Principals’ Special Education Experience: Implications for Special Education Teacher Turnover

Abstract

Special education teachers often report having heavy workloads and problematic working conditions that lead to a desire to leave their campus. Some attention has been given to the role of principal especially since administrative support has been reported by special education teachers as a working condition influencing their decisions to leave. In this study, we use Texas administrative data from 1995–2024 academic years to identify the extent to which principals have special education teaching experience and examine the relationship between that experience and special education teacher retention. We find that roughly 22% of principals had some special education teaching experience in their careers. We also find that principals with special education teaching experience may be positively correlated with special education teacher retention, but our findings suggest that the influence of principal experience is partially moderated by school-level factors. We discuss these findings and implications for future research and practice.

Keywords

longitudinal research methods supervision response to intervention retention teacher preparation policy/service delivery principal leadership

Introduction

For decades, many U.S. schools and districts have struggled to recruit and retain special education teachers. Special education teachers often report being saddled with heavy workloads and problematic working conditions that lead to job-related stress and a desire to leave their campus or the profession altogether (Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Boe et al., 2008; Brunsting et al., 2014; Park & Shin, 2020; Scott et al., 2022). Further complicating the special education teacher turnover issue is decreasing enrollments in special education teacher preparation programs and limited interest among aspiring teachers to work in shortage areas like special education (Peyton et al., 2021; Stempien & Loeb, 2002; Theobald et al., 2021). High attrition and a lack of interest among aspiring educators contributes to chronic shortages which place districts and schools in positions of perpetual hiring and training. The consequences of this churn can be both challenging and stressful for special education teachers remaining in the profession. Most importantly, every student with a disability may not have a well-prepared teacher to provide them with specialized instruction and supports they need to be successful.

To understand the problem better, researchers have examined teacher-level factors that influence turnover and the extent to which special education teachers move to different schools, switch to general education, or exit the profession altogether (Boe et al., 2008). Some attention has been given to the role of school leadership, especially since administrative support has been reported by special education teachers as a critical working condition influencing their decisions to stay or leave (Berry et al., 2011; Cancio et al., 2013; Prather-Jones, 2011). This attention seems warranted given that principals make resource allocations and staffing decisions that can impact the work of teachers and personnel in meaningful ways (Cobb, 2015; Grissom et al., 2021). They also have opportunities to foster a positive working environment where special education teachers are valued and provided with necessary resources that may reduce job-related stress and help increase job satisfaction, professional self-efficacy, and retention among special education teachers (Conley & You, 2017; DeMatthews, 2015).

A burgeoning area of education leadership research documents how principals, many with prior special education teacher experience, value and work in collaboration with special education teachers to create and sustain effective and inclusive schools that meet the diverse needs of students with disabilities (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2021; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). While these studies do not focus on administrative support and special education teacher working conditions or turnover, such leadership efforts may mitigate job-related stress and help special education teachers feel more certain, involved, and agentic in their daily work. These effective principals, however, may be outliers given that most principals report having limited experience with special education and receiving little or no training within their leadership preparation programs or in-service professional development opportunities (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Wakeman et al., 2006). Thus, more research is needed to understand the potential of principal leadership to retain special education teachers and how increased leader preparation and experience may be a key lever in curtailing some of the unnecessary special education teacher turnover associated with poor working conditions. A principal’s prior teaching experience in special education may be an important factor shaping their leadership practice and ability to provide administrative support to special education teachers.

This study explores how principal experience with special education is associated with special education teacher retention. We hypothesize that principals who have previously been special education teachers or have undergone specific special education-related training may be more effective at retaining special education teachers. Conversely, principals with limited exposure to special education may fail to understand the special education teachers’ experiences and support needs, leading to a lack of perceived administrative support and higher turnover rates. Administrative data from states can provide important insight into both the general and special education workforce (Gilmour et al., 2025). We use Texas longitudinal administrative data from the 1995–2024 academic years to examine teacher and principal data in Texas public schools. The study employs descriptive statistics to illustrate trends in principal characteristics and their relationship to special education teacher turnover. Multivariate regression models assess how principal experience with special education is associated with special education teacher retention. At the same time, it is possible that the observed relationships may reflect sorting of teachers and principals across schools, rather than direct effects of principals’ prior experience. We return to this issue in the discussion. While we do not claim a causal relationship, the findings remain valuable in highlighting patterns and associations that can inform future policy discussions and guide more rigorous causal studies. Descriptive research of this kind is particularly useful for identifying underexplored dynamics that may warrant further investigation (Loeb et al., 2017).

In what follows we provide a brief review of literature focused on three areas, special education teacher turnover, working conditions and administrative support, and principal leadership related to special education and the work of special education teachers. Then, we describe our study’s methods, data, and analytic approach. Next, we present a set of findings highlighting how principal experiences are associated with retention. We conclude with recommendations for future research, policy, and the preparation and support of principals and special education teachers.

Literature Review

Special Education Teachers and Turnover

Schools need well-trained special education teachers to ensure every child with a disability has access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), including the necessary specialized instruction and support guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Special education teachers are prepared to provide instruction and support to one or more of the 13 disability classifications outlined in IDEA (2004; for example, specific learning disability, autism, intellectual disability). Given IDEA’s requirement for a continuum of placements and discretion provided to states and districts around program development, special education teachers may work in a variety of settings, including but not limited to: (a) inclusive settings that require collaboration with a general education teacher; (b) small group instruction as part of a pull-out model for intensive interventions; (c) self-contained special education classrooms; (d) are variety of settings over the course of a school day or week; or in entirely separate special schools and facilities. Their work often requires them to coordinate instruction, services, and other activities with a range of school personnel (e.g., general education teachers, related service providers, paraprofessionals, assistant principals) and includes managing the child’s Individualized Educational Program (IEP) to ensure the child receives FAPE (McLeskey et al., 2017). In sum, the work of special education teachers is often complex, highly reliant on collaboration with other educators and families, and requires significant training and support.

Despite the importance of special education teachers, persistent shortages across the country are evident in almost every U.S. state (Sutcher et al., 2019; U.S. Department of Education, 2025). Certain geographic contexts struggle even more with recruiting and retaining special education teachers, particularly high-poverty urban and rural schools (Berry, 2012; Levin et al., 2015). For school year 2024–25, approximately 34% of public schools reported being understaffed in special education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2025). The shortage is partly a supply side issue given that fewer young people are enrolling in undergraduate teacher programs and even fewer opt into special education preparation programs despite continued demand (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2024). As Billingsley and Bettini (2019) noted, special education teacher attrition “exacerbates the shortage, leaving many districts in the unfortunate position of having to hire unqualified personnel and requiring that limited resources be directed toward recruitment and induction rather than longer term initiatives” (p. 697).

Attrition can be costly and disruptive to the coordinated efforts necessary to educate every student. High rates of attrition negatively affect student achievement outcomes, disrupt collaborative relationships among teacher teams, and create additional challenges for those teachers who are left behind (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Moreover, principals and other personnel must spend time and money to replace each teacher, (Milanowski & Odden, 2007) further taking away from efforts to strengthen instruction and engage in other school improvement activities. Attrition can also fracture important relationships between the school and families (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Researchers have found that special education teacher turnover is more likely to occur in schools serving more low-income students of color (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019).

Attrition happens for many reasons although not all attrition is negative or unnecessary (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Brownell et al., 1997). For example, some attrition is natural as teachers retire after many years of service to the profession. Teachers are human beings with families and personal circumstances that may necessitate a decision to leave a campus or the profession altogether even if they have a high level of job satisfaction (Hopkins et al., 2019). In less common cases, teachers are removed from their positions due to ineffectiveness or unprofessional behaviors. Beyond what might be necessary or appropriate attrition, researchers have focused on attrition stemming from special education teachers changing campuses, switching from special education to general education, or exiting the profession (Boe et al., 2008). While more research is needed to evaluate why special education teachers leave their positions earlier in their careers and why they are more likely to leave schools serving high proportions of low-income students of color, researchers have long documented the importance of working conditions (Billingsley, 2004; Ladd, 2009; Toropova et al., 2021).

Special Education Teacher Working Conditions and Principal Leadership

Principals play a role in shaping working conditions, which influence special education teacher attrition. Working conditions in schools have been defined in different ways. Ladd (2009) described working conditions as physical features and organizational structures as well as the “sociological, political, psychological and educational features of the work environment” (p. 6). Toropova and colleagues (2021) defined several crucial factors shaping teacher working conditions, including “adequate resources, feasible workload, collegial cooperation, opportunities for professional development, leadership support and decision-making opportunities” (p. 74). Beyond these lists of working conditions, several studies and reviews document special education teacher working conditions (e.g., Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Scott et al., 2022). For example, Billingsley (2004) reviewed studies that highlighted the relationship between special education teacher attrition and work-related variables like salary, climate, administrative support, collegial support, teacher induction and mentoring, caseloads, and opportunities for professional development.

Working conditions can also be thought of in relation to the extent teachers feel like they have the necessary resources and supports to meet job demands (see Conservation of Resources [COR] theory, Hobfoll et al., 2018). In a review of teacher working conditions in inclusive schools using COR theory, DeMatthews et al. (2025) found that general and special education teachers reported significant work responsibilities but felt a lack of resources to complete their tasks. For many teachers, the lack of resources made the demands of their duties more stressful and exhausting (e.g., addressing student behavior, collaborating with families). Billingsley and Bettini (2019) highlighted several key aspects of special education teachers’ working conditions that may contribute to unnecessary attrition, including demands, social contexts, resources, financial compensation, and affective responses and coping strategies. Of note, administrative support has been characterized as the extent to which school leaders are available, involved, and attentive to the experiences, expertise, job demands, and needs of special education teachers (Bays & Crockett, 2007; Cancio et al., 2013; DeMatthews et al., 2023). Drawing on data from the 2011-2012 National Council for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey, Bettini and colleagues (2019) found that general and special education teachers were more likely to remain in their schools when they perceived higher levels of administrative support.

While principals do not have access to unlimited resources and are often constrained by budgets and district priorities, effective leaders can shape working conditions in consequential ways. Researchers have consistently reported that effective principals utilize a common repertoire of practices to improve organizational conditions that support high-quality instruction and important student experiences and outcomes (e.g., setting a direction and vision, developing people through high-quality professional development, strategically utilizing resources; Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020). These practices may support important special education teacher working conditions, whether increasing training and support or by providing meaningful opportunities for professional development.

A smaller body of research has focused on the principal’s role in supporting students with disabilities and creating and sustaining inclusive schools. Primarily relying on qualitative case studies, researchers have found that effective principals: (a) establish a mission oriented toward serving students with disabilities, (b), revise budgets and engage in collaborative problem-solving to adapt policies and strategic planning, (c) target professional development around issues related to special education, teacher leadership, and evidenced based teaching practices, and (d) nurture school-family relationships and help address pressing concerns associated with supporting struggling learners (Hoppey et al., 2018; McLeskey et al., 2014; Waldron et al., 2011).

Principals in some of these studies report once being a special education teacher, which may help explain their commitments to serving students with disabilities and in including special education teachers in important decisions and learning opportunities. Some additional leadership practices that could improve special education teacher working conditions reported within this literature include appointing special education teachers onto school improvement teams, adjusting and balancing caseloads, reducing paperwork and administrative burdens, and attending contentious IEP meetings to buffer special education teachers from additional stress (Conley & You, 2017; DeMatthews et al., 2021; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). Yet, more research is needed to confirm whether prior teacher preparation and experience can enable principals to improve working conditions for special education teachers.

Methods

This study examines the relationship between principal’s special education teaching experience with special education teacher retention. Specifically, we address the following research questions:

What are the characteristics and trends in special education teacher retention?

To what extent do principals have prior special education teaching experience?

Is a principal’s prior experience as a special education teacher associated with the retention rates of special education teachers within their school?

To answer these questions, we utilize Texas longitudinal administrative data covering the academic years 1995–2024. The dataset includes detailed information about teachers and principals from all public K–12 schools in Texas, encompassing traditional and charter schools. Texas provides an essential context for this study. Texas has nearly 1,200 school districts and over 9,000 schools, serving one of the most demographically and geographically diverse student populations in the United States. This diversity, along with the availability of high-quality longitudinal administrative data, provides a rich environment for studying the relationship between leadership experience and teacher retention. To construct the dataset, we identified principals with prior teaching experience in Texas public schools. We then tracked whether these principals had previously served as special education teachers. To ensure sufficient teaching observation, we excluded principals who served in the role before 2010. In other words, we excluded principals who served the principal role before 2010 to ensure the reliability and completeness of their historical teaching records. This restriction helps us to track enough teaching years so that we can better identify whether principals had experience teaching in special education prior to their leadership roles. The teacher sample consists of all teachers employed in Texas public schools during the study period. We tracked their assigned roles and retention status annually.¹

Sample

Table 1 provides summary statistics for the sample of principals and teachers from 2010 to 2023. Principal characteristics (Panel A), special education teacher characteristics (Panel B), and general education teacher characteristics (Panel C) are displayed for the overall sample and stratified by prior special education teaching experience of principals. Among the 67,965 principal-year observations, approximately 22.0% (14,975) of principal observations had prior special education teaching experience. The total years of experience and the principal experience in Texas public education were greater for those without special education teaching experience, and the differences were statistically significant at the 5% level (17.20 years vs. 16.98 years for the total experience and 3.91 years vs. 3.64 years for the principal experience). The gender distribution also differed, with a 7.86 percentage points lower proportion of female principals among those with special education teaching experience (60.17%) compared to those without (68.03%), which was statistically significant at the 5% level. Racial/ethnic composition varied as well: Among principals with special education teaching experience, 66.40% were White, compared to 56.86% among those without such experience. Conversely, Latinx/Hispanic principals made up 16.53% of those with special education teaching experience, compared to 26.67% among those without.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics for Principals and Teachers from 2010 to 2023.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Principal and Teacher Panels	Total	Principals without SpecEd teaching experience	Principals with SpecEd teaching experience	p-value for difference using t-test
Panel A. Principal
Num. of principal-year obs	67,965	52,990	14,975
Total experience (years)	17.15	17.20	16.98	0.00
Principal experience (years)	3.85	3.91	3.64	0.00
Female (percent)	66.30	68.03	60.17	0.00
Principal race/ethnicity (percent)
Asian	0.70	0.65	0.87	0.00
Black/Af.Am.	13.75	13.58	14.32	0.02
Latinx/Hisp.	24.44	26.67	16.53	0.00
White	58.96	56.86	66.40	0.00
Other	2.15	2.23	1.88	0.01
Panel B. Special Education Teacher
Num. of teacher-year obs	407,480	308,716	98,764
Total experience (years)	10.99	11.02	10.94	0.02
Female (percent)	76.16	76.78	74.23	0.00
Retention rate (percent)	73.15	73.05	73.45	0.01
Teacher race/ethnicity (percent)
Asian	1.58	1.57	1.61	0.35
Black/Af.Am.	13.45	13.44	13.46	0.84
Latinx/Hisp.	19.49	20.39	16.69	0.00
White	62.95	62.08	65.65	0.00
Other	2.53	2.52	2.59	0.30
Panel C. General Education Teacher
Num. of teacher-year obs	2,539,995	2,007,449	532,546
Total experience (years)	10.98	10.94	11.14	0.00
Female (percent)	75.85	76.52	73.32	0.00
Retention rate (percent)	76.21	76.37	75.59	0.00
Teacher race/ethnicity (percent)
Asian	1.61	1.60	1.64	0.04
Black/Af.Am.	10.14	10.15	10.10	0.28
Latinx/Hisp.	27.54	28.72	23.11	0.00
White	58.21	57.02	62.69	0.00
Other	2.50	2.51	2.46	0.02

Note. Values represent means. All variables are measured at the teacher-year or principal-year level.

The dataset includes 2,947,475 teacher-year observations, categorized as 407,480 special education teachers and 2,539,995 general education teachers. The average years of teaching experience were similar across both groups: Special education teachers had 10.99 years of experience. The difference by principal background was small (0.08 years; 10.94 under principals with special education experience vs. 11.02 under principals without) but statistically significant at the 5% level. General education teachers had an average of 10.98 years of experience, with those working under principals with special education teaching experience having 0.20 years more experience on average, which was statistically significant at the 5% level (11.14 years vs. 10.94 years under principals without such experience). Teacher retention rates were higher among general education teachers (76.21%) compared to special education teachers (73.15%). Notably, special education teacher retention was 0.40 percentage points higher under principals with special education teaching experience (73.44% vs. 73.04%), whereas general education teacher retention was 0.78 percentage points lower under those principals (75.59% vs. 76.37%), and both differences were statistically significant at the 5% level.

Measures

We drew on statewide administrative records to construct measures of teacher, principal, and school characteristics. Below we detail how each variable was measured.

Special Education Teacher Status

Teachers were classified as special education teachers using the Population-Served Code, which designates whether a teacher was formally assigned to provide instruction or services to students receiving special education. This classification precisely captures teachers in self-contained or specialized service assignments, and in inclusive settings it includes only those formally designated as providing special education services. Thus, it is a strong proxy for licensed, direct-service experience, though it does not capture all inclusive practices such as co-teaching or consultation.

Principal Special Education Experience

We coded principals as having special education experience if they had ever been assigned to a special education teaching position. The primary specification used a dichotomous indicator (1 = any prior assignment, 0 = none). To assess potential heterogeneity, we also estimated models using cumulative full-time equivalents (FTEs) in special education roles, reported in supplementary analyses (see Table 5). Cumulative special education teaching FTE refers to the total full-time equivalent assigned to special education instruction throughout a principal’s teaching career. This means that if a teacher was not fully assigned (1.0 FTE) to special education in a given year, the cumulative FTE and total number of teaching years in special education may not align perfectly. While this measure captures formal assignments, it may understate principals’ broader exposure to inclusive practices, which could influence interpretation of findings.

Timing of New Principal

A new principal appointment is a change in school leadership, where a different principal is assigned to the campus. We constructed dummy variables to indicate whether a given year marked a principal’s first, second, third, fourth, or final year at a school. The reference category captured all other years of tenure, representing periods when principals were considered established in their roles. This concept is based on prior work (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2022) showing that teacher turnover often changes around such transitions.

