Abstract
Special education teachers (SETs) are expected to use effective practices to improve outcomes for students with disabilities, yet even those who are well-prepared may not be effective in teaching these students, as problematic working conditions may limit their opportunities to teach effectively and their longevity in the profession. To complicate matters, the context of SETs’ work has changed, calling into question the nature of their roles in supporting student learning. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad overview of what is known about working conditions and to articulate how we might improve them. The authors identify key themes from the research literature about the relationship of SETs’ working conditions to their early experiences in schools and their burnout, attrition, and effectiveness. The authors then outline an action agenda focused on researching and leveraging the roles of varied stakeholders, teacher educators, educational leaders, and professional organizations to improve these conditions.
Special education teachers (SETs) are responsible for using effective practices (Cook, Haggerty, & Smith, 2019; McLeskey et al., 2017) to provide students with disabilities with opportunities to learn. SETs’ capacity to fulfill this responsibility, however, may be limited by working conditions that interfere with their effectiveness and ultimately contribute to their burnout (Brunsting, Sreckovic, & Lane, 2014) and attrition (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). As Johnson, Kraft, and Papay (2012) emphasized, “teachers’ ability to deliver effective instruction is deeply affected by the context in which they work” (p. 6), and this context varies greatly across schools and districts. The importance of working conditions is addressed in the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) code of ethics, which states that SETs should “advocate for professional conditions and resources” that improve their students’ outcomes (CEC, 2015, p. 1). SETs, however, should not have to bear this responsibility for advocacy alone, as others play crucial roles in supporting productive working conditions.
The purpose of this article is to provide a broad overview of what is known about working conditions and to articulate how we might improve them. We define working conditions, outline why they matter, and provide a historical context for understanding changes in these conditions over time. We then summarize key themes from recent literature, documenting findings from quantitative and qualitative studies. Finally, we outline an action agenda focused on researching and leveraging the roles of teacher educators, educational leaders, and professional organizations to improve these conditions.
Working conditions is a broad term, without a generally accepted definition or a shared conception of what comprises these conditions. To define working conditions for this article, we drew from literature in both general education (e.g., Boyd et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2012) and special education (Billingsley & Bettini, 2017), focusing on working conditions related to teachers’ daily work in schools. We conceptualized working conditions as including (a) SETs’ roles and responsibilities which place particular demands on them and (b) supports, including school culture and leadership, interactions between colleagues, professional development (PD), and logistical supports that help SETs meet their demands for providing effective instruction (e.g., schedules, materials, technology).
Over the last decade, research in education policy and leadership have demonstrated that working conditions matter for both teachers’ instructional quality and their effectiveness at promoting student achievement gains (Johnson et al., 2012; Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015). For example, Kraft and Papay’s (2014) analysis of data from a large North Carolina district found a significant proportion of the variance in the improvements in teachers’ effectiveness over time was explained by their schools’ “professional support,” a composite that included measures of administrative support, collegial support, and other working conditions. These studies suggest working conditions may be a powerful lever for improving teacher effectiveness, though this research has primarily involved general education teachers (GETs).
Working conditions may support individual teachers’ effectiveness through several mechanisms. Specifically, they may (a) directly facilitate teachers’ efforts to enact their knowledge by creating conditions that support effective instruction (Billingsley & Bettini, 2017), (b) provide teachers with opportunities to learn more effective practices (e.g., Grossman & Thompson, 2008), and (c) support teachers’ mental health, which may be related to their instructional quality and effectiveness (McLean, Abry, Taylor, Jimenez, & Granger, 2017).
More broadly, working conditions may contribute to the overall composition and quality of the SET workforce. Teachers are more likely to continue teaching when they experience more supportive working conditions (e.g., Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006). Thus, working conditions may either ameliorate or exacerbate the shortage, by changing the number of SETs in the workforce through retention or attrition (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Furthermore, when a teacher leaves a school, they are often replaced by someone with less skill (Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2013), resulting in a less experienced, less qualified workforce. The loss of experienced and qualified SETs is particularly problematic, as those with stronger preparation and experience promote stronger student achievement gains than their less experienced and qualified peers (Feng & Sass, 2013).
Working conditions tend to be especially problematic in schools serving higher proportions of low-income students and students of color (Johnson et al., 2012). SETs in these schools encounter significantly higher caseloads, fewer resources, less leader and colleague support, and less involvement in decision-making than their counterparts in more affluent schools (Fall & Billingsley, 2011). Teachers are also less likely to stay in high-poverty schools because of working conditions that interfere with their teaching and reduce students’ opportunities to learn (Johnson et al., 2012). Because of higher attrition, high-poverty districts spend over twice what low-poverty districts spend to replace teachers each year (Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007), using resources that might otherwise be used to support teacher and student learning. Because of the overall SET shortage (see Mason-Williams et al., this issue), leaders are often in the position of having to hire less qualified personnel, and SETs in high-poverty schools are, on average, considerably less prepared than their counterparts in more affluent schools (Fall & Billingsley, 2008; Mason-Williams, 2015), reducing students’ access to an equitable, high-quality education.
A Historical Perspective on Working Conditions
Concerns about SETs’ working conditions were documented with some frequency after the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142, 1975; currently retitled the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004). Although these early studies did not typically use the term “working conditions,” researchers began to identify problems SETs encountered in their work, addressing contributors to burnout, such as stress, role conflict and ambiguity (e.g., Crane & Iwanicki, 1986; Fimian & Blanton, 1986), and the lack of administrative support (e.g., Zabel & Zabel, 1982). Other scholars investigated first-year SETs’ work problems, including challenging demands (e.g., too many students, paperwork), lack of materials, and inadequate preparation for their work (e.g., discipline, classroom organization) (Morsink, Blackhurst, & Williams, 1979). Researchers studying attrition also found SETs left their positions because of these conditions (e.g., Zabel & Zabel, 1982).
By the end of the 1980s, a national coalition of six professional organizations warned of an impending crisis in special education, citing teacher shortages, high attrition rates, and inadequate preparation. This report, titled A Free and Appropriate Education: But Who Will Provide It? (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association et al., 1989), summarized reasons for the shortages and emphasized the need for strategic action, including reducing teacher attrition. Eleven years later, CEC’s Bright Futures Report (Kozleski, Mainzer, & Deshler, 2000) documented SETs’ concerns about role ambiguity and conflict, unmanageable caseloads, overwhelming paperwork, inadequate time to plan, isolation, and poor administrative support. This year, almost two decades after the Bright Futures report, CEC released another report, The State of the Profession: Challenges and Triumphs of Special Education (Fowler, Coleman, & Bogdan, 2019), providing a snapshot of the profession, including what SETs identify as important to their success (e.g., adequate resources, smaller class sizes/caseloads, administrators who support the IEP [Individualized Education Program] process) and problematic working conditions (e.g., insufficient planning time, principals not well-prepared to support their instruction).
Changing Contexts for SETs
Although many of the same challenges have persisted over three decades, the context of SETs’ work has changed dramatically since the passage of P.L. 94-142. Standards-based educational reforms (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; IDEA, 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002), state-level reforms (e.g., new curriculum standards, Multi-Tiered System of Support [MTSS], certification changes), and social and demographic changes have led to evolving work contexts and increasing demands on SETs. These greater demands include the following: (a) increasing responsibility for content standards (e.g., Drame & Pugach, 2010), which may compete with SETs’ efforts to provide intensive interventions addressing foundational skills (e.g., Cook et al., 2019); (b) greater inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings (Williamson, Hoppey, McLeskey, Bergmann, & Moore, 2019), leading to changing service delivery models and the need for SETs to work collaboratively with GETs to assure students with disabilities’ needs are met (e.g., through co-teaching, collaboration); (c) widespread implementation of MTSS systems, which include SETs in varied ways (McCray, Butler, & Bettini, 2014); (d) a trend away from categorical toward non-categorical licensure (Sindelar, Fisher, & Myers, 2019), allowing SETs to teach a broader student population; and (e) a population of primarily White SETs (Billingsley, Bettini, & Williams, 2019) who indicate they feel unskilled in meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse student population (Fall & Billingsley, 2008).
Finally, there is some evidence that accountability reform has changed the nature of teachers’ working conditions and their attrition. Valli and Buese (2007) studied changes in elementary teachers’ roles over a multiyear period in response to accountability reforms. They concluded, “the number of tasks [teachers] were asked to assume increased in number, expanded in scope, and intensified as the policy climate in their school district became more high stakes” (p. 551). Although SETs may have experienced similar intensification of demands, no comparable studies have documented how their roles have changed in response to accountability policy; however, 24% of SETs and 25% of GETs indicated they left teaching because of accountability demands, more than any other reason (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Working Conditions in Special Education
Although the effects of contextual changes on teachers’ working conditions are not well-documented, research syntheses over the past 10 years have addressed the relationships between SETs’ working conditions and their burnout (Brunsting et al., 2014), attrition/retention (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019), and effectiveness (Bettini, Crockett, Brownell, & Merrill, 2016). Syntheses have addressed SETs’ experiences during the first years of teaching, describing their working conditions during a stage when they are at a higher risk of leaving (Billingsley, Griffin, Smith, Kamman, & Israel, 2009; Mathews, Rodgers, & Youngs, 2017). In addition, the leadership literature has implications for principals’ roles in supporting SETs (e.g., DeMatthews, Kotok, & Serafini, 2019; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, 2014), which is crucial to improving their working conditions. In this section, we briefly highlight major findings from these varied literature bases.
Special Educators’ Roles and Responsibilities
Special educators’ roles are unique as, unlike most teachers, they may be asked to teach any content, in any school setting, or combination of settings (e.g., inclusion, self-contained). They may be interventionists and/or teach multiple content areas, address challenging behavior, schedule and support paraprofessionals, and collaborate across multiple teachers and grade levels, as well as manage legal requirements and paperwork, among other responsibilities.
SETs’ roles are often fragmented, as they are responsible for accomplishing a wide variety of tasks, many of which are not related to students’ learning needs. For example, Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010) observed 36 SETs’ time use for over 2,200 hours, categorizing their time into varied activities. On average, they spent 40% of their time teaching (including academic and nonacademic instruction and instructional support), 12.1% on paperwork, 9.4% on personal time, 8.6% on consulting and collaborating, 7.9% on other responsibilities, 7.2% supervising, 7% on discipline, 5.4% on planning, and 2.9% in IEP meetings. Vannest and Hagan-Burke (2010) stated that the sheer number of these activities is one of the most problematic aspects of their findings, leading them to ask, “Is a SPED Teacher a Teacher”? (p. 126). Wasburn-Moses (2005) also examined the manageability of secondary SETs’ roles, finding that they taught, on average, 3.5 different content area classes daily and sometimes multiple content areas in the same class. Wasburn-Moses (2005) concluded that these responsibilities “would be unthinkable in high school general education classrooms” (p. 156).
In addition to challenging roles, there is some evidence that SETs’ caseloads 1 are growing (Dewey et al., 2017). Several dimensions of caseloads can exacerbate SETs’ workloads and contribute to their attrition, including size, composition, and the extent to which an assigned caseload requires SETs to collaborate across many grades and subject areas (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Challenging caseloads make it difficult to address students’ individual needs, deliver effective instruction, manage behavior, and collaborate with others. SETs who collaborate across many general education classes and grade levels report experiencing difficulty coordinating their work with GETs (Kaff, 2004), while those who teach a single class that has multiple purposes (e.g., direct instruction, test modifications, and supervising 20 students in a study hall) also report struggling to manage these demands (DeMik, 2008). Heavy caseloads thus challenge teachers’ efforts to fulfill their instructional roles effectively.
Although researchers have frequently attempted to articulate what roles SETs should fulfill (see the many articles riffing on the phrase, “What is special about special education?”; e.g., Cook & Schirmer, 2003), preparation programs may communicate very different conceptions of what roles SETs should fulfill (Morris Mathews, 2018). If SETs’ roles are conceptualized as providing interventions to teach foundational skills based on students’ individual needs, findings about their time use and roles will be discouraging, as their responsibilities may be fragmented across activities unrelated to this core role (e.g., Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010); however, little is known about the messages SETs receive about their roles during preparation programs, how they conceptualize their roles, and how decisions are made about what their roles should be. Given that SETs have an ethical responsibility to advocate for professional working conditions, what guidance should be provided to help them to not only conceptualize their roles, but also manage and advocate for positive working conditions?
Supports
A variety of school-based supports have potential to support SETs in meeting the demands of their roles, and extant research indicates that these supports are related to their burnout (Brunsting et al., 2014), intent to leave, and attrition (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). In this section, we provide examples of how varied types of supports may contribute to, or detract from, SETs’ efforts to fulfill their core instructional responsibilities effectively.
School culture and leadership
SETs who report their school has a culture of collective responsibility for students are more likely to intend to stay, compared with those who do not (Berry, 2012; Conley & You, 2017; Jones, Youngs, & Frank, 2013). Case studies of effective schools and districts also illustrate how a school culture of collective responsibility, combined with a culture of high expectations, may be related to schools’ effectiveness in serving students with disabilities (Bettini et al., 2016; McLeskey et al., 2014). A rural SET in Berry’s (2012) study articulated the value of a culture of collective responsibility, saying, “I have a great support system . . . It’s not all on me” (p. 9).
Principals play a central role in establishing a culture of collective responsibility (Billingsley, McLeskey, & Crockett, 2019). Indeed, studies consistently demonstrate the powerful effect that principals have on varied aspects of SETs’ working conditions (e.g., a positive school culture, shared sense of purpose, PD, colleague support, appropriate roles), which are related to teachers’ job satisfaction, commitment, and their intent to stay in teaching (e.g., Bettini, Gilmour, Williams, & Billingsley, 2019; Conley & You, 2017; Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff, & Harniss, 2001).
Researchers have also described highly effective school leaders who are deeply engaged in supporting SETs’ work, allowing them to bring greater resources to bear on creating positive working conditions (Bettini et al., 2017; DeMatthews, 2014; McLeskey et al., 2014). These principals support teachers by facilitating a shared vision, involving teachers in decision-making, and demonstrating concern for teachers (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). In a case study of Creekside Elementary, a highly effective inclusive school, the principal’s core values were described as meeting “the needs of all students in her school” and ensuring “that students with disabilities were included as a natural part of this vision and were educated as much as possible with their typical peers” (Waldron et al., 2011, p. 54). These values were communicated to teachers in ways that promoted a collective sense of responsibility for students with disabilities. The principal involved teachers in determining how these core values would be enacted, while demonstrating trust in and concern for teachers. Through this and other activities, she sought to build trust with teachers, ensuring that they knew they could depend on her for support as school improvement occurred (Waldron et al., 2011). Researchers have documented similar leadership approaches in other settings serving students with disabilities (DeMatthews, 2014; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). Principals who create a culture of support for students with disabilities also support SETs, as they set the stage for all to work together on behalf of students with disabilities.
Colleagues and collaboration
Collaboration is an important part of teachers’ work as they plan, coordinate instruction, and co-teach (Pellegrino, Weiss, & Regan, 2015). In a national study, Stelitano, Perera, and Johnston (2019) indicated that 65% of SETs reported there was “some” or “a lot” of emphasis on collaboration. However, Fowler and colleagues (2019) found that while SETs value collaboration with GETs, respondents in their study had “concerns about levels of systems-support for deep and meaningful collaboration” (p. 3).
Supporting new SETs’ collaboration is particularly important, as 54% of SETs in one study indicated they needed assistance with collaboration (White & Mason, 2006), and qualitative findings have illustrated some of the challenges they experience when collaborating. Otis-Wilborn, Winn, Griffin, and Kilgore (2005) found that new SETs reported that GETs did not share a sense of ownership for their students’ learning, which impeded their efforts to collaborate in helping students access curriculum. One SET shared that GETs “don’t notice or don’t care” whether her student was in the classroom, while another reported that a GET “gave all my students N’s [for their grades] because she didn’t even know who they were” (Otis-Wilborn et al., 2005, p. 148). Although the extent to which these experiences are prevalent is not known, when they do occur they may place SETs in the position of challenging GETs’ ideas about disability and inclusion, potentially creating conflict and leaving them without the colleague support necessary to fulfill their roles (Mathews, Rodgers, & Youngs, 2017).
Physical proximity to general educators, schedules, and time also influences opportunities for collaboration. SETs who considered themselves accomplished communicators and collaborators interacted more frequently with GETs and were more likely to teach near their classrooms, allowing them to more readily share concerns and address students’ needs (Griffin et al., 2009). In contrast, organizational and/or physical separation between SETs and GETs has been associated with fewer interactions, making it more difficult for SETs to receive support, which may be detrimental to their learning and commitment to teach (Griffin et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2013).
Positive experiences with collaboration are related to positive outcomes for new SETs. First-year SETs who identified student learning as a top accomplishment reported more supportive relationships with GETs than those who did not indicate student learning was a top accomplishment (Griffin et al., 2009). This suggests that collegial support may be essential to SETs’ perceptions of their capacity to support student learning. In addition, Brunsting et al. (2014) reported that support from fellow teachers was inversely related to burnout, and similarly Jones et al. (2013) found that SETs are more likely to intend to stay when they experience strong collegial support.
Professional development
Another important form of support is professional development (PD). In a recent national study, Stelitano et al. (2019) indicated that 66% of SETs reported their access to “training and information” was somewhat or completely sufficient, suggesting that at least 34% are in need of PD opportunities. In two quantitative studies, teachers of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) who planned to stay reported significantly higher opportunities for professional growth than those intending to leave (e.g., Albrecht, Jones, Mounsteven, & Olorunda, 2009). Gersten et al. (2001) used path analysis, demonstrating that PD had a direct relationship with SETs’ commitment to the profession and an indirect relationship with their intent to leave.
In the development of inclusive schools, principals in several investigations supported teacher learning by developing professional learning communities (PLCs) to support teacher learning and problem-solving and providing teachers with the opportunity to take leadership roles in the work of these groups (McLeskey et al., 2014). For example, in one school, the principal was committed to embedding high-quality PD into the daily work of teachers supporting them in this work (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). In another school, the PLC resulted in “added value by generating multiple solutions to complex problems and by providing opportunities to learn from others as school professionals express and share expertise” (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010, p. 59). Research also indicated that PLCs can lead to greater trust and respect among colleagues, improve teacher satisfaction, improve instruction, and lead to better outcomes for students (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
Logistical supports
To fulfill their core roles and responsibilities, SETs also depend on logistical supports, including instructional resources (e.g., curriculum, materials), time, space, and schedules for planning and providing instruction. Although SETs in a recent national survey (Fowler et al., 2019) indicated resources were the top support they needed for success, research suggests that teachers often lack these supports. Stelitano et al. (2019) reported that only 66% of SETs indicated they had “somewhat” or “completely sufficient” access to materials/tools for their work. In a multistate study of new SETs, White and Mason (2006) reported that 70% needed assistance with obtaining classroom materials, 58% needed help with using these materials, and 46% needed help with learning and using the general education curriculum.
Time for planning and instruction are also essential for supporting teacher effectiveness, as SETs need dedicated time in which to develop instructional plans and enact them with students who share common instructional needs (Bettini et al., 2016). Stelitano et al. (2019) reported that only 54% of SETs reported that they had “somewhat” or “completely sufficient” planning and release time. In addition, Fowler et al. (2019) reported that only 21% of SETs indicated they had sufficient time for planning lessons and only 14% indicated sufficient planning with their teaching partners. Others have found that SETs spent only 5.4% of their time on planning (e.g., Vannest & Hagan-Burke, 2010) or did not have any allocated planning time (DeMik, 2008).
Another important logistical support is ensuring that SETs can interact with GETs across varied grades and content areas and have access to their students built into the school day. This likely requires carefully planned master schedules. In a case study of a highly effective inclusive school, McLeskey et al. (2014) documented how the school principal structured the master schedule to coordinate reading instructional blocks across the school, so specialists (including SETs) would have consistent time with their students, allowing them sufficient opportunities to fulfill their instructional responsibilities.
Some evidence suggests logistical supports may also have an impact on teachers’ plans to stay. Bettini, Cumming, et al. (2019) analyzed data from a national sample of SETs serving students with EBD and found that they were more likely to intend to stay in their schools when they had greater access to instructional materials and when they reported sufficient planning time. Other studies have obtained similar findings (e.g., Albrecht et al., 2009).
In summary, SETs’ knowledge and skills are necessary, but not sufficient for their effectiveness, as they need clear and reasonable responsibilities and supports that allow them to use their expertise. Given that SETs depend on leaders to facilitate and support professional working conditions, what preparation and guidance might help these leaders support teachers’ effectiveness. In addition, what roles might university faculty play in preparing SETs to advocate for better working conditions?
Moving Forward: Leadership to Improve Working Conditions
Given long-standing problems with SETs’ working conditions, our field needs to work strategically to plan and enact a cohesive and coordinated research and leadership agenda that supports relevant stakeholders in fostering positive working conditions. To move in this direction, we need to use what we already know about working conditions (see prior section) to (a) think more broadly about the stakeholders responsible for supporting SETs as they navigate challenging working conditions, (b) conduct research using methods that incorporate these stakeholders’ perspectives to determine how working conditions can be leveraged to improve teacher and student outcomes, and (c) draw on that research to provide resources to ensure that SETs’ working conditions support them in meeting students’ needs.
Stakeholders Responsible for Improving SETs’ Working Conditions
To develop an agenda for future research and leadership, we must first consider who is responsible for fostering positive working conditions. Although a broad range of stakeholders have some responsibility, we focus on those closest to SETs, including teacher educators, school and district leaders, and the teachers themselves. It is important to conceptualize improvements in working conditions as a shared responsibility among stakeholders, and we briefly discuss the roles that each plays in improving working conditions in the following sections.
Special educators
A limited body of research indicates some SETs proactively seek to improve their working conditions. In a qualitative investigation of SETs’ experiences in self-contained classes for students with EBD, Bettini, Wang, Cumming, Kimerling, and Schutz (2019) reported that two SETs educated administrators and colleagues about their classes so others could better support them. Similarly, in a study by Bettini, Brunsting, Lillis, and Stark (2019), a teacher reported collecting data on how often students missed intervention instruction because of other students’ behavior, using these data to successfully advocate for hiring a second SET to provide additional support. These findings provide examples of how SETs are not “passive victims of challenging conditions, but rather, active agents”—leaders involved in shaping their own working conditions (Bettini, Wang, et al., 2019, p. 189). Thus, future research on leadership to improve working conditions would benefit from drawing on SETs’ perspectives, affording them a central role in planning and advocating for better conditions.
School and district leaders
Because of their proximity to SETs’ daily work and their power at the local level, school and district leaders are uniquely positioned to make immediate and meaningful changes in SETs’ working conditions. School and district leaders have important roles in promoting (a) high expectations for students with disabilities, (b) use of effective practices, (c) use of valid assessment systems for monitoring learning of students with disabilities, and (d) collaboration, with all teachers working together to effectively serve students (Billingsley, McLeskey & Crockett, 2019). These actions are essential to ensure SETs have supportive work environments in which they can learn and use effective practices for students with disabilities.
Teacher educators
Although teacher educators do not determine working conditions, they play a crucial role in SET candidates’ understanding of their roles and profession. As such, in coordination with other stakeholders, teacher educators could be a powerful force supporting SETs to enact meaningful roles within challenging school contexts. Teacher educators’ collective knowledge of standards, ethics, research, and practice uniquely positions them to orient candidates to the profession in ways that are both (a) grounded in professional standards and research on effective practice and (b) reflective of the complexities of enacting these standards in the field. One way teacher educators could do this is by shaping candidates’ professional identity (Morris Mathews, 2018) and by providing opportunities for them to conceptualize, organize, and enact high-quality professional practice reflecting that identity (Feiman-Nemser, Tamir, & Hammerness, 2014; Grossman et al., 2000).
To our knowledge, research has not examined how to prepare SET candidates to manage challenging working conditions. Extant research, however, does suggest teacher educators shape how candidates conceptualize their future work. For example, in a qualitative study of 20 SET candidates from six preparation programs, Morris Mathews (2018) found that candidates’ preparation experiences socialized them into particular conceptions of their core roles as future SETs. These conceptions were shared by all participants within a preparation program but differed between programs at different universities. For example, candidates in two programs believed their core role would be to ensure students received direct instruction that targeted their individual needs through evidence-based practice (EBP); in contrast, candidates in two other programs conceived of their core role as collaborating with general educators to differentiate instruction by content, process, and product. Although each of these conceptions spotlights aspects of SETs’ roles, they do not address other aspects of the job with which SETs will likely have to grapple in their first years. This study suggests that the work of SETs is interpreted in fundamentally different ways across preservice programs, and that these interpretations may enculturate candidates into specific conceptions of their roles that do not address the complexity and range of roles SETs take up in the field. One might conjecture that teacher educators could socialize candidates into an understanding of their future profession that positions them to advocate for working conditions that support their roles. In doing so, teacher educators could provide candidates with both conceptual and practical tools to navigate these conditions.
Research Agenda
Shared responsibility across these stakeholders for improving working conditions for SETs has implications for our proposed research agenda. We organize this agenda around three core principles. First, future research should consider a broader range of stakeholders than prior research. Second, future research should treat these stakeholders as active agents who can take purposeful actions with potential to improve SETs’ working conditions. Third, based on the first two principles, future research should consider these stakeholders’ perspectives, experiences, and actions as worthy of study.
We thus propose two primary directions for future research on working conditions. First, we recommend that scholars broaden the scope of this research, including both (a) the stakeholders whose perspectives, experiences, and actions they study and (b) the outcomes of working conditions that researchers consider. Second, we recommend that scholars expand the range of methodologies used in this research.
Broaden the scope of research
To date, research has largely focused on how working conditions relate to attrition or to other outcomes that predict attrition (e.g., job satisfaction, intent to leave, burnout; Bettini et al., 2016). These findings have primarily focused on SETs and have been distributed through special education journals, with relatively few exceptions (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Although this kind of research will continue to be necessary and important, we recommend that future research focus on a broader range of stakeholders and consider a broader range of potential outcomes of working conditions.
Stakeholders
If promoting positive working conditions is a responsibility shared among SETs, school and district leaders, and teacher educators, then researchers need to examine how these stakeholders enact their responsibility to provide positive working conditions. Some researchers have documented how leaders promote strong working conditions in high-performing schools and districts (e.g., McLeskey et al., 2014). At present, however, we do not have a body of research articulating the roles various stakeholders could play in improving working conditions. For example, future researchers should consider a range of questions about SETs’ roles in improving working conditions: What strategies do SETs employ to try to improve their working conditions? Which strategies are more or less effective in different contexts (e.g., high- vs. low-poverty schools, elementary vs. secondary schools)? Do effective strategies vary depending on teacher characteristics (e.g., experience, relationship with leaders)? and Can these strategies be taught and, if so, how?
Similarly, examining leaders’ roles in providing positive working conditions would provide insights into potential mechanisms leaders use to make improvements. For example, how do school and district leaders conceptualize and experience their responsibility to provide SETs with positive working conditions? How do highly effective leaders enact this responsibility differently from less effective leaders? What constraints do they experience in their efforts to fulfill this responsibility? How do they navigate those constraints?
We know little about if and how teacher educators help preservice SETs think about their roles or how to advocate for better working conditions. For example, what kinds of preparation experiences support SETs in crafting meaningful roles, especially when they encounter challenging working conditions? In what ways do teacher educators support induction programming and how are SETs’ roles and instructional conditions addressed? How do SETs experience and respond to well- vs. poorly aligned pre- and in-service experiences? What constraints do teacher educators experience in their efforts to coordinate with others to create more cohesion between preservice preparation and in-service roles?
Finally, efforts to improve working conditions would benefit from interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate stakeholders’ knowledge bases. Specifically, researchers should examine how leaders, teachers, and teacher educators might collaborate, bringing their respective assumptions, theories, research, and wisdom of practice to bear on efforts to improve these conditions.
Focus on vulnerable teacher and student populations
As mentioned previously, inequities in SETs’ working conditions are related to inequities in students’ access to skilled teachers (Fall & Billingsley, 2011). Thus, improving working conditions is necessary to improve educational experiences for students in high-poverty schools and students of color. Given that teachers of color often promote stronger outcomes for students of color (Grissom, Kern, & Rodriguez, 2015), it is crucial for SETs of color to experience positive working conditions (see Trainor, Bettini, & Scott, 2019). As such, researchers should attend to teacher and student sociocultural identities in their sampling and analysis. For example, because teachers of color must manage others’ stereotypes about their race/ethnicity (e.g., Amos, 2016), we would benefit from understanding the strategies SETs of color employ to navigate working conditions and how these differ from the strategies employed by White SETs. As another example, leaders in high-poverty schools may operate within systematically different constraints than leaders in affluent schools, suggesting the need for researchers to disaggregate how principals support SETs across these settings.
Collaborate with researchers across disciplines
Efforts to improve working conditions would benefit from interdisciplinary research that draws on expertise across special education, education leadership, and education policy foundations, allowing the sharing of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and expertise across disciplines. Interdisciplinary research holds potential to enhance the quality and reach of research on how various stakeholders could improve SETs’ working conditions. Thus, education leadership, education policy, and special education scholars should be jointly involved in this research.
Broaden the outcomes studied
We propose that researchers examine how working conditions relate to SETs’ enactment of their core roles and responsibilities, including (a) their instructional quality and (b) their implementation of EBPs.
Relationships with instruction
Working conditions are related to the effectiveness of general educators’ instruction (e.g., Jackson & Makarin, 2016), indicating these conditions could be leveraged to improve instruction (Bettini et al., 2016); however, SETs’ and GETs’ roles differ in many ways, requiring a more nuanced understanding of which working conditions could be leveraged to improve SETs’ instruction. Future research should address several considerations.
First, relationships between working conditions and instructional quality and effectiveness likely vary depending on SETs’ roles. For example, a SET teaching reading to students with learning disabilities in co-taught classes may depend on high-quality reading curricula (Siuty, Leko, & Knackstedt, 2018) and support from co-teachers (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007), whereas one who teaches social skills to students with EBD may depend on social skills curricula, support from colleagues with behavioral expertise, and funds to purchase reinforcers (Bettini et al., accepted). Thus, studies of how working conditions contribute to SETs’ instruction should focus on SETs in specific roles.
Second, different working conditions likely affect SETs’ instruction in different ways, yet, due to the limited research, we lack a strong theoretical foundation for determining which conditions are related to specific aspects of SETs’ instruction. For example, by supporting systematic assessment and defining an instructional scope and sequence, curricula may help SETs target instruction to students’ needs and develop more coherent instructional activities (Siuty et al., 2018). Providing SETs with planning time to examine curricula and develop instructional activities may help them use their instructional time more efficiently (Bettini et al., 2016). As such, we recommend researchers use nuanced measures of both working conditions and instruction to illuminate these relationships.
Working conditions and effective practices
Understanding how working conditions facilitate use of effective practices (e.g., EBPs) is an essential component of efforts to increase use of these practices in schools (Klingner, Boardman, & McMaster, 2013). Thus, we recommend researchers examine how working conditions relate to SETs’ enactment of effective practices.
PD research provides an example of how researchers can enact this recommendation, as a handful of studies have used this approach, testing whether working conditions moderated teachers’ enactment of practices learned during PD. For example, Allinder (1996) found that teachers who rated planning time as adequate were significantly more likely to implement practices learned in PD with fidelity than those who indicated planning time was inadequate, providing promising evidence that working conditions may contribute to implementation of effective practices following PD. This suggests future researchers could use this approach to identify which working conditions are essential for the use of specific effective practices. For example, these types of questions could be examined in student-level intervention research during the scale-up phase, and in observational research, to examine natural variability in teachers’ enactment of EBPs.
Thus, we recommend scholars integrate measures of working conditions into other types of research. For example, in small PD studies, researchers could interview SETs about working conditions, using mixed methods to examine which conditions are related to SETs’ enactment of PD content (e.g., Brownell et al., 2014). In larger studies, researchers could administer a survey before PD, using regression to examine whether working conditions moderate implementation. These designs would align with calls (e.g., Institute of Education Sciences, 2019) to proactively consider implementation when designing and testing interventions.
Expand methodological approaches
To date, most research has been cross-sectional, using qualitative and correlation-based methods to examine associations between working conditions and outcomes (e.g., attrition), often measuring dependent and independent variables simultaneously; furthermore, this research has relied on measures that have not been systematically validated (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). We contend that researchers should consider (a) validating measures of working conditions, (b) conducting longitudinal studies, and (c) developing and testing interventions to improve working conditions.
Validate measures
Most studies of working conditions have used an ad hoc array of measures, without systematically testing their validity. For example, a review of SET attrition research identified many studies measuring administrative support; however, with one exception, each study used a different measure of administrative support, complicating comparisons across studies (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Furthermore, few studies provided adequate psychometric data on their measures (e.g., reliability, model fit). Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies of SETs’ ratings of administrative support have tested whether these measures correlate with other related indicators (e.g., other teachers’ ratings of administrative support; observations). The same critique applies to measures of other working conditions. Improving research will require developing instruments (e.g., surveys, observation protocols, logs) that are (a) sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in working conditions and (b) validated for use with SETs.
Conduct longitudinal studies
Longitudinal research holds potential to (a) improve our conception of relationships among preservice and in-service experiences and outcomes and (b) provide insights into how SETs’ perceptions of working conditions, and the working conditions that support them, may change over their careers.
Relationships among preservice, induction, and in-service experiences
Some research findings suggest the quality and extent of preparation may be associated with SETs’ perceptions of their effectiveness (Fall & Billingsley, 2008), use of effective instructional practices (Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005), and retention (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Our understanding of relationships, however, among preservice and in-service experiences and outcomes is limited; to our knowledge, no longitudinal studies have examined SETs’ experiences as they transition from preservice through their first years in the classroom (Mathews, Rodgers, & Youngs, 2017). In contrast, researchers have followed new general educators from preparation into teaching, documenting how preservice preparation and in-service conditions interacted to shape new teachers’ beliefs about their roles and perspectives on effective instruction over time (e.g., Agee, 2004). For example, Schultz, Jones-Walker, and Chikkatur (2008) found teachers’ enactment of practices they learned in preservice depended, in part, on the extent to which they felt these practices harmonized with their district’s core curriculum. Furthermore, teachers were more likely to maintain these practices in spite of challenges when they left teacher preparation with particular kinds of beliefs (e.g., asset-based beliefs about minoritized students; Schultz et al., 2008).
Longitudinal research may provide insights into how teacher educators might prepare SETs to fulfill meaningful roles in the face of contextual challenges. For example, researchers should examine SETs’ preparation and induction, with a focus on working conditions that extend beyond individual courses or interventions to examine entire systems of preparation and induction, understanding connections among these systems. The field would benefit from exploratory research that employs a diverse range of methods and perspectives (Billingsley, Bettini, & Jones, 2019). A conceptual foundation for improving systems of teacher preparation is needed to ready preservice teachers to enact complex roles effectively. This research should consider how preparation might highlight the challenging working conditions SETs encounter in the field and provide them with strategies to address these challenges. Such research could also strengthen ties between preservice preparation and induction, by developing interventions that take advantage of coordinated preservice and induction experiences in shaping SETs who are robust to challenging working conditions.
Perceptions of working conditions over time
Because extant studies have primarily examined SETs’ perceptions of working conditions at a single point in time, we have limited insights into how SETs’ perceptions of these conditions change over time (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Studies examining these changes could provide insights into times in the year (or in their career) when SETs need additional support (e.g., early in year when SETs are first establishing relationships with students, colleagues, and families; end-of-year testing). Furthermore, the working conditions associated with SETs’ outcomes may change as they develop expertise. For example, less skilled teachers may rely more on curricular resources (Jackson & Makarin, 2016) and effective colleagues (Sun, Loeb, & Grissom, 2017) to help them provide strong instruction; thus, these supports may be most important for new SETs. Similarly, new SETs may be especially reliant on support to help them understand and fulfill instructional roles, whereas experienced SETs may care more about supports that communicate value for their expertise by involving them in decision-making. Similarly, less planning time may be needed for experienced SETs, who can draw on lessons they have developed, over time, than for new SETs who are still learning curricula and developing lessons. Studies examining these issues would provide insights into which working conditions are most important at different career stages.
Develop and test interventions
Despite decades of research indicating which working conditions are associated with SETs’ attrition, to date, researchers have not developed or tested interventions to improve working conditions (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Improving these conditions will require understanding how to change working conditions, not merely exploring which working conditions to change. Intervention research can address these limitations, illuminating processes by which working conditions can be changed. Depending on the intervention, relevant outcomes could include changes in (a) instructional quality, (b) attrition rates, or (c) proximal outcomes associated with instructional quality or attrition (e.g., burnout, manageability).
One efficient approach to testing interventions would be to analyze large administrative datasets, taking advantage of naturally occurring interventions (e.g., policy changes) to test causal relationships between working conditions and outcomes. For example, studies of general educators have used propensity score matching to document causal effects of induction supports (e.g., Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Adopting similar methods, researchers could document the effects of a range of working conditions on SETs (e.g., examining causal effects of having a mentor with relevant experience on early career retention). A limitation of this approach is that variables in administrative data sets tend to be limited (e.g., they do not typically include information about service delivery models).
Second, action research (AR) is a qualitative method for engaging practitioners in the research process, integrating their perspectives into research designs to generate richer, more deeply contextualized theory (Beaulieu, 2013). Interventions to improve working conditions will necessarily rely on changing stakeholders’ behavior; thus, engaging leaders and teachers in designing and testing an intervention could lead to development of more contextually relevant, socially valid interventions. For example, researchers could collaborate with district leaders to reduce new SETs’ responsibilities. By qualitatively analyzing transcripts of meetings in which researchers and leaders co-design the intervention, they can document constraints within which an intervention might need to be designed, factors leaders consider salient, and ways the intervention could address their concerns. By concurrently documenting the effects of the intervention, AR could also provide pilot data regarding the intervention’s effects. Similarly, researchers could use AR to collaborate with SETs in advocating for stronger working conditions. By documenting these efforts, researchers could generate theory about leverage points available to SETs, as well as the ways teachers think about and shape their working conditions. AR methods do not permit causal inferences, nor do they generalize, but they can support development of stronger interventions, and these interventions could subsequently be tested using experimental designs.
Third, experimental designs would provide the strongest evidence regarding the effects of interventions to improve SETs’ working conditions. For example, using group design, researchers could intervene to increase SETs’ planning time in a randomly selected half of the schools in a large district, documenting effects on relevant outcomes (e.g., attrition, burnout). With a smaller sample, researchers could use an ABAB reversal single-case design to test effects of providing more planning time on proximal indicators (e.g., workload manageability ratings).
Faculty Roles in Advocating for Better Working Conditions
Teacher educators have knowledge and professional relationships that put them in a unique position to advocate for improved working conditions for SETs. This group of professionals should have deep knowledge regarding what SETs need to know and be able to do to achieve strong student outcomes. Furthermore, they often have relationships with local school partners, participate in the design of teacher induction, and work with schools to support the development of both preservice and in-service teachers. Many teacher education faculty are also part of professional organizations that are in strong positions to advocate for SETs to policy makers (e.g., CEC, the Division of Teacher Education [TED] of CEC, the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education [HECSE], TASH). Finally, many special education faculty have colleagues in educational leadership programs who prepare principals, allowing for interdisciplinary preparation and research to address the working conditions of SETs. Thus, we focus on two actions for teacher educators that are important to moving this agenda forward.
Improve principals’ initial preparation and PD
First, we recommend that special education faculty work with educational leadership faculty at their colleges and universities to improve principal preparation, so leaders have an understanding about how to support SETs’ instructional roles. Although principals are crucial to this work, they seldom receive meaningful preparation for leading special education (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2019). Special education coursework is often not part of leader preparation, and when it is, it is focused on legal compliance (Billingsley, McLeskey & Crockett, 2019). The majority of SETs do not see their principals as well-prepared to support them, and only 26% indicated their principals were “very prepared” while they indicated 50% of district special education administrators were “very well prepared” (Fowler et al., 2019). We also acknowledge the need to better understand GETs’ preparation and working conditions related to teaching students with disabilities, as research suggests that more support is needed for both GETs and SETs (Stelitano et al., 2019).
A guidance document identifies specific practices that principals should engage in to support better outcomes for students with disabilities. This document, developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center (2017), extends the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL). These standards and the guidance document may be used to support curriculum development for educational leadership preparation. In addition, leaders from state departments of education might use the guidance document to support interdisciplinary leadership development. For example, they may provide incentives for teacher education and leadership faculty to co-construct courses within educational leadership programs or for university faculty and district and school leaders to design collaborative PD for practicing administrators. Coursework and PD for principals might also include providing clear representations of the challenges SETs face and the ways that principals can mitigate some of these challenges. Furthermore, these representations could highlight the ways that leaders have influenced SETs’ professional practice and, subsequently, outcomes for students with disabilities (e.g., McLeskey et al., 2014). These efforts would be strengthened by coordinating the expertise and experience of in-service SETs and administrators and teacher education and educational leadership faculty. Another strategy is to provide mentoring supports for principals as they enter the field and take on more responsibility for facilitating positive work environments for SETs. These types of interdisciplinary efforts hold potential to reduce the silos that often exist between different education fields as well as those between researchers and practitioners, allow for the sharing of expertise, and support leadership capacity for improving working conditions.
Additional instructional leadership material are available from the CEEDAR Center (ceedar.org), the CEC (highleveragepractices.org), and the IRIS Center (https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/). The CEEDAR Center developed a Course Enhancement Module that addresses School Leadership for Students With Disabilities (http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/cems/leadership/), while CEC provides a Professional Development Guide for School Leaders Related to High Leverage Practices (https://highleveragepractices.org/a-professional-development-guide-for-school-leaders/). The IRIS Center also has materials related to school improvement and leadership (https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/resources/iris-resource-locator/). Collectively, these resources provide a foundation for preparation courses and field experiences.
Create long- and short-term plans to improve working conditions
A second action to move this agenda forward is to encourage teacher educators to work with CEC, Teacher Education Division (TED), and HECSE to develop a long-term, coordinated plan to improve SETs’ working conditions through partnerships among federal and state policymakers, professional groups from general education, national groups of state leaders (e.g., CCSSO, National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE]), professional leadership organizations (e.g., National Association of Elementary School Principals [NAESP], National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership, University Council for Educational Administration [UCEA]), district and school administrators from general and special education, and others. In the short-term, advocates might work to (a) outline guidance for SETs’ roles, (b) secure funding for principal preparation (e.g., curriculum development, micro-credentialing, PD) and the research agenda described previously, and (c) disseminate what is known about improving working conditions to key stakeholders.
We also acknowledge a recent leadership effort led by Dr. Marcia Rock and colleagues that is consistent with a number of recommendations that we make above. This group of teacher educators convened a large group of stakeholders from around the country to consider possibilities for solving the SET shortage, including working conditions (funded by a research mini-grant from the American Educational Research Association [AERA], with additional support from the CEC’s TED, the National Implementation Research Network [NIRN], and the University of North Carolina Greensboro’s SERVE Center and School of Education). Rock, Billingsley, Leko, Dieker, and Rynak (2018) emphasized the need to bring together stakeholders with both research and practical knowledge to engage in whole systems thinking and consider multidisciplinary and innovative solutions to the shortage. Still in progress, the project will use a tiered approach to synthesize and dissemination findings targeted to specific stakeholder groups.
Conclusion
The expectation that SETs will use effective practices and follow the CEC Code of Ethics (2015) sets a high bar for their work, as their practices are crucial to improving outcomes for students with disabilities. As the research reviewed herein revealed, the most dedicated and qualified SETs may not be able to support their students’ learning if they have unreasonable work demands, schedules that do not permit intensive instruction or collaboration, and if they are the only ones advocating for students with disabilities and improved working conditions in their schools. Repeatedly, research findings and professional reports have identified working conditions that have interfered with SETs’ main goal—improving student outcomes. These problematic working conditions compromise our nation’s commitment to a free appropriate public education for students with disabilities—an issue of great concern and an ethical dilemma for education. If the past is prologue, as this special issue title suggests, we need to use what we have learned, engage a wider range of stakeholders, and work to support a research and action agenda that supports special educators’ improved working conditions, so that they can focus on the essential work of providing effective instruction to students with disabilities.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author Biographies
Bonnie Billingsley is a professor at Virginia Tech in the School of Education. Her research interests focus on the roles of induction, leadership, and working conditions in supporting special educators’ effectiveness and retention.
Elizabeth Bettini is an assistant professor at Boston University’s Wheelock College of Education and Human Development. Her research focuses on how working conditions shape special educators’ instruction and retention.
Hannah Morris Mathews is a post-doctoral research associate at Boston University’s Wheelock College of Education and Human Development. Her research focuses on how institutions including pre-service and K-12 settings promote and support novice special educators’ professional practice.
James McLeskey is a professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida and a project faculty member for the CEEDAR Center. His research interests include the role of the principal in developing effective, inclusive schools; the delivery of high quality professional development that improves teacher practice and student outcomes; and issues that influence teacher learning and the translation of effective instructional methods into practice.