CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 164Teacher Professional Development and MotivationSchool Choice and PerformanceEducation in Rural Contexts

Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers from a National Perspective

Boe, Erling E., Bobbitt, Sharon A., Cook, Lynne H.·1997·The Journal of Special Education
DOI 10.1177/002246699703000402
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002246699703000402

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Teacher turnover is related to the teaching field.

    “Among the most important findings has been that teacher turnover is related to the teaching field.”

    From Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis (2001) · cites this paper as Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997

  • Special education, mathematics, and science are typically the fields of highest teacher turnover.

    “Although the data have been inconsistent at times, special education, mathematics, and science are typically found to be the fields of highest turnover”

    From Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis (2001) · cites this paper as Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • United States Department of Education (US)
  • California State University, Northridge (US)
Venue
The Journal of Special Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1997-01
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
371-389
ISSN
  • 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4764
DOI
10.1177/002246699703000402
OpenAlex
W1971622433
Cited by
164
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
FWCI
19.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
The Journal of Special Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Professional Development and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education in Rural Contexts
Keywords
teacher attrition, teacher turnover, special education teachers, general education teachers, teacher migration, teacher retention, teacher shortage, teacher recruitment, public school teachers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review