The Supply: Profile of Current Students and Recent Graduates in Special Education

Teacher Education and Special Education 35(2) 114 –127

© 2012 Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0888406412444762 http://tese.sagepub.com

As the field of special education (SE) exam-ines issues related to the supply/demand imbalance of SE teachers and faculty, an analysis of the doctoral pipeline (i.e., those students currently enrolled in doctoral pro-grams) and an investigation into recent doc-toral graduates are important. Together, these two groups form the supply of potential new faculty members. Information gleaned from these analyses can help doctoral programs recruit and retain students, and it also can help determine characteristics of doctoral students and graduates that make them more likely to seek positions in higher education. These supply findings then allow policy

makers and higher education officials to take informed action to correct any imbalance that might exist. This article summarizes the key findings from the surveys of doctoral stu-dents and recent doctoral graduates of the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA).

1_{Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA} 2_{Western Carolina University, Candler, NC, USA} 3_{Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA}

Corresponding Author:

Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler, Peabody Box 275, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA

Email: n.tyler@vanderbilt.edu

The Supply: Profile of

Current Students and

Recent Graduates

in Special Education

Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler

, Bianca Elizabeth Montrosse

,

and Deborah Deutsch Smith

Abstract

As the field of special education (SE) examines issues related to supply and demand of SE teachers and faculty, an investigation of students currently enrolled in doctoral programs and doctoral graduates is an important perspective to consider. The results of two components of the Special Education Faculty Needs Assessment (SEFNA), focused on the aforementioned two populations, are described. Students enrolled in SE doctoral programs during the spring of 2009

(n = 1,263) and graduates of SE doctoral programs between 1999 and 2008 (n= 626) were

surveyed about their educational backgrounds, experiences in applying to doctoral programs, doctoral programs and studies, postgraduation plans, postgraduation career choices, and back-ground information. Results indicated that key predictors of doctoral students who become college and university faculty include the following: intent to pursue a faculty career, financial support (e.g., teaching assistantship, research assistantship, traineeship, fellowship), age when enrolling in a doctoral program, reduced time to complete the doctoral degree, and willingness

to relocate after graduation for employment. Comparisons are made to results from the 2001

Faculty Shortage Study, a predecessor to SEFNA.

Keywords

special education faculty shortage, doctoral pipeline, special education leadership training, doctoral students, doctoral graduates

Prior Literature on

Doctoral Students in

SE and Recent Doctoral

Graduates

The preparation of SE leadership personnel became a national priority in 1958, when the first federal funds were authorized to train personnel to work with students with intel-lectual disabilities through the passage of PL 85-926 (Smith, Drew, Healey, McCarthy, & Hughes, 1991; Tawney & DeHaas-Warner, 1993). Through this law, known then as the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act, funding was also provided for support of doctoral students in SE (Schofer, 1962; Smith et al., 1991; Smith & Pierce, 1995). Doctoral students received stipends that ranged from US $2,400 to US $2,800 and an additional allowance for each dependent (Smith et al., 1991; Smith & Salzberg, 1994), allowing the predominantly male, married recipients to live comfortably on these stipends while attending school (Smith, 1996, as cited in Tyler, 1996). Throughout the next two decades, additional legislation was passed that continued to support and expand person-nel preparation and leadership training (e.g., PL 87-276, PL 88-164; Bunsen, 1988; Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2003). It has been estimated that 75% to 80% of the doctoral graduates from these initial projects chose careers in higher education and continued to train SE personnel (Smith, 1996, as cited in Tyler, 1996).

Nevertheless, concerns about shortages of doctoral graduates were raised in the 1980s. A national symposium on the supply and demand of SE faculty was held in 1988, where issues related to shortages of doctoral-level personnel were discussed (Kochhar, Compton, Bailey, & Barr, 1988). A number of isolated studies followed, many of which focused on the 45 doctoral training institutions that were members of the Higher Education Consortium in Special Education (HECSE) at that time. Several studies showed that expanded career options for those holding SE doctorates increased the numbers of graduates who chose

careers outside of higher education (Bunsen & Bullock, 1988; Smith & Pierce, 1995; Tyler & Smith, 1999). Additional concerns surfaced that students were unlikely to relocate to attend a SE doctoral program (Tyler & Smith, 1999), included few individuals from cultur-ally and linguisticcultur-ally diverse backgrounds (Cartledge, Gardner, & Tillman, 1995; Rousseau & Tam, 1995; Smith & Tyler, 1994, 1997), and had characteristics (e.g., older, lack of mobility) that hindered their willing-ness to accept faculty positions (Dil, Geiger, Hoover, & Sindelar, 1993; Pierce & Smith, 1994; Tyler & Smith, 1999).

The 2001 Faculty Shortage Study (Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, & Rosenberg, 2001) was the first comprehensive study to address issues of faculty supply and demand, includ-ing the impact of the doctoral student pipeline on the supply of future faculty (Pion, Smith, & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, Smith, & Pion, 2003). In addition to reinforcing the age and mobility findings of earlier studies, Smith and her col-leagues (2001) found that the existence or absence of external funding (e.g., research or teaching assistantships, traineeships) played a significant role in the students’ ability to attend school full- or part-time and their sub-sequent ability to finish their programs quickly. Those without funding were more likely to be part-time students who took longer to finish, and subsequently, accepted nonacademic positions. Doctoral students who went on to become college and university faculty were more likely to have external funding, allow-ing them to complete their programs faster.

The researchers involved in the 2001 study made a list of recommendations, aimed at increasing the doctoral student pipeline and improving the supply of doctoral graduates who entered careers in academe. The recom-mendations offered by Smith et al. (2001) tied to doctoral student production included the need to

1. Increase the capacity of doctoral programs;

2. Target student recruitment, specifi-cally students who were younger,

more mobile, and thus more likely to relocate to accept faculty positions; 3. Increase the federal presence and

investment in leadership personnel preparation, as increased student funding would allow more students to enroll full-time, thus reducing their time to completion—a key pre-dictor of accepting a faculty posi-tion; and

4. Improve faculty mentoring of doc-toral students.

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) used these recommendations to request increased funding for its Leadership Personnel Preparation initiative, which pro-vides funding for student support to SE doc-toral programs through a competitive grants program. OSEP further followed the recom-mendations of the 2001 study team by giving competitive preference to projects that aimed to recruit and train future college faculty and encouraged recruitment of students from his-torically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and those with disabilities. Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008) hypothesized that OSEP’s involvement resulted in a younger, better funded, and more diverse student pipe-line in the years following the 2001 study. Other data reinforce their hypothesis, lending further credence to OSEP’s actions. For example, the SEFNA team commissioned multiple special data analyses from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, from their Survey of Earned Doctorates. This survey is completed by every doctoral graduate in the country. The NORC data show that 63% of all SE doctoral graduates in 2009 took fac-ulty positions, in comparison with 50% in 2001 (NORC, 2010). Given that career opportunities outside of academe have increased for doctoral graduates over the last three decades (Nettles & Millett, 2006), this appears to be a substantial change in the doc-toral landscape.

No large-scale studies have been con-ducted since the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study,

so there was no verification of whether supply conditions had changed. The SEFNA study was carried out, in part, to compare current supply conditions with those from 10 years prior.

Overview of the Present Study

The 2001 Faculty Shortage Study increased national awareness of the supply of SE doc-torates by examining key characteristics of doctoral students and recent graduates. The current SEFNA study was designed to repli-cate and build on the prior study. Therefore, in the current study, the authors sought to answer these two overarching questions:

1. What are the characteristics of stu-dents currently enrolled in doctoral programs in SE?

• What factors appear to be facili-tating and hindering their doc-toral study?

• What are their career aspirations post graduation?

2. What are the characteristics of recent graduates from SE doctoral programs?

• What early career paths have they chosen?

• What factors appear to influence career choice?

Method

Participants

Current doctoral students. Doctoral program coordinators (n = 97) identified in the article by Smith and Montrosse (2012, [in this issue]) were asked to assist the SEFNA study team by (a) reporting the number of students enrolled in the program at the time the survey was dis-tributed and (b) forwarding a URL survey link to doctoral students currently enrolled in their SE programs. Eighty-two coordinators (85%) agreed to assist the study team. Doctoral pro-gram coordinators at these schools indicated that a total of 1,779 students were pursuing a

doctoral degree in the spring of 2009. The final sample included responses from 71.0% (n = 1,263) of the current doctoral students enrolled in 82 SE doctoral training programs.

Recent graduates. Based on data from doc-toral program coordinators (see Smith & Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]), it was ini-tially estimated that a total of 1,737 doctoral degrees had been awarded between 1999 and 2008. For the present study, these same doc-toral program coordinators (n = 97) were asked to provide contact information for stu-dents who had graduated from their programs between 1999 and 2008. Only 66 programs (68%) complied with this request. Some pro-grams were unable to participate because of their schools’ confidentiality requirements; others simply did not respond to this task request. Furthermore, some of the contact information provided was inaccurate (e.g., included graduates outside the study’s time parameters), resulting in a decreased sample of 870 SE doctoral graduates. Approximately, 72.0% (n = 626) of the 870 graduates from these 66 doctoral training programs returned a completed survey.

Instrumentation

The Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education and the Special Education Doctoral Graduate Survey were modeled after instru-ments created for the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study (Smith et al., 2001). Both instruments also included additional questions generated by the study team and OSEP. Both surveys were designed to assess emerging trends and help stakeholders better understand current issues in the preparation of SE personnel. The Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education was divided into sections on (a) type of doctoral program, (b) student expe-riences in applying to doctoral programs in SE, (c) student experiences in their current doctoral program, (d) anticipated plan post graduation, and (e) demographic information on current doctoral students. The Special Education Doctoral Graduate Survey was divided into the following five sections: (a) type

of doctoral program attended, (b) current employment status, (c) characteristics of cur-rent employment status, (d) career experi-ences post graduation, and (e) educational and background characteristics. A complete copy of both surveys is available at www.cgu. edu/sefnasurveys

Procedures

Remark™, a software program for online surveys, was used to collect data from cur-rent SE doctoral students in the pipeline and recent graduates of SE doctoral programs. The Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education was administered in the late win-ter through early spring of 2009, and the link to the Special Education Doctoral Graduate Survey was emailed to participants in the late spring and early summer of 2009. A consent form was used to ensure participants were fully aware of the purpose of the study and its associated risks and benefits. Each survey remained open for approximately 2 months, with several reminder emails sent out by the SEFNA study team members. Each survey respondent was given a US $10 gift card as a financial incentive for completing the sur-vey. Doctoral coordinators, or their desig-nees, were given a US $50 gift card for forwarding the email that contained the link to the online survey to their students and a US $150 gift card for forwarding the email with the link for the graduate survey to their alumni.

Data Analyses

Data cleaning and univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Univariate analyses included calculation of measures of central tendency (mean, mode) and variability (range, standard deviation). Inferential statistics were also conducted on data gathered from recent graduates of SE programs. To estimate whether the means of key outcome variables for graduates in aca-demic positions and those in nonacaaca-demic

positions were statistically different from each other, a one-way ANOVA was con-ducted. To predict the probability of pursuing a faculty career, a logistic regression was employed. In this instance, the dependent or response variable was dichotomous (i.e., graduate pursued a faculty position/graduate did not pursue a faculty position). In both sets of analyses, alpha levels were set at p < .001, p < .01, and p < .05 and results interpreted accordingly.

Results

Characteristics of SE Doctoral

Students in the Pipeline

Students enrolled in SE doctoral programs are predominately female (83.2%), married (61.3%), native-born U.S. citizens (86.7%), and have, on average, one dependent. About 74% of students in the pipeline self-identified as White, 11% as Black or African American, 8% as Asian, 4% as bi- or multiracial, 2% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and less than 1% as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Approximately, 6% of students in the pipeline identified their ethnic identity as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino. Furthermore, of those in the doctoral student pipeline, 7.1% report having a disability, which is very close to the national percentage of graduate stu-dents with a disability.1 On average, students were 36.5 years old (SD = 9.2) when they began their doctoral degree program. Disaggregating the data by career intent, those who were planning to be faculty were marginally younger (M = 36.1, SD = 8.9) than those who were planning careers outside of academe (M = 37.1, SD = 9.5).

The majority (61.1%) of the SE doctoral students surveyed had aspirations of entering academe as a faculty member on graduation. Only a small portion relocated to attend their doctoral program of choice (24%); regard-less of relocation, two-thirds enrolled full-time (67%). In terms of progress in their programs, the largest percentage (56%) was completing required coursework. Almost

20% had their dissertation proposal accepted and presumably are close to completing their doctorate. The remaining students are some-where in-between.

Characteristics of

SE Doctoral Graduates

The profile of graduates produced between 1999 and 2008 is similar to the profile of cur-rent students in the pipeline. These graduates are predominately female (84.5%), married (70%), have one child, and are a native-born U.S. citizens (88.4%). Approximately, 20% of graduates self-reported belonging to a his-torically underrepresented racial group. About 80% of recent graduates self-identified as White, 9% as Black or African American, 7% as Asian, 3% as bi- or multiracial, and less than 1% as American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander. Equivalent to students in the pipeline, approx-imately 6% of recent graduates identified their ethnic identity as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino. Interestingly, these percentages are relatively consistent with similar data reported in the 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates (NORC, 2010; see Table 1). Finally, com-pared with students in the pipeline, a slightly lower percentage of recent graduates had a disability (6.6%).

On average, recent graduates were 35.8 years of age when they began doctoral study and took 5 years to complete the degree. Many recent graduates (61.1%) had aspira-tions to become faculty members on entering their doctoral program and most accom-plished this goal (55.6%). About a third (31.4%) of these graduates relocated to attend their doctoral program of choice, and two-fifths (39.9%) relocated to assume their current position. Fellowships, scholarships, or graduate assistantships were cited as the most common forms of support for graduate school (27.5%). Fewer had research assis-tantships (13.9%), traineeships funded via training grants (13.9%), or teaching assis-tantships (9.5%) as their primary source of support.

Differences in SE Doctoral

Graduates in Academic and

Nonacademic Positions

Profile of graduates pursuing an academic career in SE. A one-way ANOVA was con-ducted to detect differences on key variables for graduates who entered faculty positions and for those who entered nonfaculty positions (e.g., teachers, SE service providers, educa-tional administrators, independent research-ers). Slight differences between the profiles of these two groups were noted (Table 2).

Results indicate that the percentage of female graduates was significantly higher for those assuming faculty positions (53.6%) than those assuming positions outside of institu-tions of higher education (IHEs; 46.6%). The average age of graduates when they com-menced their doctoral degree was signifi-cantly lower for those in academe (34.7 years old) compared with those in nonacademic positions (37.5 years old). The percentage of graduates who relocated to begin their doc-toral program was significantly higher for those who pursued faculty positions (68.8%)

than those who pursued nonfaculty positions (31.2%). Similarly, the percentage of gradu-ates who relocated to take their present aca-demic position was also significantly higher (79.5%) than those who relocated to take their present nonacademic position (20.5%).

Differences were also detected for finan-cial support, specifically teaching assistant-ships, research assistantassistant-ships, traineeassistant-ships, or fellowships. The percentage of graduates who had teaching assistantships, research assis-tantships, traineeships, or fellowships was significantly higher for those currently in fac-ulty positions (61.9%) than for those currently in nonfaculty positions (38.1%). Furthermore, the percentage who reported that these were their primary source of support was signifi-cantly higher for those who assumed faculty positions (61.2%) than for those who assumed positions outside of IHEs (38.8%). This ties directly to the key predictors of an academic career identified in the next section; those who received these forms of financial assis-tance were more likely to attend school full-time and finish their programs faster as compared with their nonfaculty counterparts. Table 1. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of SE Doctorates Compared With All Doctorates

Variables 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates (all doctoral degrees) 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates (all education doctoral degrees) 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SE doctoral degrees only) 2008 SEFNA (SE doctoral degrees only) Race White 72% 73% 75% 80%

Black or African American 7% 14% 11% 9%

Asian 13% 4% 10% 7%

Bi- or multiracial 2% 1% — 3%

American Indian or Alaska

Native <1% <1% <1% <1%

Native Hawaiian or Pacific

Islander — — — <1%

Ethnicity

Spanish, Hispanic, Latino 5% 6% 4% 6%

Non-Spanish, Hispanic, Latino 95% 94% 96% 94%

Note: In the 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates data, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian category. The 2008 Survey of Earned Doctorates data also do not report on the percentage of individuals who self-identify as bi- or multiracial.

A difference between faculty and nonfac-ulty in terms of elapsed time between degrees was also detected. Regardless of time between degrees (e.g., elapsed time between BA and PhD/EdD), the average time-to-degree was significantly lower for those who became fac-ulty members than those who became nonfac-ulty. Finally, the percentage of graduates who aspired to become faculty when entering grad-uate school was significantly higher for those who secured academic positions post gradua-tion (71.3%) than for those who secured non-academic positions post graduation (28.7%).

Key predictors of pursuing an academic career in SE. Because differences were detected between those who entered faculty positions and those who entered nonfaculty positions, a logistic regression was computed to predict the probability of entering academe based on variables of interest (Table 3). Five predictors were found to increase the odds of becoming a faculty member. More specifically,

• Those who entered doctoral pro-grams with faculty career inten-tions were 5.0 times more likely to become faculty.

• Every additional year of age among those beginning a doctoral program decreased the odds of that person becoming a faculty member by 1.2 times.

• Having a teaching assistantship, a research assistantship, a traineeship, or a fellowship increased the odds of being a faculty member by 1.6 times.

• Every additional year a person took to complete the doctoral degree decreased the odds of that person becoming a fac-ulty member by 0.9 times.

• Those who were willing to relocate after graduation were 5.9 times more likely to take a faculty position on completing their degree.

Table 2. Differences in Special Education Graduates Entering Faculty and Nonfaculty Positions

Variables Faculty Nonfaculty

Percentage who were female* 53.4 46.6

Percentage who were underrepresented minorities 19.7 20.2

Percentage who were married or living together 55.2 44.8

Percentage who had dependents 57.4 42.6

Percentage who planned to be faculty on entering the program*** 71.3 28.7

Percentage who relocated to begin PhD/EdD*** 68.8 31.2

Percentage who relocated to take their current job*** 79.5 20.5 Percentage who had a TA, RA, traineeship, or fellowship* 61.9 38.1 Percentage who regarded TA, RA, traineeship, or fellowship as their primary

source of support** 61.2 38.8

Percentage who regarded earnings from a job as their primary source of support 40.6 59.4

Age when enrolling in doctoral program*** 34.7 37.5

Elapsed time between BA and MA* 5.7 6.8

Elapsed time between MA and PhD/EdD*** 10.2 12.5

Elapsed time between enrolling in the doctoral program and receipt of degree*** 4.5 5.6

Elapsed time between BA and PhD/EdD*** 15.6 19.1

Note: SE = special education; TA = teaching assistantship; RA = research assistantship. Graduates in the faculty category include those teaching and/or conducting research in a college or university in tenure-track, nontenure track, postdoctoral or adjunct positions. Graduates in the nonfaculty category include those teaching or providing direct services in an elementary school, a school system, or another type of organization, serving in educational administrative roles, and conducting research and evaluation studies in a non-university-affiliated organization. *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

Discussion

A primary goal of the SEFNA project was to find out how the doctoral landscape had changed since the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study (Smith et al., 2001). Therefore, a com-parison of the findings is important here.

