in which they teach. This only exacerbates the considerable shortage of special education teachers that has existed for the past 20 years. McLeskey et al. (2007) reported that in 2004, Boe & Borush found that 82-99% of the secondary special education teachers were not highly qualified due to the lack of documented content knowledge. NCLB standards have become more demanding, in spite of the decades-long shortages in the special education fields.

The need for math and science teachers has also been well documented since the 1980s

(Kluender, 1983). The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000) reported “the demand for certified and fully qualified math and science teachers is far outpacing supply” (p. 21). Their projection was a need for 170,000 new middle and high school math and science teachers (National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching, 2000). The Urban Teacher Challenge report claimed an immediate need, 95% and 98% respectively, for math and science teachers (Urban Teacher Collaborative, 2000). This need

3

remains stable. With this in mind, teacher retention and preparation in the areas of mathematics and science have drawn particular attention of researchers and policymakers in recent years (Hoff, 2003; The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2006).

Geographic area shortages and surpluses

Regions are experiencing teacher shortages at various degrees, with urban and rural areas appearing to have a pronounced demand for teachers (Murphy & DeArmond, 2003). For instance, highly qualified standards impact rural areas, as it is almost impossible to find and hire teachers in some content areas due to small population and the need to hire teachers who can teach in more than one content area (Meier et al., 2004). A popular theory behind uneven geographic distribution is the trend that a majority of teachers are employed within fifty miles of their hometown or university where they received training (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005; National Education Association, 2004).

Linda Darling-Hammond explains (2000), “it is difficult to get teachers from where they

are prepared to where they are needed” (p. 6) for a number of reasons: unbalanced distributions of teacher education institutions, less than aggressive state recruitment strategies, undeveloped reciprocity licensing arrangements, and teachers unwillingness to relocate. If institutions preparing teachers are not offering degrees in high-need areas and teachers remain within close proximity to their graduating institution, then regions are likely to experience shortages.

For example, approximately 7,000 teacher candidates graduate each year within the State

of Ohio. This number alone appears large enough to fill the teacher openings in the state. However, the distribution of teacher education graduates by field is uneven with some fields with an oversupply of teachers and others with a shortage, e.g., elementary, social studies and physical education each have a surplus of new teachers, while special education, math, and science education fields have a considerable shortage of teachers (AAEE, 2008). Further, this situation is compounded by the desire of the graduates to remain close to their home town and/or university from which they graduated when they take a job, creating a significant educational policy issue for our nation. The study at hand provides a descriptive profile of trends in educator supply and demand in high-need fields using AAEE survey data from 2001-2008 while considering state and year as potential influencing factors. These trends are then linked to potential perceived influences on the current educational job market.

Method

Participants

The unit of study for the AAEE Educator Supply and Demand investigation are higher education institutions preparing educators, as listed in the Higher Education Directory (HED). Representatives included individuals such as an institution’s director of career services, dean/director of teacher education programs, or other licensure personnel responsible for the career planning and placement of graduates in teacher education and related careers. All 3,433 survey responses in the sample were obtained through an eight-year period, 2001-2008, with the

4

majority of responses being associated with Career Service Offices, Colleges of Education, and Dean’s Offices.

Apparatus

Survey instruments from 2001 to 2008 contained sections addressing educator supply and

demand. First, respondents are asked whether the represented institution offers the particular field being referenced. If offered, participants were asked to indicate their annual perceived demand for educators hired in each field for their geographical area. This perceived demand for candidates in each field is rated on a Likert-type scale. Responses range on a scale from “Fields with Considerable Shortage” (5.00 - 4.21) to “Fields with Considerable Surplus” (1.80 - 1.00). Specifically, these items review data collected in association with the 64 teaching fields.

In addition to program offering and perceived demand, respondents were asked to comment on the impact of the factors affecting supply and demand most relevant in their state or geographical area. These include areas such as finance, retirement, legislative mandates, and teaching environment. Responses to the field question and the final open-ended response items were the only data used in this study. In general, few changes have been made to this section of the instrument during the eight-year period.

