1

An Exploratory Analysis of the Employment-related Experiences of Educators with Learning Disabilities

Susan A. Vogel, Northern IllinoisUniversity

Christopher Murray & Carol Wren, DePaulUniversity

Pamela B. Adelman, Hyde ParkDay School

Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the on-going support of the Thorn River Foundation since the very beginning of this long-term follow-up research. In addition, we thank University Research Council, DePaulUniversity and NorthernIllinoisUniversity for their support in conducting this follow-up study. We also acknowledge our gratitude to Ms. Karen Scaife Burgess and Amy Bauer, Research Assistants, without whose expertise this project could not have been conducted. Lastly, we are grateful to the participants who willingly shared details of their lives that at times were painful to discuss and other times exhilarating. We and future generations of individuals with learning disabilities are all the beneficiaries of their generosity.

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the professional experiences of educators with learning disabilities (LD). Data from a longitudinal investigation of adults with LD were used to compare the professional experiences of “Educators with LD” and “Other Professionals with LD.” Quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that educators with LD had unique perspectives based on their experiences as students and as educators that informed their attitudes and beliefs about children and teaching. Findings also suggest that schools may be a particularly well-suited context of employment for adults with LD.

An Exploratory Analysis of the Employment-related Experiences of Educators with Learning Disabilities

There are several important reasons to develop further understanding about the professional lives of educators with learning disabilities (LD). First, findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study indicate that adults with LDhave lower rates of employment, lower earnings, and lower rates of postsecondary school attendance than adults without disabilitiesup to five years after high school.[1] Similar findings were reported in a series of studies in the stateof Washingtonwhich usedcarefully matched samples of disabled and nondisabled peers and examined outcomes up to ten years following high school graduation.[2] Employment outcomes were even poorer for a national sample of adults with self-reported LD across an even broader age span (16-65) when compared to the total population.[3] In these and other investigations poorer outcomes were especially apparent among females with LD.[4]

Other researchers, however, have reported that some adults with LD had achieved equivalent or better employment outcomes than adults without disabilities.[5] In a follow up study of 50 adults with LD compared to their nondisabled peers 8-15 years after exit from college, Vogel and Adelman reported no significant differences on educational attainment, employment rate, congruity between academic preparation and occupation, job satisfaction and maintenance, occupational status, or annual salaries.[6] In light of these findings, we believe that developing further understanding about the lives of adults with LDwho are employed, particularly as teachers, is a valuable endeavor because resultsof such investigations may provide insights that can lead to enhanced services and improved outcomes among future generations of children, youth, and adults with LD.

A second reason to develop further understanding about the professional lives of educators with LD is that this population may haveunique experiencesthat inform their beliefs about children and learning. For example, Ferri, Hendrick-Keefe and Gregg conducted a qualitative investigation of three teachers with LD and examined how the participants’ retrospective accounts of being students with disabilities informed their beliefs and practices as teachers.[7] One of the primary themes to emerge from this study was that these teachers viewed their learning disabilities as an asset rather than a deficit. This asset perspective was evident in the participants’ compassion for students with learning difficulties and in their beliefs that students with disabilities could be successful in school.

In their longitudinal studyof adults with LD compared to their nondisabled peers 8-15 years after exit from college, Vogel and Adelmanidentified a subgroup of 11 teachers with LD and eight teachers without disabilities.[8] When the full-time teachers were asked if their LD affected them on the job either negatively or positively, four out of the seven said Yes. Half of those who said their LD had a negative impact identified problems with some aspect of language functioning, e.g., written expression and spelling. The positive effect of their LD was related to the special insight they had into others with LD, a particularly valuable attribute especially for those who had chosen to bespecial education teachers. Others felt that their LD made them more empathetic and, therefore, especially effective in communicating with parents.

A third reason to develop further understanding about the professional lives of educators with LD is that, for the majority of adults, engagement in a professional career is a long-term commitment that impacts one’s social experiences, emotional health, and overall life satisfaction. It is likely that different career choices have differential effects on the social and emotional lives of adults. Certainly, each individual experiences employment roles and work contexts differently. However, it may also be true that certain groups of individuals find a better “fit” with some jobs than others. Such groups may share certain characteristics and traits that are a better match for some employment contexts than others, or, conversely, certain employment contexts may provide a better match for some individuals than others.[9] Findings from a number of research projects have reported that teachers with LD said that they had learned, often through trial and error, how to find the right school where the principal and co-teachers would be supportive and collaborative.[10] The educators gave disclosure considerable forethought including the question of disclosure to whom (i.e., their students, administrators, parents, and co-workers), when (before or after being hired?), and for what purpose. Gerber conducted a two-year case study of a special education teacher (T.J.) with a learning disability.[11] According to Gerber, T.J. disclosed his learning disability at the interview to his principal and later to his colleagues and his students. In all cases, the fact that he had a learning disability was viewed with support or indifference and, in some cases, other teachers within the school approached him to ask for “tutoring hints” to use in their own classrooms. T.J. experienced a moderately successful first year and a successful second year of teaching which Gerber attributed to both personal characteristics (i.e., hard work and choosing a good work environment) and environmental supports (i.e., support of teachers and parents).

It is possible that schools are a particularly well-suited context of employment for adults with LD for several reasons. Virtually all professionals working in schools have had some exposure to and experience working directly with students with LD. In addition, in many states, educators have had to takecourseworkin the area of special education. Furthermore, because ofan increased emphasis on inclusion, general education teachers spend more time interacting with special educators and, one would hope, learning more about students with disabilities and special education services and laws. Although some educators hold negative views about special education as well as students with disabilities, one would be hard pressed to identify a large-scale professional context that has had as much experience with the field of special education as schools. Therefore, one could hypothesize that schoolsprovide a good employment context for those with LD simply because education professionals have knowledge about, and experience with, individuals with special needs.

The Current Investigation

The purpose of this study wasto explore the general professional experiences of educators with LD, the unique skills and/or challenges among this group attributable to their experience as persons with LD, and their experience of schools as an employment context. Our data, derived from the continuing longitudinal study of adults with and without LD up to 20 years after leaving college,[12]provide a unique opportunity to examine potential differences between the experiences of educators with LD and adults with LD who work inother fields.

Methods

Sample

The sample for the current investigation included 59 adults with LD who were participating in the longitudinal study. All of these individuals had attended a competitive college located in a suburb of a large Midwestern city. Those with LD had received comprehensive support services and accommodations. Approximately 32% of were male and 68% were females (similar to the general college population since this had formerly been a women’s college). Ninety- seven percent of the participants were White and the other 3% were African American. At the time of this investigation, 49 of these adults reported being employed. Because we were primarily interested in employment- related experiences, our analyses are limited to this subsample of employed adults (N=49).

Nineof the 49 individuals with LD were employed as educators. Two of those individuals reported having a Masters degree in education, two had a Masters degree in special education, two had a B.A. in a different field but had returned to school for certification, two had B.A.s in elementary education and the last individual had a B.A. in Studio Arts. All of these individuals indicated that they worked in the field of education (5 as teachers and 4 as teacher assistants). Approximately 44% of the “Educators with LD” had completed graduate school and an additional 12% had attended some graduate school.

The group of other professionalswith LD (n = 40)were employed in three broad fields: business/professional (n = 26), service/secretarial (n = 13), and trades (n = 1). For the purpose of this investigation, these individuals were grouped together in a category labeled “Other Professionals with LD.” Approximately 13% of Other Professionals with LD had completed graduate programs and an additional 6% had attended some graduate school.

Measure

The survey instrument used in this investigation was administered by phone and contained over 100 items related to background characteristics, employment, compensatory strategies, disclosure, personal information, and emotional and physical well-being. In the current investigation, we chose to examine items related to employment and social-emotional health. Our focus on these two areas was based on implications of the findings from our 15-year study[13]and other emerging literature concerning educators with LD[14] as well as restrictions imposed on our focus by the presently available data.[15]

The item response format for the survey instrument varied according to the question being asked. For example, some answers are provided in a “yes” “no” format, others are provided on a Likert-type scale, others required a value (e.g., how much do you earn?), and others are open-ended questions that allowed the respondent to provide in-depth explanations. In Appendix A we provide an overview of the subset of items we used for this study.

Procedures

All interviews were conducted by telephone by interviewers who participated in approximately 10 hours of training in telephone interviewing strategies, the scripts to be usedbefore, during, and at the end of the interview, and the survey itself.[16] The interviewers participated in “mock’ interviews prior to administering the survey to the participants. Each interview took between 60 and 90 minutes. Initially, the interviewers tape recorded their voice (not the participants’) during the interviews and the Project Director listened to the tapes and provided additional feedback. As interviews were taking place, all responses were entered directly into a computer data base to achieve the highest level of accuracy and completeness,especially important in responses to the open-ended items. All quantitative data were then transferred to an SPSS file prior to conducting quantitative analyses. Qualitative data were transferred to an Excel file and qualitative codes were assigned based on thematic units or persistent perspectives held by respondents.[17] In all cases, the comments made by Educators were separated from the comments made by Other Professionals prior to coding, which allowed for general comparisons between these groups on observed themes.

Results

Three sets of analyses were conducted to examine the employment-related and personal experiences of educators and other professionals with LD. First, t-tests were conducted to determine differences between the groups on employment- related variables. Second, proportions were calculated for each group to examine differences between the groups on dichotomous variables. Finally, qualitative analyses were conducted on items pertaining to employment- related and personal experience variables to enrich the quantitative findings.

Group Comparisons

Means and standard deviations for a number of the employment- related outcomes measured on a Likert-type scale are presented in Table 1. Educators with LD had significantly higher scores on self-report items related to the positive effect their LD had on the job [t (45) = 4.7 = .001], the extent to which their college coursework related to their careers [t (44) = 3.2 = .01], and the length of time they had worked in their current position than did Other Professionals with LD, t (37) = 3.0 = .01. In addition, the variable asking respondents to rate their job success approached significance, with educators having a higher mean rating on this item, t (46) = 1.8 = .10. Lastly, Educators with LD had, on average, a significantly higher self-ratingon quality of social life, t (45) = 2.3 = .05.

Adults’ responses on dichotomous variables are presented in Table 2. A greater proportion of Educators disclosed their learning disability on the jobas compared to Other Professionals (88% vs.51% respectively). Among the Educators, 22% disclosed during the interview process compared to 5% of Other Professionals. Once they were hired,the majority of Educators (66%) indicated that they had disclosed to both their supervisors and co-workers while the other 33% indicated co-workers only. Among Other Professionals with LD who disclosed, 29% disclosed to supervisors and co-workers, 42% disclosed to supervisors only, and 29% disclosed to co-workers only.

We also examined the proportion of professionals in each group who were “seeking a new job.” The majority in both groups were not seeking a new position, 74% and 85%, respectively. Finally, we explored one variable related to emotional health. Approximately 33% of the Educatorsvs. 43% of the Other Professionals indicated that their LD affected their emotional health.

To explore the employment experiences of these adults further, qualitative analyses were conducted on responses to five open ended questions/items:

(1) Please describethe positive effect of your LD in the job?

All of the Educators with LD responded to this prompt and a consistent theme that emerged was that their learning disability provided them with unique insights and experiences that allowed them to be more responsive and compassionate towards students with learning disabilities. An example of this theme is evident in the following statement provided by one of the educators:

I’m a better teacher because I understand learning disabilities. I always make sure they’re in the front next to me…..I have them read to me. I have parents come in. They’re always on my mind because I know they won’t understand unless I explain things in a different way.

In response to the same question, another educator stated, “The largest one is I understand what it’s like to have a learning disability. I have a lot of compassion.”

A much smaller proportion (70% vs. 100%) of Other Professionals with LD responded to this prompt and many stated that their LD had no positive effect on their job. However, among those that did respond, the primary theme related to the importance of working carefully. The following statements are indicative of this theme:

I meticulously check and recheck due to my learning disability…..I have a lack of concentration so I am pretty meticulous with crossing my t’s and dotting my I’s. I work more hours. My projects run on time every time.

Another professional stated:

It makes me take my time. I’m not rushing and missing things. Knowing I have a reading disability makes me slow down and have things structured.

(2) What factors have enhanced your success on the job?

Among Educators with LD, two primary themes emerged in response to this prompt. The first suggested that these adults felt personally or individually responsible for their success. This theme is evident in the following statement:

My ability to work hard. I go over things. I’m creative. I do things with the kids, fun things that make learning enjoyable.

Other educators attributed their success to environmental supports, including contexts. One educator stated, “The people are pretty cool.They have faith in my decision making” and another stated, “I think the environment itself.”

Among Other Professionals with LD, similar trends were observed. Approximately half of these adults attributed success to individual traits such as the one provided below:

I have good people skills and I’m extremely organized and a perfectionist. You have to be in this business. Because things come hard for me, I work harder and I make sure it’s right before I show it to a client…..I’m fast, efficient, and very organized.

Other professionals’ also attributed their success to environmental supports.

Support of the people around me when you’re going through those difficult moments. I work in a company with a lot of women, so there’s a lot of emotion and there’s a lot of support.

(3) How do you compensate for your LD on the job?

Both groups had similar comments regarding compensatory strategies for any perceived weaknesses resulting from their LD. The two most consistent themes were having extended time to complete tasks and the use of technology. For example, one of the educators stated:

Technology, using the computer. Word processing technology helps. I still like books on tape….and just time. The realization that it takes time to go through a new thing.”

Similarly one of the Other Professionals with LD remarked, “I just slow down, read through things several times, make sure I know what I’m doing before I take on a responsibility.”

(4) Has the impact of your LD changed over time?

In response to this question, both groups indicated that they have developed greater acceptance of their learning disabilities along with personal and professional compensatory strategies. This theme is evident in a comment made by one of the Educators, “I’ve learned to cope with it more and accept it and try to find any kind of compensation to work around it.” One of the Other Professionals stated: