Special Educators’ Experiences of Roles and Responsibilities in Self-Contained Classes for Students With Emotional/Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Cultivating and retaining special educators competent to serve students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs) has proven persistently difficult. Improving educational systems’ capacity to meet this challenge will require better understanding of the roles special educators in these settings should be prepared for and supported to fulfill. The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to explore how four special educators in self-contained classes for students with EBD defined and experienced their roles. We found that teachers defined their primary roles as promoting students’ behavioral and academic growth; however, they also described experiencing dissonance between their ideal roles and their actual daily work. This dissonance was evident in two respects. First, extra responsibilities and emergent responsibilities occupied substantial energy. Second, social and material contexts often facilitated their behavioral role but less often supported their academic role. Findings have implications for improving the quality of the teacher workforce in self-contained settings for students with EBD.

Administrators’ Roles: Providing Special Educators with Opportunities to Learn and Enact Effective Reading Practices for Students With EBD

“…For example, in one study, teachers’ ratings of the adequacy of planning time differentiated those who implemented recently learned research-based instructional practices with fidelity from those who did not (Allinder, 1996), indicating planning time may help special educators integrate newly learned practices into their instruction effectively. Consistent with this, special educators often report that having time to carefully plan contributes substantially to the quality of their instruction (Bettini et al, 2019). In contrast, special educators without adequate planning time sometimes report using instructional time for planning and paperwork, suggesting that providing more planning time could translate into more time for instruction (Bettini et al, 2015).…”

“…Few studies have examined why these special educators are isolated, but schedules may present barriers. While other teachers often eat lunch together, special educators serving students with EBD often report eating with students in order to ensure student safety and/or build relationships (Bettini et al, 2019). Planning periods are another opportunity for collegial interactions, but these special educators also report having limited planning time (O’Brien et al, 2019).…”

“…Other special educators have echoed Ms. Stevens’s concern that they cannot take planning time and ensure student safety unless there is strong supervision in place during their absence (Bettini et al, 2019).…”

“…For example, Ms. Moretta could construct Lincoln’s master schedule such that another highly skilled special educator provides instruction one period per day, freeing Ms. Stevens to spend this time planning. Third, administrators should consider reducing extra responsibilities (e.g., scheduling individualized education program meetings; bus duty) so that special educators can use planning time to plan for instruction (Bettini et al, 2019). For example, Ms. Moretta could reassign responsibilities that do not require specialized expertise to classified staff.…”

Early Reading Instruction With Embedded Behavioral Supports for Children With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…Professional development in research-based early reading intervention and curriculum materials are not consistently available to special educators working with high needs populations (McKenna & Ciullo, 2016). Teachers of students with EBD in particular often find themselves in work environments with limited resources to support their students (Bettini et al, 2019). Fortunately, limited access to professional development in early reading intervention skills, such as phonemic awareness and phonics, or the absence of an adopted intervention program (such as the ones included in studies cited in the previous section) need not limit educators from providing daily, high-quality reading intervention.…”