Educational Psychology

Vol. 29, No. 4, July 2009, 407–424

Special education teachers under stress: evidence from a Greek

national study
Constantinos M. Kokkinos* and Aggeliki M. Davazoglou

Department of Primary Education, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece

(Received 11 September 2008; final version received 15 April 2009)
Taylor and Francis
10.1080/01443410902971492
CEDP_A_397321.sgm

The present study examines the sources of job stress in a national sample of 373
Educational
0144-3410
Research
Taylor
2009
kkokkino@eled.duth.gr
CostantinosKokkinos
0000002009
00 & Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Psychology (online)

Greek special education teachers, using a self-report questionnaire assessing job

stress, its perceived sources, and its demographic and professional characteristics.
Although the participants in general considered their job moderately stressful, they
felt stressed by issues concerning the special needs child, such as the child’s
progress, safety, and social development. More than half of the teachers indicated
that teaching children with autism poses major stress to them, followed by
teaching students with behavioural and emotional difficulties. Regression analysis
showed that the implementation of the special educational curriculum was the
most important predictor of job stress, followed by the social and academic
progress of children. The implications of these findings for in-service and pre-
service teacher preparation, support, and awareness-raising regarding job stress
are discussed.
Keywords: stress; sources; stressors; special education; teachers

The literature on teacher stress is a relatively small subset of a much larger effort to
investigate the effects of job stress in various occupations and settings. Among the
most comprehensive definitions of occupational stress is that of Beehr and Newman
(1978), who define the phenomenon as a condition wherein job-related factors interact
with the worker to change – either disrupt or enhance – psychological or physiological
conditions such that the individual’s mind and/or body are forced to deviate from
normal functioning. One of the variables that has been taken into consideration in
teacher stress research is within-occupation variance, which assumes that different
occupational titles subsume many heterogeneous work functions, which are associated
with different degrees of job strain. Teachers are not a homogeneous group; they are
faced with different challenges, demands, and rewards depending on the type of
school they work in (public or private, urban or rural), whether the students are in
college or in kindergarten, whether the students have special educational needs (SEN)
or not, and so on. Indeed, international research has documented high levels of stress
among special education (SE) teachers in relation to their job responsibilities and to
teacher attrition in SE (e.g., Billingsley, 2004; Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Wisniewski
& Gargiulo, 1997).
The literature presents conflicting evidence regarding the amount of stress experi-
enced by SE teachers, especially with comparison to regular classroom teachers. For

*Corresponding author. Email: kkokkino@eled.duth.gr

ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410902971492
http://www.informaworld.com
408 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

example, while Cherkes and Fimian (1982) reported greater occupational stress in SE
teachers, Kyriacou (1987) and Trendall (1989) found that teachers in special schools
reported being less stressed in their working environment than their mainstream
school colleagues. Moreover, Williams and Gersch (2004) found no overall difference
in the total level of stress experienced by mainstream and special school teachers.
Research findings from US studies paint a similar picture, with some researchers
reporting higher levels of stress among SE teachers and others reporting the opposite,
while yet others report no differences between special and general classroom teachers
(Billingsley & Cross, 1992). These variations in results can be partly attributed to
different sociocultural and educational contexts, measuring instruments, and methods
of investigation. The lack of precise definitions of stress, as well as the apparent dearth
of models of stress processes for SE teachers, should not be ignored, although it might
be the case that stress is not susceptible to a comprehensive and formal definition
(May, 1996).
A review of the job stress literature makes clear that the terms stressors, stress,
strain, and burnout should be distinguished from each other. Job stressors can be
defined as the work-related environmental conditions or exposures that can potentially
affect the psychological, social, and physiological health of an individual (Hurrell,
Nelson, & Simmons, 1998). Stressors can be measured subjectively (i.e., a worker’s
perceptions of the environment) or objectively (i.e., actual characteristics of the
environment). The negative psychological, social, physical, and behavioural outcomes
associated with exposure to stressors are described by the term strain (Hurrell et al.,
1998), which is the negative consequence of stress (Koeske & Koeske, 1993). The
ultimate response to frequent and intense periods of stress is burnout, which is defined
as a negative psychological experience in response to chronic job-related stress,
particularly in jobs where individuals work with people (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter,
1996). It should be noted, however, that burnout is differentiated from stress by its
long-term rather than episodic quality, and there is a suggestion of almost clinical
severity, such that the sufferer will not recover without help.
The literature provides extensive information on the variables that contribute to the
complexity of the work environment in SE and the specific conditions that SE teachers
report as stressful. Research so far has identified numerous sources of stress in SE
teachers. Administration and paperwork, discipline, contacts with parents, working
with other teachers, disruptive pupils, and overcrowded classrooms were among the
most frequently cited (e.g., Karr & Landerholm, 1991). Williams and Gersch (2004),
for example, found that teachers in special schools were stressed by the lack of equip-
ment necessary to teach the range of pupils and to meet their diverse needs. Apart
from the organisational issues and the professional interactions, a lack of appropriate
professional training and difficulties in meeting the needs of SEN children have also
been identified by the research as sources of stress (Wisniewski & Gargiulo, 1997).
Koeske and Koeske (1993) classified SE teachers’ sources of stress into four domains:
organisational, interpersonal, training, and instructional. Billingsley (2004), in a
comprehensive thematic analysis of studies investigating possible contributory factors
to SE teachers’ attrition and retention, suggested that work environment factors, such
as low salaries, poor climate, lack of administrative support, and role problems, can
lead to negative affective reactions such as high levels of stress, low levels of job satis-
faction, and reduced organisational and professional commitment, which in turn could
lead to withdrawal and eventually attrition. Morvant, Gersten, Gillman, Keating, and
Blake’s (1995) qualitative study of SE teachers’ intentions to leave found that almost
 Educational Psychology 409

80% of those who planned to leave indicated that they felt under a great deal of stress
on a weekly or daily basis, compared to just over half of the stayers. Leavers also
indicated significantly more frequent stress than stayers, arising from the range of
students’ needs and abilities, bureaucratic requirements, and conflicting expectations,
goals, and directives.
Research evidence regarding characteristics of SE teachers, such as gender and
marital status, has found that these do not appear to affect their stress levels or
commitment to the field (e.g., Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Pullis, 1992). However,
findings regarding teacher training and experience are more ambiguous. Novice SE
teachers described themselves as insufficiently prepared, frustrated, and exhausted in
an interview study conducted by Kilgore and Griffin (1998), a finding that has also
been reported by Rosenberg, O’Shea, and O’Shea (1998). On the contrary, experi-
enced SE teachers reported lower levels of stress (e.g., Fogarty et al., 1999), probably
due to the fact that they have developed ways to defuse the frustrations of everyday
work hassles. Teachers entering the profession bring expectations about their duties
and roles, and failure to meet these expectations may become their reason for leaving
the field (Bandura, 1989). Indeed, role conflict and role ambiguity have emerged as
among the most important organisational work conditions that constitute major
sources of stress among SE teachers (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997).
Role conflict occurs when a teacher’s roles and responsibilities conflict with the
realities of daily professional life, whereas role ambiguity occurs when a teacher has
insufficient information to carry out professional responsibilities adequately (Boe
et al., 1997).
It is worth noting, however, that a teacher’s personal responses and adaptations to
job demands are what eventually determine the significance of a potential stressor,
rather than the actual situation itself. Moreover, although the research literature on
stress in SE teachers does not seem to point up crisis levels, the results of many studies
suggest that this population needs to be continuously monitored due to peaks of
stressful feelings.

The case of Greece

There have been various changes in educational legislation in Greece regarding the
education of children with SEN during the past 25 years: laws 1143/81 (Official
Government Gazette, 80, v.A’/31-3-81), 1566/85 (Official Government Gazette, 167,
v. A’/30-9-1985), 2817/2000 (Official Government Gazette, 78, v.A’/14-3-2000), and
more recently 3699/2008 (Official Government Gazette, 199, v. A’/2-10-2008). The
two most recent reaffirm the right of SEN children to be normally educated in main-
stream schools from the age of four, unless the type and severity of their difficulties
do not make that possible. In this case, SEN children can be alternatively educated, in
special schools (ranging from nursery to senior high schools, technical vocational
lyceums and laboratories), in integration classes situated and operating within regular
schools, in classes or groups functioning as branches of hospitals and clinics or other
institutions for SEN individuals, and, in extreme cases, at home. Teachers who work
in these contexts are either SE degree holders or are general education teachers with
additional postgraduate training in SE.
Although much teacher stress and burnout research has been carried out interna-
tionally since the late 1970s, Greek studies investigating these issues in teachers are
limited, with those researching stress in teachers of SEN children being disappointingly
410 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

sparse, unsystematic, and fragmentary. However, the existing evidence points to

moderate to low levels of stress; in terms of job burnout, SE teachers do not seem to
experience alarming levels of stress (e.g., Kokkinos & Davazoglou, 2008; Lazuras,
2006; Platsidou & Agaliotis, 2008), especially when compared to their North American
colleagues.
There are, to our knowledge, two published research studies that investigated the
sources of stress experienced by SE teachers in Greece. The first was conducted by
Lazuras (2006), and found that among the stressors reported by SE teachers that
potentially constrain their performance were stressors relating to organisational
aspects of their work, such as the organisational structure, lack of information about
what to do and how to do it, poor supervision, and weak bonds among colleagues. The
second, by Platsidou and Agaliotis (2008), found that instruction in a heterogenous
classroom, daily curriculum activities organisation and implementation, assessment of
students with SEN, and collaborations with other SE experts, parents, and colleagues
were the most stressful instructional assignment-related factors reported by a sample
of SE teachers, but still not in an overwhelming manner. It should be noted, however,
that both studies were conducted in northern Greece with non-representative samples.
The provision of an appropriate education for SEN students is dependent upon
well-prepared SE teachers. Inadequate working conditions, or poorly designed jobs,
may threaten the quality of the education offered. In order to address specific concerns
associated with SE teachers’ working conditions, a greater understanding of these
conditions is necessary. As there is such limited research into SE teachers’ sources of
occupational stress in Greece, the present study set out to address this gap. In addition,
an exploration of SE teachers’ occupational stressors may raise teachers’ and
policymakers’ awareness, and could assist them in addressing and reducing the stress
inherent in SE teachers’ jobs, thus improving their wellbeing.
The objectives of the study were to identify the environmental factors that impinge
on Greek SE teachers’ work in SE units and to investigate the relationships between
these factors, overall teacher job stress, and teachers’ background variables. A second-
ary aim of the study was to identify the SEN categorical groups that cause more stress
for SE teachers. Finally, the study examines the relative importance of both teacher
background and stressor variables to overall job stress, by assessing their predictive
utility.

Method
Sample and procedure
The researchers targeted a national sample of approximately one-third of public
school full-time teachers working in various SE contexts – special schools and inte-
gration classes from all levels of education, across all the educational districts in
Greece. It should be noted, however, that classes are heterogeneous and not organised
around the nature of students’ disability, and therefore the data were not collected on
the basis of SEN category.
Schools were randomly selected from the official directory of the Ministry of
National Education and Religious Affairs. More specifically, during the school year
2004–2005, 1453 SE school units were operating in Greece: 1273 for primary school
pupils, 45 for nursery pupils, and 138 for students attending junior high school,
lyceums, and vocational laboratories. The 1200 questionnaires were mailed to 484
schools representing one-third of the SE school units operating in Greece. A total of
 Educational Psychology 411

373 teachers completed and returned the survey (31% response rate), 40 (11%) from
nursery, 315 (85.5%) from primary, and 13 (3.5%) from secondary schools, while five
(1.3%) had missing data for this question. In all, 161 male teachers (43%) and 212
female teachers (57%) participated. In terms of experience in SE, 205 (56.6%)
teachers had one to five years of teaching experience, 75 (20.7%) had six to 10 years,
and 82 (22%) had more than 11 years, while 11 teachers (2.9%) did not report their
experience in teaching. Most of the participants did not hold an administrative post
(274 or 75.7%), while 33 (9.1%) were head teachers and 12 (3.2%) were deputy heads,
and 43 (11.9%) participants did not report their administrative status. Compared to the
202 (54.2%) teachers with only an undergraduate degree in teaching, 171 (45.8%) had
a postgraduate degree in SE. In terms of marital status, 267 (71.8%) were married, 81
(21.8%) were single, 20 (5.4%) were divorced, and five (1.4%) teachers did not
provide any data on this question.
Surveys were delivered by courier to schools, and were distributed at faculty meet-
ings during the second semester of the school year 2004–2005. A return mail envelope
was provided, and respondents were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of
their responses via a cover letter. The completed questionnaires were mailed directly
back to the second author.

Measures
Special Educators’ Sources of Stress Inventory (SESSI)
This 72-item scale was developed to measure work-related events and situations that
can cause stress to SE teachers. The 72 items represent a wide range of work situations
that have been documented in previous international research or emerged from either
informal or formal pre-survey interviews conducted with a selected number of
teachers working in SE contexts. It is worth mentioning that there is a dearth of stan-
dardised measures in this particular area in Greek; therefore, the development of a new
scale was deemed appropriate. Participants indicate the level of stress experienced on
a five-point scale (from 1 = ‘no stress’ to 5 = ‘extremely stressed’). Items on the
SESSI assess four broad, theoretically-defined domains of work-related stressors:
professional interactions (with school personnel and parents), performance pressure,
organisational constraints (workload, lack of time), and professional and personal
competence. While items were not adapted from an existing scale, they achieved high
reliability as one scale (alpha = .97).

SEN categorical groups

The 10 most common SEN categorical groupings were provided to participants, who
were asked to indicate which was the most stressful to teach. Respondents could indi-
cate as many groups as they wanted. A category was coded 1 if selected, and 0 if not.

Level of job stress

A summary measure of job stress was used to tap the overall level of work stress.
Participants had to answer the question ‘Overall, how stressful do you find your job?’
on a 10-point scale (from 1 = ‘not at all stressful’ to 10 = ‘extremely stressful’).
Although the reliability of scores on a single-item measure could not be estimated,
other general single-item measures have proved useful (e.g., Yan & Tang, 2003). In
412 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

addition, despite the fact that sum scales are generally considered more valid than
single-item measures, validity research has shown that single-item stress measures can
be valid on the group but not on the individual level (Vartia, 2001).

Teacher demographic and professional data

Participants were asked to indicate their gender, age, educational attainment, school
level taught, years of teaching experience, marital status, and administrative status.

Results
Sources of job stress
Examination of the mean ratings for each one of the 72 items revealed that the top five
job stressors for SE teachers were: lack of progress by the children (M = 3.41), respon-
sibility for children during outdoor activities (M = 3.40), the demands of continuous
supervision (M = 3.37), uncertainty about not meeting children’s special educational
needs (M = 3.38), and finally children’s social development.

Construct validity of the SESSI: factor structure

To examine the factor structure of the SESSI, exploratory factor analysis with
principal components extraction was used, given the lack of empirical predictions.
Three separate analyses were run. First a constraint four-factor solution was requested
in order to verify the theoretically-constructed dimensions of the scale. Second, all 72
items were factor analysed with no a priori specification of the factor number. Third,
a second-order factor analysis was conducted in order to uncover any pattern of rela-
tionships among the factors. The latter analysis was employed as a final attempt to
examine whether the four theoretically-constructed dimensions of the SESSI would
emerge after the items had been meaningfully clustered following the analysis at the
previous stage. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was used in all
cases. The following criteria were used to select the factors: the magnitude of the
factor loadings (not less than .30), eigenvalue greater than 1.0, and the conceptual
meaningfulness of the factor.
In the first step, a constraint four-factor solution was applied, which resulted in
four factors that explained 44.5% of the variance. All item loadings of 0.3 and above
were used to interpret the factors. The emergent factors contained items from all four
dimensions, which precluded conceptual meaningfulness.
In the second step, the 72 items of the SESSI were factor analysed. The 16 factors
extracted explained 67.5% of the variance. However, only 13 factors seemed to be
interpretable. The first factor was subjected to further factor analysis, as it appeared to
include items that clustered theoretically into two meaningful subgroupings. The final
factor solution is presented in Table 1. The 14 factors were labelled: collaboration
with various SE agents; performance pressure; professional competence; implementa-
tion of the SE curriculum; supervision and behaviour management of the SEN child;
lack of support; social and academic progress of the SEN child; personal competence
and reactions to the SEN child; lack of a specialised curriculum; parents; lack of job
satisfaction; administrative constraints; time constraints; and the safety and hygiene of
the SEN child. Internal reliabilities, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, ranged from
.89 to .61.
 Educational Psychology 413

Table 1. Loadings of work-related stressors on factors: exploratory factor analysis using a

varimax rotation.
Stressor Factor loading
Factor 1: Collaboration with various SE agents (six items)
Collaboration with the special education advisor .73
Visits of the special education advisor .70
Frequent meetings with parents .68
Collaboration with the Center for Diagnosis, Assessment, and Support .67
Relationship with the parents .65
The requirement to attend special education seminars .62
Factor 2: Performance pressure (seven items)
Work overload .74
Performance demands by others .71
The need for additional preparation at home .68
The need to show progress to colleagues .67
Continuous decision-making during class .65
Evaluation of job performance by others .57
Collaboration with other specialists (e.g., psychologists, social workers) .40
Factor 3: Professional competence (seven items)
Feeling that training has not been sufficient for teaching the special needs .82
child
Lack of specialised knowledge with regard to the different groups of .80
special needs children
Limited knowledge regarding the creation of the conditions necessary to .70
the academic success of special needs children
Uncertainty about making mistakes that can affect negatively the special .64
needs child
The difficulty of managing problem behaviour in children with special .54
needs
Uncertainty about making mistakes that will not meet children’s special .54
educational needs
When the special needs child does not show any signs of progress .47
Factor 4: The implementation of the SE curriculum (nine items)
The implementation of an individualised educational plan .61
The lack of homogeneity of the special needs in the class .61
The implementation of the creative activities section of the curriculum .55
Demands of the individualised educational plan .54
Individualised teaching .54
Demands stemming from multiple roles .46
The implementation of the learning readiness section of the curriculum .44
The preparation of the individualised educational plan .43
The allocation of children to groups during class work .40
Factor 5: Supervising and managing the behaviour of the SEN child (five
items)
Responsibility for the special needs child during break time .79
414 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

Table 1. (Continued).
Stressor Factor loading
Responsibility for the special needs child during outdoor activities .74
(excursion, visits)
Demands for continuous supervision, safety, and avoidance of accidents .72
Parental delay in picking up the special needs child at the end of the school .63
day
Managing children who call for immediate attention .41
Factor 6: Lack of support (five items)
Lack of support from colleagues .79
Lack of support from superiors .77
Collegial relationships .55
Cannot participate in decision-making for the SEN child .54
Number of pupils in the class .45
Factor 7: Social and academic progress of the SEN child (four items)
The social isolation of the special needs child .67
The social development of the special needs child .62
The academic progress of the special needs child .59
Inter-group relationships among peers .48
Factor 8: Personal competence and reactions to the SEN child (six items)
Personal reaction to the special needs child .67
Personal reaction to the special needs child’s disruptive behaviour .64
Difficulty maintaining a personal relationship with each child separately .50
The way my personal life affects my job .42
The personality of the special needs child .40
The way my job affects my personal life .37
Factor 9: The lack of a specialised curriculum (five items)
The framework of the special education curriculum .74
The lack of specialised curricula for each group of special needs children .63
The implementation of the activities of the prevocational preparedness .56
section of the curriculum
The implementation of the basic school skills section .47
The school’s infrastructure .41
Factor 10: Parents (three items)
Parents’ anxiety and concern .72
Parental attitudes towards me .64
Parental expectations .60
Factor 11: Lack of job satisfaction (four items)
The rare satisfaction I get from the special needs children’s successes .64
The slow pace of learning of special needs children .57
The lack of job recognition .54
The special needs children’s low response to learning .51
 Educational Psychology 415

Table 1. (Continued).
Stressor Factor loading
Factor 12: Administrative constraints (three items)
Too much administrative work .70
Having to implement additional projects (e.g., health or environmental .55
education)
Too much bureaucracy .47
Factor 13: Time constraints (three items)
The limited contact with the parents .65
The limited time available for the needs of each child .61
Information gathering about the special needs child .41
Factor 14: Safety and hygiene of the SEN child (three items)
Food administration to the child that cannot serve herself .63
Medicine administration .61
The development of autonomy programs (e.g. toilette, kitchen) .44

Finally, in order to uncover the pattern of relationships among the factors and to
verify the initial four-dimensional conceptualisation of work-related stressors, a
second-order factor analysis was performed with factor scores used as variables. The
14 groups of stressors were factor analysed using principal components analysis with
varimax rotation. Two factors with eigenvalues over 1 were extracted, which explained
56% of variance (Table 2). The first higher-order factor included stressors arising
from: lack of professional and personal competence; lack of job satisfaction; the social
and academic progress, safety, and hygiene of the SEN child; the implementation of
the SE curriculum; the lack of specialised curricula; and time constraints. The second
higher-order factor included stressors relating to management issues (administration,

Table 2. Factor loadings of clusters of stressors on factors: second-order exploratory factor

analysis using a varimax rotation.
Work-related sources of stress Factor 1 Factor 2
7. Social and academic progress of the SEN child .77
3. Professional competence .75
13. Time constraints .72
8. Personal competence and reactions to SEN child .71
4. Implementation of the SE curriculum .68
9. The lack of specialised curricula .62
11. Lack of job satisfaction .61
14. Safety and hygiene of the SEN child .50
2. Performance pressure .77
12. Administrative constraints .74
1. Collaboration with various SE agents .72
5. Supervision and behaviour management of the SEN child .60
6. Lack of support .56
10. Parents .53
416 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

workload, supervision, and behaviour management) and collaboration issues (with

various special education agents and parents, as well as lack of support). Since the anal-
ysis failed to support the original conceptualisation of the scale structure, the 14
subscale scores were used for subsequent analyses.
With the aim of getting a more complete view of teacher perceptions of job stress,
we examined the mean ratings and standard deviations of the 14 sources of job stress
for SE teachers. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients
for the variables under study. As is evident from the table, on average the participants
felt mostly stressed by supervising and managing the behaviour of SEN children, and
by issues relating to their professional competence. In general, the perceived level of
stress caused by the work-related stressors to SE teachers was average.

Stress related to SEN categorical groups

Special education teachers were asked to indicate which of the 10 SEN categorical
groupings were the most stressful to teach. The majority of the teachers (56.8%) indi-
cated that teaching children with autism poses major stress, followed by students with
behaviour difficulties (44.2%), ADHD (37.8%), emotional difficulties (32.7%),
mental retardation (20.9%), visual impairment (16.4%), physical disability (13.9%),
speech and language problems (11.5%), health problems (10.5%), and finally hearing
impairment (7.8%) (the sum of all these percentages exceeds 100, since a teacher
could indicate more than one SEN category).
A series of chi-square tests were conducted to examine the relationships between
SE teachers’ demographic and professional data and their reports regarding the stress
caused by teaching children belonging to each one of the SEN categorical groupings.
Married teachers (χ2 = 5.02, df = 1, p = .03), those aged 41–50 years (χ2 = 9.24,
df = 3, p = .03), and those with only an undergraduate qualification (χ2 = 7.56, df = 1,
p = .01) were more likely to report more stress arising from teaching children with
mental retardation than single teachers, those younger in age (22–30 years), and those
with a postgraduate qualification.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency for the work-related sources of stress.
Work-related stressors M SD Alpha
Supervision and behaviour management of the SEN child 3.14 .90 .83
Professional competence 3.13 .83 .89
Social and academic progress of the SEN child 3.04 .77 .75
Parents 2.91 .88 .76
Lack of specialised curricula 2.84 .79 .77
Lack of job satisfaction 2.76 .83 .74
Lack of support 2.66 .83 .74
Implementation of the SE curriculum 2.62 .73 .87
Safety and hygiene of the SEN child 2.55 .91 .62
Time constraints 2.51 .77 .61
Personal competence and reactions to the SEN child 2.45 .78 .82
Administrative constraints 2.39 .85 .63
Performance pressure 2.38 .74 .81
Collaboration with various special education agents 1.80 .69 .81
 Educational Psychology 417

Teachers with less teaching experience (χ2 = 6.43, df = 2, p = .04) and those with
postgraduate qualifications (χ2 = 4.24, df = 1, p = .04) were more likely to endorse
more stress arising from teaching children with autism. Finally, male teachers were
more likely than their female counterparts to report more stress arising from teaching
children with physical disabilities (χ2 = 5.32, df = 1, p = .02), whereas female teachers
reported more stress from children with behavioural difficulties than their male
counterparts (χ2 = 5.92, df = 1, p = .02).

Group differences in job stress and work-related stressors

In order to examine the effects of SE teachers’ demographic and professional
characteristics on work-related stressors and perceived job stress, a series of analyses
of variance (ANOVA) were performed with independent variables as follows: gender
(male vs. female), teaching experience (1–5 years vs. 6–10 years vs. more than 10 years
of teaching), family status (married vs. single), administrative post (head and deputy
head teachers vs. teachers), and educational attainment (undergraduate degree in
teacher training vs. both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees).
The average work stress level was reported to be 5.05 out of 10, indicating moder-
ate levels of job stress. There were no significant effects of any of the independent
variables on the level of job stress. An examination of the distribution ratings showed
that only 18.3% (n = 67) of all respondents reported very a high stress level (≥ 8). A
chi-square analysis was conducted to elucidate the distribution of high stress scores in
teachers’ groupings based on demographic and professional data. Results showed that
the special educator at risk of high stress is a relatively young (31–40 years) married
teacher, with only undergraduate training, and SE teaching experience of up to five
years.
A series of one-way ANOVAs were run to reveal any effects of SE teachers’
demographics on work-related sources of stress, and level of job stress. In all cases,
post-hoc comparisons were calculated using the Scheffe criterion. Women reported
more stress in relation to collaboration with SE agents (F[1,370] = 4.62, p < .05) and
lack of support (F[1,370] = 7.93, p < .01) than their male counterparts.
Family status was found to have a significant effect on SE teachers’ perceived
stress in the following work-related areas: parents (F[1,346] = 6.65, p < .05), lack of
job satisfaction (F[1,346] = 7.66, p < .05), supervision and behaviour management of
the SEN child (F[1,346] = 5.43, p < .05), and safety and hygiene of the SEN child
(F[1,343] = 8.46, p < .05). In all cases, post-hoc comparisons indicated that married
teachers reported more stress than their single counterparts.
Teachers’ educational attainment had a significant effect on the stress reported for
professional competence (F[1,371] = 4.70, p < .05), the implementation of the SE
curriculum (F[1,371] = 4.78, p < .05), support (F[1,371] = 4.89, p < .05), social and
academic progress of the SEN child (F[1,371] = 3.99, p < .05), and parents (F[1,371]
= 4.78, p < .05). Other than in the case of lack of support, where postgraduate degree-
holders reported more stress than their bachelor degree-holding counterparts, the latter
reported more stress.
Finally, in terms of SE teachers’ administrative status, teachers with no
administrative post reported more stress than deputy heads for the supervision and
behaviour management of SEN children (F[2,317] = 3.61, p < .05), whereas the
same was true in comparison with school heads for administrative constraints
(F[2,317] = 4.24, p < .05).
418 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

No significant effects were found for teacher age or amount of teaching experience.

Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlations between teachers’ perceived work-related stressors and overall
job stress are presented in Table 4. As the table shows, all the correlation coefficients
between the variables are statistically significant at the p < .01 level. The more stress
SE teachers experienced regarding the implementation of the SE curriculum, their
personal competence, and their reactions to SEN children, the more overall job stress
they reported. Similarly, the more professionally dissatisfied and the less profession-
ally competent they felt, the more stressful they perceived their job to be. In order to
elucidate these relationships further, regression analysis was used.

Predicting SE teachers’ perceived level of job stress

The relative contribution of work-related stressors to the prediction of SE teachers’
perceived job stress was assessed using hierarchical multiple regression, which was
conducted with special teachers’ perceived job stress as the criterion variable. Demo-
graphic and professional information was entered in the first step, and the 14 work
stressors at the second step. A summary of the analysis is presented in Table 5.
Overall, SE teachers’ job stress was predicted only by work-related stressors after
controlling for demographic and professional characteristics. Results showed that
stress arising from the implementation of the SE curriculum was the most important
predictor of job stress, followed by stress arising from the social and academic
progress of SEN children, teachers’ sense of personal competence and their reactions
to the SEN child, time and administrative constraints, and, finally, lack of job
satisfaction. The regression model accounted for 37% of the variance in overall SE
teachers’ job stress.

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to identify the sources of job-related stress in a
national sample of SE teachers in Greece, and to explore the associations between
these sources, teachers’ overall perceived job stress, and their background data. In
addition, the study sought to identify the SEN categorical groups that pose greater
stress to SE teachers, and the best combination of the variables under study for
predicting teachers’ reported level of job stress.
Overall, the results of the present study indicate that Greek SE teachers experience
moderate levels of job stress, a finding that confirms those of Lazuras (2006) and
Platsidou and Agaliotis (2008). A possible explanation of this finding is that teachers
of primary and secondary education in Greece hold permanent jobs which they do not
lose before retirement, as there are no official evaluations that could significantly
affect their positions. Therefore, their job and income are safeguarded, which is likely
to alleviate feelings of stress and strain.
However, the SE teacher at risk for job stress is a relatively young, married
individual, aged between 31 and 40 years, with only undergraduate teacher training
qualifications and limited experience in SE (teaching experience of up to five years).
Special education teachers with little teaching experience are more likely to become
overwhelmed by their expectations related to the mission of their job. This may be
Table 4. Pearson correlations among work-related stressors and perceived stress.
Stress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Collaboration with SE agents .25**
2. Performance pressure .40** .66**
3. Professional competence .46** .36** .57**
4. Implementation of the SE curriculum .54** .52** .66** .64**
5. Supervision and behaviour management of SEN .27** .33** .55** .48** .49**
child
6. Lack of support .23** .26** .40** .28** .34** .40**
7. Social and academic progress of the SEN child .46** .29** .40** .53** .50** .41** .31**
8. Personal competence and reactions to the SEN child .52** .49** .59** .63** .70** .48** .35** .54**
9. Lack of specialised curricula .37** .38** .49** .50** .67** .45** .36** .51** .55**
10. Parents .37** .47** .45** .41** .40** .42** .39** .46** .43** .45**
11. Lack of job satisfaction .47** .43** .59** .55** .62** .41** .36** .44** .63** .48** .46**
12. Administrative constraints .19** .38** .54** .31** .46** .44** .35** .28** .40** .48** .33** .39**
13. Time constraints .44** .29** .39** .49** .53** .30** .34** .46** .49** .48** .38** .47** .31**
14. Safety and hygiene of the SEN child .33** .33** .40** .36** .42** .47** .25** .46** .44** .42** .44** .41** .31** .34**
**p < .01
Educational Psychology
419
420 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

Table 5. Regression of overall job stress on demographic and work-related stressors.

Variables R2 Standardised β p
1. Implementation of the SE curriculum .27 .24 .000
2. Social and academic progress of the SEN child .31 .15 .008
3. Personal competence and reactions to SEN children .33 .16 .018
4. Time constraints .35 .14 .009
5. Administrative constraints .36 −.12 .014
6. Lack of job satisfaction .37 .13 .025

why SE teachers felt stressed by issues concerning the progress of the SEN child.
Specifically, they seemed to be particularly concerned by the child’s lack of progress,
responsibility for the child during outdoor activities, the demands of continuous super-
vision, and the social development of the SEN child. Since these teachers consider the
promotion of students’ academic and social growth their primary mission, it appears
quite reasonable that they may become frustrated when they do not see their goals
being accomplished.
A detailed examination of the 14 sources of stress revealed that SE teachers
perceived stress primarily arising in student-related issues, such as the supervision and
behaviour management of the SEN child, and secondarily as regards their professional
competence. It is interesting that working with SEN children and lack of professional
competence caused feelings of stress to these participants, contrary to previous
research findings (e.g., Karr & Landerholm, 1991), which revealed that working
conditions were perceived as the most important source of stress. Considering the fact
that most of the participants here were novice teachers, it seems that they are placed
in professional roles which are beyond their training. However, as Billingsley,
Bodkins, and Hendriks (1993) have reported, many special educators who choose the
work of teaching students with disabilities often do so for altruistic reasons. Therefore,
teachers should be provided with opportunities for professional development that
could encourage resourcefulness and enthusiasm towards their work.
In terms of the stress caused by certain SEN categorical groups, the majority of
teachers reported that teaching autistic children poses major stress to them, followed
by students with behaviour difficulties, ADHD, emotional difficulties, mental retarda-
tion, visual impairment, physical disability, speech and language problems, health
problems, and, finally, hearing impairment. Similarly, among others, Nichols and
Sosnowsky (2002) reported that SE teachers working with children with emotional
and behavioural disorders and students who have poor motivation reported higher
levels of stress, in comparison to those who work with students with learning
difficulties, multiple disabilities, and intellectual disability.
Results regarding the role of gender and marital status in SE teachers’ perceived
level of job stress were similar to those reported by Billingsley and Cross (1992) and
Pullis (1992); no effects were found. However, when the effects of these variables
were examined for each work-related stressor separately, results revealed that women
reported more stress in their collaboration with SE agents and more stress due to lack
of support than their male colleagues. This finding may reflect the issue of
professional interactions, which may constitute a significant source of stress. Gersten,
Keating, Yovanoff, and Harniss (2001) have suggested that when SE teachers engage
in meaningful conversations with administrators and staff about their jobs, stress is
 Educational Psychology 421

reduced. It should be reasonable to suggest that school heads need to provide relevant
professional development activities, to help SE teachers think through conflicts in the
demands of their jobs and to encourage a supportive school culture. Married SE
teachers reported more stress arising from communication with parents, lack of job
satisfaction, supervision and behaviour management, and the safety and hygiene of the
SEN child. The reasons for these findings are not evident, but the influence of other
variables such as the duration and stability of marriage, the support of the spouse, and
the number of children may be important.
Special education teachers with postgraduate qualifications reported more stress
arising from lack of support, defined as insufficient back-up from superiors and
colleagues and non-participation in the decision-making for the SEN child. This find-
ing is probably reflective of the fact that obtaining a higher degree does not change
the status of the teacher in the organisation or change their job definition, as would be
the case in other professions. Teachers with only undergraduate training reported more
stress regarding their professional competence, the implementation of the SE curricu-
lum, the social and academic progress of the SEN child, and communication with
parents. This finding confirms the fact that the SE teacher assumes all of the respon-
sibilities associated with the provision of specialised and individualised instruction,
assessment, and feedback. These job demands appear to be in conflict with the level
of teacher training, and increase teachers’ role ambiguity (which arises from having
insufficient knowledge to carry out professional responsibilities adequately). Similar
results were reported by Kilgore and Griffin (1998) and by Rosenberg et al. (1998).
Greater stress was reported by school heads as arising from the administrative
constraints posed by their job, compared to their counterparts with no administrative
post. The latter, however, reported more stress arising from the supervision and
behaviour management of the SEN child – a finding which is probably reflective of
their age and level of teaching experience, since in the Greek educational system
administrative promotion is in most cases linked to seniority in the job and not to
professional qualifications.
Correlations between teachers’ perceived level of job stress and occupational
stressors showed that the more stress SE teachers experience regarding the implemen-
tation of the SE curriculum and their personal competence and reactions to SEN
children, the more overall job stress they report. Similarly, the more professionally
dissatisfied and the less competent they feel, the more stressful they perceive their job
to be.
Results from the regression analysis revealed that perceived job stress appears to
be a result of working conditions rather than of teachers’ demographic and profes-
sional data. Indeed, the strongest predictors of overall job stress were stress arising
from the implementation of the SE curriculum and stress relating to the social and
academic progress of the SEN child. In Greece there is a Special Needs Education
Framework (SNEF; Presidential Decree 301/1996, Official Government Gazette, 208,
v. A’/29-8-1996), which constitutes the official state curriculum for SEN students.1 In
2004, the Pedagogic Institute’s Special Needs Education Department prepared, in co-
operation with national universities, supplementary curricula for each category of
pupils with SEN, which were never officially adopted. A major criticism regarding the
SNEF remains the fact that SE teachers have no specialised training regarding its
successful implementation. Therefore, SE teachers may rely upon the general
education curriculum to guide their instructional decisions, which does not permit
consideration of the individual needs of their students.
422 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

The results of the present study have implications for professional practice, in
particular for those responsible for SE teacher preparation programmes. In practical
terms, such programmes should take into account the factors identified in the present
study as contributing to SE teacher stress, such as performance pressure, supervision
and behaviour management issues, and the safety and hygiene of the SEN child. SE
teachers need to be taught organisational as well as behaviour management skills in
order to support children with special educational needs. With a broad repertoire of
skills and behaviours, they will be more likely to perform the tasks required of them
confidently and have less stressful experiences as SE teachers and more feelings of
professional achievement. Moreover, as Conderman and Katsiyannis (2002) have
suggested, the notion of a ‘shared role’ may be a possible solution, reducing SE teach-
ers’ feelings of strain. Teacher assistants, for example, can support the learning
process by assuming either non-instructional or instructional responsibilities. Finally,
raising SE teachers’ awareness of job stress, and training them in effective coping
skills, either prior to entering the teaching profession or during their first year in teach-
ing, would increase their ability to combat feelings of frustration and disappointment.
Three limitations of this research are worth mentioning. First, the current results
were based on cross-sectional data. Second, reliance on self-report measures of work-
related stressors should be treated with caution in terms of threats to internal validity,
although there is evidence suggesting that when adults report on their well-being, they
are more likely to respond honestly rather than in a socially desirable way when
responding to anonymous self-report questionnaires rather than in personal inter-
views. However, despite the fact that there was no attempt to check SE teachers’
actual working environments, stress is a subjective experience and therefore the study
assumes that teachers’ reports were authentic and expressed the reality as teachers saw
it. Finally, the study used a mail survey methodology, and although this allows for
large amounts of data to be collected with confidence, the reliance on volunteers may
have systematically influenced the results. Despite these shortcomings, the authors
believe that these results contribute to the existing body of literature on stress among
SE teachers in particular, and teachers in general.

Note
1. The purpose of the SNEF is the promotion of SEN individuals’ physical, mental, emotional,
social, moral, and aesthetic development in order to become integrated, to the maximum of
their capabilities, in the school and social environment, within a climate of equity, freedom,
security, and respect for their personality. Specific goals of the SNEF are school readiness,
basic school skills, social adjustment, creative skills, and preprofessional readiness.

References
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. Annals of Child Development, 6, 1–60.
Beehr, T.A., & Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A factor analysis, model and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31,
665–699.
Billingsley, B.S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis
of the research literature. Journal of Special Education, 38, 39–55.
Billingsley, B., Bodkins, D., & Hendriks, M.B. (1993). Why special educators leave teaching:
Implications for administrators. Case in Point, 7, 23–38.
Billingsley, B.S., & Cross, L.H. (1992). Predictors of job satisfaction and intent to stay in
teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education, 25,
453–571.
 Educational Psychology 423

Boe, E., Bobbitt, S., Cook, L., Whitener, S., & Weber, A. (1997). Why didst thou go? Predic-
tors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special and general educators. Journal of Special
Education, 30, 390–411.
Cherkes, M., & Fimian, M.J. (1982). An analysis of the relationship among personal and profes-
sional variables and perceived stress of mainstream teachers and special education teachers.
Unpublished report. Storrs, CT: Connecticut University.
Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary
special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 169–179.
Fogarty, G., Machlin, A., Albion, M., Sutherland, L., Lalor, G., & Revitt, S. (1999). Predict-
ing occupational strain and job satisfaction: The role of stress, coping, personality, and
affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 429–453.
Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. (2001). Working in special educa-
tion: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67,
549–567.
Hurrell, J.J., Jr., Nelson, D.L., & Simmons, B.L. (1998). Measuring job stressors and strains:
Where have we been, where are we, and where do we need to go. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 368–389.
Karr, J., & Landerholm, E. (1991). Reducing staff stress and burnout by changing staff expecta-
tions in dealing with parents. Unpublished position paper.
Kilgore, K.L., & Griffin, C.C. (1998). Beginning special educators: Problems of prac-
tice and influence of school context. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21,
155–173.
Koeske, G., & Koeske, R. (1993). A preliminary test of stress-strain-outcome model
for reconceptualizing the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Social Research, 17,
107–135.
Kokkinos, C.M., & Davazoglou, A. (2008, March). Burnout in special education teachers: The
role of personality and work-related stressors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational
Research, 29, 146–152.
Lazuras, L. (2006). Occupational stress, negative affectivity and physical health in special and
general education teachers in Greece. British Journal of Special Education, 33, 204–209.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd
ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
May, D. (1996). Stresses in teachers of children with special needs: past, present and future.
In G. Upton & V. Varma (Eds.), Stresses in special education needs teachers (pp 1–26).
Aldershot, UK: Arena.
Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake, G. (1995). Attrition/retention of
urban special education teachers: Multi-faceted research and strategic action planning
(Final performance report, Vol. 1) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED338154).
Nichols, A., & Sosnowsky, F. (2002). Burnout among special education teachers in self-
contained cross-categorical classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25,
71–86.
Platsidou, M., & Agaliotis, I. (2008). Burnout, job satisfaction and instructional assignment-
related sources of stress in Greek special education teachers. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 55, 61–76.
Pullis, M. (1992). An analysis of the occupational stress of teachers of the behaviorally
disordered: Sources, effects, and strategies for coping. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 191–201.
Rosenberg, M.S., O’Shea, L., & O’Shea, D. (1998). Student teacher to master teacher. New
York: Macmillan.
Trendall, C. (1989). Stress in teaching and teacher effectiveness: A study of teachers across
mainstream and special education. Educational Research, 1, 52–58.
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its
targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and
Health, 27, 63–69.
Williams, M., & Gersch, I. (2004). Teaching in mainstream and special schools: Are the
stresses similar or different? British Journal of Special Education, 31, 157–162.
424 C.M. Kokkinos and A.M. Davazoglou

Wisniewski, L., & Gargiulo, R.M. (1997). Occupational stress and burnout among special
educators: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 31, 325–346.
Yan, E., & Tang, C. (2003). The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors in
mitigating burnout among elderly Chinese volunteers. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 18, 795–802.