School Characteristics

School-level controls included total enrollment, percentage of students receiving special education services, urbanicity, and grade level. Urbanicity was coded following NCES/TEA conventions (urban, suburban, town, rural). While these categories often correlate with socioeconomic variation, they also capture important organizational and resource differences in the Texas context and should not be interpreted as precise proxies for poverty. Grade levels were grouped into elementary, middle, and high schools, reflecting standard organizational structures that shape leadership responsibilities and teacher work environments.

Analytical Strategy

The analysis unfolds in three stages. First, we compute descriptive statistics to examine trends in special education teacher retention over time and the prevalence of principals with prior special education teaching experience, including variations by school type and locale. Second, we estimate multivariate regression models to assess whether special education teacher retention is associated with a principal’s special education experience as below:

\begin{matrix} R e t e n t i o n_{i s t} = β_{0} + β_{1} S p e c E d E x p_{p t} \\ + X_{p t}^{'} β_{2} + Z_{s t}^{'} β_{3} \\ + S e q P_{i t}^{'} β_{4} + μ_{t} \\ + φ_{d} + ε_{i s t} \end{matrix}

(1)

where $R e t e n t i o n_{i s t}$ is the retention status of special education teacher $i$ in school $s$ at time $t$ ; $S p e c E d E x p_{p t}$ is an indicator for whether the school’s principal $p$ has prior special education teaching experience; $X_{p t}$ is a vector of principal characteristics such as years in principalship, gender, and race/ethnicity, and timing of new principal; $Z_{s t}$ is a vector of school characteristics such as urbanicity, student demographics, school size, and school level (elementary, middle, high school); $P_{i t}$ is a vector of teacher characteristics such as experience, gender, and race/ethnicity; $φ_{d}$ are district or school fixed effects; $μ_{t}$ are year fixed effects; and $ε_{i s t}$ is the error term. We estimate models using district and school fixed effects to further account for unobserved heterogeneity. District fixed effects help control for shared policies, funding levels, or leadership practices at the district level, while school fixed effects account for unobserved, time-invariant characteristics at the school level. Year fixed effects are included in all models to control for time-specific factors affecting teacher retention. All regression models employ heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered at the school level to account for within-school correlation. This ensures that statistical inference remains valid even in the presence of school-specific heterogeneity in teacher retention patterns. In addition, we compare the relationships between principal special education experience and special education versus general education teacher retention by incorporating interaction terms in the regression model as below:

\begin{matrix} R e t e n t i o n_{i s t} = β_{0} + β_{1} S p e c E d E x p_{p t} + \\ β_{2} S p e c E d T e a c h e r_{i s t} + \\ γ S p e c E d E x p_{p t} \cdot \\ S p e c E d T e a c h e r_{i s t} \\ + X_{p t}^{'} β_{4} + Z_{s t}^{'} β_{5} + \\ P_{i t}^{'} β_{6} + μ_{t} + φ_{d} + ε_{i s t}, \end{matrix}

(2)

where $S p e c E d T e a c h e r_{i s t}$ is a special education teacher indicator for teacher $i$ in school $s$ at time $t$ . Estimated coefficient $γ$ captures the relationship between having a principal with special education experience and retention rate for special education teachers compared with general education teachers. Third, we conduct subsample analyses to assess whether the relationship between principal experience and teacher retention varies across district type (urban, suburban, town, rural) and school level (elementary, middle, high school). By estimating separate models for each subgroup, we identify whether the relationship of principal special education experience and teacher retention vary across different educational contexts. This approach allows us to examine whether school-level factors, such as administrative auto-nomy, resource availability, or grade-level instructional structures, moderate the observed relationships. This study has several limitations. First, as a correlational study, our findings reflect associations rather than causal relationships. Although we control for a rich set of observable characteristics and include school fixed effects in some models, the observational nature of the data limits our ability to account for unmeasured confounders such as school culture, leadership style, or informal support networks. Second, some principals (2.7%) lacked documented teaching records. Finally, while our measure of principal experience is based on employment history, it may not fully capture informal experience with special education.

Results

Descriptive Results

Figure 1 illustrates trends in special education and general education teacher retention from 2010 to 2023. The retention rate has fluctuated over time, with noticeable declines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the entire study period, retention rates for special education teachers, however, have consistently been lower than those for general education teachers. Notably, retention rates differed based on whether principals had prior special education teaching experience. Special education teachers working under principals with such backgrounds tend to show higher retention rates than those under principals without special education experience, though the relationship varies by year. Table 2 presents the distribution of principals with special education teaching experience across different district types and school levels, along with teacher retention rates for special (Column (3)) and general education teachers (Column (4)). The data reveal that rural schools have the highest proportion of principals with prior special education teaching experience (27.43%), followed by town (25.01%), while urban (18.92%) and suburban (20.43%) schools exhibit the lowest proportions. Across all district types, high schools have the highest percentage of principals with special education experience followed by middle schools, while elementary schools show the lowest proportions of principals with special education experience. Urban elementary schools have the lowest percentage of principals with special education experience (15.46%). Retention rates exhibit distinct patterns across district types and school levels. Special education teachers in suburban districts show the highest retention (73.84%), while those in town districts have the lowest (71.65%). The differences are statistically significant at the 5% level. Although the share of principals with special education experience follows a consistent ordering by school level, retention rates do not strictly follow this pattern, especially when comparing across district types. Moreover, general education teacher retention is consistently higher than that of special education teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools, and the differences are statistically significant at the 5% level.

Figure 1.

Trends in Special Education Teacher Retention Over Time.

Table 2.

Principal Special Education Experience and Teacher Retention Rates by District Type and School Level.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
District Type/ School level	Number of School-year observations	% of Principals with Special Education Teaching Experience	Special Education Teacher Retention Rate (percent)	General Education Teacher Retention Rate (percent)	p-value for difference using t-test
Urban	26,273	18.92	73.21	76.11	0.00
Elementary	13,292	15.46	72.32	77.29	0.00
Middle	4,116	21.96	72.73	75.28	0.00
High	3,303	24.70	76.95	78.73	0.00
Elementary & Middle	3,145	18.25	70.08	72.20	0.00
Middle & High	1,115	25.11	63.93	68.88	0.00
K-12	1,302	26.27	68.19	63.44	0.00
Suburban	17,557	20.43	73.84	76.82	0.00
Elementary	9,560	16.30	71.47	78.32	0.00
Middle	3,246	24.89	73.94	75.56	0.00
High	2,408	27.53	77.14	77.19	0.82
Elementary & Middle	1,230	22.44	73.06	76.09	0.00
Middle & High	363	28.10	74.60	71.36	0.01
K-12	750	24.00	68.63	61.34	0.00
Town	8,402	25.01	71.65	75.07	0.00
Elementary	3,728	21.75	69.10	76.41	0.02
Middle	1,671	26.15	70.38	71.62	0.00
High	1,846	30.17	74.96	76.12	0.00
Elementary & Middle	776	21.78	70.99	75.46	0.00
Middle & High	206	31.07	76.31	68.30	0.00
K-12	175	36.00	70.18	69.40	0.76
Rural	15,733	27.43	72.41	76.02	0.00
Elementary	5,267	20.03	71.45	78.64	0.00
Middle	2,678	26.33	70.50	71.80	0.00
High	2,832	33.83	74.82	76.13	0.00
Elementary & Middle	1,685	26.29	71.30	75.02	0.00
Middle & High	1,049	32.41	72.60	73.03	0.64
K-12	2,222	36.68	73.19	76.36	0.00

Note. Retention rates are calculated at the teacher-year level. Special education teaching experience refers to whether the principal has ever taught special education. Differences across categories are tested using two-tailed t-tests.

Regression Analysis

Table 3 displays the regression results examining the relationship between principal special education experience and teacher retention. The table is divided into Panel A (Special Education Teachers) and Panel B (General Education Teachers) to separately analyze the effects on each group. While both panels control for principal, school, and teacher characteristics, as well as the timing of new principal appointments and various fixed effects, the models incorporate additional controls step by step to better isolate the effects of principal special education experience.

Table 3.

Regression Results for Principal Special Education Experience & Teacher Retention.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Variables	Teacher Retention
Panel A: Special Education Teacher Retention
Principal SpecEd Experience	0.0056*	0.0079**	0.0062**	0.0063**	0.0060**	0.0054**	0.0024
	(0.0030)	(0.0029)	(0.0027)	(0.0026)	(0.0025)	(0.0023)	(0.0032)
Observations	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,459	407,262
R-squared	0.0031	0.0047	0.0084	0.0173	0.0191	0.0349	0.0640
Panel B: General Education Teacher Retention
Principal SpecEd Experience	-0.0066**	-0.0026	0.0007	0.0003	0.0002	0.0007	0.0015
	(0.0026)	(0.0025)	(0.0022)	(0.0021)	(0.0020)	(0.0017)	(0.0020)
Observations	2,539,995	2,539,995	2,539,995	2,539,995	2,539,995	2,539,994	2,539,973
R-squared	0.0038	0.0073	0.0130	0.0256	0.0271	0.0399	0.0583
Controls
Principal Characteristics	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Characteristics	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Teacher Characteristics	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Timing of New Principal	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fixed Effects
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
District	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
School	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes

Note. Estimates based on Equation 1. Dependent variable is a binary indicator for whether a teacher remains in the same school the following year. Robust standard errors clustered at the school level are in parentheses. All models include year fixed effects; Models 6–7 additionally include school or district fixed effects.

**p < .05. *p < .1.

Principals with special education experience were associated with increased retention rates for special education teachers (Panel A of Table 3). Model 2 shows that having a principal with special education experience is associated with a 0.79 percentage point increase in special education teacher retention rate. This relationship is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level. As additional controls are introduced, the relationship, however, diminishes. When school characteristics are controlled for (Model 3 and beyond), the estimated relationship decreases, indicating that differences in school or district environments may partially explain the observed association, rather than principal experience alone. When school fixed effects are introduced in Model 7, the estimated relationship becomes statistically insignificant even at the 10% level. This suggests that, within the same school, changes in principal experience do not drive retention differences, reinforcing the role of school-level characteristics. Model 6, which includes district fixed effects, however, still shows that having a principal with special education experience is associated with a 0.54 percentage point increase in special education teacher retention rate, and this relationship is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level. This suggests that principal experience may influence retention at the district level, potentially through broader policy implementation or district-wide hiring and support structures.

While the estimated relationship between principal special education experience and teacher retention is statistically significant at the 5% level in Model 5—with a 0.60 percentage point increase—this association becomes statistically insignificant when school fixed effects are added in Model 7, suggesting that unobserved school-level characteristics may explain part of the observed variation. To further assess this, we estimated a subsample model limited to schools where 7% to 12% of students received special education services, which excludes extreme values and includes slightly more than half of the full sample (Table 4).² In Texas, the statewide monitoring system capped identification at 8.5% for much of the study period (2004–2016), which kept rates well below the national average (DeMatthews & Knight, 2019). Thus, a 12% threshold is not especially low in this context. Although rates exceeded 12% in the most recent year, during 2010–2018 the average was below or around 9% (See Supplemental Figure A1.). In this subsample, the estimated effect is larger than in the full sample across all models, and notably, the relationship in Model 7 remains statistically significant at the 5% level, with an effect size of 0.93 percentage points. These results suggest that principal experience may be especially impactful in schools with moderate levels of special education demand.

Table 4.

Regression Estimates in Schools With 7% to 12% Special Education Rate.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Variables	Teacher Retention
Special Education Teacher Retention
Principal SpecEd Experience	0.0088**	0.0111***	0.0085***	0.0083***	0.0077**	0.0089***	0.0093**
	(0.0038)	(0.0036)	(0.0033)	(0.0031)	(0.0031)	(0.0029)	(0.0044)
Observations	220,702	220,702	220,702	220,702	220,702	220,663	220,462
R-squared	0.0021	0.0038	0.0078	0.0162	0.0176	0.0356	0.0733
Controls
Principal Characteristics	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Characteristics	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Teacher Characteristics	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Timing of New Principal	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fixed Effects
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
District	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
School	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes

Note. Estimates based on Equation 1. Dependent variable is a binary indicator for whether a special education teacher remains in the same school the following year. Sample limited to schools where 7% to 12% of students receive special education services. Standard errors are clustered at the school level.

***

p < .01. **p < .05.

In contrast, general education teacher retention does not appear to have a statistically significant relationship with a principal’s special education experience (Panel B of Table 3). Model 1 initially suggests having a principal with special education experience is associated with a 0.66 percentage point decrease in general education teacher retention rate, which is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level, but this becomes statistically insignificant even at the 10% level from Model 2 onward. This suggests that general education teacher retention is more likely related to other principal characteristics (e.g., overall leadership style, years of experience) or school environment rather than special education-specific experience. Adding school and district fixed effects eliminates the effect altogether, reinforcing the idea that a principal’s special education experience is not a determining factor for general education teacher retention within the same school.

Interaction Analysis

To further examine differential effects, we estimate an interaction model that includes both special education and general education teachers, along with an interaction term between the special education teacher indicator and the principal’s special education experience. This estimation uses the full sample and includes school fixed effects as in model 7 of Table 3. Figure 2 presents the predicted retention rates for each group based on principal experience, with 95% confidence intervals. The interaction coefficient indicates that having a principal with special education teaching experience is associated with a 0.97 percentage point increase in retention for special education teachers compared to general education teachers. This result is statistically significant at the 1% level.

Figure 2.

Predicted Teacher Retention Rates by Principal Special Education Experience.

We conducted further analysis to explore potential heterogeneity in the principal experience-retention relationship using the interaction model. Figure 3 presents the estimated relationship between principal special education experience and special education teacher retention across urban, suburban, town, and rural school districts, based on Model 7. The results show that having a principal with special education experience is associated with a 2.05 percentage points higher retention rate for special education teachers compared to general education teachers in suburban areas. This relationship is statistically significant at the 1% confidence level, while no statistically significant association is observed in urban, town, or rural settings even at the 10% level. This may be due to greater administrative autonomy and resource access in suburban settings compared to urban and rural areas.

Figure 3.

Estimated Effects by District Type.

Figure 4 illustrates school-level differences in the relationship between principal special education experience and special education teacher retention, using Model 7. The results indicate that having a principal with special education experience is associated with a 0.96 percentage points higher retention rate for special education teachers compared to general education teachers in elementary schools. This relationship is statistically significant at the 5% confidence level, while no statistically significant association is observed in middle or high schools even at the 10% level. This suggests that the sustained interactions and team-based support structures in elementary schools may amplify the influence of principals with special education experience.

Figure 4.

Estimated Effects by School Level.

Additional Analyses: Variation by FTE Experience

As the preceding analyses have demonstrated, principal special education teaching experience is associated with special education teacher retention, but the extent of this experience may also play a crucial role. To further examine this, Table 5 presents the regression estimates assessing the relationship between a principal’s special education teaching experience and special education teacher retention by variation across special education teaching full-time equivalent (FTE) levels. The reference category in these models is principals with no special education FTE (FTE = 0). The table categorizes principals with prior special education teaching experience into four groups: those with 0 < FTE ≤ 0.3, 0.3 < FTE ≤ 1, 1 < FTE ≤ 3, and FTE > 3. The dependent variable is special education teacher retention. Results show that (1) Principals with 0 < FTE ≤ 0.3 had no significant effect on special education teacher retention; (2) Principals with 0.3 < FTE ≤ 1 had statistically significant positive estimates, suggesting that even moderate levels of prior experience are associated with improved retention; (3) Principals with 1 < FTE ≤ 3 show positive but statistically insignificant results; and (4) Principals with FTE > 3 showed statistically significant positive associations, and only in models without school or district fixed effects.³ The strongest relationship appears among principals with moderate special education teaching experience (0.3 < FTE ≤ 1), potentially indicating that some familiarity with special education helps in supporting special education teachers. The diminishing effects for higher FTE categories could suggest that while experience is valuable, extensive backgrounds in special education may not necessarily translate into stronger retention outcomes. There may be underlying factors influencing this trend, such as leadership styles, administrative focus, or differences in the types of schools where principals with high FTEs serve.

Table 5.

Regression Estimates Based on Principal Special Education FTE.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
Variables	Teacher Retention
Panel A: Special Education Teacher Retention
Principal SpecEd FTE: 0+ – 0.3	-0.0047	-0.0034	-0.0043	-0.0028	-0.0020	0.0018	-0.0019
	(0.0050)	(0.0049)	(0.0045)	(0.0043)	(0.0042)	(0.0039)	(0.0051)
Principal SpecEd FTE: 0.3+ – 1	0.0126**	0.0143***	0.0100**	0.0105**	0.0097**	0.0099***	0.0084
	(0.0054)	(0.0050)	(0.0045)	(0.0043)	(0.0042)	(0.0036)	(0.0055)
Principal SpecEd FTE: 1+ – 3	0.0033	0.0087	0.0070	0.0071	0.0077	0.0057	0.0065
	(0.0060)	(0.0060)	(0.0058)	(0.0055)	(0.0053)	(0.0048)	(0.0067)
Principal SpecEd FTE: 3+	0.0107*	0.0123**	0.0122**	0.0107**	0.0093**	0.0045	-0.0016
	(0.0056)	(0.0054)	(0.0051)	(0.0049)	(0.0047)	(0.0043)	(0.0053)
Observations	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,480	407,459	407,262
R-squared	0.0032	0.0048	0.0085	0.0173	0.0191	0.0349	0.0640
Controls
Principal Characteristics	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Characteristics	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Teacher Characteristics	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Timing of New Principal	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fixed Effects
Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
District	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
School	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes

Note. Dependent variable is a binary indicator for whether a special education teacher remains in the same school the following year. FTE (full-time equivalent) reflects cumulative special education teaching assignments across a principal’s prior career.

***

p < .01. **p < .05. * p < .1

Discussion

Our results show that, consistent with prior studies, special education teacher retention is consistently lower than general education teacher retention (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). These trends were consistent through the study period starting in 2010 and were evident through ebbs and flows in the state’s overall teacher retention rate before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings represent a challenge for the state. Since prior research indicated that administrative support is an important factor in special education teacher working conditions and retention (e.g., Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Scott et al., 2022), we sought to further explore the extent to which principals with special education teaching experience might be more effective at retaining special education teachers than principals without special education teacher experience, especially since principals frequently report having little to no special education related training during their leadership preparation programs (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Wakeman et al., 2006).

To evaluate the extent to which principals with special education teaching experience retain special education teachers, we first had to answer the question, “to what extent do principals have prior special education teaching experience?” We have yet to see a study analyze principal’s prior teaching experiences, so our results provide novel insights for the field. We find that only 22.03% of principals in our sample have any special education teaching experience. We also find that principals with special education teaching experience vary by school type and locale. Approximately 27% of rural principals have some special education teaching experience compared to just 19% of urban principals. Moreover, high school principals were also more likely to have some special education teaching experience relative to their peers in middle and elementary schools. Our study does not shed light on why principals in certain locales and school types may be more or less likely to have special education teaching experience but raises important questions for future research that we attend to at the conclusion of the article.

Finally, we set out to examine the extent to which a principal’s prior experience as a special education teacher was associated with retention rates of special education teachers in their school. From our review of the literature, we were unable to identify any prior studies that have examined this important question, and thus our findings have important implications for the field. While the results suggest that principals with special education teaching experience may positively influence special education teacher retention, the strength and consistency of these relationships vary by school context. We find that the association is more robust in schools with a moderate share of students receiving special education services (7%–12%)—a subsample that excludes extreme cases and includes more than half the full sample. Within this group, the estimated effect is stronger and remains statistically significant even when school fixed effects are applied, indicating that principal experience may be especially influential in schools where the scale of special education demands is neither minimal nor overwhelming. Even well-prepared and well-intentioned principals can struggle to make a difference under difficult contexts in improving working conditions for special education teachers (DeMatthews, 2015; McLeskey et al., 2014; Waldron et al., 2011). Furthermore, our interaction models, which use the full sample with school fixed effects, reveal that the relationship between principal experience on special education teacher retention is significantly larger than the corresponding effect for general education teachers. This provides additional support for the interpretation that principal special education experience matters in targeted, context-dependent ways. This nuanced pattern highlights the need for more context-sensitive approaches to studying and supporting teacher retention in special education. Moreover, the mixed findings may reflect both sorting of principals and teachers across schools and limitations in our classification of special education teaching experience. Our approach captures formal assignments but may understate principals’ broader exposure to inclusive practices. These factors, separately or together, may contribute to the patterns observed, and thus the results should be interpreted with caution.

Principal and special education teacher turnover and their relationship with each other require further investigation. First, additional research is needed to better understand turnover rates among special education teachers working in various contexts, program types, and with students with different disabilities. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches could provide greater insights into the ways principals support special education teachers and what actions and efforts might increase retention on a campus. Relatedly, additional research should explore whether increasing structured exposure to special education leadership preparation and training for principals could yield stronger effects on teacher retention. Such research might require additional data on principal preparation coursework and clinical experiences as well as their prior in-service professional development. Moreover, researchers might consider potential interventions where principals first learn about the work-related challenges and job demands experienced by special education teachers and approaches to strengthen their supports. Then, researchers can track turnover rates over time or the extent to which special education teachers report varying levels of job satisfaction, intentions to stay, or actual turnover. Researchers might even consider using a special education retention tool recently developed by a national technical assistance center that identifies key school-level retention issues and related leadership actions to address those issues as a potential intervention (LeadIDEA, 2025).

This study also has important implications for policymakers, particularly those focused on strengthening principal preparation and educator retention. While philanthropic organizations and state and local education agencies have increasingly focused attention on the important role of principal preparation on in-service development, little attention has been given related to serving students with disabilities, supporting special education teachers along the continuum of placements, and addressing persistent retention issues stemming from a variety of problematic working conditions. This study further documents the critical challenge in retaining special education teachers, especially in certain contexts, and provides some evidence that principal experience related to special education can be a potential positive influence in special education teacher retention. This study reflects a clear need to ensure principals are prepared to provide the necessary supports to ensure special education teachers are retained. Moreover, our study also suggests that other factors are likely to be important to special education teacher retention which may be outside even a well-trained and experienced principal’s locus of control. For example, principals for a variety of reasons may not be able to control the extent to which novice or experienced special education teachers are adequately prepared in their pre-service programs, given access to high-quality mentors and appropriate in-service professional development, and have access to adequate resources and reasonable caseloads. General education teachers may also lack adequate pre-service training and may not be prepared to work collaboratively with special education teachers. Principals can help to remedy this issue, but pre-service training can provide an important foundation that might lead to greater collaboration and teamwork among special and general educators.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that principals with prior special education teaching experience might be more successful at retaining special education teachers, but other school and district level factors are clearly important. As researchers continue to investigate special education teacher retention and turnover, we believe greater attention to principal preparation and in-service professional development in special education can be an important avenue for strengthening schools for students with disabilities and their peers. We encourage education leadership, special education, and education policy scholars to pursue studies that can provide insights to better support leader preparation and development.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tes-10.1177_08884064251403416 – Supplemental material for Principals’ Special Education Experience: Implications for Special Education Teacher Turnover

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tes-10.1177_08884064251403416 for Principals’ Special Education Experience: Implications for Special Education Teacher Turnover by David DeMatthews, Jinseok Shin and Pedro Reyes in Teacher Education and Special Education

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

David DeMatthews

Jinseok Shin

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by James R. Yates and Alba A. Ortiz Endowed Excellence Fund for Research and Training of Public School Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

David DeMatthews is W. K. Kellogg Endowed Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. edu. His research focuses on inclusive and equitable school leader-ship and school improvement in urban schools and districts.

Jinseok Shin, PhD, is a research fellow in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin and served previously as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Washington. His areas of specialization include labor economics and applied microeconomics, focusing on the economics of education.

Pedro Reyes is the Ashbel Smith Professor of Education Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. His research examines the impact of policy, leadership, and schools on the academic success of impoverished children, including margin-alized students of color.

References

Angelle

Bilton

L. M.

(2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 5–9.

Bays

D. A.

Crockett

J. B.

(2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830701503495

Berry

A. B.

(2012). The relationship of perceived support to satisfaction and commitment for special education teachers in rural areas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100102

Berry

A. B.

Petrin

R. A.

Gravelle

M. L.

Farmer

T. W.

(2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051103000402

Bettini

Gilmour

A. F.

Williams

T. O.

Billingsley

(2019). Predicting special and general educators’ intent to continue teaching using conservation of resources theory. Exceptional Children, 86(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919870464

Billingsley

Bettini

(2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495

Billingsley

B. S.

(2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010501

Boe

E. E.

Cook

L. H.

Sunderland

R. J.

(2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807500101

Brownell

M. T.

Smith

S. W.

McNellis

J. R.

Miller

M. D.

(1997). Attrition in special education: Why teachers leave the classroom and where they go. Exceptionality, 7(3), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex0703_1

10.

Brunsting

N. C.

Sreckovic

M. A.

Lane

K. L.

(2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681–711. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0032

11.

Cancio

E. J.

Albrecht

S. F.

Johns

B. H.

(2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2013.0035

12.

Carver-Thomas

Darling-Hammond

(2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699

13.

Cobb

(2015). Principals play many parts: A review of the research on school principals as special education leaders 2001–2011. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(3), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354

14.

Conley

You

(2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intention to leave: The effects of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215608859

15.

DeMatthews

Bettini

Billingsley

Burns

E. M.

(2025). Educators’ perspectives of working conditions in inclusive elementary schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 304–324.

16.

DeMatthews

D. E.

(2015). Clearing a path for inclusion: Distributing leadership in a high- performing elementary school. Journal of School Leadership, 25(6), 1000–1038.

17.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Billingsley

McLeskey

Cowart Moss

(2023). Inclusive principal leadership: Moving toward inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities (Document No. IC-8b). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development Accountability, and Reform Center.

18.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Knight

D. S.

(2019). The Texas special education cap: Exploration into the statewide delay and denial of support to students with disabilities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3793

19.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Knight

D. S.

Shin

(2022). The principal-teacher churn: Understanding the relationship between leadership turnover and teacher attrition. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(1), 76–109.

20.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Serafini

Watson

T. N.

(2021). Leading inclusive schools: Principal perceptions, practices, and challenges to meaningful change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(1), 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20913465

21.

Gilmour

A. F.

Feng

Theobald

(2025). Leveraging administrative data to study the special education teacher workforce. Remedial and Special Education, 46(2), 118–131.

22.

Grissom

J. A.

Egalite

A. J.

Lindsay

C. A.

(2021). How principals affect students and schools. Wallace Foundation. https://wallacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf

23.

Hitt

D. H.

Tucker

P. D.

(2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911

24.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

25.

Hopkins

Bjorklund

Jr. Spillane

J. P.

(2019). The social side of teacher turnover: Closeness and trust among general and special education teachers in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.020

26.

Hoppey

Black

W. R.

Mickelson

A. M.

(2018). The evolution of inclusive practice in two elementary schools: Reforming teacher purpose, instructional capacity, and data-informed practice. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791802700102

27.

Hoppey

McLeskey

(2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910390507

28.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act, Pub. L. No. 108–446. (2004).

29.

Ladd

(2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy- relevant outcomes? [CALDER Working Paper 33]. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/33306/1001440-Teachers-Perceptions-of-Their-Working-Conditions.PDF

30.

LeadIDEA. (2025). Principal navigator: Special educator retention. https://lead-idea.org/navigator/retention

31.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

32.

Levin

Berg-Jacobson

Atchison

Lee

Vontsolos

(2015). Massachusetts study of teacher supply and demand trends and projections. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Massachusetts-Study-Teacher-Supply-Demand-Trends-May-2015.pdf

33.

Loeb

Dynarski

McFarland

Morris

Reardon

Reber

(2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researchers. NCEE 2017-4023. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

34.

McLeskey

Barringer

M.-D.

Billingsley

Brownell

Jackson

Kennedy

Lewis

Maheady

Rodriguez

Scheeler

M. C.

Winn

Ziegler

(2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

35.

McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

Redd

(2014). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 48(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912440455

36.

Milanowski

Odden

(2007). A new approach to the cost of teacher turnover [Working Paper 13; School Finance Redesign Project]. https://crpe.org/a-new-approach-to-the-cost-of-teacher-turnover/

37.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). School pulse panel: Surveying high-priority, education-related topics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.asp#staff-vacancies-october24-chart3

38.

Nguyen

T. D.

Bettini

Gilmour

A. F.

Redding

(2024). Examining the supply of new special educators: Variations by institutional characteristics and for-profit status. Remedial and Special Education, 46(6), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193252412700

39.

Park

E. Y.

Shin

(2020). A meta-analysis of special education teachers’ burnout. SAGE Open, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020918297

40.

Peyton

D. J.

Acosta

Harvey

Pua

D. J.

Sindelar

P. T.

Mason-Williams

Dewey

Fisher

Crews

(2021). Special education teacher shortage: Differences between high and low shortage states. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420906618

41.

Prather-Jones

(2011). How school administrators influence the retention of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The Clearing House, 84(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2010.489387

42.

Ronfeldt

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813

43.

Scott

L. A.

Taylor

J. P.

Bruno

Padhye

Brendli

Wallace

Cormier

C. J.

(2022). Why do they stay? Factors associated with special education teachers’ persistence. Remedial and Special Education, 43(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520986520

44.

Stempien

L. R.

Loeb

R. C.

(2002). Differences in job satisfaction between general education and special education teachers: Implications for retention. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050101

45.

Sutcher

Darling-Hammond

Carver-Thomas

(2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(35), 2–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696

46.

Theobald

R. J.

Goldhaber

D. D.

Naito

Stein

M. L.

(2021). The special education teacher pipeline: Teacher preparation, workforce entry, and retention. Exceptional Children, 88(1), 65–80.

47.

Toropova

Myrberg

Johansson

(2021). Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 73(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247

48.

U.S. Department of Education. (2025). Teacher shortage areas. https://tsa.ed.gov/#/reports

49.

Wakeman

S. Y.

Browder

D. M.

Flowers

Ahlgrim-Delzell

(2006). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506290414

50.

Waldron

N. L.

McLeskey

Redd

(2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51–60.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB