Preliminary Effects of CARE: A Mindfulness-Based Program for Special Education Teachers

• In Event: Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Teachers: Mechanisms of Effect and Teacher Outcomes

Abstract

Introduction. Special education teachers (SETs) experience elevated levels of stress and burnout, leading to high attrition rates and decreased instructional effectiveness (Brunsting et al., 2014). Evidence suggests that integrated training in self-awareness, emotional regulation, interpersonal skills and stress-coping strategies is critical to preventing and mitigating SET burnout (Benn et al., 2012). However, existing programs lack robust empirical evidence within special education contexts. CARE is a mindfulness-based professional development program designed to enhance teacher well-being and social-emotional competence. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the CARE program on elementary SETs’ well-being, instructional efficacy and classroom organization.
Methods and data sources. Preliminary findings are drawn from the first two cohorts, consisting of 49 elementary SETS (26 treatment, 23 control) recruited from 4 school districts in the Southeastern U.S. during 2022-2024 academic years. Quantitative data was collected by self-report surveys assessing a range of outcomes. Key measures included the Five Facet Mindfulness Scale (Baer et al., 2006; α=.74–.92), Interpersonal Mindfulness Scale (Frank et al., 2016; α=.70–.83), Emotion regulation scale (Gross & John, 2003; α=.75–.89), Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; α=.81–.92), the PROMIS Sleep Disturbance Questionnaire (Buysse et al., 2010; α = .87), Maslach Burnout Inventory: Educator Survey (Maslach, 1997; α=.64 –.87), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (Spitzer et al., 2006; α=.91), the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983; α=.70), the Patient Health Questionnaire (Kroenke et al., 2008; α=.87), Time Urgency Scale (Conte et a;., 2001; α=.51–.89). Distress Tolerance (Simons & Gaher, 2005; α=.52–.79). ANCOVA was employed to examine between-group differences on teacher outcomes, controlling baseline levels. Classroom improvement was assessed through video-recorded observations of teacher–student interactions, independently rated by trained coders using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta et al., 2008).
Results. Preliminary analyses suggest a pattern in which CARE’s impact may first emerge in teachers’ internal self-regulatory capacities, serving as foundational mechanisms for observable and long-term changes in SETs’ well-being metrics. Teachers in the intervention group reported significantly greater total self-efficacy (p = .041, d = 0.12), with efficacy in student engagement approaching significance (p = .073, d = 0.09). Regarding mindfulness, CARE participants demonstrated significantly higher levels of non-reactivity (p = .034, d = 0.12), a key mechanism of mindfulness that supports emotional regulation, and marginal improvements in interpersonal mindfulness (p = .076, d = 0.09). Emotion regulation also showed gains with marginally higher cognitive reappraisal scores (p = .083, d = 0.08) in the treatment group. Additionally, CARE teachers reported better stress regulation, reflected in improved distress appraisal (p = .057, d = 0.11) and reduced hurried speech patterns under time pressure (p = .044, d = 0.11). Although no significant group differences emerged in physical health or psychological well-being such as anxiety or depression, the directional trend favored the intervention group and aligns with CARE’s emphasis on teachers’ mindfulness, well-being, and relational presence. Classroom observation coding is ongoing and will be included in future analyses.

Authors

• Jennifer L. Frank, Pennsylvania State University

• Andrew T. Roach, Georgia State University

• Deborah L. Schussler, University at Albany - SUNY

• Sebrina L. Doyle Fosco, Pennsylvania State University

• Xiaoxuan Li, Pennsylvania State University

• Catherine Jantzer, Pennsylvania State University