Educational Renaissance Vol. 10 (2021) Special Educat or Self -Ef f icacy: The Im pact of Training and Exper ience Sarah Robbie Johnson, EdD. School of Education, Fresno Pacific University email: Sarah.Johnson@fresno.edu David R. Jones, PhD. School of Education, Fresno Pacific University email: David.Jones@fresno.edu Feature Article Across the United States, a teacher shortage plagues special education. The shortage dates from the end of the previous century (Fideler et al., 2000; Müller & Markowitz, 2003) and continues to the present (Sutcher et al., 2016). In 2010, the national attrit ion rate for special educators reached 13.5%, 9% of whom exited the profession within their first year of teaching (Fish & Stephens, 2010). In California, 13.4% of special educators left the profession or state between the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years (Ondrasek et al., 2020). Attempts to stem and reverse the shortage of special educators in California have manifested as providing extra support, increasing salaries, improving job satisfaction, fostering job commitment, enhancing educator motivation, outlining alternate certification pathways, and increasing self-efficacy of teachers (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 2015; Canrinus et al., 2012; Fall, 2010; Thornton et al., 2007). Special educators? burnout and their resulting departure from the profession result from many factors, with stress representing a Abst ract In California, the longstanding insufficiency of special educators has compounded since the 2013-2014 academic year. Districts and state legislators have relied on the issuance of substandard permits (i.e., Provisional Intern Permits, Short-Term Staff Permits, and Intern Credentials) to counteract the shortage. However, the effectiveness of this approach has limited evaluation. This study evaluated differences between pre-service and in-service special educators? self-efficacy ratings. Special educators serving in California?s Central Valley on substandard permits or valid teaching credentials (i.e., Preliminary and Clear Credentials) completed the Teachers? Sense of Efficacy Scale. Differences were assessed across several variables using independent t-tests and one-way ANOVAs. Significant differences emerged in special educators? self-reported levels of self-efficacy as a function of credential status, favoring those with valid credentials. The findings indicate a correlation between special educators? credential status (a proxy for training) and self-reported self-efficacy. The results of this study add to the research on special educators? self-efficacy by exploring the phenomenon among a newly emerged group of California-based special educators: substandard permit holders. Keywords: self-efficacy, special education, substandard authorization, pathways to teaching mailto:Sarah.Johnson@fresno.edu mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY dominant factor. Stress experienced by special educators leads to chronic burnout, which can include feelings of powerlessness, depersonalization, and exhaustion (Maslach, 1982). Additional sources of stress and teacher burnout for special educators include lack of advancement opportunities, excessive paperwork, unsuccessful administrative meetings (Roach, 2009), high workload and poor teaching conditions (Whitaker, 2001), and insufficient certification (Miller et al., 1999)? factors which contribute to lower self-efficacy. Teachers with lower self-efficacy reported commensurately low levels of job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2009) and greater job-related stress (Betoret, 2006). Teachers with lower self-efficacy demonstrated a greater tendency to exit teaching compared to teachers with higher self-efficacy (Wasburn-Moses, 2005). Teacher Shor t ages and Self -Ef f icacy Teacher efficacy represents a motivational belief or confidence teachers hold about themselves and their capabilit ies to influence student learning (Klassen et al., 2011). Klassen and Durksen (2014) report that pre-service teachers with higher self-efficacy have a higher commitment to teaching at the end of their teacher preparation programs. Chestnut and Cullen (2014) found a significant and positive correlation with preservice teacher self-efficacy and commitment to the profession. Chestnut and Cullen (2014) also found that emotional intelligence and satisfaction with expectations of future work environment related to self-efficacy and that both factors accounted for 3.53% of the variance in educators? commitment to remain in the field. Teacher self-efficacy relates to positive teacher behaviors such as enthusiasm, persistence, instructional behavior, and commitment, as well as teachers? willingness to try new instructional strategies (Berman et al., 1977). Teachers? self-efficacy relates to improvements in student motivation (Scherer et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001a), student self-efficacy, and student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001a). Additionally, teacher self-efficacy relates negatively to the frequency of student referrals for special education services (Coladarci, 1992; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993). California Special Education Teaching Credentials In California, the Education Specialist (a.k.a. special education) Credential represents a two-tiered preparation and licensing process, beginning with the Preliminary and culminating in the Clear Credential (CCTC, 2016). However, the shortage of credentialed teachers prompted the state licensing agency? the CCTC? to create two alternate certifications (Short-Term Staff Permits and Provisional Intern Permits) to address anticipated and acute staffing needs for special education classrooms (CCTC, 2015). An overview of California special education credentials and authorizations appears in Table 1. The alternate certifications allow individuals to work as teachers in the classroom prior to earning a valid teaching credential. The alternate credential pathways benefited the state in the 2015-2016 academic year, increasing the special education workforce by more than 4,000 educators (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). However, the issuance of Preliminary Credentials has not maintained pace with the number of substandard authorizations issued annually. In the 2011-2012 academic year, approximately 60% of special educators in California held a Preliminary Credential. In the 2017-2018 academic year, conversely, the number of special educators employed on substandard authorizations increased to 65% (Ondrasek et al., 2020). Table 2 illustrates that new, underprepared special educators in California vastly outnumber those individuals who are fully credentialed (CCTC, n.d.). Darling-Hammond et al. (2016) noted that broadening the pathway to a teaching credential fills empty classrooms but fails to stabilize the supply of credentialed teachers. Teachers hired on substandard permits exit from the profession at rates two to three times higher than those who 2 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY have comprehensive preparation prior to entering the classroom (Sutcher et al., 2016). High turnover costs not only in fiscal terms and inconvenience but in student achievement as well (Sutcher et al., 2016). During the 2014?2015 academic year, the number of emergency credentials issued in lieu of the unavailability of a fully credentialed teacher nearly tripled, from approximately 850 to over 2,300 (Sutcher et al., 2016). Table 3 illustrates the increase of those employed in special education classrooms on PIPs and STSPs from 2015-2020 in California (CCTC, n.d.). 3 Credent ial Type Descr ipt ion Requirem ent s Clear Valid credentials issued after two years of teaching with a preliminary credential - Have successfully taught for two years with a Preliminary Credential; - Completed advanced professional development. Prelim inary Valid credential issued after completion of a professional (usually post-baccalaureate) teacher preparation program - Holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from a regionally-accredited university or college - Satisfied the basic skill requirement - Provided verification of subject matter competency - Passed the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) - Passed an exam or completed a course from a regionally accredited university or college on the principles and provisions of the U.S. Constitution - Completed a commission-approved teacher preparation program in a specialty area (credential type) - Passed the California Subjects Examination Test (CSETs) Int ern Substandard permit issued after sufficient (but not entire) study and preparation in a professional teacher preparation program - Holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from a regionally-accredited university or college - Passed the California Basic Skills (CBEST) examination - Passed the subject matter competence (CSET) examination - Passed an examination or completed a course in the principles and provisions of the U.S. Constitution (from a regionally-accredited university or college) Provisional Int ern Perm it (PIP) or Shor t -Term St af f Perm it (STSP) Substandard permit issued by a school district or local education agency, in the event of the unavailability of other qualified or eligible applicants - Holds a baccalaureate degree or higher from a regionally-accredited university or college - Satisfied the CBEST requirement Year n Subst andard Perm it s Percent age Prelim inary Credent ials Percent age 2015-2016 6,406 3,535 55.2 2,871 44.8 2016-2017 7,469 4,156 55.6 3,313 44.4 2017-2018 7,849 4,624 58.9 3,225 41.1 2018-2019 8,463 5,238 61.9 3,225 38.1 2019-2020 8,828 5,336 60.4 3,492 39.6 Table 2: New, Underprepared Special Education Teachers in California Table 1: Overview of Credential Types JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY Table 3: Increase of Special Education PIPs and STSPs Each Year from 2015-2020 in California Self -Ef f