Comparisons With The 2001

Faculty Shortage Study

Results from the original 2001 study showed that only 50% of doctoral graduates took fac-ulty positions, a proportion insufficient to fill the advertised vacant positions at that time. Furthermore, key factors were identified that made a doctoral student more likely to accept a faculty position: age, intent to pursue a fac-ulty career, mobility, funding, and time to completion. The SEFNA study also found these factors to be key predictors for selecting a faculty position. The identification of these predictors across both studies indicates that they could prove useful guides for improving the supply pipeline.

Age and career aspirations. Age is an impor-tant factor in the career decisions of doctoral graduates. Prior research has found that older individuals who have earned tenure and seniority as teachers in their school districts— with the requisite pay increases associated

with those positions—find that they would have to take a large pay cut (an average of 18%) to accept an assistant professorship at a college or university (Tyler, 1996; Tyler & Smith, 1999). The implications are that older graduates may be uninterested in faculty posi-tions. Furthermore, the SEFNA data indicate that when beginning a doctoral program, age is a significant predictor of a faculty career. Clearly, the average age of doctoral students when beginning their graduate programs is an important indicator for assessing the supply of potential new faculty in SE.

Between 1986 and 2001, the average age of doctoral students, and subsequently doc-toral graduates and new faculty, has risen steadily. In 1986, the average age of an assis-tant professor in SE was relatively young—36 years old (Smith & Lovett, 1987). By 1994, the average age of recent SE doctoral gradu-ates was 40 years old (Pierce & Smith, 1994). Nearly a decade later, the 2001 Faculty Shortage study found the average age when starting a doctoral program to be nearly 37 years old, and graduation age had risen to nearly 42 years old (Pion et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2001). Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008), however, found doctoral students in their 2005 sample to be slightly younger (about 35 years old) than those in the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study and hypothesized that Table 3. Logistic Regression Predicting Probability of Faculty Career

95% CI for odds ratio

Variables B SE B Odds ratio Lower Upper

Female −0.18 0.32 0.83 0.45 1.57

Underrepresented minority −0.32 0.28 0.72 0.42 1.24

Has at least one child 0.35 0.23 1.42 0.92 2.22

Relocated to enroll in graduate school 0.36 0.24 1.43 0.90 2.28

Relocated to take a position*** 1.60 0.27 5.90 3.50 9.65

Planned to be faculty on entering graduate school*** 1.61 0.24 4.95 3.10 7.91 Had a TA, RA, traineeship or fellowship* 0.48 0.22 1.62 1.06 2.49

Married 0.18 0.28 1.14 0.69 1.87

Age at time of enrolling in graduate school* −0.22 0.02 1.15 1.00 1.33

Time to complete doctoral degree* −0.14 0.06 0.88 0.78 0.98

Note: CI = confidence interval. *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.

the recommendations from that study—which included recruiting younger individuals who would be more likely to pursue faculty careers—had resulted in significant changes in the doctoral student population. This appeared to be a promising change.

SEFNA data provide a different, more complex perspective. On average, graduates from 1999 and 2008 who accepted faculty positions were 34.7 years old when they began their doctoral program and took an average of 4.5 years to complete the program, thus graduating at approximately 39 years of age. Those who accepted educational leader-ship positions began their program, on average, at 39 years old—the same age as graduates who became faculty—and took nearly 6 years to complete the program, thus graduating at nearly 45 years of age. These data simultane-ously show that those who chose faculty careers are significantly younger than those who chose careers in educational leadership, and that the average age of doctoral students has decreased slightly from that reported by Wasburn-Moses and Therrien (2008). Interestingly, the NORC (2010) data indi-cated that graduates from 2004 to 2008 were, on average, 2 years younger at graduation than those who graduated from 1999 to 2003, indicating a decrease in age among the most recent graduates. This difference from SEFNA data may be due to NORC’s ability to survey all doctoral graduates and the afore-mentioned SEFNA difficulties in surveying all graduates.

A different story emerges when looking at students currently in the pipeline. On average, these students were 36.5 years old when they began their program. Furthermore, the differ-ence in age between those intending to pursue a faculty career and those with other career aspirations is only 1 year (36.1 vs. 37.1 years old, respectively). This indicates that the aver-age aver-age of doctoral students currently in the pipeline has risen slightly, regardless of career intent. Whether these students, particularly older students, ultimately secure faculty posi-tions post graduation remains unknown, but this finding does indicate a need to continue to monitor this situation carefully. Although

we concur with Wasburn-Moses and Therrien’s (2008) hypothesis that adoption of recom-mendations from the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study has resulted in significant changes in the doctoral student population, we also believe that more action is needed to affect important indicators.

Lack of mobility. The willingness or ability to relocate is a factor in the choice of doctoral programs and the choice of postgraduate careers (Pierce & Smith, 1994; Pion et al., 2003; Tyler et al., 2003; Tyler & Smith, 1999). Furthermore, the lack of mobility may constrain the opportunities, including career pathways, for current students and graduates. In other words, the ability to relocate may serve as either a hindering or a facilitating factor for the supply of graduates to fill vacant faculty positions and is, therefore, an impor-tant indicator to assess.

SEFNA data related to mobility indicate that only 24% of all doctoral students relo-cated to begin their studies, which is lower than the 30.3% reported in the 2001 Faculty Shortage study. Disaggregating the data by career intentions, 29.7% of those currently in the pipeline and who intend to pursue a fac-ulty position relocated, compared with 15.7% of those who intend to pursue other types of positions. These percentages are also lower than those reported by Smith et al. (2001). In their study, 35.9% of students with academic career intentions relocated to attend their doc-toral program compared with 26.4% of those with other career aspirations.

Similar findings were observed for gradu-ates produced between 1999 and 2008. Whereas 68.8% of those currently in faculty positions relocated to attend their doctoral programs, only 31.2% of those presently in nonfaculty positions relocated. Compared with the 2001 Faculty Shortage study, which found that 43.4% of faculty and 21.9% of nonfaculty relocated, the percentage of those relocating has increased overall and increased substantially for those pursing faculty careers. This holds true even when examining the per-centage that relocated for their first position post graduation. The proportion of those who relocated for their first postgraduate position

was significantly higher for those who relo-cated for a faculty position (79.5%) than for those that relocated for a nonfaculty (20.5%). In this instance, only the percentage of those that relocated for their first position, which was a faculty position, increased from the 2001 Faculty Shortage study. The prior study only found that 56.9% of graduates relocated to take a postgraduation position that was also a faculty position. For the first time, data spe-cific for those pursuing educational leader-ship careers are available. Recent graduates in this category were even less likely to relocate. Only 15% of those in educational leadership positions relocated for their doctoral studies, and only 19% relocated for their first post-graduate position. Taken as a whole, gradu-ates who pursued faculty careers were more likely to relocate than those who pursued other career pathways, and the proportion willing to do so has increased since the 2001 Faculty Shortage study.

It would appear previous cohorts of doc-toral students were more likely to relocate for their doctoral studies than those in the pipe-line now. Postgraduation, those who accepted faculty positions relocated at significantly higher rates than those in educational leader-ship and other nonfaculty positions. These data indicate that nonfaculty graduates are likely to attend a doctoral program nearby and then remain in their same locale after gradua-tion. A number of questions arise as a result of these findings. What recent factors have emerged which are diminishing the percent-age of current students in the pipeline willing to relocate? What happens in regions where there are no doctoral-granting institutions? How do other SE teacher education programs recruit faculty—tenure track and adjunct— when there are no nearby doctoral-granting universities (DGUs), given these relocation issues?

Funding and time to completion. Financial awards such as research assistantships, trainee-ships, and fellowships—or the lack thereof— play a significant role in the preparation of doctoral students. According to data from the current study, those with funding were able to

attend school full-time, which allowed them to complete their program faster, resulting in a lower time-to-completion ratio than was the case with their nonfunded peers. Furthermore, those with funding were significantly more likely to become faculty than those without funding.

A doctoral assistantship back in 1960 aver-aged approximately US $2,500 (Tawney & DeHaas-Warner, 1993). Calculating for infla-tion, that same assistantship would be worth approximately US $19,123 in 2011 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). That amount is insufficient to support one person, much less an entire family, as was possible with the sti-pends in the 1960s, which were not taxed and also included supplemental dependent allow-ances. Yet, recent data indicate that the actual average stipend amount provided through OSEP grants is only US $17,000 (Smith et al., 2011). Furthermore, these stipend levels are, on average, almost US $4,000 less than those provided by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health and US $13,000 less than those provided by National Science Foundation (including Graduate Research Fellowships) and the Institute of Educational Sciences (IES). The implications of these findings are that, even with external financial support, doctoral students must make severe financial sacrifices to attend full-time. In turn, these sacrifices may further influence a doctoral graduate’s career choices; a graduate with large student debt may be less willing to choose a lower-paying faculty position and instead select a career with higher earning potential outside of academe. Smith et al. (2011) hypothesized that increasing stipend levels and ensuring consistency in amounts provided to students across grants, as is the case with IES, could improve the flow of graduates into faculty positions. This recom-mendation is further supported by our data, which show that those with funding were able to attend school full-time, which allowed them to complete their program faster, result-ing in a lower time-to-completion ratio. All of

these markers, in turn, significantly influ-enced the number of those assuming faculty positions postgraduation.

Improving (but insufficient) diversity. Although diversity of faculty is an issue at the doctoral-granting institutions and teacher preparation programs (see Robb, Smith, & Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]), it does appear that the diversity of students in the pipeline and of graduates produced between 1999 and 2008 has improved slightly. Approximately, 18% of doctoral students from the 2001 Faculty Short-age Study reported being from an underrepre-sented group; 20% of doctoral students in the SEFNA study were similarly diverse. While slightly more than 16% of doctoral graduates in the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study were from historically underrepresented groups, approxi-mately 20% of the SEFNA graduates were. Approximately, 7% of students in the pipeline reported having disabilities, compared with a slightly lower percentage of recent graduates (6.6%). This percentage of individuals with disabilities is compared with only 1.5% of all doctoral recipients and 2.6% of doctoral recip-ients in education (Table 25 of NSF/NIH/ USED/NEH/NASA, 2009 Survey of Earned Doctorates). These data reinforce Wasburn-Moses and Therrien’s (2008) findings of a younger, more diverse doctoral cohort, and subsequently their hypothesis that changes in OSEP’s Leadership competition priorities are having an impact on the doctoral student pool.

Despite this progress, improvement has been incremental and should continue to be a factor of concern for the field. The pres-ence of culturally and linguistically diverse faculty increases recruitment and retention of students from diverse backgrounds, who often show a preference for same-race fac-ulty mentors (Nettles & Millett, 2006). Therefore, the current lack of diversity in the faculty may prove problematic for doc-toral recruitment efforts. Conversely, with-out a diverse doctoral student pool, the probability of improving the diversity of faculty remains slim. This situation is remi-niscent of the age-old conundrum regarding the chicken and the egg. If the current students

in the pipeline assume faculty positions at the same rate as their predecessors, it is rea-sonable to assume that slightly less than two-thirds will end up in academe. Although the improved diversity within the SEFNA doctoral student sample is heartening, it is not yet sufficiently improved to make a sig-nificant difference in the diversity of the fac-ulty ranks.

Limitations

One standard limitation with survey method-ology is the nonresponse bias. The primary concern is the possibility that a critical num-ber of nonrespondents had characteristics that could have skewed the results in another direction. This includes those who were invited to participate and chose not to, as well as those who never received the invita-tion to participate (i.e., students and gradu-ates from programs whose Institutional Review Board [IRB] requirements would not allow them to solicit participation in the study). The high response rates for those who were invited (71% for doctoral students and 72% for doctoral graduates) should minimize any potential nonresponse bias specific to the study sample. There is a greater nonresponse bias concern regarding those students from schools whose IRB requirements did not allow them to be invited, or for those graduates whose schools were not permitted to share their contact information. These omitted students repre-sented more than 700 doctoral degree award-ees between 1999 and 2008. An estimate of the number of students who are currently in the pipeline and were omitted is more diffi-cult to calculate. What is known is that a total of 15 schools were absent from the Survey of Doctoral Students in Special Education, and some of these schools were online-only programs that typically admit a larger number of students compared with traditional programs. In either scenario, there is no way to assess how the character-istics of these individuals could have changed the findings of the study.

Recommendations

for Future Research

In addition to those mentioned elsewhere in the “Discussion” section, other recommendations for future research can be gleaned from the study. One key group of individuals who were not surveyed for this study is those who dropped out of doctoral programs. With the projected increases in faculty retirements (see Montrosse & Young, 2012, [in this issue]; Smith & Montrosse, 2012, [in this issue]), it would ben-efit the field to (a) identify characteristics of students who are unlikely to complete their doctoral studies and (b) determine and eliminate possible barriers to doctoral completion. More knowledge in these areas may help to increase the potential supply of faculty.

A second area of research could focus on doctoral-level educational leadership personnel. Unlike the 2001 and SEFNA studies on faculty supply and demand, no national study has been conducted on the supply and demand of educa-tional leadership personnel. If doctoral graduates are selecting educational leadership positions over IHE faculty positions, it would be helpful to understand the alluring aspects of those career options. Furthermore, it would be helpful to determine how much doctoral programs must increase production to fill IHE faculty and local education agency (LEA) and state education agency (SEA) administrative positions. What modifications will need to be made to doctoral programs to address this demand?

Conclusion

In comparison with the 2001 Faculty Shortage Study, the doctoral supply landscape appears to have improved slightly. Doctoral students and graduates are younger, more diverse, and a larger percentage selected faculty positions after graduation (63% compared with 50% in 2001). The key predictive factors for selecting a faculty position remained stable: age, intent to pursue a faculty career, mobility, funding, and time to completion. The SEFNA findings built on the 2001 study’s data by calculating probabilities (e.g., for every additional year of age when starting the doctoral program,

the odds of becoming a faculty member decrease 2.6 times). Yet, considering the time frame (approximately 10 years) this progress has been slow. Montrosse and Young (2012, [in this issue]) are projecting significant SE fac-ulty shortages in the next 5 years. Therefore, it is imperative that doctoral program faculty, key professional organizations, and the fed-eral government will need to work together to address the impending shortage while main-taining and improving on the progress recently made.

Authors’ Note

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contents of this article were developed under a grant from U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (H325U070001).

Note

1. According to the National Center for Education sta-tistics, 7.6% of graduate students (master’s and doc-toral students combined) have a disability (http://nces. ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_240.asp).

References

Bunsen, T. (1988). PL 88-164: Implications and impact on the field of special education. In C. Kochhar (Ed.), Excellence in doctoral lead-ership training: Special education and related

services (pp. 3-7). Washington, DC: George

Washington University.

Bunsen, T., & Bullock, L. M. (1988). Current status of leadership training. In C. A. Kochhar (Ed.),

Excellence in doctoral leadership training: Special education and related service. Report

of a national conference (pp. 8-11). Washington,

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). CPI inflation

calculator. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/

data/inflation_calculator.htm

Cartledge, G., Gardner, R., & Tillman, L. (1995). African Americans in higher education special education: Issues in recruitment and retention.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 18,

166-178.

Dil, N., Geiger, W. L., Hoover, J. J., & Sindelar, P. T. (1993). Available special education faculty positions in higher education. Teacher

Educa-tion and Special EducaEduca-tion, 16, 230-239.

Kleinhammer-Tramill, J. (2003). An analysis of federal initiatives to prepare regular educa-tors to serve students with disabilities: Deans’ Grants, REGI, and beyond. Teacher Education

and Special Education, 26, 230-245.

Kochhar, C. A., Compton, D., Bailey, D., & Barr, V. (1988). Search for quality in doctoral leader-ship training: A content analysis of 87-88 OSEP-DPP leadership grants. In C. A. Kochhar (Ed.), Excellence in doctoral leadership train-ing: Special Education and Related Service.

Report of a National Conference (pp. 55-92).

Washington, DC: George Washington University. National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at

the University of Chicago. (2010). Doctorate- granting institution, race/ethnicity, time-to-degree, age, post-doctoral plans, and post-doctoral mobility of doctorate recipients

in Special Education: 2009 (Custom

tabula-tion prepared under Natabula-tional Science Founda-tion Contract No. SRS-0754015). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three

magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pierce, T. B., & Smith, D. D. (1994). Career choices of recent special education graduates holding doctoral degrees. Teacher Education

and Special Education, 17, 129-136.

Pion, G. M., Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2003). The shortage of special education faculty: A persistent problem. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 26, 182-193.

Rousseau, M. K., & Tam, B. K. Y. (1995). An apprenticeship model to recruit and prepare minority students to enter special education doctoral programs. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 18, 179-191.

Schofer, R. (1962). Public Law 85-926. Unpub-lished manuscript.

Smith, D. D., Drew, C., Healey, W., McCarthy, J., & Hughes, C. (1991). History and future needs

of doctoral training in special education.

HECSE report.

Smith, D. D., & Lovett, D. (1987). The supply and demand of special education faculty members: Will the supply meet the demand?

Teacher Education and Special Education, 10,

88-96.

Smith, D. D., & Pierce, T. (1995). The state of special education leadership training and col-lege and university faculty: What we know and what we don’t. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 18, 156-165.

Smith, D. D., Pion, G., Tyler, N. C., Sindelar, P. T., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2001). The study of special education leadership personnel with particular

attention to the professoriate. Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University.

Smith, D. D., & Salzberg, C. (1994). The shortage of special education faculty: Toward a better understanding. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 17, 52-61.

Smith, D. D., Truong, A., Watson, R., Hartley, M. D., Robb, S. M., & Gilmore, R. (2011). The fed-eral role in the preparation of special education doctorates: An analysis of the office of special education programs’ leadership preparation initiative. Teacher Education and Special

Edu-cation, 34, 267-282.

Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (1994). Pipeline data for doctoral students from historically under-represented groups attending HECSE colleges

and universities. HECSE Report.

Albuquer-que, NM: University of New Mexico. Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (1997). Special

edu-cation doctoral students’ diversity. OSEP

Leadership Conference [Monograph].

Balti-more, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Tawney, J. W., & DeHaas-Warner, S. (1993). Assessing demand for special education: A pilot study and prototype for a national regis-try. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 283-293.

Tyler, N. C. (1996). An analysis of factors which affected the career decisions of recent doctoral

graduates in special education. Albuquerque:

Tyler, N. C., & Smith, D. D. (1999). Career deci-sions of doctoral graduates in special education.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 21,

1-13.

Tyler, N. C., Smith, D. D., & Pion, G. M. (2003). Doctoral students in special education: Char-acteristics and career aspirations. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 26,

194-205.

Wasburn-Moses, L., & Therrien, W. J. (2008). The impact of Leadership Personnel Prep-aration grants on the doctoral student population in special education. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 31,

65-76.

Bios

Naomi Chowdhuri Tyler is the codirector of The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements and associ-ate professor of the practice in special education at Peabody College of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University.

Bianca Elizabeth Montrosse is assistant profes-sor in the Department of Psychology at Western Carolina University.

Deborah Deutsch Smith is the codirector of The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements and a professor of special education at Claremont Graduate University.