Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic altered the state of education dramatically in the spring of 2020. Educators immediately altered their day-to-day practices, tools, and environments in which they were teaching and even their curricular focus. These were not one-time adjustments but continuing adaptations so that educators could continue to deliver instruction. For special education teachers (SETs), already tasked with adapting and adjusting according to individualized needs as required in individualized education plans (IEPs), the emergency led to additional complexity with scheduling, service delivery, technology, access, and student well-being (Rice, 2022; Schuck & Lambert, 2020).
The legal mandate to provide the services named in the IEP drove district-level focus for students with disabilities during the initial and subsequent year-long period of COVID-19 adjustments in educational practice (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). Despite the spirit of this mandate, various emergency waivers possible through the CARES Act of 2020 led to disruptions and inadequate institutional-level provision of equitable education for many students identified with disabilities (Burkett & Reynolds, 2020). The IEP was important to individual special educators too, but a commitment to their students and their individual teacher values led many special educators to operate beyond the mandates and remain focused on outcomes beyond compliance as they continued to adjust their learning and practice (Rice, 2022). These educators made responsive adjustments to ensure that students with disabilities had access and opportunities to continue their education during remote learning and despite shifts from in-person to remote learning and back again. Like their general education colleagues, in the face of a critical event, SETs’ dynamic process of identity development resulted in a transactional process among their incoming goals and standards, emotional episodes, and teacher attributes to result in professional identity adjustment, customization, and refinement (Pratt et al., 2006; Schutz et al., 2018). This provided insight and implications for infusing educator preparation and induction with a reflective understanding of dynamic identity development in the face of challenge and change to foster resilience (Ramakrishna & Singh, 2022). Educator
Teacher identity development has been the subject of studies (Pishghadam et al., 2022) centered on both general and special education. Teacher identity is the complex construction of professional self-understanding informed by both past and present experiences in and out of education and across social contexts (Alsup, 2006; Kaplan & Garner, 2018). Understanding teacher identity helps organize meaning constructed from SETs’ experiences incorporating the values inherent in their role and enacted in practice. SETs must be versed and competent to use a range of supports and accommodations, pedagogic practices, related services, and technologic tools necessary to individualize instruction (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). Additionally, professional standards for SETs clearly emphasize the importance of creating safe learning environments, responsive practices (Council for Exceptional Children, 2015), and holistic support for students and families (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, 2022). SETs not only deliver and coordinate services, but they also must advocate for the rights of their students and families. In special education, legal mandates, such as IEPs, have an impact on the intersection of identity constructs. These factors define both identity and the exercise of integrity to both role and personal values by these professionals. SETs’ professional role identity development is at the core of the developmental-motivational process across their careers and in crisis situations (Kaplan & Garner, 2018). As the COVID-19 pandemic began, inequities steeped in ableist perspectives and systems were increasingly apparent (Arrington, 2020). Educators were faced with meeting their role expectations and addressing these inequities both through and within schools. Many of the difficulties they encountered as online learning was required mirrored the concerns apparent among those already providing online learning opportunities prior to the pandemic (Rice & Carter, 2015), thus providing additional insight into online learning for students with disabilities and influences on the integrity and persistence of these educators in extraordinary circumstances.
Immediately following the initial remote service delivery of the spring of 2020 and ~6 months later, we surveyed special educators in New York State about their adherence to IEP goals and accommodations, use of technology, values, and integrity in the face of challenges. We sought to identify both the challenges and the innovations evident in their work. Through a survey (Colvin et al., 2023), we identified three special educators in Upstate New York who agreed to be interviewed three times for a more in-depth understanding of their experience after the spring of 2020 and across the next calendar year of schooling. The ethical focus and tensions between the practiced, enacted, and contextualized experiences specific to special educators can be understood across a range of instructional settings. Among the tensions, the individualization vs standardization of practice (Mintrop & Zane, 2017) point to the essentiality of centering teachers’ voices and agentive influence on practice offering transformative SET identity development that can impact interactions with general educators and retention in the field over time (Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018).
In the specific context of online special education, the developments during the COVID-19 crisis shed light on the core values and competing priorities at play in the use of an expanded modality and new tools for instruction (Rice, 2022). Although districts were focused on the legal mandate to provide the services named in the IEP, SETs’ commitment to their students and their personal sense of integrity, shared with their general education colleagues, led many to go beyond and outside mandates of the IEP to ensure that students with disabilities had access and opportunity to continue their education and pursue preferred outcomes, additionally fueling those educators’ commitment to the profession. Examination and awareness of identity construction can help educators see this action and feel a sense of agency to maintain a resilient approach and persevere as educators.
Theoretical Framework
Teacher Identity
Teacher identity has been a frequent theme in educational research over the last 20 years (Rushton et al., 2023; Zhang & Wang, 2022), with a smaller number of studies specifically focused on SET identity development (Eyre, 2021; Rice & Smith, 2023; Rostami et al., 2021; Salas, 2008; Siuty, 2019). Constructed through the interaction between individual and context, teacher identity develops dynamically across careers (Pishghadam et al., 2022; Zhang & Wang, 2022). Teacher identity is shaped by knowledge, training, and experience; the intersection of the personal sense of self and integrity (self-beliefs); and mandates of profession, requirements of position, and the needs and commitment to student goals for growth and development (Zembylas, 2003). Integration of old and newer identities forms over time (Alsup, 2006). A dynamic systems model of reflective identity (DSMRI) can frame analysis of teacher identity because it reflects teacher action to achieve goals in light of situational self-beliefs and contexts (Kaplan & Garner, 2018). From the standpoint of DSMRI, teacher learning and dynamic identity development are continuously “emerging and integrating to reflect the teacher’s role identity” (Kaplan & Garner, 2018, p. 72). Ramakrishna and Singh (2022) noted a connection between identity construction and resilience of teachers in India during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, agentic consideration of that identity development served as a source of inspiration and persistent action in the face of challenging times, an awareness that can be examined in teacher preparation and professional development to foster resilience and retention as SETs.
The DMSRI encompasses professional learning and identity and considers the intersections of multiple domains. These include social context, domains, dispositions, and culture as they encompass and influence the intersections of ontological and epistemological teacher beliefs, purposes, and goals and self-perceptions and definitions and perceptions of action influenced by emotion (Garner & Kaplan, 2019). This model was useful in the context of identity examination during the pandemic because the context of shifting processes and practices, including online learning, was an opportunity to understand a sense of agency in identity formation throughout shifts in sociocultural context. The experiences of students beyond academic achievement include negative forces such as ableism and racism and positive opportunities such as greater connections with family and can impact teachers’ self-views and role identity.
Special Educator Identity
To understand SET identity, Eyre (2021) analyzed case studies of experienced special educators working with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities and demonstrating “longevity and a commitment to the field” (Eyre, 2021, p. 58). She uncovered special education identity constructs while evaluating ecologic systemic factors influencing their retention in the field. The interplay of agency, authority, and vulnerability was evident. She found aspects of identity beyond generalized teacher identity attributed specifically to SETs, including seeking new knowledge, leadership, and advocacy; adapting curriculum; cultivating relationships; high expectations; managing classroom environments; and fostering higher levels of engagement, flexibility, and creativity. Each aspect leads to goal achievement according to the epistemological beliefs about practice evident among educators (Kaplan & Garner, 2017).
DSMRI framing of identity construction shows the structuring of practice informed by mandates from federal legislation and school districts to meet the minimum requirements of the IEP per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and inspired by integrity, commitment, and care amid complex system shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic. Although disruptions served to adjust the sense of identity for SETs, the previously developed versions of educator identity buttressed and motivated actions and reactions toward an ethic of care, a stable aspect of teacher identity development (O’Connor, 2008; Schutz et al., 2018). As conceptualized by O’Connor (2008), an ethic of care involves the emotions, actions, and reflections born out of a teacher’s desire to motivate, help, or inspire their students. Although this construct was likely at the heart of teacher motivation, it is not often a focus in teacher preparation and policy. However, through an ethic of care, educators who served students during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded on previous practice to act in ways that allowed their professional identity to remain harmonious with
Technology Use for Special Educators: Dilemmas of Practice
Rice and Carter (2015) examined the ways online educators with disabilities describe their roles and their work. Their findings prior to the pandemic foreshadowed the experiences of special educators thrust into online teaching in the spring of 2020, including (a) monitoring course completion, (b) delivering curriculum, and (c) building and maintaining relationships with students and parents. The concerns, difficulties, and need to use additional technological tools and methods were evident as these online teachers, electively serving students in online environments, sought to address disengaged students, adjust and support curriculum access, and maintain positive relationships. The shifting between online, in-person, and hybrid modalities is a transition that educators were underprepared for, and scholars call for attention to addressing this transition (Rice, 2022). This lack of preparation and self-efficacy characterized experiences during the first period of remote teaching during COVID-19 (Cardullo et al., 2021). Examinations of educator experience as the shift across modalities with little preparation ensued revealed tension with mandates, a commitment to students, and both the learning and adjustments to practice experienced through this shift (Rice, 2022). As we examined teachers’ experiences, we sought to understand their
Conceptual Framework and Research Focus
A conceptual framing of our study integrates the phenomena of dynamic teacher identity and the DSMRI (Kaplan & Garner, 2017) with the construct of integrity in the face of educational accountability dilemmas, as characterized by Mintrop and Zane (2017). Through a study of public service workers in situations of crisis, Mintrop and Zane (2017) examined the ways that the four domains of judgment for decision making overlapped to define the integrity that informed their actions and feelings about those actions as they adopted contradictory solutions that align with an ethic of care (O’Connor, 2008). To tackle the gap in access, opportunity, and outcomes for students with disabilities, SETs negotiated the mandated practice of meeting students where they were with specially created goals and instruction, for inclusion purposes, and adherence to standards and outcomes expected for their peers without disabilities.
Method
To investigate the relationship between SET integrity and identity, between the summer of 2020 and the summer of 2021 we conducted a series of three interviews with three special educators in Upstate New York. The interviews focused on their experiences and perspectives during initial remote instruction in the spring of 2020 and across the next year.
Participants and Setting
With approval from our institutional review board, we contacted SETs who had participated in a survey as part of a previous study (Colvin et al., 2023) and consented to follow-up interviews. We recruited for the survey via Facebook and publicly available emails of SETs and administrators in districts across New York State.
For the 2020–21 school year, all three teachers reported a return to mostly in-person learning with some modifications to include going to hybrid and remote models in times of COVID-19 outbreaks and/or having some students who chose to attend classes virtually due to a lack of comfort with safety precautions. All three teachers were SETs in public schools with permanent special education certification and served students in inclusive and special class contexts. Students were identified with a range of disabilities, including learning disabilities, autism, and emotional and behavioral disorders. For specific information about each participant, see Table 1.
Descriptions of participants
Based on the findings from the survey (Colvin et al., 2023), during the spring of 2020, SETs were teaching using synchronous Zoom and Google meet calls and other technology asynchronously. Others reported sending home worksheets and even driving to students’ homes to deliver learning materials. Attendance was a concern, and the complexity of logging on to enter students’ homes for virtual instruction presented a challenge. Scheduling, internet access, device access, new tools, and instructional hours were just a few of the concerns that came full force among our sample in the face of the pandemic. Health and safety and the development of unrest and uncertainty around social and racial justice and mental, physical, and economic well-being took center stage.
Interview
Each SET participated in three 40-minute interviews with researcher number one; in the summer of 2020, December 2020, and June 2021. Interview questions were developed based on researchers’ perspectives as practitioners and faculty in a school of education preparing future teachers. The questions of experience were derived from knowledge of the profession and considerations of the context of the pandemic shifts in service delivery. Questions were screened for clarity with a SET not included in the study, and adjustments were made based on their feedback. The same questions were asked each time with comparative conversation and further probing across each time added in subsequent interviews (interview questions available in supplementary materials Appendix A). At each interview, we revisited responses in the transcripts from earlier interviews, including concluding thoughts at the last interview. Teachers could verify the accuracy of conclusions and generalizations made from the earlier interview, a mechanism for member checking (Stahl & King, 2020).
Data
Each interview was recorded and transcribed using Zoom video conferencing. Transcripts were text corrected for accuracy based on videos and interviewer perspective in accompanying notes.
Trustworthiness
Attending to the rigor and trustworthiness to establish the usefulness of findings, we developed a detailed process of corroboration and collaboration in code development, identification, and analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To address credibility, we maintained a prolonged engagement, revisiting the conversations with the teachers over time. We also completed member checks of results and ongoing analysis in discussion with participants at the start of each interview and after the final interview. Findings in the final manuscript were checked for accuracy by sharing details from the notes with participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). With just three interview participants, findings are not easily transferrable, but the thick description of behavior, experience, and their context along with repeated data gathering over time provided rich understanding (Korstjens & Moser, 2018; Stahl & King, 2020). Findings were useful and confirmable because they corroborate the findings of the previous survey data (Colvin et al., 2023), supplying nuance to the survey responses and details of SET identity.
Analysis
Code Development
We created initial codes using a process of deductive category application, a qualitative content analysis where a priori codes from the theoretical literature and research ideas are used to organize and analyze data (Mayring, 2014). Across multiple meetings, we developed first-level codes from our conceptual frame centering on the construct of SET integrity, as described by Mintrop and Zane (2017), and research questions considering IEPs and standardized testing as possible concerns. Authors one (TE-R) and two (KC) used constant comparative analysis (Kolb, 2012) to refine and identify additional inductive codes derived from the data. Taking notes on our process, we engaged in reflexive analysis via multiple passes through the data (Banks et al., 2023). A combination of deductive and inductive code development anchors the approach to data and literature for organization while leaving the opportunity for meaning making as new codes and themes are defined through the analysis process (Bingham & Witkowsky, 2022). Each researcher first independently coded the same transcript. The team then engaged in conversation to discuss points of disagreement regarding the codes and their use for analysis. The authors revised and clarified the language. For example, “comparison” as a code was too general to fine-tune our understanding of comparisons in practice. Through second-level collaborative data analysis and conversation, we determined the need to differentiate points of comparison by time of practice and in-person versus online. This helped us better understand the ways that SETs reflected on changes in their practice and responses to the pandemic and made comparisons with pre-COVID-19 practices. We completed the coding process for each of the nine transcripts. A collaboration and a second coding review were completed with the third researcher (TY), an educational psychology doctoral student with knowledge of the project, to further clarify and refine the descriptions and examples for each code and create the finalized codebook. Once final codes were agreed on, authors one and two recoded each interview and compared codes in multiple discussions and negotiations of interpretation until consensus was achieved. We checked 30% of the data with researcher three to avoid drifting from the codes using multiple sessions and a process of discussion until consensus about coding decisions was reached. The open and repeated coding provided an iterative and refining process for interpretive revelations and the development of the themes (Saldaña, 2021).
Positionality
Authors had shifted to remote instruction at the postsecondary level and experienced a similar shift to hybrid instruction during the period of the study, noting parallels with the experiences of participants throughout the process. Author one, a Black, biracial cisgender woman without a disability and caregiver of a young person with a disability, had been a SET in an urban high school and suburban elementary settings. Author two, a white cisgender woman without a disability, had been a high school teacher with coteaching experience. Researcher three, a Black cisgender woman without a disability and mother of two school-aged children, had experience consulting with school systems and analyzed survey data from the first level of the study. Given the researchers’ previous experience in K-12 schools and work as teacher educators experiencing similar shifts in practice and expectations and experiences at that time, this lens aided their interpretive clarity related to perspectives apparent in the data.
Codes and Themes
Throughout the coding process and collaborative discussion among researchers, we developed themes. Comparative analysis to uncover themes allowed us to draw conclusions and make meaning from the data (Boeije, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The most frequently mentioned themes in the dataset included managing communication to facilitate relational adjustments; time management in the face of new and existing service challenges; reflexive analysis of integrity, practice, and outcomes; and agentic leadership and advocacy initiatives fostering an ethic of care and accountability—all impacting explicit and implicit adjustments and refinement of SET identity. These main themes will be discussed in the context of challenges and successes reported by each teacher and finally in relationship to identity development and the applicability of the DSMRI. A full list of codes and themes along with their frequency in the data is available in Appendix B and C respectively. (Ellis-Robinson, 2025).
Findings
In the first set of interviews (June 2020), all three educators revealed that IEPs helped them organize reflections on their work despite the disruption of regular classroom interactions. They worked to gather data and record student progress. Deemed as both prudent and attending to organizational responsibility, teachers felt responsible for modifications, accommodations, and any other mandates of students’ IEPs. They planned instruction and worked collaboratively with general education teachers to help students complete basic levels of assignments, still working toward progress on the IEP goals. At that time, chief concerns among all three educators included communication with students, families, and general education colleagues; student and family well-being; and scheduling for service delivery. They reported learning and using a variety of technology tools for communication, service delivery, and assessment addressing each of these concerns.
The next year, the sense of emergency lessened; the SETs were able to take what they had learned and adjust. They reported that their work assignments and use of space were different from what they had been in the previous academic year. For each SET, there was a combination of excitement and trepidation as they discussed the new academic year. At the close of the second year (June 2021), participants reflected that they seemed to have come full circle in relationship to aspects of their SET identity. Adherence to mandates remained steady, attention to academic success was essential, and a greater recognition/awareness of parent perspectives and involvement was confirmed. Each participant embraced and ended the year looking for positive outcomes and recognizing their own flexibility and need to bridge general and special education. At this point, they spoke of refining their use of technology tools to support a unique and different type of service provision and shifts in expectations for work with students, parents, and their general education colleagues. They had navigated shifts in their roles and service provision across modalities while maintaining an ethic of care as the essential component of their reflections and self-views of their educator identities. Table 2 includes descriptions of the most frequent themes in the data. In the next section we share the perspectives of each SET as they relate to the themes across the year.
Study’s essential themes connected to components of teacher integrity
DSMRI, dynamic systems model of reflective identity; SET, special education teacher
Sources: Mintrop & Zane, 2017; Kaplan & Garner, 2018.
Managing Communication to Facilitate Relational Adjustments
Communication, a relationship-focused part of the work of special educators who serve as advocates for students and families, occurred often in the data. This theme fell into the DSMRI category of perceived action possibilities, and teachers considered the shifts and importance of this aspect of their work in relation to DSMRI components related to purposes and goals for relationships (Kaplan & Garner, 2018). Communication was at the forefront of celebration and concern during emergency instruction. Across all interviews, Braden referred to the “two-tiered” nature of communication, whereas his relationship with many students and their parents was more meaningful with more frequent communication using a range of technology tools including cell phones and emails. In addition, there were some families who were more difficult to connect with.
Daria also recognized that connecting with parents was essential; she needed to “look for [the parents’] feedback and input about what was working for their child” and found that more phone calls and the new practice of texting parents was helpful: “I have chosen to let down . . . the boundaries I usually keep in terms of sharing my cell phone numbers, . . . becoming Facebook friends, . . . which I’ve never done before last spring [summer 2020].” Looking back in the spring of 2021, Daria found that interactions with parents and families were richer as time went by and that boundaries were more relaxed. This made it easier to measure and understand parent satisfaction. Going forward, she intended to be up front and proactively call to get ahead of a problem, but it takes knowing the parents to communicate as they may prefer.
In addition to families, SETs worked collaboratively to communicate more and differently with colleagues. Braden used more group chats and his cell phone to stay in touch with colleagues. Daria connected through Zoom during instruction, in times she might have only consulted with teachers before. Catherine talked about the ways she and colleagues communicated and bonded to help each other meet the increased demands and adjust to uncertainty. All three SETs expanded on their previous use of technology to improve and maintain communication.
Time Management in the Face of New and Existing Service Challenges
The frequent theme of time management in the face of new and existing service challenges showed up in a few subthemes—scheduling and planning and instructional time—and a related subtheme—time on task. These aligned with attention to purpose and goals of the mandated service and epistemological beliefs about a need for in-person service. The scheduling and planning process was indicative of perceived action possibilities, a domain of the DSMRI (Kaplan & Garner, 2018). The management of time would make achieving preferred outcomes and service delivery possible.
Scheduling and Planning
Each of the educators referred to the complexity of scheduling their work with students, making connections with parents, and planning time. During the spring of 2020, new schedules and systems were developed on-the-fly to provide the services documented in the IEP. This required communicating with both parents and general education colleagues. In June 2020, Braden said, “It took a while, but eventually I started doing office hours.” He found that being accessible at a certain time each day eased parents’ concerns that they might not have access to the information and his support. Braeden saw his accessibility as an important component of his role as special educator, identifying a stable construct that looked different in the changing contexts during pandemic teaching (Kaplan & Garner, 2018). He used tools such as spreadsheets and online folders to replace tools of the past, providing easier collaborative opportunities with general education colleagues and parents.
Daria undertook a scheduling challenge to ensure that her students received services mandated in their IEPs and in a small group that would work best for the students. She acknowledged that she created something that was a greater burden on her, “but it did meet the needs, so that was totally worth it, and with the luxury of working in small groups, the students are making growth, which is everything I could ask for.” Care for students was at the center for each decision and remained a stable component of her identity (Kaplan & Garner, 2018).
For Catherine, her caseload was driven by the schedule rather than what she might see as her expertise. Students whose IEPs called for direct services four days per week were placed in hybrid spaces where direct contact was no longer possible. Scheduling counseling was much more difficult for the 90% of Catherine’s case load that was assigned to that service because students attended school for only part of the week and spent the other part in online classrooms. This challenge and time constraints drove Catherine’s advocacy with administrators throughout the fall of 2020.
Lack of Instructional Time and Time on Task
A concern about attendance was echoed across all three teachers’ experiences. In the second interview on return to in-person learning, Braden expressed concern over class meetings lost due to COVID-19 quarantines, and he had just returned after 2 weeks away from the classroom. Braden named the challenge of students who continue to struggle despite the work that he was doing. He saw benefits from his work but wanted to do more.
Similarly, Daria expressed concerns about students not being in school, wishing that she had more time with them “because time matters.” In addition to instructional time, Daria addressed the issue of time on task for students. She considered how she “[could] get more time on task,” especially at home; she wished that she could “reach in through the screen to tap them on the shoulder.”
Catherine spoke of a lack of time to engage in instruction due to demands on students to complete coursework across many subjects, especially considering the possibility of high-stakes testing at the end of the year. “Every single teacher [was] trying to cover 100% of their curriculum seeing the kids half the time. And there has been no scaling back. . . . I think my biggest challenge is not seeing the kids enough, just not having enough contact time.” Infusing meaningful time to engage with students was a powerful theme for all three teachers. As SETs and in the context of inclusion, they saw finding the time as an essential focus of their role as SETs. In the context of the DSMRI, their self-perceptions aligned with purposes and goals within each domain. Service delivery and students’ success were at the forefront of role descriptions (Kaplan & Garner, 2017).
Reflexive Analysis of Integrity, Practice, and Outcomes
During the interviews, SETs recalled specific practices and how teachers and students approached them, but they also reflected on the impact of the situation on themselves, fellow teachers, and their students. A central domain of the DSMRI includes self-perceptions and definitions. Through reflection, the intersection of this reflexive component, ontological and epistemological beliefs, and emotion provides a framework for teachers to interpret the actions in their work (Garner & Kaplan, 2019). A genuine concern and recognition of a stressful time for students’ families and themselves overshadowed classroom tasks. Catherine reported, “The students were stressed out.” Therefore, finding means for coping was both a priority and a prudent focus.
Braden’s challenges extended beyond the few instances of finding the right balance for communication with parents and concern for the level of social opportunities and to stay in touch with students who did not log on all the time. Daria also was mindful of the stress on the families and their other obligations. She and her co-teachers kept a shared log of communications with families to coordinate communication so that they would not overwhelm the families. Daria felt that it was her job “to take some off [a parent’s] plate,” so she did not assign extra work but focused on the essentials during class time in collaboration with her team.
In her second interview, during a period of hybrid learning, Catherine named her biggest success as the relationships she had forged with students and the rallying practices of her colleagues to support one another despite outside challenges. She focused on students’ growth as a definer of her work.
Braden also noted the support from colleagues, specifically improved relationships with general education teachers and related service providers on the team: “We’re making a lot more plans than we would have if we were in the building.” Through the improved relationships with colleagues and additional planning, Braden felt that the group was able to tailor support to meet children’s needs.
Daria gave credit to the teaching on Zoom as having influenced the efficiency and focus of her teaching methods both online and offline. The need to be succinct and being under surveillance led to that efficiency. Daria appreciated her time delivering consultant teacher services remotely. In this way, she supported her students and others who were not identified with disabilities but might need help. She also planned to limit and be more intentional in her use of technology tools to augment her teaching rather than drive it. Each of these SETs reflected through the interview process but also shared the ways that reflection had driven changes to their practice and approach as well as steadying values that continued to drive their work.
Agentic Leadership and Advocacy: Initiatives Fostering an Ethic of Care and Accountability
SETs highlighted that both leadership and advocacy were a vital part of their ongoing practice. The perception of the bridging role between general and special education (Eyre, 2021), personal integrity as it fueled epistemological and ontological beliefs aligning personal integrity, and perceived action possibilities that their work could achieve showed the contextualized adjustments to tension and change as they aligned with the DSMRI (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). Acknowledging technological savvy, Braden assumed a leadership role as he took courses to learn innovative technology and taught colleagues about technology tools in the initial spring of remote instruction. Similarly, Catherine identified as a leader among her colleagues in rethinking the ways that remote instruction should be offered and used to support student success. She took a course in online learning in the summer and planned to bring the learning to her colleagues so that they would be better prepared for future periods of remote instruction, expecting mandatory periods of quarantine for teachers and students in the upcoming school year. Daria also recognized her own leadership as part of her identity, seeing herself as a “bridge builder” across a 20-year career. She centered the importance of relationships and communication across all these roles. “I also think . . . that’s where . . . communication is so key, and relationships are so key, and I brought that into my leadership positions.” She identified a process of recognizing her own skillsets as they were affirmed during emergency remote teaching. Leadership characterized Daria’s SET identity and included an understanding of how communication and relationships intersect and define that leadership. Daria embraced technology such as cell phone communication and Zoom breakout rooms as important tools to provide and support communication and relationships.
Catherine found that there were significant efforts being made by resource teachers to just survive and try to get their kids through while general education classes continued to forge ahead with content even though students were not moving along as well. The special educators in her school advocated for district resources for additional support, an effort that took most of the semester to address. In the fall of 2020, Catherine spoke about a breaking point of stress for students and how she and colleagues were lobbying on their behalf for more contact time, solidifying the integral need for advocacy in the work of SETs in order to stay focused on care for students and accountability for outcomes, and serve as identity-confirming components that they could control.
Explicit and Implicit Adjustments and Refinement of SET Identity
Intersections across each of the themes connect in the concept of teacher identity. These intersections provide evidence of a systems understanding of dynamic role identity adjustments and development, DSMRI (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). SETs spoke about several factors that exemplified their SET identity development/solidification in the face of COVID-19 challenges. We identified three subthemes in the SETs’ responses: (a) ongoing knowledge construction, (b) integrity to self, profession and students, and (c) flexible navigation at the intersection of general education and special education. An awareness of this identity process and their power in it served as a reaffirming source of resilience and commitment to carry on as educators in difficult times.
Ongoing Knowledge Construction
Throughout the interviews, each of the SETs reported their ongoing and expected path of continued learning and professional development. They reported learning new tools, new practices, and new ways of analyzing and reflecting on their behaviors. At the third interview, Braden reflected on new tools he had learned over time. Earlier in his career he had “experimented with [IXL] and now . . . I’m using it as a special education teacher. . . . I can use it for different grade levels for different skills for academic purposes.” Braden built added proficiency through a process of ongoing knowledge construction through tools, experience, and ongoing learning.
At each of the interviews, Daria took notes and reported that she used them to reflect on her experiences and consider her practice. Across the study, Daria shared the ways that she learned to use technology and create targeted and succinct representations of information. She learned how to present virtually with a sense of calm and professionalism despite the newness of teaching exclusively online. Technology that the SETs used out of necessity, they realized could be useful going forward. Similarly, the increased communication and novel ways to communicate with families would continue.
Integrity to Self, Profession, Families, and Students
Attention to the values that drove them, educational mandates, and a commitment to meet the needs of families and students were central in the decision making and clear in the reflections shared by each SET. This commitment reflected the standards and goals they saw for themselves as teachers.
At each interview, Braden shared the ways that he was following the administrative protocols and demands as they unfolded. He kept careful records and data not only for his own needs but also so that others could see the details of his work with students. The IEP “forced” him to be consistent, evidence of his respect and valuing of the official mandate for service. He made sure that students had large print if needed, technology, and a separate room scheduled to have the test read. In regular classes, he arranged access to see the teacher. Braden engaged in actions that exemplified his ongoing commitment to students and navigating of the intersection of general and special education. This was not just going through the motions for Braden but a vital part of how he measured success as a SET. In the return to in-person learning, Braden and his general education colleagues sat down and “had to really . . . think . . . what’s what these kids need . . . forget the pace of where we should be, at what our plan says, but what does each kid need.” He emphasized the inclusive connection of care for students with disabilities among all educators.
When asked if he felt that he met the mandates of the IEPs in his final interview, the emotion and importance of this success were evident: “I think I did my part in making sure the IEP . . . was followed to the best of [my] ability and with fidelity. . . . We fell short, and I am frustrated about that.” In addition, even in that, he acknowledged the continued development of his work as a teacher. Braden considered giving his first graders homework because they needed to “narrow the gap,” but he did not want to “burn them out.” Finally, Braden said, “I can create an environment where it’s fun, and they’re learning and they want to come back, like our main job.” Ultimately, his continued commitment to supporting students remained at the center of his self-identification.
Daria reported initial stress about fulfilling the obligations of the IEPs in the immediate period of remote instruction in the spring of 2020. Once the district administrators clarified that they would not be bound to meet IEP mandates, she “didn’t lose sleep” over it, nor was high-stakes testing affecting her instructional decisions. At that time, she took a more prudent approach to her work with students, paring down essential skills to the “bare bones” both for academic needs and to mitigate parent stress.
However, that fall, the SETs would have to try to meet the obligations for service and instruction included in the IEPs. We spoke with Daria as she planned for the new school year: And so right now [summer 2020] I’m scheduling the full minutes for my service time and looking at all of those strategies and telling myself well if a parent said to me, how are you doing this, I want to have
Despite the respite of a loosening requirement in the face of an emergency, Daria’s personal sense of integrity to provide the mandated service and adherence to the IEPs was a matter of accountability to herself and the families of her students.
In Catherine’s case, there was tension between the demands of the administrators to report things in a positive light and the reality of the situation. When students disengaged, it “killed my soul,” leaving her feeling like she could not meet their needs. In reference to the spring of 2020, she said, “We were not allowed to say that students made no progress or inadequate progress toward their goals.” Catherine’s discomfort with this practice showed her need to reconcile the tension between the demands of the IEPs and responsibility to students and families. Here connection and care for students’ well-being showed in her concern for painting a realistic picture of progress. She would suggest “extending . . . learning” when similar goals were used for the next year.
In December of 2020, Catherine reflected on her approach to meeting the needs of students. The year started with uncertainty when they did not receive details of the students they would serve until right before the year started—this was atypical. Catherine and her colleagues in special education usually used time in the summer to understand the IEPs and have a plan set for the start of the year. She recounted the flexibility inherent in her role: “I worked in reverse. . . . this time I was on the phone with families the first week, second week of school.” Catherine knew that she needed a good picture of where the students were to plan for their needs but also recognized that after the pandemic and shutdown, parents would have a better handle on what that looked like. She addressed concerns for equity and ethics: “I recorded on Zoom. . . . If you’re at home and your tech isn’t working, you need that lesson.” Catherine’s commitment to her students required flexibility to meet their needs. The well-being of students drove Catherine’s push to get more time to support them. She highlighted the importance of considering executive functioning and the ways that they needed explicit support to navigate online learning.
Flexible Navigation at the Intersection of General Education and Special Education
Finally, across the interviews, these educators appeared flexible toward their situations. They brought their problem solving and prudence to each working relationship and intersection with general education—creating new service models, communicating, and sharing their expertise to support colleagues so that students’ needs in inclusive settings would be at the forefront.
Continually, Braden prioritized his shared planning and discussion with the general education teachers. As a co-teacher, he met with his partner teacher to plan to come in before school and text on the weekends to ensure that they were ready. He talked about checking in and sharing ideas with all the general education teachers he worked with, performing the bridging role of SETs (Eyre, 2021).
In the first period of remote instruction, Daria shared the emphasis in her district on essential learning. General educators adjusted expectations, and she pared them down further. During that time, she got closer to her colleagues through the challenge. She had regular meetings with her general education colleagues. Through the delivery of consultant services over Zoom, collaboration felt more inclusive. She strove to “add value” to the teachers’ classrooms, including the creation of visual learning supports for general education teachers. These would be transferred back to the classroom smartboard and in-person learning.
Working with general education teachers, Catherine spoke of navigating their content to find the essential learning and communicating that was essential to the general education teachers so that SETs could better support students in the content areas in the first period of emergency remote learning. The teachers realized that they had to be flexible and that students could rise to standards when given the opportunity. However, the next year, Catherine found her students in resource room failing multiple subjects and feeling “defeated.” In her co-taught class, she spoke of being able to fill that role and adjust assignments to scaffold learning. This bright spot showed that in co-taught spaces there was a better ability to meet the ethical demands of the IEPs as she expected to. In that next year, she continued to assess, though with fewer measures, and used general education teachers’ writing assignments to assess writing. The findings reveal the mechanisms of action as they informed identity construction and reconstruction and each of these educator’s agency to navigate that process with self-awareness as a bolstering tool fostering resilience. The interview process offered an opportunity for these participants to embrace and use the theoretical construct of identity and self-reflection in useful ways to extend their understandings of how resilience and identity impact one another (Ramakrishna & Singh, 2022).
Discussion
This study is significant in the ways it centers the voices of SETs as they reflect on and agentically examine their identity development and tensions of practice that were amplified during the COVID-19 disruptions, a process that can be useful across other potentially disruptive or challenging circumstances in education and school practices and policies. The reflections of the special educators included categories found in general educator identity research, such as care for students, lifelong learning, and a sense of integrity to meet the demands of their office, but they also included leadership, advocacy, and navigating interactions between general and special educators. These teachers found that flexibility, personal commitment, and attention to the obligations of office define their approach to work and the way they see themselves as SETs. The essential nature of professional values and action is most impactful in times of crisis and in the continually developing context of online learning practices. During COVID-19, the essential factors that delineated the work of SETs were more readily apparent (IES, 2025). However, these teachers found the greatest successes through increased attention to collaboration with general education colleagues and parents, recognizing that students with disabilities are served by efficient and effective partnerships to meet their needs and access to curriculum to achieve preferred outcomes.
Through all these realizations, reflection on the elements served as touchpoints for self and generalized understanding of the tasks and dispositions that delineate SET identity, including adherence to IEPs and accommodations (IDEA, 2004), intersections of service between general and special education (Siuty, 2019), and relationships and care for students and families. These contextualized factors, important to special education and the complex web of intersecting ecologic influences (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Eyre, 2021), show learning within the context of role and identity adjustment throughout the period under study. Ontological and epistemological beliefs about truth and how learning works, and attention to both goals based in obligation and purposes inspired by teachers’ value systems impacted their ongoing self-perceptions and definitions. Their perceptions of how actions might impact their work, and the actions they took as teachers constitute ideas that are transferrable to all educators (Garner & Kaplan, 2019). The conflict of competing goals and priorities for students, such as academic versus emotional well-being, remained pervasive (Berlinghoff & McLaughlin, 2022; Eyre, 2021; O’Connor, 2008). Through an examination of SETs’ responses to barriers and difficulties after the COVID-19 pandemic, intersecting elements of SETs’ dynamic identity were clear and aligned with the experiences with shifts in practice including online learning at that time (Rice, 2022). Analysis of this unique time provided insights about the ways that SETs construct and reconstruct their identity. An understanding of how their values integrate with their work and bolster their practice in times of challenge helps define the profession as both unique and in synch with a broader understanding of all teachers (Jones & Kessler, 2020; Mintrop & Zane, 2017; Schutz et al., 2018). Considering a dynamic systems perspective on identity adjustment, elements of the DSMRI were evident through the social context shaped by the values and purposes of specialized educational services and online instructional delivery. SETs’ beliefs and emotions along with self-perceptions of their roles guided both the action and reflections on action of each of these educators (Kaplan & Garner, 2017).
The integrity of special educators and the role and reason for their choice to become teachers and to remain teachers were influenced by the focus on students’ well-being during a time of crisis (Mintrop & Zane, 2017). The dispositions of these educators, comprised of ontological and epistemological beliefs and their own self-perceptions and definitions, informed their course of action across the contexts of their work with families and their students (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). In other words, an agentic understanding of their educator identity and factors influencing that identity had an impact on their resilience, persistence, and action as educators (Ramakrishna & Singh, 2022).
Initially, reorientation to the schooling process and concerns for mental health framed these teachers’ approaches to a return to work with students. After a time, the SETs saw their role as advocates to support the academic and emotional development of their students. They saw themselves as the forces to help achieve balance in the system and to buffer the ill-effects of changes in service and inadequate service with a deep sense of care for their students, and responsibility for their outcomes, and awareness of inequities experienced by students with disabilities. Across this process, components of their personal and professional identities as developed through the context of their personal values, preparation, and experiences manifested in a layered manner (Pratt et al., 2006; Schutz et al., 2018; Vähäsantnanen, 2015). This process influenced education decisions, actions, and their own well-being and retention as special educators, offering an actionable focus of preparation and professional development that can further support SETs in times of challenge and in the inherent challenges they encounter regularly in their work (Cormier et al., 2022; Ramakrishna & Singh, 2022; Zhang et al., 2020).
Limitations
The small number of participants in one state limits the generalizability of our findings; however, the rich detail and repeated interviews provided in-depth detail illustrating the identity development of SETs. The teachers represented the majority demographic of White female teachers, but teachers of color were not included in the sample, and thus nuances of experience that may have characterized SETs of color were left out of the sample. Future studies should examine the impact of agentic educator identity construction across teacher demographics and school contexts for a fuller view of the importance of this phenomenon as a factor in resilience and retention.
Implications
Client needs, communication, effective practice, relationships, planning, and attention to individual needs characterized SETs’ responses and reflections on practice. The focus on building an identity centered on an ethic of care (O’Connor, 2008) as a buffering point when there is controversy can be integrated into the education and induction process for SETs and general education teachers, many of whom will teach students with disabilities. Attention to the need for flexible approaches to collaborative processes can prepare future SETs and those in practice for universal and classroom-level crises alike. A focus on technology tools and online learning and preparation for flexible use of those tools as well as fluid transitions between online and in-person learning will provide additional expertise to expand options for individualized and personalized service delivery (Rice, 2022; Rice & Carter, 2015). Through this process, the natural possibilities for leadership and advocacy can be planned as part of the preparation and induction of new SETs and all educators. Preparation in leadership and problem solving can be infused in the coursework and practical opportunities afforded future SETs and their general education colleagues. Understanding and attention to the ongoing and exacerbated difficulty in working conditions and other retention factors should be infused in preparation and professional development (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Taylor et al., 2023). Such explicit preparation would build resilience and could promote agentic identity construction as a tool and mechanism to improve teacher resilience and retention.
Of great importance, a deeper fostering of relationship-development processes to bring teacher–parent relationships into a proactive collaboration occurred naturally in a time of stress. This partnership ought to be innovatively planned for and can be infused into teacher preparation through greater attention to the fostering of parent relationships and partnerships for pedagogy, as is so important in online learning (Rice & Carter, 2015). It will be important to recognize the ways that these teachers preserved key developments in those relationships (e.g., increased communication and parent support for assessment) as ways to improve interactions and collaboration with parents in the long term in the development of learning communities that are embedded at the school, district, and state levels.
Conclusion
Ultimately, SETs’ sense of their role and identity remained focused on the main interests and outcomes of their students, centering the IEPs but privileging an ethic of care above all else. This integrity and embracing of all aspects of the role have direct implications in the classroom and in teachers’ self-views and feelings of empowerment and resilience. A focus on context and individuation, a hallmark of special education, is practically useful to mitigate the ill-effects of disrupted learning services and heightened tensions in the field because of pandemic attitudes and adjustments and future challenges. The DMSRI is useful to address the evolving role and action choices amid more stable values. Infusing flexibility into policy, preparation, and professional development is an effective focus for the development of SETs who can efficiently follow through on their commitment to students when they have the
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
Open Practices
.ORCID iDs