Table of Contents 
ISRN Education
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 790179, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/790179
Research Article

Comparison of Teacher Motivation for Mathematics and Special Educators in Middle Schools That Have and Have Not Achieved AYP

Margaret E. King-Sears and Pamela H. Baker

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

Received 15 November 2013; Accepted 5 January 2014; Published 4 March 2014

Academic Editors: F. Jimenez, B. Marlow, W.-C. Shih, and G. Sideridis

Copyright © 2014 Margaret E. King-Sears and Pamela H. Baker. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq., 2001.
  2. U.S. Department of Education, ESEA Blueprint for Reform, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  3. U.S. Department of Education, Report to Congress on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, School Year 2009-10, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  4. A. Duncan, “Education reform’s moon shot,” Washington Post, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/23/ST2009072302669.html.
  5. S. W. Hemelt, “Performance effects of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): evidence from a regression discontinuity framework,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 702–723, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. K. S. Finnigan and B. Gross, “Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 594–630, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. R. D. Goddard, W. K. Hoy, and A. W. Hoy, “Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions,” Educational Researcher, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 3–13, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. K. F. Wheatley, “The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 747–766, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. S. Finnigan and A. J. Daly, “Mind the gap: organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system,” American Journal of Education, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 41–71, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. A. Katsiyannis, D. Zhang, J. B. Ryan, and J. Jones, “High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: challenges and promises,” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 160–167, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. D. van Garderen, A. Scheuermann, C. Jackson, and D. Hampton, “Supporting the collaboration of special educators and general educators to teach students who struggle with mathematics: an overview of the research,” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 56–77, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. K. K. Wong, “Politics and governance: evolving systems of school accountability,” Educational Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 410–421, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. R. S. Davies, “AYP accountability policy and assessment theory conflicts,” Mid-Western Educational Researcher, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2–8, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  14. M. Byrd-Blake, M. O. Afolayan, J. W. Hunt, M. Fabunmi, B. W. Pryor, and R. Leander, “Morale of teachers in high poverty schools: a Post-NCLB mixed methods analysis,” Education and Urban Society, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 450–472, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. B. S. Billingsley, “Special education teacher retention and attrition: a critical analysis of the research literature,” Journal of Special Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 39–55, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. E. Eckes and J. Swando, “Special education subgroups under NCLB: issues to consider,” Teachers College Record, vol. 111, no. 11, pp. 2479–2504, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. C. Rosas and L. Campbell, “Who's teaching math to our most needy students? A descriptive study,” Teacher Education & Special Education, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 102–113, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. R. Zambo and D. Zambo, “The impact of professional development in mathematics on teachers’ individual and collective efficacy: the stigma of underperforming,” Teacher Education Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 159–168, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  19. M. A. Tchoshanov, “Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades mathematics,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 141–164, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. H. C. Hill, B. Rowan, and D. L. Ball, “Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 371–406, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. A. Kajander, “Elementary mathematics teacher preparation in an era of reform: the development and assessment of mathematics for teaching,” Canadian Journal of Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 228–255, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. H. C. Hill, “Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: implications for the no child left behind policy initiative,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 95–114, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. M. A. Winters, B. L. Dixon, and J. P. Greene, “Observed characteristics and teacher quality: impacts of sample selection on a value added model,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. A. Bandura, “Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 75–78, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 1–26, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. A. Bandura, “Toward a psychology of human agency,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 164–180, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. A. W. Hoy and R. B. Spero, “Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: a comparison of four measures,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 343–356, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. F. Gokce, “Assessment of teacher motivation,” School Leadership and Management, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 487–499, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. C. Turner, K. B. Warzon, and A. Christensen, “Motivating mathematics learning: changes in teachers' practices and beliefs during a nine-month collaboration,” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 718–762, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. H. Ware and A. Kitsantas, “Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 100, no. 5, pp. 303–310, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. H. Fisher, “Factors influencing stress, burnout, and retention of secondary teachers,” Current Issues in Education, vol. 14, no. 1, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. E. M. Skaalvik and S. Skaalvik, “Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of relations,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1059–1069, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. G. Stephanou, G. Gkavras, and M. Doulkeridou, “The role of teachers’ self- and collective-efficacy beliefs on their job satisfaction and experienced emotions in school,” Psychology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 268–278, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. G. W. Rigol and C. Ziemnicki, Email Trends in the Education Market 2010: A Comprehensive Analysis of the 2008-2009 School Year, MDR, Shelton, Conn, USA, 2010.
  35. A. L. Sullivan, L. Long, and M. Kucera, “A survey of school psychologists' preparation, participation, and perceptions related to positive behavior interventions and supports,” Psychology in the Schools, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 971–985, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. R. Halbesleben and M. V. Whitman, “Evaluation survey quality in health services research: a design framework for assessing non-response bias,” Health Services Research, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 913–930, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. S. Aud, W. Hussar, G. Kena et al., The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
  38. P. H. Baker, “Managing student behavior: how ready are teachers to meet the challenge?” American Secondary Education, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 51–64, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  39. A. Bandura, “Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 117–148, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. A. Brouwers and W. Tomic, “The factorial validity of the teacher interpersonal self-efficacy scale (report SP038950),” ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED437365, Netherlands Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  41. S. Gibson and M. H. Dembo, “Teacher efficacy: a construct validation,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 569–582, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1967.
  43. J. Stillman, “Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: productive tension and critical professional practice,” Teachers College Record, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 133–180, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. K. Viel-Ruma, D. Houchins, K. Jolivette, and G. Benson, “Efficacy beliefs of special educators: the relationships among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job satisfaction,” Teacher Education & Special Education, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 225–233, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. J. S. Wills and J. H. Sandholtz, “Constrained professionalism: dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-baseda accountability,” Teachers College Record, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 1065–1114, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. R. Gajda and M. Militello, “Recruiting and retaining school principals: what we can learn from practicing administrators,” Journal of Scholarship and Practice, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 14–20, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  47. M. C. Partlow and C. S. Ridenour, “Frequency of principal turnover in Ohio schools,” Mid-Western Educational Researcher, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 15–23, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  48. M. Coelli and D. A. Green, “Leadership effects: school principals and student outcomes,” Economics of Education Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 92–109, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. G. E. Hall and S. M. Hord, Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes, Pearson, Boston, Mass, USA, 3rd edition, 2011.
  50. K. Leithwood and D. Jantzi, “Linking leadership to student learning: the contributions of leader efficacy,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 496–528, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. Center on Education Policy, Many Schools and Districts Have Not Made Adequate Yearly Progress? Four-Year Trends, Center on Education Policy, Washington, DC, USA, 2010, http://www.cep-dc.org/publications/index.cfm?selectedYear=2010.
  52. K. S. Finnigan, “Principal leadership and teacher motivation under high-stakes accountability policies,” Leadership and Policy in Schools, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 161–189, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. O. Eyal and G. Roth, “Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: self-determination theory analysis,” Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 256–275, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. H. Mintrop and G. L. Sunderman, “Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement-and why we may retain it anyway,” Educational Researcher, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 353–364, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. G. Foley and S. Nelson, “The impact of annual yearly progress on middle school principals’ job satisfaction,” National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 27–50, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  56. R. M. Klassen, “Teacher stress: the mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs,” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 342–350, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus