back
to Articles|
Statewide Survey Results Part I of II Cheryl Fielding, Ph.D Assistant Professor, Educational Diagnostician & Special Education Programs, University of Texas Pan-American On behalf of the TEDA Executive Board, I would like to thank the 1,049 individuals who completed and returned our survey. We now have a great deal of data that is going to be very beneficial to educational diagnosticians as a group, and to many of you individually. As of this writing (April 1st), all quantitative items have been analyzed and the results of several of those items are presented here. Qualitative items are still being analyzed and will be addressed in the upcoming Fall/Winter issue of the DiaLog. For those of you who are CEC/CEDS members, keep an eye out for an article in Assessment for Effective Intervention (formerly Diagnostique), as selected items will be submitted for publication. We feel the results of this survey are definitely worthy of national attention. Survey Origin During the discussion of governmental awareness issues at the October 12Ð13, 2001 Executive Board meeting in Austin, Brenda Taylor, Board President, indicated she felt the need for greater input from educational diagnosticians throughout the state. The primary purpose of this input would be to assist in prioritizing issues on TEDAÕs legislative agenda. The Executive Board discussed specific goals of a survey along with the details and expenses involved in such an unprecedented effort, and agreed to proceed. The first phase of the process involved setting a timeline. Members of the board were in agreement that results of the survey should be made available, as soon as possible, to those spearheading the lobbying effort. Additionally, it was hoped that results would be ready for presentation at the TEDA Annual Conference and included in this edition of the DiaLog. Database Development and Response Rates In order to reach as many educational diagnosticians throughout the state as possible, a current database of educational diagnosticians, both TEDA members and nonmembers, was developed. As of December 31, 2001, there were 1,310 paid TEDA members. Each member was mailed a cover letter, survey, and stamped return envelope. These items were sent to the addresses on record with the TEDA membership secretary. To obtain the names and business mailing addresses of educational diagnosticians who were not current TEDA members, each of the 20 Regional Education Services Centers was contacted. Approximately half had current lists that they shared. A list of all school districts in the state was obtained from TEA and individual districts in the remaining regions were contacted by phone. A majority of the individual districts contacted (over 400) were forthcoming with the names and best mailing addresses of their educational diagnosticians (individual campuses as opposed to central special education offices). Home addresses were not requested. Those districts that were hesitant to share the names of their educational diagnosticians were faxed a written request and several of them subsequently forwarded information. The database of educational diagnosticians who were not TEDA members was merged with the membership list and duplicate names were removed. A total of 1,900 educational diagnosticians who were not TEDA members were mailed a cover letter encouraging TEDA membership, membership application, stamped return envelope, and survey. The total number of surveys mailed was 3,210. The TEDA chapter with the highest percentage completing and returning surveys was Region 15ÑAmigos de la Ninez. The overall response rate for TEDA members was 40.0% as compared to 27.9% of non-TEDA members. For a breakdown of response numbers and percentages by region and membership, see Table 1. The development of the database and the actual stuffing of envelopes were accomplished with the help of undergraduate students from the University of Texas Pan American who were hired and trained as research assistants. Survey Construction/ Content Simultaneous to the development of the database, the survey was constructed. Board members reviewed and revised numerous drafts. The final draft was agreed upon at the January 18Ð19, 2002 Executive Board meeting. Items were included or deleted based on discussion regarding their perceived importance related to demographic data, issues regarding the quality of professional life, and legislative importance. Data Entry and Analysis As survey data were entered, each survey was assigned a number corresponding to spreadsheet rows. Quantitative survey responses were numerically coded for entry. Items requiring Òyes,Ó Òno,Ó or Òn/aÓ responses were coded 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Items requiring a numerical response, i.e. age, salary, or percentage of caseload, were entered as recorded by respondents. Results were averaged, counted, etc., as appropriate. The survey contained 14 qualitative items. Responses from these items were also recorded in spreadsheet format with numbered rows to maintain consistency with survey numbers for tracking. Qualitative information was entered verbatim. The data entry phase was completed with the help of a research assistant who was hired to work 40 hours per week for 5 consecutive weeks at the University of Texas Pan American Computer Lab. Selected Survey Responses Of the 1,049 completed surveys returned, 969 respondents indicated they are working as educational diagnosticians for the 2001Ð2002 school year. Of the 80 respondents who are not currently working as educational diagnosticians, 57 indicated they are certified by SBEC as educational diagnosticians. Regarding the number of years of experience spent as an educational diagnostician: 1026 respondents completed this item, indicating that they have worked (or currently are working) as educational diagnosticians. The least number of years recorded was 1 and the greatest was 32, with a mean of 8.4. A total of 887 respondents indicated they are certified by SBEC as educational diagnosticians, 131 indicated they are not, and 31 left this item blank. An analysis was conducted comparing the number of respondents who indicated they are working as educational diagnosticians for the 2001Ð2002 school year (n=969) and who also indicated that they are not certified by SBEC as educational diagnosticians. This number totaled 78. Of those 78, 45 indicated they are currently working on emergency permits. Of the 969 respondents indicating they are working as educational diagnosticians for the 2001Ð2002 school year, 28 indicated they are LSSPs. Of those 28, only 7 indicated they are certified by SBEC as educational diagnosticians. A total of 15 of the 28 LSSPs responding indicated they have at least one year of general or special education teaching experience. Regarding the year respondents became certified, a total of 896 surveys were received with this item addressed. The earliest recorded year was 1970 and the most recent year was 2002. The largest number of respondents (n=70) was certified in 2001. See Table 2 for additional details regarding this item. A total of 776 of the 969 currently working educational diagnosticians responding (80.1%) indicated they have special education teaching experience. A total of 837 of the 1049 total respondents (79.8%) indicated they have special education teaching experience, of which the mean number of years is 7.65. A total of 538 of the 969 currently working educational diagnosticians responding (55.5%) indicated they have general education teaching experience. A total of 586 of the 1049 total respondents (55.9%) indicated they have general education teaching experience, of which the mean number of years is 7.01. Regarding the ExCET, a total of 698 respondents indicated they passed the ExCET in order to become certified, 315 indicated they did not, and 36 respondents left this item blank. Only 63 respondents addressed items regarding on which attempt the ExCET was passed. Forty-three respondents indicated they passed the ExCET on the second attempt, 11 on the third attempt, 1 on the forth attempt, and 2 on the seventh. Thirteen respondents indicated they have taken and not passed the ExCET and 8 indicated they intend to retake it. One respondent indicated he/she has only attempted the ExCET one time, 2 respondents indicated they have attempted it twice, 3 respondents indicated they have attempted it three times, and 1 respondent indicated he/she has attempted it 12 times. Age, Sex, TEDA Membership and Registry A total
of 951 respondents working as educational diagnosticians for the
2001-2002 school year answered the question: A total of 618 respondents who are currently working as educational diagnosticians reported they are (or have been) members of TEDA. The average number of years these individuals have been TEDA members is 7.21; however, the largest group are new TEDA members. See Table 3 for details regarding length of TEDA membership. Additionally, 19% of currently working educational diagnosticians indicated they have served as a local TEDA chapter officer and 2% reported serving as a state officer. Of those not currently working as educational diagnosticians (n=80), 35% indicated they have served as a local chapter officer and 16% reported serving as an officer at the state level. A total of 626 respondents who are currently working as educational diagnosticians addressed the survey item regarding becoming a Registered Professional Educational Diagnostician through the Texas Professional Educational DiagnosticiansÕ Board of Registry. The number of respondents who indicated they have taken and passed the examination was 169, or 27%. Of the respondents not working as educational diagnosticians for the 2001Ð2002 school year, 24% indicated they have taken and passed the registry examination. Salary, Number of Contract Days, and Case Load Size Salaries were analyzed by the entire group of respondents and also broken down according to the number of years of experience spent as an educational diagnostician. Keep in mind, the average number of years of teaching experience for educational diagnosticians is 7. The mean salary of the total number of respondents (n=987) addressing this item was $46,300 and the mode was $50,000. See Table 4 for a breakdown of salaries by years of experience, minimum, maximum, mode, mean and number per group. When survey respondents were asked to prioritize 3 items from a list of topics to pursue with legislators, the item related to including educational diagnosticians in the list of educators in the Texas Education Code, specifically pertaining to future salary increases, received the largest number of endorsements. Regarding the $3,000 pay raise approved by the legislature that was allocated to teachers, counselors, and librarians, 572 respondents indicated they received it. A total of 327 indicated they did not. Of the 327 who indicated they did not receive the full $3,000 salary raise, 158 respondents reported they received an average raise of $1,285. The lowest raise reported was $100. Regarding the number of days per contract, a total of 877 respondents addressed this item. The least number of days reported was 2 and the highest was 365. The mean number of days indicated was 196 with a mode of 202 (n=95). The total number of those working as educational diagnosticians for the 2001-2002 school year who responded to the survey item regarding case load size was 874. The term Òcase loadÓ was defined on the survey as referring to those students currently receiving special education and related services for which the respondent would be the primary person accountable for ensuring that the childÕs special education folder is in compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations. The lowest case load number reported was 4, the highest was 2,500, the mean was 133, and the mode was 100 (n=66). See Table 5 for additional information regarding responses to size of case load. Sixty percent of those responding to this item have case loads between 76 and 150. Discussion As stated earlier, a follow-up article will be presented in the Fall/Winter edition of the DiaLog addressing survey items not covered in the present article due to time and space constraints. Remaining survey issues include: effectiveness of the prereferral process; number, levels, and types of campuses served by individual educational diagnosticians; numbers of initials/re-evaluations conducted; assistance in testing and report writing provided to other educational diagnosticians; shared office space and locations; percentages of students served by disability groups; percentage of time consumed by task; TAAS and second language driven referrals; legislative priorities; and miscellaneous additional information reported by respondents. The TEDA Executive Board hopes the information provided by survey results will be beneficial to educational diagnosticians throughout the state in a number of ways. It should be noted that according to Gay and Airasian (2000), the number of respondents required for the generalization of survey results for a population size of 3,500 is 346. The majority of survey items received responses well in excess of this number. Please address specific survey questions via e-mail to Cheryl Fielding: fieldingc@panam.edu. On behalf of the TEDA Executive Board the following individuals are recognized for their effort and support in this endeavor: Research AssistantsÑNoe Ramos, Ignacio Garcia and Juliana Medrano for data base collection and entry; Diamante Tijerina, Noe Ramos, Juliana Medrano, Cindy Flores, Marta Saldivar, Ludivina Leal, and Ignacio Garcia for folding, stuffing, addressing, stamping, and tracking outgoing/incoming surveys; special thanks to Andy Moreno for his meticulous attention to detail and perseverance during the entry of survey results; Efrain Molina for his technological expertise and advice; Dr. Marie Simonsson for her assistance with analysis using Excel; Dr. JoAnn Mitchell, Chair, Department of Educational Psychology for her support and expertise; and the University of Texas Pan American for the use of facilities. References Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000) Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. |