A growing number of students in public schools – right now, about 15% of them – are eligible for special education services. These services include specially designed instruction for students with autism, learning or physical disabilities, or traumatic brain injuries. But going into the current school year, more than half of U.S. public schools anticipate being short-staffed in special education. Dr. Kimber Wilkerson, a professor of special education and department chair at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains why there’s a shortage and what needs to be done to close the gap.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Which students receive special education services?

Kimber Wilkerson: Students with a disability label receive special education services. They need these additional services and sometimes instruction in school so they can access the curriculum and thrive like their peers.

What is happening with staffing for special education?

Wilkerson: Since special education became a thing in the ’70s, there have always been challenges in filling all the special education positions.

In the past 10 years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, those challenges started to increase. There were more open positions in special education at the beginning of each school year than in previous decades. In the 2023-24 school year, 42 states plus the District of Columbia reported teacher shortages in special education.

What is causing these shortages?

Wilkerson: One, there are fewer young people choosing teaching as a major in college and as a profession. And special education is affected by these lower rates more than other forms of education.

Also, there’s more attrition – people leaving their teaching job sooner than you might expect – not because they’re retiring, but because they are tired of the job.

They want to do something different. They want to go back to school. Sometimes it’s life circumstances, but the number of people leaving the job before retirement age has increased. And in our state, Wisconsin, about 35% of all educators leave the field before they hit their fifth year.

That number is even higher for special educators. About half of special educators are out of the profession within five years.

Why do special education teachers leave the profession?

Wilkerson: There’s not a national study that speaks to that reason. There are some localized studies, and people report things like too much paperwork or too many administrative tasks associated with the job. Sometimes they report the students’ behavioral challenges. Sometimes it’s a feeling of isolation, or a lack of support from the school.

How are students with disabilities affected when their school does not have enough special educators?

Wilkerson: In a school that’s one special educator short, the other special educators have to take over that caseload. Instead of having 12 students on their caseload, maybe now they have 20. So, the amount of individual attention given to each student with a disability decreases.

Also, when teachers with experience leave the profession, they leave behind a less experienced group of teachers. This means the students are losing out on the benefit of those years of wisdom and experience.

What are some strategies to recruit and retain more special education teachers?

Wilkerson: There’s a range of strategies that different universities, states and school districts have taken, like residency programs.

In these programs, the person who is learning to be a teacher, and who is referred to as a teaching resident, works alongside a mentor teacher for an entire year in a school, and they get paid to do so. They’re not the teacher of record, but they’re learning and getting paid, and they’re in that school community.

Can you tell us about your recent study on supporting new special education teachers?

Wilkerson: One thing that made a big difference is when the teachers in our study, which is now under review, had access to a mentor and a group of their peers. We called this facilitated peer-to-peer group of teachers a “community of practice.” Every other week, on Zoom, we’d get these new special education teachers from different school districts together, along with experienced teachers. And they would do some sort of work on problems, bringing in the things that were challenging, and work on possible solutions as a group.

We also used Zoom to do one-on-one mentoring. And what people liked about it was that they could talk to someone who wasn’t right in their building and right in their district who they could be open and vulnerable with.

Sometimes, special educators can be isolated because they’re not necessarily a part of a grade-level team. They work with kids across a lot of classrooms. This gave them an opportunity to have their own kind of community, and that made a difference.

We also surveyed their level of burnout and how good they felt about the job they did. And then we surveyed special education teachers who weren’t participating in our community of practice.

At the end of the year, those people who had that mentoring and the community of practice felt less burnt out, and they also felt more effective in the area of classroom management. And that’s critical, because burnout is one of the primary reasons people leave the profession.

So if we can make people feel like they’re better equipped to handle this challenging position, then that’s one strategy to increase the number of people wanting to stay in their job year after year.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Kimber Wilkerson, Professor of Special Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The next president of the United States could be the first in that office to accept a phone call from the Moon and hear a woman’s voice on the line. To do so, they’ll first need to make a series of strategic space policy decisions. They’ll also need a little luck.

Enormous government investment supports outer space activities, so the U.S. president has an outsize role in shaping space policy during their time in office.

Past presidents have leveraged this power to accelerate U.S. leadership in space and boost their presidential brand along the way. Presidential advocacy has helped the U.S. land astronauts on the surface of the Moon, establish lasting international partnerships with civil space agencies abroad and led to many other important space milestones.

But most presidential candidates refrain from discussing space policy on the campaign trail in meaningful detail, leaving voters in the dark on their visions for the final frontier.

For many candidates, getting into the weeds of their space policy plans may be more trouble than it’s worth. For one, not every president even gets the opportunity for meaningful and memorable space policy decision-making, since space missions can operate on decades-long timelines. And in past elections, those who do show support for space initiatives often face criticism from their opponents for their high price tags.

But the 2024 election is different. Both candidates have executive records in space policy, a rare treat for space enthusiasts casting their votes this November.

As a researcher who studies international affairs in outer space, I am interested in how those records interface with the strategic and sustainable use of that domain. A closer look shows that former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have used their positions to consistently prioritize U.S. leadership in space, but they have done so with noticeably different styles and results.

Trump’s space policy record

As president, Trump established a record of meaningful and lasting space policy decisions, but did so while attracting more attention to his administration’s space activities than his predecessors. He regularly took personal credit for ideas and accomplishments that predated his time in office.

The former president oversaw the establishment of the U.S. Space Force and the reestablishment of the U.S. Space Command, as well as the National Space Council. These organizations support the development and operation of military space technologies, defend national security satellites in future conflicts and coordinate between federal agencies working in the space domain.

He also had the most productive record of space policy directives in recent history. These policy directives clarify the U.S. government’s goals in space, including how it should both support and rely on the commercial space sector, track objects in Earth’s orbit and protect satellites from cyber threats.

He has called his advocacy for the creation of the Space Force one of his proudest achievements of his term. However, this advocacy contributed to polarized support for the new branch. This polarization broke the more common pattern of bipartisan public support for space programming.

Like many presidents, not all of Trump’s visions for space were realized. He successfully redirected NASA’s key human spaceflight destination from Mars back to the Moon. But his explicit goal of astronauts reaching the lunar surface by 2024 was not realistic, given his budget proposal for the agency.

Should he be elected again, the former president may wish to accelerate NASA’s Moon plans by furthering investment in the agency’s Artemis program, which houses its lunar initiatives.

He may frame the initiative as a new space race against China.

Harris’ space policy record

The Biden administration has continued to support Trump-era initiatives, resisting the temptation to undo or cancel past proposals. Its legacy in space is noticeably smaller.

As the chair of the National Space Council, Harris has set U.S. space policy priorities and represented the United States on the global stage.

Notably, the Trump administration kept this position that the president can alter at will assigned to the vice president, a precedent the Biden administration upheld.

In this role, Harris led the United States’ commitment to refrain from testing weapons in space that produce dangerous, long-lasting space debris. This decision marks an achievement for the U.S. in keeping space operations sustainable and setting an example for others in the international space community.

Like some Trump administration space policy priorities, not all of Harris’ proposals found footing in Washington.

The council’s plan to establish a framework for comprehensively regulating commercial space activities in the U.S., for example, stalled in Congress.

If enacted, these new regulations would have ensured that future space activities, such as private companies operating on the Moon or transporting tourists to orbit and back, pass critical safety checks.

Should she be elected, Harris may choose to continue her efforts to shape responsible norms of behavior in space and organize oversight over the space industry.

Alternatively, she could cede the portfolio to her own vice president, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has virtually no track record on space policy issues.

Stability in major space policy decisions

Despite the two candidates’ vastly different platforms, voters can expect stability in U.S. space policy as a result of this year’s election.

Given their past leadership, it is unlikely that either candidate will seek to dramatically alter the long-term missions the largest government space organizations have underway during the upcoming presidential term. And neither is likely to undercut their predecessors’ accomplishments.

Thomas G. Roberts, Postdoctoral Fellow in International Affiars, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.