icacy Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) defined self-efficacy as teachers? beliefs in their ability to organize and execute courses of action necessary to bring about desired results. Teacher self-efficacy relates to positive characteristics such as more innovative adoptions and time spent teaching; organization and planning (Allinder, 1994); improved classroom management strategies, student motivation, and teacher competence; school climate; commitment to teaching; and deferred referrals of students to special education (Berman et al., 1977; Chestnut & Cullen, 2014; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Klassen et al., 2011; ). Zee and Koomen (2016), in a meta-analysis from 162 articles, found that teachers with high self-efficacy cope effectively with a range of problem behaviors, use student-centered classroom behavior strategies, use student-centered classroom practices, act proactively, and establish relationships that are less conflictual with students. High teacher efficacy is directly related to numerous positive educational outcomes for both the student and teacher. Teachers? self-efficacy has been heavily researched. Teacher self-efficacy shapes the teacher, subject matter, and student attitudes (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) found that students reported greater interest in school and rated content as more important when the teacher had higher general teacher efficacy. Self-Efficacy and Commitment to the Field Teachers? self-efficacy relates positively to teachers? psychological well-being (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016; Zee & Koomen, 2016), job satisfaction and commitment to the field (Zee & Koomen, 2016)? factors which contribute to or contend against teacher burnout. Additionally, teachers with high self-efficacy are less likely to experience emotional exhaustion and burnout. Conversely, teachers with high self-efficacy demonstrate greater commitment to the profession (Coladarci, 1992; Zee & Koomen, 2016). High self-efficacy similarly associates with greater commitment among pre-service teachers (Bruinsma & Jansen, 2010). However, self-efficacy itself demonstrates malleability in response to the conditions of teaching. For example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2016) found that a lack of shared values between the teacher and school negatively associated with teacher self-efficacy. On the other hand, engagement and teacher self-efficacy related negatively to leaving the teaching profession. To this list of influences, Coladarci (1992) added that school climate and teacher-to-student ratios associated inversely with self-efficacy and teaching commitments. Canrinus et al. (2012) found that high levels of relationship satisfaction, teacher motivation, and occupational commitment associated with high levels of teacher self-efficacy. A more complex relationship emerged among self-efficacy, benefits and salary, and positive relationships, indicating that the higher a teachers? self-efficacy, the less satisfied they are with fringe benefits and salary than with positive relationships that reduce pressures to remain in the field (Canrinus et al., 2012). Pre-Service Teachers Pre-services teachers? self-efficacy points to several indications about their commitment to their future careers. Klassen et al. (2014) reported that pre-service teachers with higher self-efficacy have a greater commitment to teaching at the end of 4 Year n STSP PIP 2015-2016 1,690 1,139 551 2016-2017 2,316 1,354 962 2017-2018 2,521 1,538 983 2018-2019 2,873 1,623 1,250 2019-2020 3,016 1,752 1,264 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY their teacher preparation programs. Other researchers have found a positive association between pre-service teachers? efficacy and their commitment to the teaching profession (Chestnut & Cullen, 2014; Wasburn-Moses, 2005). Hoy and Spero (2005) found more optimism and less stress mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and the commitment to the first year of teaching. Thus, self-efficacy provides indications about future teacher supply. Comparing Pre- and In-Service Teachers Putman (2012) compared pre- and in-service teachers to explore how self-efficacy differed as a function of expertise by analyzing responses from 484 participants drawn from a convenience sample of graduate and undergraduate candidates enrolled in teacher preparation programs in the Midwest of the United States. The sample consisted of four groups: preservice teachers prior, post and in-service teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teachers. Self-reports from pre-service and novice teachers demonstrated significantly lower efficacy than the group of experienced teachers, suggesting that teachers with more experience and time in the field have higher self-efficacy ratings (Putman, 2012). Bet and Erg (2015) found similar results in the differences of teacher self-efficacy beliefs between pre- and in-service preschool teachers. Pre-service preschool teachers scored lower on