Since 2004, two parallel forms of the survey were created, both hard copy and Web-

based formats. Announcements of the survey gave the option of completing either form although emphasis was placed on encouraging web-based responses. Additional surveys were faxed and e-mailed to colleges and universities who have responded within the past three years. Participants were asked to respond with data for each of the teaching fields for which their institutions prepared candidates.

Procedure

Respondents were able to complete the survey either by mailing or faxing the pencil-and-

paper instrument, or by completing the survey online. Survey instruments are distributed in the Spring (March through May, depending upon year), with follow-up requests approximately one month after initial contact. Telephone calls and faxes were made in an effort to increase response rate. The 3,433 responses represent institutions of higher education from all 50 states. For ease of interpretation and for potential policy impact, the goal of this study was to analyze the data at the state level, focusing on the fields in high-need.

Research Questions

Each year between 2001 and 2008, the data were analyzed by checking for

representativeness of the return sample on the variables of AAEE membership status, regional location, and response wave. With respect to reporting of findings, a major focus has been placed on regional analyses. However, since the number of responses differs greatly by region and regional values do not reflect state-by-state variation, caution should be exercised when interpreting data from some regions (e.g., one region includes only the State of Alaska, and is composed of three or fewer institutional responses each year).

5

Math, science, and special education have generated much discussion in response to NCLB and IDEA legislation impacting both academic curricula and assessment measures in the classroom. The purpose of this research is to describe responding higher education institutions’ perceived demand in high-need educator fields consistently listed in the AAEE survey instruments. In particular, six fields within math education, science (chemistry and physics), and special education (emotional/behavior disorders, learning disability, and dual certification) have remained in considerable shortage over the past eight years, and will serve as the primary areas of interest in this investigation. Four research questions guiding the study and their method of analyses are presented below: RQ1 – Aggregate State Layout What are the overall, 2001 through 2008, statewide perceptions of demand for high-need areas within math, science, and special education? RQ2 – Longitudinal Trend of High-Need Fields Are there differences between 2001 through 2008 with respect to perceived demand for educators within six fields in considerable shortage within the areas of math, science, and special education? RQ3 – Program Offering Trends in High-Need Areas Compared with Surplus Fields What are the trends between 2001-2008 in program offering status across higher education institutions for the high-need teaching fields listed in the AAEE survey instrument? How do the program offerings compare with fields considered to produce a surplus of educators during the same time period? RQ4 – Comparison of State Across the Eight-Year Period What impact does state have on perceived demand of teachers across the high-need areas in math, science, and special education? Does a relationship exist between state and year? RQ5 – Content Analysis of Open-Ended Responses What are the represented higher education institutions’ perceived influences with regard to the current market?

Results

RQ1. Box and whisker plots, displayed in Figure 1, were generated to understand the

distribution of perceived demand in the six high-need fields. The data were aggregated across the eight-year period, with state as the unit of analysis. The math education plot is positively skewed, with a disproportionate number of states falling high in perceived demand of educators. Approximately half of the fifty states lie above 4.5, indicating a high, considerable shortage. Alternatively, chemistry and physics education have a slight, negative skew and no outlier states.

6

Comparing box plots across special education fields reveals normal distributions, but a greater number of outliers. For instance, states such as Oregon and North Dakota report near a “Balanced Supply and Demand” (3.40 - 2.61) of educators across the special education disciplines. Alternately, more remote states such as Alaska and Hawaii indicate a high, considerable shortage in preparing educators for dual licensure. Worthy to note is how approximately 75% of states lie above the 4.21 “Considerable Shortage” threshold across all three special education fields. This is most pronounced for emotional/behavior disorders. Comparing box plots across high-need fields finds that there is disparity between states with respect to perceived demand in math, science, and special education.

RQ2. Figure 2 displays the perceived demand of math, chemistry, physics, emotional/behavior disorders, learning disability, and dual certification during the eight-year period. When compared with the composite mean, these high-need fields are shown to have a much greater perceived demand, with a gradual rise in shortage between 2002-03 and the present day. Here, the average for all 64 fields tends to lie between “Some Shortage” (4.20 - 3.41) and “Balanced Supply and Demand” (3.40 - 2.61). Interesting to note is that math and science education are in slightly higher demand than special education, and that all three areas are gradually approaching shortage levels reported in 2001.

Six one-way analysis of variance models were estimated. Here each model had a different high-need field as the dependent variable, but year of perceived demand was always the independent variable. The results indicate that at least one year within each field is statistically different from the others (see Table 1). There is a reasonably consistent pattern across math and science education fields, with a greater perceived mean shortage for 2001, 2007, and 2008 than the middle, five-year period. Scheffe post-hoc tests revealed statistically significant differences existed for math and chemistry education between 2001, 2007, and 2008 with most years in the five-year period (2002-2006). However, the only statistically significant difference for physics education was between the 2001 and 2005 mean shortages.

Significant differences were also found for the three, high-need special education fields.

Based on Scheffe post-hoc analyses, there was a statistically significant greater perceived demand for educators in 2001 when compared with 2003 for each of the three special education fields. In addition, 2001 had a statistically higher mean score than 2002 within the dual certification field. It is worthy to note that with less program offerings, the high-need special education fields had approximately half of the respondents when compared to math and science education. This disparity may lead to differences in statistical significance between years within these high-need fields. Furthermore, respective partial eta square values were average to small, drawing caution to the meaningful interpretation of these statistical differences.

RQ3. Table 2 displays the percentage of institutions who said they offer each high-need field within math, science, and special education since 2001. These are shown side-by-side with fields considered in low demand during the past eight years. Elementary primary, physical education, and social studies education have all been considered fields with educators in “Some Surplus” (2.60-1.81) between 2001-2008.

7

An increase in program offerings occurred in 2005/2006 in all six high-need fields. Notably, the areas of math, chemistry, and physics are offered by approximately 4 out of 5 responding institutions, with math being offered by over 97% of institutions in 2008. There appears to be some agreement between the math and science program offerings when compared with the three surplus fields.

TABLE 2. Percentage of higher education programs offering high-need mathematics, science, and special education fields compared with fields with educator surplus between 2001 and 2008.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 8-year Composite

Mathematics Ed 91.7 86.9 87.0 85.1 91.1 89.9 96.5 97.2 90.3 Chemistry Ed 83.0 79.3 79.2 79.3 84.3 82.4 86.3 87.0 82.3

Physics Ed 71.4 66.9 69.2 68.7 72.4 70.8 77.1 78.2 71.4 Emotional/Behavior

Disorders 32.8 29.3 31.2 29.8 33.0 28.7 41.2 36.0 32.5

Learning Disability 41.1 34.3 37.8 34.2 38.1 35.2 45.8 41.3 38.2 Dual Certification (General & Special

Education) 34.0 29.9 34.6 34.9 42.9 37.4 50.7 55.9 38.9

Elementary - Primary 94.4 94.9 94.9 94.8 97.0 96.7 96.2 97.5 95.7

Physical Ed 63.5 62.1 60.8 64.4 68.7 64.3 68.4 67.5 64.6

Social Studies Ed 89.8 85.2 86.6 84.2 90.3 89.5 93.9 95.8 89.0

There exists much greater variability in program offering for special education fields

between years, especially when compared with the surplus fields. Institutions offering a program in emotional/behavior disorders hit a low of 28.7% in 2006, only to rise then fall dramatically in the following two years. Overall, special education fields are offered by a little more than 1 out of 3 responding institutions over the eight-year period, and exhibit much less stability in program offering between years.

RQ4. Nine states were selected based on each having more than ten survey respondents in

every year between 2001 and 2008. Table 3 displays the frequency count by year. There are 1,569 respondents included within these nine states, accounting for approximately 46% of the total from all fifty states. Figure 3 displays the perceived demand for educators by state, aggregated across years.

8

FIGURE 3. Perceived demand for educators in the fields of math and science fields, and special education fields, by states with greater than ten respondents per year.

Figure 3 displays a high, considerable shortage of mathematics education candidates. In states such as Indiana (M = 4.42) and Texas (M = 4.50), there is a higher perceived shortage in math than in the science-related fields. Of notable concern across the math, chemistry, and physics fields are states such as California and Missouri, whose means all lie above 4.43 when aggregated across the eight-year period. In addition, there exists large, within and between state variation when observing the trends in special education. It is promising to see that all three special education fields fall in “Some Shortage” (4.20 - 3.41) in the states of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. However, in states such New York and Indiana, there exists a higher perceived shortage for educators in emotional/behavior disorders than the other two special education fields (mean change of approximately .40). In general, learning disability and dual certification fields have a moderate perceived shortage across the nine states.

To supplement this state analysis, a series of 8x9 univariate analysis of variance models were estimated. In these models, year (2001 through 2008) and state (nine selected states) were

9

the independent variables and the six high-need fields were the dependent variables. Of particular interest is the existence of a state main effect or state by year interaction effects, which would highlight particular states where further analysis can be conducted. Table 4 displays the results of six, two-way analysis of variance models.

Based on the 8x9 ANOVA conducted, there were significant main effects for year and

state, but no significant interactions were found for any field. The mean perceived shortage for year indicated main effects in the fields of math (F (8, 1231) = 3.952, p.<.05) and chemistry education (F (8, 1181) = 2.714, p.<.05). Post-hoc analyses revealed a higher perceived mean shortage in 2001 than 2003 within math education. This is consistent with the previous findings from RQ2, with less significant differences between years likely due to having approximately half the number of respondents within these nine states of interest.

Results also found a main effect for state across all high-need fields. This main effect was most pronounced in the fields of math education (F (8, 1231) = 4.620, p.<.05) and learning disability (F (8, 432) = 5.285, p.<.05). Post-hoc analyses revealed significant mean differences between states in several of the high-need fields. Within math education, Ohio and Pennsylvania had a significantly lower perceived shortage for teachers than Texas across the eight-year period. In addition, Pennsylvania had a significantly lower perceived shortage for chemistry educators than California (.40 mean difference).

Additionally, post-hoc tests for the special education fields indicated a handful of

between state differences. Notably, the State of New York had a significantly lower perceived shortage of learning disability teachers than either California or Illinois. On a similar note, New York also had a significantly lower perceived shortage of dual certification educators than found in Pennsylvania (.57 mean difference). Interesting to note is that the analysis of variance results showed no overall significant interactions for year and state. This lends evidence that between state differences are not necessarily affected by year of reporting, and vice versa. In addition, effect sizes for each of the significant differences yielded only a few at a low level; all other effect sizes were trivial. Given these effect sizes and the relatively similar means across year and state, the presented post-hoc analyses should be interpreted with some caution.

RQ5.Commonalities in perceived influences with regard to the current market existed across the years of analysis. Shared themes across the years include lack of mobility of teacher candidates from either where they trained or where they lived, stringent teacher certification and licensure requirements, low teacher salaries, teacher retirements, decreased state education budgets, and state and federal mandates. One higher education institution commented with regard to teacher salaries, “The strongest deterrent to pursuing teaching as a career among undergraduates is the comparatively low salary for teachers. Especially the starting salary is discouraging. With only the technology skills they can acquire in preparation for teaching, they can make more money in the business sector than in teaching, at a much easier job.” This perception is supported by the literature that candidates in shortage fields such as math and science can acquire higher paying jobs outside of teaching.

In more recent years, alternative certification has emerged as a perceived influence on the

current market. The comments suggest alternative certification is a controversial topic in terms of

10

its perceived influence on the current market. While some perceive alternative certification as a means to address shortage issues in these high-need areas, others argue essentially that “alternative certification allowed at the various state levels is decreasing the supply of properly trained professional teachers.”

Discussion

The plight of our educational system continues to be a national concern. It is a consensus

between educators, researchers, policymakers, and the general public that nothing is as significant for student achievement as having highly qualified teachers in the classroom. Teacher education programs – especially in high-need fields – may serve as the root of determining whether all students are able to reach the high levels of achievement mandated by state and national standards (Wilson, Floden & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). With the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement, proactive interventions in areas of educator shortage can have a positive effect on student learning. An existing trend in the high-need areas under investigation is the striking finding of between state differences. While a large number of states indicated a considerable shortage for each of the math, science, and special education fields, some states deviate from the trend. For instance, North Dakota and Oregon lie near a balanced supply and demand for the special education fields. With this in mind, an interesting follow-up might isolate these states to determine the existing program and policy trends leading to the cause of this balance of special education educators.

A focused analysis on nine states with a high number of responding institutions over the eight-year period confirmed this disparity between states. The series of year by state analysis of variance tests revealed the noticeable impact of state on perceived shortage of educators across math, science, and special education fields. The existing differences in perceived shortage of special education teachers between neighboring states raises some interest. For instance, New York has a noticeably lower perceived shortage of educators in these three high-need fields than Pennsylvania. This leads to questions on educator relocation between states, such as allowing for licensure reciprocity for the placement of teachers into areas with known considerable shortage (The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2006).

When comparing program offerings with fields in educator surplus (e.g. elementary primary, physical education, and social studies education) over the past eight years, the high-need fields lack one, coherent trend. Program offerings in math and science compare similarly to the three fields in some surplus. Thus, the issue here is that there exist the trends of not many students enrolled in these programs and poor teacher attrition within these high-need areas (Clotfelter et al., 2005; Ingersoll, 1997). In math and science particularly, approximately one-third of teachers leave the field within the first five years of teaching, a problem more pronounced in rural and urban districts (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). A similar concern exists within the special education fields. However, a notable difference here is the large amount of variability in program offerings between the eight years (ranging from 29% to 56% across the three fields). It is clear that emotional/behavior disorders,

11

learning disability, and dual certification programs – areas with large teacher shortage – are in the most need of being offered. To compound this issue is that wide variability in special program offerings between years when compared with elementary primary, physical education, and social studies. There appears to be stability in program offering with the fields in educator surplus, possibly contributing to the continual influx of teachers to fill vacancies in these areas. Teacher retention is as much of a concern in special education as in the math and science fields. For instance, a trend exists where special education teachers change their licensure or exit the teaching profession (The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2006). Trends such as these have ramifications in the areas of field offerings, teacher preparation, teacher recruitment, and educational policies.

It is worthy to note that the current analyses did not control for variation in national perceived demand for educators by year. In future studies, the composite mean can be used as a covariate to partial out the influence of the national trends in perceived demand. In addition, further research might seek to better understand and pinpoint the within state trends in high-need fields in considerable shortage. Here the relationships between policies and area shortages can be linked to trends in the comments received from teacher preparation institutions.

Policy and Research Implications

With the impact of legislation such as NCLB and IDEA since the turn of the century, data for high-need teaching fields from 2001 to 2008 can point out potential perceived influences on the supply and demand in higher education institutions and K-12 districts across the nation. For example, a noticeable trend exists of increasing demand for special education teachers since 2003-04. This increase lies in a similar timeframe as the reauthorization of IDEA, possibly linking teacher shortage with the increase in the number of students who are entitled to special education services and the demand for high-quality teachers in the classroom (Berry et al., 2006). Thus, these fields are only falling farther behind, leaving a large responsibility on states and preparatory institutions to supply teachers in high-need fields.

Previous research has identified the benefits of incentive programs to recruit and retain

math, science, and special education teachers. Clotfelter et al. (2005) found that a North Carolina educator incentive program showed effectiveness in both recruiting and retaining teachers in these high-need fields, notably in math and science education. However, findings were inconclusive within special education due to a smaller sample.

Derivatives of this program could help the placement of qualified teachers into these

high-need fields. Incentive-based pay policies can be set up to help encourage the relocation of educators to areas of teacher shortage, especially in urban and rural areas with poor attrition. Other factors must also be considered, such as guidelines for teaching licensure requirements between states and the recruitment of teachers. One such recommendation for the placement of teachers into high-need fields is the formation of active partnerships between hiring districts and nearby preparatory programs (The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2006).

Public policies can play a key role in guiding the structure of our educational system. Responsible research includes presentation of findings able to guide both creation and

12

implementation of these policies. This study lays a foundation for a discussion related to the responsibility of higher education to adequately supply educators across fields in high-need. Focusing research on perceived shortage of for educators by field can help equip state policymakers and higher education institutions with the knowledge to better prepare teacher candidates, provide funding to struggling districts, and retain educators in areas of poor teacher attrition (AAEE, 2006).

The transitional stage we are currently in is the toughest. It is hoped that research can provide a solid framework for the future policies influencing our educational system. While understanding this relationship has many applications, the most important is its educational implications through the development and retention of highly qualified teachers in high-need teaching fields.

13

REFERENCE LIST American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) (2006). Teacher supply and

demand in the United States: 2006 report. Columbus, OH: American Association for Employment in Education. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from http://www.aaee.org.

American Association for Employment in Education (AAEE) (2008).2008 Job Search Handbook

for Educators. Columbus, OH: American Association for Employment in Education. American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (1999). Survey and analysis of teacher salary trends

1999. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www.aft.org/research/survey99/index.html.

Berry, B. Darling-Hammond, L., Hirsch, E., Robinson, S., & Wise, A. (2006). No Child

Left Behind and the ‘highly qualified’ teacher: The promise and the possibilities. The Center for Teaching Quality, Inc., Hillsborough, NC.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’

preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(1), 113-132.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004). Occupational outlook handbook, 2004 – 2005. Retrieved

August 15, 2005, from http://bls.gov/oco/ocotjt1.htm. Clotfelter, C., Glennie, E., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2005). North Carolina Math/Science/Special Education (MSSE) $1,800 Teacher Bonus Program: An initial evaluation. Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University, Durham, NC. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards:

How we can ensure a competent, caring and qualified teacher for every child. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Hoff, D. J. (2003). Math education panel issues long-range plan for action. Education Week, 22(33), 11. Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality: The recurring myth of teacher

shortages. Teachers College Record, 99(1), 41-44. Ingersoll, R. (2005). The problem of underqualified teachers: A sociological perspective.

Sociology of Education, 78(2), 175-178.

Kluender, M. M. (1983). Attitudes of selected state policymakers toward alternative policies as they affect teacher supply and demand. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2298.

14

Loeb, S. & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets: What we know and why it matters. Retrieved October 20, 2005 from Michigan State University, Education Policy Center Web site: http://www.epc.msu.edu/publications/publications.htm.

McLeskey, J., Brownell, M., Billingsley, B.,Flanagan, B., and Shaw, S. (2007). Meeting the need for highly qualified effective special education teachers. Presentation at Delaware AB. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Flippin S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special

education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education. 38(1). 5-21. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from EBSCO database.

Meier, D., Kohn, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Sizer, T. R., & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools, Beacon Press, Boston: MA. Muller, E. & Markowitz, J. (2003). Supply and Demand of Special Education Professionals:

Project Forum Synthesis Brief. Alexandria, National Association of State Directors of Special Education: 1-14.

Murphy, P. J. & DeArmond, M. M. (2003). From the Headlines to the Frontlines: The Teacher

Shortage and Its Implication for Recruitment Policy. Retrieved from Washington University, Center on Reinventing Public Education Web site: .Retrieved October 20, 2005 from ERIC database (ED480744).

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (1999). Before

It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/toolate-execsum.html.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (2006). Recruiting quality teachers in mathematics, science, and special education for urban and rural schools. Learning Point Associates, Washington, DC.

National Education Association (NEA) (2004). J is for Job. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/tomorrowsteachers/2004/cover.html?mode=print.

Phillips, S. M. (2002). Teacher Quality in Canada: SAEE Research Series. Kelowna, Canada,

Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Retrieved October 20, 2005 from ERIC database (ED482197).

U. S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb.

15

Urban Teacher Collaborative (2000). Urban Teacher Challenge. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf.

Velez-Rodriguez, D. A., & Miles, B. (2004). Teacher Shortage Areas: Nationwide Listing. U. S.

DOE, Office of Postsecondary Education Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Service. Retrieved October 25, 2005 from http://studentaid.ed.gov/students/attachments/siteresources/shortageareas.pdf.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:

Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations: A research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

16

FIGURE 1. Box and whisker plots of perceived demand by high-need educator field, aggregated across 2001-2008, with state as unit of analysis.

* Two states, Nevada and Wyoming, had less than 15 aggregate responses over the eight-year period.

17

FIGURE 2. Eight-year trend on perceived demand for educators in the fields of math, science, and special education compared with all 64 fields.

18

TABLE 1. Six one-way analysis of variance models by year (2001-2008) of perceived demand for educators in high-need fields.

ANOVA Source SS df MS F Partial Eta-Squared

Mathematics Education Year 49.595 7 7.085 10.947* .026 Error 1831.688 2830 .647

Chemistry Education Year 45.804 7 6.543 9.868* .026 Error 1732.102 2612 .663

Physics Education Year 22.158 7 3.165 4.602* .014 Error 1544.210 2245 .688

Emotional/Behavior Disorders Year 25.550 7 3.650 5.400* .036 Error 676.575 1001 .676

Learning Disability Year 19.623 7 2.803 3.818* .022 Error 873.054 1189 .734

Dual Certification (General & Special Education)

Year 24.209 7 3.458 4.754* .027 Error 880.209 1210 .727

* Statistically significant at 05.=α

19

TABLE 3. Frequency table of nine states with greater than ten AAEE survey responses each year between 2001 and 2008.

Response Frequency by Year State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 CA 25 23 27 27 22 21 19 17 IL 24 22 29 22 19 21 21 18 IN 15 16 18 17 15 15 19 17

MO 18 15 17 13 13 17 17 17 NY 26 30 32 28 23 22 19 27 OH 25 35 32 24 24 23 20 23 PA 42 40 34 26 27 23 22 28 TX 26 29 25 22 18 18 17 19 WI 19 18 19 12 12 13 15 16

20

TABLE 4. Six 8x9, univariate analysis of variance models by year (2001-2008) and state (nine states) of perceived demand for educators in high-need fields.

ANOVA Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean

Square F Sig. Partial Eta-

Squared

Math

year 17.033 7 2.433 3.952* .000 .022 state 22.755 8 2.844 4.620* .000 .029

year * state 36.419 56 .650 1.056 .365 .046 Error 757.973 1231 .616

Chemistry

year 12.474 7 1.782 2.714* .009 .016 state 20.730 8 2.591 3.946* .000 .026

year * state 30.256 56 .540 0.823 .821 .038 Error 775.450 1181 .657

Physics

year 5.757 7 .822 1.227 .285 .008 state 13.709 8 1.714 2.557* .009 .020

year * state 26.960 56 .481 0.718 .941 .039 Error 672.861 1004 .670

Emotional/ Behavior Disorders

year 6.833 7 .976 1.375 .215 .026 state 11.627 8 1.453 2.047* .040 .044

year * state 27.334 56 .488 0.687 .956 .098 Error 252.794 356 .710

Learning Disability

year 7.130 7 1.019 1.380 .212 .022 state 31.203 8 3.900 5.285* .000 .089

year * state 27.526 56 .492 0.666 .969 .079 Error 318.841 432 .738

Dual Certification

year 9.286 7 1.327 1.814 .082 .025 state 24.410 8 3.051 4.173* .000 .064

year * state 35.148 56 .628 0.858 .757 .089 Error 359.737 492 .731

* Statistically significant at 05.=α

21