The Effect of Family–Educator Relationships on Special Educator Well-Being

Abstract

Educator well-being is fundamental to the success of educational systems and is linked to improved student outcomes, teacher retention, and school success. Educator well-being is a multidimensional construct that reflects flourishing and encompasses professional fulfillment, a strong sense of purpose, resilience, and a balance between relationships, individual needs, and workplace conditions. The well-being of educators is deeply rooted in the quality of their relationships. While research documents the effect of various relationships on educator well-being, the effect of family partnership on educator well-being is not well documented. The purpose of this qualitative study, which included interviews with 22 special education teachers in the US, is to explore how family partnerships affect special educator well-being. We found that trust, communication, and advocacy were aspects of relationships with their students’ families that affected special educator teacher well-being through impacting their perceived professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment. Implications are discussed.

1. The Effect of Family–Educator Relationships on Special Educator Well-Being

The demand for teachers in the United States has consistently outpaced the supply of licensed professionals over the past two decades (Garwood et al., 2018; Leko et al., 2024; Mason-Williams et al., 2020; Sutcher et al., 2019), and the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated this disparity as it intensified teacher attrition rates nationwide (CEEDAR Center & The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, 2020; Garcia & Weiss, 2020; Garwood et al., 2018; Park & Shin, 2020). Special education has been particularly affected, with attrition rates significantly higher than those in general education (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). These persistent shortages, along with teacher turnover, have a profound impact on students’ academic performance and social-emotional development (Brunsting et al., 2014; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Garwood et al., 2018; McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008; Williams & Dikes, 2015).

Given the negative repercussions of special education teacher (SET) attrition and shortages on schools and student achievement, it is essential to address the conditions that support SET retention (Brunsting et al., 2024; Fox et al., 2020; Hester et al., 2020; Leko et al., 2024). One such condition is teacher well-being, which influences teachers’ decisions to remain in the field (McCallum & Price, 2010). Teacher well-being plays a critical role in educational quality, with research showing that reduced stress and improved emotional regulation are associated with stronger student-teacher relationships and more supportive classroom environments (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Jennings et al., 2017; McCallum & Price, 2010; Weiland, 2021). In contrast, researchers have linked poor teacher well-being, characterized by stress, burnout, and emotional exhaustion, to increased attrition (Billingsley, 2007; Hagaman & Casey, 2018; Hester et al., 2020), lower instructional quality and student achievement (Herman et al., 2018; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), and a weakened school climate (Hagaman & Casey, 2018; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Furthermore, teacher attrition imposes substantial disruptions on student learning and places significant financial and operational burdens on school systems (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Sorensen & Ladd, 2020; Sutcher et al., 2019). By prioritizing the well-being of educators, schools can mitigate these challenges and strengthen the broader educational ecosystem (Fox et al., 2020; Haines et al., 2022; Walter et al., 2023b). The World Health Organization defines well-being generally as “a positive state that encompasses quality of life and the ability to contribute to the world” (World Health Organization, n.d.). Building on this foundation, emerging research conceptualizes teacher well-being as a “multidimensional construct” (Sawatske et al., 2024, p. 64), marking a departure from deficit-based models toward strengths-based perspectives that highlight the conditions necessary for teachers to thrive professionally and personally (Cann et al., 2024; Fox et al., 2020; Hartcher et al., 2023; McCallum et al., 2017; Walter et al., 2023b, 2023c; Weiland, 2021). Framed this way, teacher well-being reflects a state of flourishing that encompasses professional fulfillment, purpose, resilience, and a balance among relationships, individual needs, and workplace conditions (Cherkowski & Walker, 2016; Cherkowski, 2018; Kern et al., 2014; Keyes, 2002; Walter et al., 2023c; Weiland, 2021).

This more optimistic perspective underscores that teacher well-being is shaped by the interaction between personal experiences and contextual influences (Acton & Glasgow, 2015; Aelterman et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2020; Walter & Fox, 2021). These include both objective factors, such as workload management and administrative support, and subjective elements, such as emotional fulfillment, autonomy, and perceived professional value (Fox et al., 2020; Hartcher et al., 2023; Walter et al., 2023c). Aelterman et al. (2007) describe teacher well-being as “a positive emotional state, which is the result of harmony between the sum of specific environmental factors on the one hand, and the personal needs and expectations of teachers on the other hand” (p. 286). This dynamic equilibrium is further influenced by a schools’ organizational culture and leadership practices (Cann et al., 2022; Collie et al., 2015; Fox et al., 2020; Walter & Fox, 2021), as well as relational trust (Cann et al., 2022; Fox et al., 2020; Gu, 2014; Mansfield et al., 2016). Key facilitators, such as efficacy, school connectedness, and collegial relationships, provide teachers with crucial emotional and professional support (Renshaw et al., 2015), while supportive leadership and values-aligned inclusive school communities sustain teacher well-being (Fox et al., 2020; Walter et al., 2023c).

Teaching is inherently relational work, and the well-being of educators is deeply rooted in the quality of their relationships (Fox et al., 2020; Hartcher et al., 2023; Mansfield et al., 2016; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2024). Much of the research linking teacher well-being to relationships emphasizes connections with colleagues, administrators, and students. Studies suggest that supportive professional relationships build trust, encourage collaboration, and promote resilience and a sense of belonging (Acton & Glasgow, 2015; Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019; Fox et al., 2020; Gu, 2014; Le Cornu, 2013; Mansfield et al., 2016). For example, in their qualitative study of secondary special educators’ experiences of well-being, Fox et al. (2020) found that trusted professional relationships were the most critical factor in fostering teacher well-being. Extending this body of work, Strolin-Goltzman et al. (2024) found that relationship-oriented practices beyond the school building, including family, school, and community partnerships, reduced stress and fostered resilience, suggesting that a broader relational ecosystem may influence teacher well-being. Relationships between SETs and families can shape educators’ daily experiences in meaningful ways, contributing to increased confidence and sense of efficacy (Accardo et al., 2020; Fox et al., 2020; Schuck et al., 2023). These partnerships may promote inclusive school environments marked by a shared sense of belonging (Francis et al., 2016), an outcome associated with student achievement. In some cases, family–educator partnerships may act as protective factors that mitigate stress (Haines et al., 2022) and support teacher resilience and retention (Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2024). Although researchers continue to explore the direct impact of these relationships, their relational dynamics align with key well-being constructs, such as professional fulfillment, self-efficacy, and social belonging (Aelterman et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2020; Haines et al., 2022; Sawatske et al., 2024; Walter et al., 2023c; Weiland, 2021).

In addition to these benefits, both emerging (Haines et al., 2022; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2024) and long-standing (Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Castro et al., 2015; Francis et al., 2016) research detail the conditions that allow family–professional collaboration to thrive or falter. It is critical to note that the need and requirements for family–professional partnership are stronger within special education than in general education, since the support needs of students qualifying for special education are generally greater than those of students in general education (R. Turnbull et al., 2007). Haines et al. (2017) present the Sunshine Model as a framework for cultivating strong family–professional partnerships within inclusive school environments using a tiered model of partnership, in which partnership activities and intensities fluctuate depending on student and family circumstance. This model is grounded in the principles of communication, respect, professional competence, commitment, equality, advocacy, and trust. When educators and families uphold these principles and form reciprocal relationships, they co-construct inclusive learning environments that not only support student outcomes but may also enhance educator well-being. In contrast, when the conditions outlined by the Sunshine Model are not met, strained or adversarial relationships may increase educator stress (Fox et al., 2020; Walter et al., 2023b) and potentially compromise student progress. For example, Fox et al. (2020) found that when educators perceived a lack of trust or respect from families, particularly when families challenged their autonomy or expertise, they experienced resentment and emotional exhaustion, potentially increasing their risk for burnout. Furthermore, in their examination of SET responses to a yearlong well-being-focused professional development program, Walter et al. (2023b) reported that some teachers felt mistrusted and disrespected by families, describing these interactions as making them feel “attacked” or “threatened” (p. 4), highlighting the toll of relational conflict.

While family–educator partnerships remain underexamined in relation to SET well-being, teacher-student relationships are more widely recognized as the one of the most significant contributors to special education teachers’ well-being, providing intrinsic motivation and fulfillment in a demanding profession (Fox et al., 2020; Lesh et al., 2017; López-Estrada & Koyama, 2010; Prather-Jones, 2011). For example, Walter et al. (2023c) found that positive interactions with students were a key factor in sustaining SETs’ professional commitment. Similarly, research suggests that witnessing student growth reinforces teachers’ resilience and fosters a sense of joy (Walter et al., 2023c; Walter & Fox, 2021; Weiland, 2021). These findings raise questions about how relationships with families may similarly shape SET well-being, especially given their central role in special education contexts (R. Turnbull et al., 2007; A. Turnbull et al., 2022). Relationships between teachers and students with disabilities can be deeply impacted by family-teacher relationships.

Despite increasing attention to SET well-being (Fox et al., 2020; Hester et al., 2020; Walter et al., 2023b), studies have not yet directly examined the role of SETs’ relationships with families in shaping their well-being. Existing work has largely focused on family-teacher partnerships in relation to family and student outcomes or within the wider relational and organizational context of schools, with minimal attention given to how SETs themselves perceive these relationships as influencing their well-being. This study addresses this gap by amplifying SET voices through an exploratory qualitative approach to understanding how SETs perceive the effects of family–professional partnerships on their well-being. Our research question was: How do special education teachers perceive the effect of family relationships on their well-being?

2. Methods

Our interdisciplinary research team engaged in a collaborative process for designing the study, conducting the research, analyzing the data, and writing this manuscript. Our five-member research team includes researchers who have professional experience in special education, mental health, social work, inclusive arts integration, and multilingual learner education, including two who are parents of students with disabilities, two are currently special education teachers, two who are special education professors, and one who currently provides mental health services in special education settings. Our varied professional experiences and joint interest in the research enabled deep conversations about perspectives and biases.

2.1. Data Collection

We engaged in semi-structured interviews with SETs to understand their perceptions of the impact of family relationships on their well-being. This project received a determination of Exemption Category 2 (Surveys, Interviews, Educational Tests, or Observation) from IRB review due to the low risk of participation, and all participants provided informed consent prior to interviewing. We interviewed 22 SETs from across the United States using convenience sampling (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Given the exploratory nature of this study, we aimed to recruit a diverse sample of voices by using a sampling grid that included gender identity, geographic area of school district (rural/suburban/urban), inclusive or separate setting, license type, language groups, student grade level (elementary/secondary), and years of service (more or less than five). We recruited public school SETs from a variety of states including California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Vermont. Participants received a $50 gift card, funded by an internal grant from a university.

Table 1. Participant Demographics.

Part. #	Gender	Years of Experience	Grade Level	Context (If Described)	Identified as Bilingual	Length of Interview (Minutes)
1	Male	>5	Secondary	Urban	No	45
2	Female	>5	Elementary	Suburban	No	21
3	Female	>5	Secondary	Urban	No	38
4	Female	>5	Elementary	Urban	No	19
5	Female	<5	Elementary	Urban	Yes	35
6	Female	<5	Elementary	Urban	Yes	34
7	Female	>5	Elementary	Urban	No	104
8	Male	<5	Elementary	Urban	Yes	51
9	Female	>5	Secondary	Suburban	No	47
10	Female	>5	Secondary	Urban	No	45
11	Female	>5	Secondary	Urban	No	37
12	Female	>5	Secondary	Not desc.	No	49
13	Female	>5	Early child.	Suburban	No	56
14	Female	>5	Elementary	Urban	No	35
15	Male	<5	Secondary	Urban	Yes	48
16	Female	>5	Secondary	Rural	No	35
17	Female	>5	Elementary	Urban	no	23
18	Female	>5	Secondary	Urban	No	35
19	Male	>5	K-12	Urban	No	36
20	Female	>5	Elementary	Rural	No	27
21	Female	<5	Secondary	Rural	No	85
22	Female	>5	Secondary	Not desc.	No	45

includes participant details.

Over a period of five months (February–June 2024), we used Microsoft Teams to conduct semi-structured interviews virtually. We recorded these interviews and enabled automatic transcriptions. The semi-structured interview protocol included broad grand tour questions eliciting definitions of well-being (e.g., “In the context of school/your job, what does well-being mean to you?”, storytelling about working with families of students with disabilities (e.g., “Think about a family relationship you have had. Tell me about that relationship”), with further questions related to families of children with an emotional disability, and descriptions of how SETs perceive the influence of relationships with families on their own well-being (e.g., “How do families influence your well-being?”). We asked participants to tell us stories and then followed up with probes about the effect of relationships on their well-being, their role in relationships, families’ roles in relationships, and the typicality of the relationship. The semi-structured nature of the interviews was particularly important, as there was variation in the depth and length of our interviews. The mean duration for interviews was 43 min, with a range of 25 min to two hours. Immediately following each interview, the interviewer wrote an analytic memo documenting emerging reflections, personal relationships or reactions, and noteworthy thoughts (Saldaña, 2025). A second researcher cleaned names, locations, and other identifying information from each transcript to ensure anonymity and accuracy. This researcher also wrote an analytic memo about emerging themes, questions, and thoughts. We sent the cleaned interview to each participant and solicited their feedback on the accuracy of the transcription and the opportunity to offer additional thoughts about the topic, but no participant provided clarification or additional input.

2.2. Data Analysis

We met biweekly to discuss emerging themes and questions that arose during interviews, employing the constant comparative method of data analysis (Glaser, 1965). More formal data analysis began by merging all 44 analytic memos (22 from the interviewers and 22 from the cleaner of each interview) and reading them to create a codebook. We held a research retreat to discuss the initial codebook and define codes. With the initial codebook, two researchers individually coded three of the same transcripts and met to discuss the coding and revise the codebook (Saldaña, 2025). A second dyad of researchers used the revised codebook to code the same three transcripts, clarifying code definitions and suggesting new codes. We met to collectively review and revise the codebook. Utilizing the updated codebook, three researchers individually coded three additional transcripts. The team met again to discuss their coding process and ensure reliability among coding. We refined the codes based on this process and finalized the codebook. We then coded all transcripts using NVivo 14.

In our first cycle coding, we employed initial coding strategies by breaking down the data into major categories (Charmaz, 2014; Saldaña, 2025) to allow us to more closely analyze emerging themes for data specific to this research question. This technique enabled us to think deeply about the similarities and differences between participant stories. Two researchers coded each interview. We used 17 codes in initial coding to get a deeper understanding of our data overall. We employed second cycle coding focused on our specific research question. In this phase, we engaged in pattern coding (Saldaña, 2025) to examine how data contributed to the nuanced participant responses to our specific research question. We recognized that across the data were examples of ways family relationships contributed to SET well-being and instances that detracted from SET well-being. We organized Section 3, Findings, to illustrate the pattern codes, or themes, we identified within the data.

3. Findings

SETs recognize that the effects of family partnerships on their well-being are substantial and temporal. These dynamic partnerships are rooted in interdependent relationships that evolve over time and can either “fill” a teacher’s well-being “bucket” by offering support, respect, and trust, or “drain” it by adding stress, exhaustion, or emotional strain. Our analysis of the data explores the connections between SETs’ sense of well-being and family partnerships, highlighting two major interrelated themes. First, we found that SETs perceive that the quality of partnerships with families affects their professional effectiveness, which in turn affects their well-being. Second, we found that SETs’ sense of emotional fulfillment from their collaboration with families affects their well-being. Within these bigger categorical outcomes, we found that perceptions of communication with families, trust between families and SETs, and the alignment of both parties’ advocacy efforts affected both the professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment resulting from family-SET partnership. This process is fluid and dynamic, as illustrated in Figure 1. Before detailing the two major interrelated themes, we examine how participants define well-being.

3.1. How SETs Define Well-Being

Participants defined their sense of well-being in a variety of ways, describing personal, professional, and emotional dimensions. Common themes centered around the idea of balance and included the importance of basic needs being met, health (physical, mental, and emotional), and a sense of purpose in life. Participants described being better able to regulate emotions, manage stress, navigate personal and professional responsibilities effectively, and maintain work–life balance when experiencing increased well-being. Some participants highlighted the reciprocal nature of their professional lives as a component of well-being, describing how their well-being influenced their ability to do their jobs effectively or how their professional identity and experiences shaped their sense of well-being. In addition to personal and professional aspects, several participants discussed the emotional dimensions of well-being, emphasizing the importance of belonging, support, and positive relationships. One participant noted that well-being meant a “positive quality of life …[and] a sense of purpose” (P4). Another named it as a sense of being a “complete” and “fulfilled person” (P12).

The ideas of completeness, fulfillment, and balance lead us to frame our findings with a common analogy. Participant 7 offered the image for well-being of holding fluid in buckets, reflecting how well-being is about managing resources and emotions so that no single area becomes overwhelming or depleted. They described well-being as: “Your buckets all feel manageable. You have buckets, they’re not overflowing, there’s not holes in them. Every bucket is like, ‘yep,’ they’re on flat ground, everything’s good. We’re not spilling. We’re not overflowing” (P7).

3.2. Family Relationships Affect SET Professional Effectiveness

Participants described feeling more effective in their work when they have collaborative relationships with the families of their students. They explained that their well-being increases when they perceive that they are working together with families towards common goals. As Participant 19 stated, “You have to be supportive for the family, and you need their support in return” for your work to be most effective. Participants described how the quality and bidirectionality of trust, communication, and shared advocacy in their work with families could impact their well-being because it influenced their effectiveness in doing their job. In this section, we distinguish between trust, communication, and advocacy to represent a nuanced analysis. As shown in Figure 1, these aspects of relationships can be overlapping, fluid, and multidirectional.

3.2.1. Trust as Related to SET Professional Effectiveness

Participants reported that reciprocal trust fostered their well-being because it increased their effectiveness in supporting their students. They explained that it was important that they felt families trusted them as caring, knowledgeable professionals so they did not worry about how families perceived them. They also highlighted the importance of feeling as if they could trust families to be honest and collaborative with them. When reciprocal trust was present, participants reported that their work was more straightforward and effective. This may be because it didn’t deplete the teacher’s buckets by causing them to expend extra energy wondering about or worrying if families trusted them, and it also fills their buckets by making it easier to be effective at supporting student progress. Participants shared many stories of varying iterations of trust and how it impacted their effectiveness, which in turn affected their well-being.

Feeling that families trusted SETs to do their best and work hard on behalf of students’ success helped SETs operate without fear of perceived ineffectiveness or malfeasance. Participant 14 articulated the power of trust on their effectiveness:

The first thing we need is trust, you know. Trust that I care about your kid. Trust that I’m working hard on behalf of your kid. I guarantee I’m gonna make mistakes. I guarantee I’m gonna forget stuff. I guarantee things are gonna slip through the cracks, but at the end of the day, trust that my goals are good. You know my intentions are good, and then we can be partners, you know, if I forget a thing, let me know, or if I’m not doing something that you think your kid needs, let me know… and if I can trust you to hold up that sort of side of the relationship, then then we’re going to have success in the classroom.

Furthermore, Participant 6 noted, “They trust me…so it just makes it easier for me as a teacher.” They went on to describe how it allowed them to admit mistakes without fear of damaging the relationship:

I love my parents, and I think my parents love me back, so it’s just makes it easier for me as a teacher. Like if I make a mistake, I can just be like oops. I made a mistake here, and they’re like, okay, it’s fine, like, we know.

Similarly, Participant 1 noted, trust “impacts your ability to do your job effectively,” because it feels more like a “partnership, and then you can have conversations and even if you have tough decisions, you already know, like, ‘I know this person knows me, I know them…. And so, you…just feel better about the whole thing.”

Participants emphasized that trust impacted effectiveness by facilitating a flow between home and school. When families trust SETs, they are more likely to reinforce learning at home and share information that helps special educators better work with students by providing a more comprehensive picture of the student’s life. Participant 8 explained the importance of trust in learning more about families and students: “It’s just a lot of little threads, and then over time through more communication and… trust building. Then it comes out like, oh, well, the student last year had three med changes” [which might have affected student behavior/experiences in the classroom]. A trusting relationship between families and teachers ensures that crucial information can be exchanged to better support the student. Similarly, Participant 17 noted:

I mean, it makes my job so much easier because I’m able to… freely talk to him [student] about, you know, when I at the end of the day send a quick little text home to Nana about how your day was, you know, what do we want? Like even sometimes he helps me put the text together [to] reflect on his day. So, for me it just makes my job easier. I feel like I could do a better job knowing that we have that open communication for sure.

Furthermore, participants explained that having trust enabled vulnerability for deeper partnership, allowing SETs to provide more targeted support. Participant 12 called this experience a “ball of positive:” the positive experience of trusting relationships snowballed into more positive experiences like innovation and more targeted intervention. Participant 2 also described a direct link between trusting family partnership, their capacity to do their job, and their sense of well-being, noting:

I don’t feel like I’m fighting this fight alone to get their student where they need to be, that it’s a partnership and a collaborative effort of us working hard together for their students. So, I think to bring it all back, any type of feedback or follow through from the parents really helps my well-being.

Families’ trust in SETs can also influence the students’ trust in their special educators. As Participant 21 described, increasing trust with families can positively affect student learning, especially for students with higher support needs:

It comes down to trust and if the parents trust me, the kids are gonna trust me and kids with EBD [emotional and behavioral disorders] and trauma have next to no trust. So, they see an example of like, ‘OK, if my parents can trust you, I can too.’

On the other side, when families do not trust SETs, participants explained that it could deteriorate student trust in them or undermine their authority in the classroom, both of which make the work of an SET less effective. Participant 14 described an explicit example of “one kid who was here who said, ‘my dad says I don’t have to listen to you.’ And I was like, ‘Then what are we gonna accomplish here?’” Working against a lack of trust with the family that pervades the SET’s relationship with students makes their teaching less effective and more difficult, having a demoralizing effect on the SET’s well-being. The toll on well-being due to lack of trust with families was apparent in stories where teachers felt disrespected, frustrated, vulnerable, or anxious. These instances contributed to draining SETs’ well-being buckets. Participant 1 shared, “…Because there are times based on the nature of our jobs, where there’s gonna be disagreements…if you don’t have good relationships…I think the anxiety gets increased…you’re thinking I’m not looking forward to this meeting…” This lack of trust led to stress and anxiety. Participant 5 described how the “mental toll” of lacking trust with certain families because of past negative experiences led them to feel “less likely to even wanna have a relationship.”

Other participants described feeling “scared” to reach out to families, anticipating conflict and emotional strain due to past experiences. Some participants also noted a parallel experience for families. Participant 19 described how in both directions, “without trust, blame takes more space… There needs to be some level of trust that all of us are on the same team fighting together, not against each other.” Expending energy blaming parents is a “bucket drainer,” as is being afraid of blame for lack of student progress. These thought patterns increase SET anxiety, which drains their buckets and decreases their effectiveness. As Participant 1 explained, this anxiety can “spike so high that they take a day out of work.” Participant 15 described a culture of stress when communicating with parents when SETs anticipate pushback. Instead of creating the fear within themselves, Participant 15 suggested just talking to parents: “I think what you hear a lot from other teachers can be this fear … [about talking to families, but instead] Maybe we should also just tell Mom, right?” Teachers may anticipate pushback from parents, but Participant 15 challenged this thinking by encouraging trusting relationships to mitigate those fears.

3.2.2. Communication Related to SET Professional Effectiveness

Communication builds trust, and trust augments communication. Participants expressed that trust could facilitate communication that enabled sharing of pertinent information about the students’ experiences, goals, and family life, which supported SET effectiveness and, in turn, well-being. Participants explained that communication fostered their well-being as it helped them be effective at their work.

When trusting relationships existed, authentic, reciprocal communication occurred, leading directly to students receiving better support. Participant 12 discussed easier communication when there is trust saying, “Everybody’s gotta know what’s happening. They understand that … I’m not trying to like pry into their lives …so they’ve always been very forthcoming with, you know, family changes…”

Participants pointed out that not all communication is equally helpful. A lack of open communication hindered SET well-being as it blocked them from being effective at their work. Families’ use of abrasive language could contribute to negative feelings that result in stress and anxiety, detract from SET effectiveness and, ultimately, affect SET well-being including by increasing the cognitive load dedicated to fearing communication with families. Participant 10 explained that they know they should partner with families to best support their students but do not because of fear:

I’m afraid to contact. I’m afraid to communicate, and I know that communication, especially with the families, is my best bet, right? I mean generally to get the kids to move forward, to get support. It’s the best bet to have a good relationship, and I get nervous like, I avoid contact.

Participants expressed that families may seem adversarial, but careful communication and not taking family behavior personally can lead to stronger and more effective relationships. Participant 22 elucidated this idea:

But when…it comes to people’s children, they can get very territorial and you know, I call it the Mama Hawk comes out and they don’t care who you are if you are. If it comes down to them defending their child, then you might see all kinds of different personalities come out. So, I try to take that in consideration cause it’s not always about me.

Participant 18 described the process it sometimes takes to get to that level of trust and communication, saying:

at first it was a lot, it was overwhelming… she would reach out to me a lot. She would send me messages or emails that were very, very, very long, but at the other end I was able to create this great relationship with her where she trusted me, and I trusted her, and I could really just call her whenever I needed to.

Participant 3 reminded us that the “gap with school and community can sometimes be the fact that parents can’t be as involved as they would like to because they have other children, they work, and everybody gets the same amount of time in the day.” She goes on to say:

You have to take the quirky stuff about kids. You have to take the quirky stuff about parents. You have to realize that some parents don’t have the skills, and some parents do have the skills. If you cannot do that, then you become judgmental towards their abilities, and you cannot be effective.

In parallel to teachers holding onto past negative communications, some SETs acknowledged that families were sometimes hurt by negative experiences with school personnel that carries forward into their relationships with new SETs. Participant 21 shared a story about repairing relationship with the family her colleagues described as “that mom.” This special educator started off parent saying, “I know you have a reputation, and I don’t care, it’s a clean slate from here on… I want the basics, but I don’t want to hear all the bad stuff.” The mother expressed relief, and they were able to move forward with better communication and trust. Other participants shared similar stories of repairing relationships to build trust and facilitate the communication they needed to be effective at their job.

3.2.3. Advocacy as Related to SET Effectiveness

Participants felt particularly effective in their work when they collaborated with families to advocate for students, and this contributed to their well-being. Participants explained that effectively advocating (or perceiving their advocacy as well received) for what is best for students contributed to their well-being because they felt more effective in their work. Effective advocacy occurred when honest communication was established between SETs and families. Participant 1 shared a story when they assumed the role as advocate for a student. They felt they were able to do this effectively because the parent “tried to be the best advocate she could be.” The parent’s advocacy laid the groundwork for the teacher to continue advocating for the student and, ultimately, provide the student with an accessible education. Participant 21 shared an example of mutual trust, communication, and advocacy encouraging a family and SET to effectively collaborate. By starting off by listening and being honest with a parent who “[had] gotten silenced for so long” that she would resort to “yelling” and saying “I’m gonna call the lawyer,” Participant 21 found that establishing that trust helped them advocate together because:

She didn’t feel like she had to just call it the principals immediately and be like my kids, not getting what they need…. She could just actually work with me on it and be like, look at why isn’t this working and how can we make it work better.

Participant 7 shared a story in which their advocacy supported inclusion of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, which was well received by the family, and improved trust, the relationship, their sense of efficacy, and their sense of well-being. They told about how they ensured the student could participate in a concert by providing headphones for loud parts and taking them off for quieter sections. This simple act was a significant form of access for the student, which had been lacking in the past, and had a positive impact on her relationship with the family. Participant 7 explained that seeing their child included in such events filled the parents’ buckets, leading to increased trust in the teacher as someone who deeply cares about their child. This, in turn, helped them advocate for the student in partnership with families.

3.3. Family Relationships’ Effect on Emotional Fulfillment

The second major theme is that SET relationships with families affected their experience of emotional fulfillment in their work life, which influenced their sense of well-being. Referring to the analogy of buckets, we categorize certain interactions as “filling the buckets” or promoting well-being with positive feelings, confidence, appreciation, and connections. Conversely, sometimes SETs found challenging interactions with families to “drain” their “buckets”: causing negative feelings both in the moment and extending past the school day into personal life. In this section, we discuss how participants experienced emotions related to trust, communication, and advocacy as affecting their well-being “buckets.”

3.3.1. Trust as Related to Emotional Fulfillment

SETs discussed emotional fulfillment from trusting relationships with families as contributing to their well-being, filling their emotional “buckets,” while relationships lacking trust detracted from their well-being. Participant 13 illustrated how when families expressed trust in them as a teacher, it impacted their well-being, noting, “they both said it to me on numerous occasions that they’re like, you’re one of the only people outside of our family members that we would genuinely trust with our child. [We] know that you care for him and you want the best for him. And I was like, ‘that’s it was like touching’ because that’s what I hope that I give off for all of my students.” Participant 7 explained that a trusting relationship resulting in feeling like, “I am now part of the family, and that is a huge honor.” When participants perceived that families trusted them, they experienced improved well-being because they felt seen as “more like just a regular person as opposed to feeling like ‘I’m supposed to have all your answers’” (P5) or that they are “constantly blamed for things that are out of [their] control.” The trust that SETs sensed with families helped them feel humanized and resulted in honest and engaging relationships which felt positive. Participant 15 stated, “I feel like I can just kind of be a human and a teacher.”

SETs also discussed that when families trusted teachers, teachers perceived that they were respected, and families were open to learning from them. For example, Participant 6 reflected that she formed a closer bond with families by sharing her own story of raising a child with a disability, framing it so families focused on the potential and abilities of their children with disabilities. She shared how important reciprocal trust is; she trusts parents to know their child and be true to their word, and they feel the same way. Through this mutually trusting relationship, Participant 6 perceived that she “inspired” parents to see the potential in their own children, which had a positive impact on her well-being by making her feel good.

3.3.2. Communication as Related to Emotional Fulfilment

SETs expressed a great deal of emotional fulfillment from communication with families. Participants expressed that communication with families can affect their confidence, efficacy, anxiety levels, and overall happiness due to feelings of being connected and making a difference. Participants expressed that communication from families can affect their confidence. Some participants expressed feeling insecure about their work, especially when working with students with emotional support needs, and that families’ supportive communication boosted their confidence. Participant 10 explained this common sentiment:

Positive parent interactions… reassures people, teachers, and especially teachers with my personality of like, am I even doing anything good? I really don’t know. Maybe not… All I wanna be is a positive impact. And I worry so much that I’m not… And so, having a parent come to you and confide in you, and even…send nice emails after like, Oh, my gosh! That was so helpful. I love that. I mean it… she’s often someone that I get off the phone with and be like ‘and this is why I do what I do.’

Recognition from a family for doing something positive and meaningful is a small gesture that goes far to make SETs feel good. On participant commented that it is:

amazing how light and reassuring it is …I feel like that’s a huge contribution to my well-being when they give me feedback, or just like recognition… you know, ‘I see you. You’re doing that hard job. It’s working for my kid.’ That’s helpful cause, honestly …I feel like I go through day after day of I am failing all day long, all day long failing day… It feels so great. It’s just it like revives everything, keeps me here for 23 years like that.

Participant 6 provided another example of this appreciative communication affecting SET well-being. This participant explained how “it’s very nice” when families reach out to express gratitude for SET work with their children. They said,

I’m thinking about earlier this week, a parent emailed me saying, ‘What do you like?’ And I’m like, ‘what do I like? Coffee!’… And then the following day, I get a little present, and I’m like, Oh, my gosh! I love this. I think that’s a way that they show that they appreciate me.

When families communicated with SETs, they could create a strong connection and convey that their work made a difference to the student and family. Knowing that their work made a positive impact improved SET well-being. Participant 11 shared this potent story:

So, the parent was very appreciative that I was brainstorming strength-based classes that aligned with her son’s needs. The son did come for a class. It was successful and the student’s mental health and behavioral needs ebbed and flowed the years after that, and strangely enough, while I was picking peaches over the summer, this parent comes up to me and says hello. Do you Remember Me? And I was like, I do. And she’s like, well, my son is coming to the alternative program, and we’re gonna be working together and I just wanted to thank you for the work you did at the middle school and I’m excited to be working with you again. So, I feel those small things that a special educator can do in the time of a crisis can have super meaningful impact when you are a parent embracing on a lifelong mental health journey with their child…. I think the biggest thing for me is just joyous connection and recognition and time well spent… and that acknowledgement is profound.

Participant 17 also shared how appreciative feedback fed their well-being. They noted,

I’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback from families about how they appreciate the communication, and it definitely makes me feel good. I do feel like I go a bit above and beyond and… feeling recognized for that contributes to my positive state and well-being I think and also knowing that I’m doing all I can do. If I feel like if I don’t make my best effort as much as I can, I’ll be left feeling like I could have done more. I think that communication with families makes me feel like I’m doing all I could do.

Participant 9 also shared how appreciation from families supported their well-being by reminding them that their work matters, saying, “The gratitude of the family of ‘thank you so much for all you do for our student’ makes you feel like you have a purpose.”

Participants explained that open and honest communication promoted a more positive relationship. Participant 19 expressed his idea clearly:

I think that open communication is probably the number one thing I’m looking for when it comes to my well-being. Because like I said, in special education [it] could be so overwhelmingly negative. And everybody’s gonna have opinions, and if we’re keeping those opinions to ourselves, we’re just like everybody stewing and it really creates a toxic, stressful environment. So open communication and honesty.

3.3.3. Advocacy as Related to Emotional Fulfillment

Advocating for students is a part of SET responsibility and a responsibility of families. Participants explained that such efforts contributed to their emotional fulfillment and therefore well-being when they were collaborative. As explained in the previous section on advocacy contributing to feeling of professional effectiveness, collaborative advocacy efforts were more effective than adversarial efforts. They also increased trust and communication. All in all, they spurred more emotional fulfillment. Using Participant 12’s words, when SETs and parents advocate for students together “[it is] bucket filling in that sense of well-being filling.” Participant 14 explained this reciprocal effect nicely in a story about a relationship with a family growing because of advocacy efforts:

I think her mom really came to see me as an ally and an advocate. within 2 weeks of my return from maternity leave, we had figured out this situation. And I think Mom really relied on me to know her daughter and be able to be an advocate for her daughter, and I think in turn, she was able to share many things with me about family stuff, personal dynamics, and stuff that she might not otherwise have shared with a teacher. Right? And so, I feel like very grateful for the relationship that we have with one another.

Participants explained that advocating on behalf of the student and family affected the relationship with the school, as well. Knowing that they had a role in bolstering the connection and trust between families and schools added to SET’s emotional fulfillment. Participant 20 explained, “I think the most important thing would be just feeling like we’re on the same team, like they view the school as a resource and not like an enemy.” Through collaborative and trusting relationships, Participant 1 explained that families understood “they had an ally.” Relatedly, being recognized for their work by families who advocated for their children also contributed to SET well-being through emotional fulfillment, as explained by Participant 12: “I did have a parent go to the school board and was like ‘their teacher is doing everything they can, what is wrong with the building’ and so that was awesome.”

When SETs perceived that their advocacy efforts were not recognized by families, it had a negative effect on their well-being. Participant 16 explained that advocacy can be adversarial when a family member “doesn’t buy into the relationship where I’m trying and [they don’t] see that I’m trying to be on their team and be on their kid’s team it, it eats up a lot of my thought process.”

4. Discussion

In response to our research question, our analysis of 22 interviews with SETs revealed that the effects of family partnerships on well-being are dynamic and complex. While their definitions varied to some extent, participants consistently described their professional well-being as a sense of balance, purpose, and emotional fulfillment. Many emphasized the importance of feeling trusted by their students’ families, explaining that family partnerships shaped their effectiveness and emotional fulfillment. Using a bucket analogy, we described how these partnerships can either “fill” a teacher’s well-being bucket through support, respect, and trust, or “drain” it through stress, exhaustion, and emotional strain.

The two major themes that emerged from participants’ accounts were that SETs perceive family relationships as influencing their well-being through their impact on professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment. Furthermore, our analysis found that perceptions of communication, trust, and shared advocacy between families and SETs shaped how effective teachers felt in their roles and how emotionally fulfilled they felt through family-SET collaboration. This process is fluid, cyclical, and reciprocal. In other words, changes in one area may trigger shifts in another. Improving trust often strengthened communication and advocacy. Likewise, stronger advocacy often resulted in more transparent communication and higher levels of trust. Conversely, breakdowns in communication could lower trust and lead to more adversarial interactions. These relational shifts, whether positive or negative, directly influenced SETs’ professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment, affecting their overall well-being.

Our findings align with Hartcher et al.’s (2023) conceptualization of teacher well-being as a structurally supported, interconnected system in which no single factor functions in isolation. From this “bridge-building” perspective, when one relational support, such as trust with families, begins to weaken, the broader system that sustains teacher well-being becomes more vulnerable. Our findings build on this model by showing how, for SETs, family partnerships may act as an influential component within the broader system of well-being, shaping their sense of professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment.

These themes align with and extend a growing body of research that conceptualizes teacher well-being as deeply relational (Acton & Glasgow, 2015; Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019; Fox et al., 2020; Gu, 2014; Hartcher et al., 2023; Le Cornu, 2013; Mansfield et al., 2016; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2024; Weiland, 2021). Across both general and special education contexts, researchers underscore the importance of collegial trust, shared values, and connectedness in sustaining educator well-being (Acton & Glasgow, 2015; Gu, 2014; Mansfield et al., 2016; McCallum & Price, 2010; Renshaw et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2023b). This study contributes a distinct perspective to the empirical literature by centering on SETs and bringing to light a relational dimension that remains underexamined: partnerships with students’ families. While prior studies emphasize the importance of workplace relationships, particularly among colleagues and administrators (Fox et al., 2020; Gu, 2014; Walter et al., 2023a, 2023b, 2023c; Walter & Fox, 2021; Weiland, 2021), our findings suggest that, for SETs, partnerships with families can also make an impact, shaping not only their perceived professional effectiveness but also their emotional fulfillment in their work. Our participants echoed Renshaw et al.’s (2015) view of teacher subjective well-being as tied to efficacy and school connectedness, describing how their sense of effectiveness closely related to their relationships with families. When families trusted their intentions, acknowledged their “humanity,” or expressed gratitude, SETs described feeling more confident, motivated, and “filled” with purpose. In contrast, relationships marked by skepticism, blame, or conflict led to anxiety, self-doubt, and emotional strain, draining their well-being buckets and making it more difficult to maintain meaningful connections with their students’ families.

Our findings also align with research on relational trust (Cann et al., 2022; Fox et al., 2020; Le Cornu, 2013) and educator resilience (Gu, 2014; Mansfield et al., 2016; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2024), which highlight how supportive in-school relationships can help teachers navigate the professional and emotional demands inherent in the profession (Accardo et al., 2020; Mason-Williams et al., 2020). Our study expands this understanding by suggesting that meaningful support can also come from “outside” school boundaries, as many SETs described moments of affirmation that came directly through their partnerships with families. The Sunshine Model of family–professional collaboration (Haines et al., 2017), emphasizing mutual respect, shared decision-making, and open communication, helps explain why some SETs felt validated by their family partnerships while others felt depleted when these principles were absent.

Le Cornu (2013) and McCallum et al. (2017) recognize that relationships with families may influence teacher well-being, and our study extends this insight by focusing specifically on how these partnerships influence the well-being of SETs. Although researchers have studied relational dynamics in general education well-being, they have given far less attention to the specific experiences of SETs (Fox et al., 2020; Hester et al., 2020; McCallum et al., 2017; Sawatske et al., 2024; Walter et al., 2023a, 2023b). As Sawatske et al. (2024) point out, only five empirical studies since 2010 have examined SET well-being directly (Fox et al., 2020; Holzner & Gaunt, 2023; Olagunju et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2023), and only one (Fox et al., 2020) briefly considers how family relationships factor in. Our study builds on this limited foundation by suggesting that SETs experience family partnerships as central to their well-being. Supportive, trusting partnerships made participants feel confident, competent, and affirmed, while strained or adversarial relationships left them anxious, reluctant, and depleted. These emotional responses were not incidental; they shaped how SETs engaged with families and how they felt about their work.

Our findings highlight that partnerships with families play a meaningful role in shaping the well-being of SETs. This dimension of relational well-being is critical given the well-documented emotional demands and intensive responsibilities associated with special education (Accardo et al., 2020; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Brunsting et al., 2014; Mason-Williams et al., 2020). When family partnerships are grounded in trust, respect, and authentic communication, they may help sustain SETs by reinforcing their sense of purpose and investment in the work. Conversely, when these relationships are strained or adversarial, they can contribute to emotional fatigue and may intensify the burnout and attrition long documented in the field (Brunsting et al., 2014; Garwood et al., 2018; Herman et al., 2018). Our study highlights how family relationships shape SET well-being and calls for a broader understanding of the relational factors that leave teachers feeling either “filled” or “drained.”

4.1. Limitations

While this study is the first we know of that deeply investigates SET perceptions of family partnership on their well-being, it is an exploratory study that cannot be widely generalized. As an exploratory study, we used a semi-structured protocol and convenience sampling to recruit SETs with whom we were connected. While these techniques are acceptable for an exploratory study, they may have resulted in bias or skewed results. In addition, in keeping with the exploratory study design, we did not analyze the data to discern differences within the sample (e.g., race, gender, multilingual, urban, rural), and it is possible that asking more group-specific research questions would result in different findings. Furthermore, we asked participants to disclose a description of themselves, and not all participants indicated demographic information. Another limitation is that we focused solely on SETs experiences, not including family perspectives.

4.2. Implications for Further Research

Our exploratory results are important in that they show the powerful and nuanced effect family partnership can have on SET sense of well-being. Further research can more robustly investigate the long-term effects of SET-family partnership on SET well-being, SET retention, and student success across various educational contexts. By continuing to investigate the multidimensional aspects of SET well-being and the impact of family partnership, and scaling up research efforts on this topic can inform how we create more supportive, effective, and sustainable educational systems. Developing a deeper understanding of and ways to enhance family partnerships may contribute to the flourishing of SETs and the continued success of the educational community.

In addition, research should document what activities within family partnership nurture teacher well-being. Weiland (2021) argues that teacher perspectives are often overlooked in research on educator well-being and calls for greater attention to the systemic and relational conditions that shape their professional lives. While the current study centers the voices of SETs and explores how they perceive their own well-being through their partnerships with families, a deeper understanding of SET experiences and strategies would help illuminate a more nuanced understanding of how trust and collaboration are co-constructed and how these practices affect SET well-being. Future research may also explore the effect of practices that affect SET well-being on families and students.

The goal of research is to affect practice and policy. The strong dynamic and nuanced effect of family partnership on SET well-being calls for those who want to increase SET well-being to increase attention to family partnership. As this shift occurs, researchers should extend the work of Jennings et al. (2017) to document the effects of policy shifts, systems changes, and professional development related to family partnership on SET well-being specifically. Increased attention to preparing pre-service SETs to partner with families and bolstering in-service SETs’ skills may increase positive relationships with families and, in turn, SET well-being (Sutton et al., 2020). Setting up positive relationships through proactive tools (e.g., RAFT, Haines et al., 2023) should be built into practice and policy.

5. Conclusions

With multiple societal factors resulting in changes in schools and increasing teacher shortages, it is critical to consider how to best support a healthy SET workforce. Well-being influences teachers’ decisions to remain in the field (McCallum & Price, 2010) and plays a critical role in educational quality. Teaching is relational work, and the well-being of educators is deeply rooted in the quality of their relationships. In this qualitative study, we found that trust, communication, and advocacy were aspects of relationships with their students’ families that affected special educator teacher well-being through impacting their perceived professional effectiveness and emotional fulfillment. These findings add to the knowledge in the field and pave the way for future research to deepen our understanding of how increasing family partnerships with SETs may affect teacher well-being and flourishing in the profession.