self-reports of self-efficacy than in-service preschool teachers. Purpose The CCTC?s effort to stem the teacher shortage included broadening the pathway to teacher credentialing. However, the benefit of that decision has not yet been fully realized as many of the candidates following the new pathway leave the field at higher rates than seen among credentialed special educators. The researchers suggest that identifying and bolstering key traits of substandard authorization holders might expedite the effort to reverse the teacher shortage by optimizing the efficiency of the alternative credential pathway. Teacher self-efficacy represents an industry standard for gauging the potential of educators and represents an unexplored facet of those who hold substandard credentials. This inquiry collected and analyzed self-reported ratings to determine variance in teacher self-efficacy as a function of certification status. The researchers hypothesized the following: - Intern special educators will describe higher self-efficacy ratings than those teaching on other substandard permits (i.e. PIPs, STSPs). - Credentialed (Preliminary or Clear) special educators will describe higher self-efficacy ratings than those teaching on substandard permits, including Intern Credentials. Met hods In order to explore the self-efficacy ratings of those following alternate pathways to special educator credentialing, researchers collected and analyzed self-reported self-efficacy ratings, attending to variations that resulted from different credential statuses. Design and Methodology This study used a quantitative non-experimental correlational survey design. An institutional review board and the administration of two school districts reviewed and approved the parameters of the study before the collection of data. Individuals? rights were diligently protected during and after the study. Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) The TSES, ?the predominant measure of teacher efficacy throughout the world? (Duffin, French, & Patrick, 2012, p. 827), has strong validity and reliability (Duffin et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001b). Participants report their ability to effect outcomes on a Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal) (Fives & Buehl, 2009). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001b) found evidence of the internal consistency of the TSES as 5 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY both a three-factor and a one-factor measure, ranging from 0.91 for the Instructional Strategies subscale, 0.87 for the Student Engagement subscale, and 0.90 for the Classroom Management subscale. On the 24-item TSES version (the long form), Cronbach?s alpha measured 0.94 (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001b). The TSES measures a larger range of self-efficacy of teaching tasks compared to other measures of the same construct. The TSES also provides specificity of tasks for comparison of teachers across contexts, subjects, and levels (Hoy & Spero, 2005). The TSES collects self-reported efficacy and has been used among in-service and pre-service teachers. The long form version of the TSES is recommended for use with pre-service teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001b). Sample The researchers used convenience sampling by capitalizing on existing partnerships within the Central Valley of California in order to recruit participants employed as special educators on substandard authorizations or Preliminary and Clear Credentials. Participants were employed in one of two large school districts, Central Valley A or Central Valley B. These two districts were selected because they serve a large geographical area of the Central Valley. Procedure An invitation to complete the TSES was emailed to all special educators employed in the two participating school districts. The survey was emailed to 103 special education teachers in Central Valley A and 108 special education teachers in Central Valley B. Additional questions were added to the end of the TSES to capture demographic information such as credential status, gender, age, prior experience, and years taught. The survey also gauged if respondents had previous experience as a special education para-educator or substitute teacher. The survey was administered electronically through SurveyMonkey. The electronic administration of the TSES was in alignment with current research that supports the reliability and validity of the TSES (Duffin et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001b). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). The analysis included procedures for descriptive and inferential statistics. Data Analysis Data were analyzed with independent t-tests and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to determine if a difference of mean manifested in the dependent variable (i.e. self-efficacy) as a function of varying credential statuses. An initial data review included an analysis for homogeneity of variances (Leard Statistics, 2015). After confirmation that the data did not meet the assumptions for running a standard multiple regression, one-way ANOVAs were conducted. Researchers investigated differences across the three subscales of the TSES? Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management. Result s The researchers received 107 responses (51% response rate), of which seven were significantly incomplete and, therefore, excluded from the subsequent analysis. Among the 100 remaining responses, one set represented an outlier. This constituted a threat to the integrity of the data analysis as it was an outlier on all scale scores; its inclusion would unnecessarily skew the data. Therefore, it was also excluded. Of the 99 responses, three respondents scored slightly lower but were kept for analytical purposes. Overall, the study analyzed data from 99 respondents. Participant Demographics Table 4 provides an overview of participants? self-reported credential statuses. Most respondents held a Clear Credential (59.6%). 6 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY Table 4: Credential Statuses (N = 99) Self-Efficacy Ratings as a Function of Credential Status Results from the one-way ANOVA appear in Table 5. The homogeneity of the Levene results indicated that the distribution in the groupings? variances are comparable to the distribution in the general population. Table 5: Test of Homogeneity of Variances for TSES Scales x Certification Status Subscale Comparisons by Credential Status. Special educators? self-efficacy ratings by certification status are illustrated in Table 6. Those employed on substandard permits? PIP or STSP and Intern Credentials? scored lowest across the three subscales of the TSES, although those with Intern Credentials had a higher mean score on the three subscales. Highest mean scores belonged to those with Clear Credentials on the Instructional Strategies (M = 59.72) and Classroom Management (M = 58.69) subscales, and to those with Preliminary Credentials on the Student Engagement subscale (M = 56.64). Table 7 illustrates the results of the one-way ANOVA analysis of special educators? self-efficacy ratings by credential status. Among those on substandard authorizations, including those on PIP/STSP authorizations, Intern Credentials, as well as those with Intern and Preliminary Credentials no significant differences emerged distinguishing special educators? self-efficacy ratings on the subscale of Student Engagement (p=0.0001). Differences emerged among special educators? self-efficacy ratings as a function of certification status on the Student Engagement subscale between those with PIP/STSP authorizations and those with Preliminary Credentials. Differences also emerged between the groups of PIP/STSP authorization and Clear Credential holders. On the Instructional Strategies subscale, differences emerged between those with PIP/STSP authorizations and Preliminary Credential holders (as well as between those with PIP/STSP authorizations and Clear Credential holders. Additionally, a significant difference emerged between the groups of Clear Credential holders and Interns. No differences characterized special educators? self-efficacy ratings as a function of certification status on the Classroom Management subscale (p=0.0006). Table 8 demonstrates the post-hoc results from the Games-Howell analysis, including significant differences for special educators? self-efficacy ratings as a function of credential status. Significant differences emerged in comparisons of the PIP/STSP authorization and Preliminary Credential groups (p = 0.014), PIP/STSP authorization and Clear Credential groups (p = 0.036), and Intern and Preliminary Credential groups (p = 0.027). Discussion The research reported herein addresses a lack of research regarding efficacy among a new subset of teachers: those with PIPs and STSPs. The results supported the hypotheses that Intern Credential holders would demonstrate greater self-efficacy than those employed on substandard 7 Demographics Frequency Percent PIP or STSP 11 11.1 Intern Credential 12 12.1 Preliminary Credential 17 17.2 Clear Credential 59 59.6 TSES Factors Levene Statistic df1 df2 p Student Engagement 1.77 3 95 0.157 Instructional Strategies 1.04 3 95 0.375 Classroom Management 1.30 3 95 0.276 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY8 N M SD SE 95% Confidence Lower Upper Student Engagement PIP/STSP 11 44.81 9.99 3.01 38.10 51.53 Intern 12 48.33 7.93 2.29 43.29 53.37 Preliminary 17 56.64 5.62 1.36 53.75 59.53 Clear 59 54.89 9.17 1.19 52.50 57.28 Instructional Strategies PIP/STSP 11 47.45 11.12 3.35 39.97 54.93 Intern 12 49.91 7.19 2.07 45.34 54.48 Preliminary 17 57.58 5.95 1.44 54.52 60.65 Clear 59 59.72 8.96 1.16 57.39 62.06 Classroom Management PIP/STSP 11 50.09 12.34 3.72 41.80 58.38 Intern 12 51.16 9.41 2.71 45.18 57.15 Preliminary 17 58.35 6.20 1.50 55.16 61.54 Clear 59 58.69 9.28 1.20 56.27 61.11 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for TSES Scales x PIP/STSP, Intern, Preliminary or Clear SS df MS F p* Student Engagement Between Groups 1428.50 3 476.16 6.39 0.0001 Within Groups 7075.57 95 74.48 Total 8504.08 98 Instructional Strategies Between Groups 2045.93 3 681.97 9.20 0.000 Within Groups 6039.42 95 74.09 Total 9085.35 98 Classroom Management Between Groups 1128.69 3 376.23 4.40 0.0006 Within Groups 8116.96 95 85.44 Total 9425.65 98 Table 7: ANOVA Results for TSES Scales x Credential Status Notes.* Significance p= 0.5 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY authorizations, but that those with valid credentials (Preliminary or Clear) would report the highest self-efficacy ratings. The differences in self-efficacy as a function of credential status was not surprising as comparable differences emerged in studies comparing pre- and in-service teachers (Bet & Erg, 2015; Sak, 2015), a pattern which suggests that training and experience inform improvements in self-efficacy. However, the disparity uncovered in this analysis proved troubling because those reporting lower self-efficacy were already serve as teachers, pointing to poor outcomes (Chestnut & Cullen, 2014; Coladarci, 1992; Hoy & Spero, 2005; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Meijer & Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993) involving those employed with substandard authorizations. Limitations This research study had notable limitations including the low representation of those working under substandard authorizations. A smaller group of substandard authorization holders may fail to demonstrate the range and degree of characteristics of the larger group. The recent emergence and overwhelming reliance of substandard authorization holders accentuates the need to include more of those teachers and to remain attentive to longitudinal changes in characteristics. The small sample size limits generalization to teachers across the region or state but may still inform future and larger research. Future Research Besides devising future research endeavors to address the limitations listed above, a number of additional questions present themselves, two of which follow. Previous research suggests a malleability in teacher self-efficacy in the context of professional preparation programs, but a dearth of evidence limits understanding of the prospects of those who may not be engaged in a professional preparation program. While it stands 9 Comparison Md SE p 95% Confidence Lower Upper Student Engagement PIP/STSP Intern -3.51 3.78 0.790 -14.15 7.12 PIP/STSP Preliminary -11.82 3.30 0.014 -21.43 -2.22 PIP/STSP Clear -10.08 3.24 0.036 -19.56 -0.59 Intern Preliminary -8.31 2.66 0.027 -15.82 -0.80 Intern Clear -6.56 2.58 0.088 -13.88 0.75 Preliminary Clear 1.74 1.81 0.770 -3.09 6.59 Instructional Strategies PIP/STSP Intern -2.46 3.94 0.0923 -13.68 8.76 PIP/STSP Preliminary -10.13 3.65 0.064 -20.77 0.50 PIP/STSP Clear -12.27 3.55 0.020 -22.77 -1.79 Intern Preliminary -7.67 2.52 0.030 -14.72 -0.61 Intern Clear -9.81 2.38 0.003 -16.51 -3.10 Preliminary Clear -2.14 1.85 0.660 -7.12 2.84 Table 8: Games-Howell for TSES Scales x Credential Status JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY to reason that substandard authorization holders may demonstrate improved self-efficacy comparable to pre-service teachers and subsequent to training, the need to appraise the extent and conditions of that improvement remains. Another research need related to this topic includes demonstrating the impact of training on the self-efficacy of substandard authorization holders. The pursuit of this inquiry reflects the understanding that desirable outcomes such as improved student learning and teacher retention also result from efficacy enhancements. Future research that explores short- and long-term outcomes of self-efficacy improvements will serve to validate the attention to efficacy among substandard authorization holders and advance research on that topic. Conclusion An intention of pursuing this inquiry included the aspiration to identify a means of improving the efficacy of the broadened pathway to a teaching credential, namely enhancing the abilit ies of those participating in the pathway to persist to success. The results of this study suggested that, as a group, those employed on substandard authorizations reported lower self-efficacy. Fortunately, teacher self-efficacy can improve, especially among those nascent to the field (Bandura, 1997; Swan, 2015; Winters, 2012). The use of the TSES in approaching this inquiry proved helpful by identifying three particular domains in which interventions might initiate: student learning, classroom environment, and instructional strategies. It follows that improving self-efficacy of those on substandard authorizations might improve their retention in teaching careers (Swan, 2015). Broadening the pathway to a teaching career potentially serves schools, aspiring teachers, and students. However, a pathway that only collects more individuals to staff classrooms will exacerbate rather than remediate issues in education. This inquiry intended to demonstrate ways in which the broader pathway to a teaching credential can be optimized. While teacher preparation programs face no onus to provide support to individuals employed on PIPs or STSPs and districts face relatively litt le external pressure to do so (Sandy, 2016), all stakeholders? teacher preparation program administrators, school administrators, district administrators, and the teacher who holds a substandard authorization? benefit form collaboratively addressing the low efficacy reported among teachers employed on substandard authorizations. 10 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultant. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86?95. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401 700203 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, New York: Freeman and Company. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass-Golod, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140432.pdf Bet, F., & Erg, M. (2015). The comparison of teacher self-efficacy beliefs between pre-service preschool teachers and preschool teachers. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(3), 297?315. Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519?539. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342492 Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. P. W. A. (2010). Is the motivation to become a teacher related to pre-service teachers? intentions to remain in the profession? European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 185?200. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02619760903512927 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2015). Teacher supply in California: A report to the legislature annual report 2013-2014. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/co mmission/reports/ts-2013-2014-annualrpt.pdf? sfvrsn=2bdb8188_0 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). Teacher supply in California: A report to the legislature annual report 2015-2016. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579161.pdf California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (n.d.). California educator supply. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/ reports/data/edu-supl-landing Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers? professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 115?132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011- 0069-2 Carver-Thomas, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). California special education teacher shortages title grow more severe. Learning Policy Institute. https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ california-special-education-teacher-shortages- brief Chestnut, S. R. & Cullen, T. (2014). Effects of self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and perceptions of future work environment on preservice teacher commitment. The Teacher Educator, 49(2), 116-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887168 Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers? sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323?337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992. 9943869 Darling-Hammond, L., Furger, R., Shields, P. M., & Sutcher, L. (2016). Addressing California?s emerging teacher shortage: An analysis of sources and solutions. Learning Policy Institute. http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov /files/ learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_ shortage.pdf Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The teachers? sense of efficacy scale: Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 827?834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004 Fall, A. M. (2010). Recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education teachers for 11 https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401
700203 https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401
700203 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140432.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342492 https://doi.org/
10.1080/02619760903512927 https://doi.org/
10.1080/02619760903512927 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579161.pdf https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/
reports/data/edu-supl-landing https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/
reports/data/edu-supl-landing https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-
0069-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-
0069-2 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/
product/california-special-education-teacher-
shortages-brief https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/
product/california-special-education-teacher-
shortages-brief https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/
product/california-special-education-teacher-
shortages-brief https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887168 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.
9943869 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.
9943869 http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov
/files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_
shortage.pdf http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov
/files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_
shortage.pdf http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov
/files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_
shortage.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY high-poverty districts and schools: Recommendations for educational leaders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(2), 76?83. Fideler, E., Foster, E., & Schwartz, S. (2000). The Urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and supply in the Great City Schools (ED438340). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438340 Fish, W. W., & Stephens, T. L. (2010). Special education: A career of choice. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 400-407. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the factor structure of the Teachers? Sense of Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 118?134. https://doi.org /10.1080/00220970903224461 Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343?356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of a Teachers? Self-Efficacy Scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67?76. Klassen, R., Tze, V., Betts, S., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21?43. Klassen, R., & Durksen, T. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33(10), 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05. 003 Leard Statistics. (2015). Independent-samples t-test using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York, New York: Prentice Hall. Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 378-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200309 Müller, E., & Markowitz, J. (2003, April). Supply and demand of special education professionals, (Issue Brief No. 38). http://nasdse.org/Desktop Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles /208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4 .pdf Miller, D. M., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 201?218. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500206 Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., Scott, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). California?s special education teacher shortage. Learning Policy Institute. https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org /sites/default/ files/product-files/PACE_Special_ Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 247-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671. 1993.9941836 Putman, S. M. (2012). Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice teachers with different levels of experience. Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 26?40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642285 Roach, A. (2009). Teacher burnout: Special education versus regular education. https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/810/ Sak, R. (2015). Comparison of self-efficacy between male and female pre-service early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 185(10), 1?12. doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1014353 Sandy, M. (2016, January 8). Re: Employer responsibilities for teachers serving on provisional Intern Permits, and Short-Term Staff Permits, and Intern Credentials [Memorandum to school districts].https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default- 12 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438340 https://doi.org
/10.1080/00220970903224461 https://doi.org
/10.1080/00220970903224461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.
003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.
003 https://statistics.laerd.com https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200309 http://nasdse.org/Desktop
Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles
/208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4
.pdf http://nasdse.org/Desktop
Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles
/208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4
.pdf http://nasdse.org/Desktop
Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles
/208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4
.pdf http://nasdse.org/Desktop
Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles
/208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4
.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500206 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
/sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_
Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
/sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_
Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
/sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_
Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.
1993.9941836 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.
1993.9941836 https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642285 https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/810/ https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01-
employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe
_0 JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01- employer-responsibilit ies.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe _0 Scherer, R., Jansen, M., Areepattamannil, S., & Marsh, H. (2016). The quest for comparability: Studying the invariance of the teachers? sense of self-efficacy (TSES) measure across countries. PLoS ONE, 11(3). http:// journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone. 0150829 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional, exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 7(13), 1785?1799. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182 Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 66?81. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700105 Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute. https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ coming-crisis-teaching Swan, B. G. (2015). Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agriculture Education, 52(2), 128?139. Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 233?238. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001a). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783?805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(01)00036-1 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001b). Teachers? sense of efficacy scale 1 (long form). Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 783?805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202?248. https://doi.org/10.3102 /00346543068002202 Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your special education teachers. Principal Leadership, 5(5), 35?38. Whitaker, S. D. (2001). Supporting beginning special education teachers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(4), 1?18. Winters, B. (2012). An investigation of pre-service teachers? perceptions of personal and general teaching efficacy prior to and following student teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). https://digitalcommons.uncfsu. edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/ Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers? sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81?91.https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022- 0663.82.1.81 Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981?1015. https://doi.org/10.3102 /0034654315626801 13 https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01-
employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe
_0 https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01-
employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe
_0 https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01-
employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe
_0 http://journals.plos
.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.
0150829 http://journals.plos
.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.
0150829 http://journals.plos
.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.
0150829 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182 https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700105 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
coming-crisis-teaching https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
coming-crisis-teaching https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1 https://doi.org/10.3102
/00346543068002202 https://doi.org/10.3102
/00346543068002202 https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.
edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/ https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.
edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/ https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1
.81 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1
.81 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1
.81 https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1
.81 http://Review of Educational Research, 86 http://Review of Educational Research, 86 http://Review of Educational Research, 86 http://Review of Educational Research, 86 http://Review of Educational Research, 86 https://doi.org/10.3102
/0034654315626801 https://doi.org/10.3102
/0034654315626801 Johnson & Jones (2021) Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13