Abstract
Recent research documents the positive impact that paraprofessionals have on student learning. Given these strengths, states and districts across the country have developed programs to attract and prepare paraprofessionals to become certified teachers. Despite increased interest in expanding pathways for the paraeducator workforce, research has also consistently revealed that paraeducators encounter obstacles along the career development continuum from recruitment, preparation, placement, and induction. Given the professionalization challenges paraeducators face, this special issue introduction highlights paraeducator research studies that describe innovative program design features, draw from and build on paraeducators’ funds of knowledge and community cultural wealth, and identify organizational structures in schools essential to supporting paraeducators’ development. We conclude with a recommended set of three core commitments for program designers, researchers, policy makers, or community and school district leaders dedicated to ensuring equitable paraeducator professional pathways in the educator workforce.
Keywords
Schools across the United States are facing unprecedented challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and racial reckoning that have pushed the country’s inequities to the forefront. Teachers are feeling overworked and stressed by the challenge of teaching both remotely and in-person. A report by The New York Times reveals that some states have seen a higher proportion of teachers and staff applying for retirement benefits (Singer, 2020). In a national survey of teachers conducted by the National Education Association, nearly one in three respondents reported that the pandemic had made them more likely to retire or leave the profession altogether (Flannery, 2020). Prior to the pandemic, states and districts already faced subject-area teacher shortages (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) and issued emergency and conditional teacher certificates (Learning Policy Institute, 2018) to help meet staffing needs.
The pandemic has also constrained state and local budgets, which has led school districts to cut programs and personnel, including essential support staff. Paraeducators have seen their positions eliminated and hours reduced. For example, Tacoma Public School District, in Washington, laid off 100 paraeducators and cut back the hours of an additional 300 paraeducators (Ayers, 2020). These changes raised red flags among parents who rely on paraeducators to provide essential services to their children, particularly in the area of special education. But the reduction of the paraeducator workforce also has implications for the educator pipeline. When coupled with potentially higher rates of teacher attrition, the trimming of the paraeducator workforce may exacerbate current shortages and undercut the efforts of educator preparation programs committed to preparing an ethnoracially and linguistically diverse educator workforce.
Increasing the racial diversity of classroom teachers benefits the increasingly diverse student population. Research indicates that Teachers of Color and Indigenous Teachers tend to have high expectations of Students of Color and Indigenous Students, serve as advocates for Students of Color and Indigenous Students, and confront racism through teaching (Basit & McNamara, 2004; Villegas & Irvine, 2010; Villegas & Lucas, 2004). One promising strategy for increasing the number of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color educators is to tap the paraeducator pool. Paraeducators, frequently referred to as teacher aides, perform a variety of tasks. They may work as assistants at a computer lab or interpreters for students with limited English skills. They may also work as teacher aides by providing instructional support services under the supervision of a teacher. Nationwide, paraeducators account for 12% of full-time staff at school (Hoffman & Sable, 2006). The majority of instructional paraeducators are assigned to the areas of special education, Title I, English as second language/bilingual, and library/media (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).
Paraeducators more closely match the demographics of the American student population in terms of race/ethnicity and home language than the general teacher workforce (Williams et al., 2016). In addition to their linguistic and cultural competencies, research suggests that paraeducators often have strong connections to the communities where they work and are strong advocates for students and their families (Villegas & Clewell, 1998). Chopra et al. (2004), for example, observed that close relationships with students and their parents provided the basis for the paraeducators to act as connectors among parents, teachers, and students. Recent research further documents the positive impact that paraeducators have on student learning (Amos, 2018; Hemelt et al., 2021). Given the well-documented benefits of paraeducators for schools and students, we now turn our attention to the challenges paraeducators may face if they desire to become teachers.
Inequitable Access in the Educator Workforce: An Integrated System of Structural Barriers
Despite the benefits paraeducators bring to the educator workforce, several interconnected barriers work in tandem to create inequitable access to the teaching profession. For one, paraeducators are situated at the intersection of race, class, and language standpoints in ways that marginalize their presence in the workforce and make access to institutions of higher education more arduous. Paraeducators are among the lowest paid in the educator workforce, earning an average annual wage of $30,280 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). In comparison with the teacher workforce, paraeducators are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, People of Color, and bilingual (American Community Survey, 2014). Paraeducators are also often considered lower in status by education professionals, which fosters inequitable power dynamics, limits collegiality, and reduces their impact in schools (Rueda & Monzó, 2002). These challenges, when coupled with district and state policy mandates that articulate varying and thus inequitable requirements for paraeducator certification and professional development, often leave access to career ladder programs precarious (Gist et al., 2019). During the first part of the 21st century, the teacher development field frequently viewed education as an economic project driven by teacher shortages and attrition (Gist, 2019) and, subsequently, created fast track certification pathways to swiftly place mid-career professionals and recent college graduates as teachers of record with limited experience in classrooms (Grossman & Loeb, 2008). However, significantly less consideration was given to developing alternative professional pathways for nontraditional Black, Indigenous, and People of Color paraeducators, community leaders, and school staff (Gist, 2017). When holistically considering these challenges and barriers, it becomes clear why many paraeducators, even if they aspire to teach, never become educators.
For those paraeducators who are able to traverse the structural barriers and gain admittance into a teacher certification program, other barriers await them. Traditional structures in teacher education, which outside of minority serving institutions, typically serve a predominately White female teacher candidate population, overlook the community cultural wealth of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color teacher candidates (Milner, 2008). This means that paraeducators may experience some combination of the following in educator preparation programs: prohibitive program entry requirements (Lau et al., 2007), difficulty passing certification exams (Hunt et al., 2012), inflexible preparation designs that make it difficult to complete required coursework (Flores et al., 2007), lack of financial support (Abbate-Vaughn & Paugh, 2009), unresponsive curriculum and microaggressions in classrooms (Amos, 2013), and race-neutral approaches to teaching and learning (Pabon et al., 2011). Recognizing the deleterious impact these barriers have for nontraditional teacher pools like paraeducators, policy leaders have advocated for statewide teacher development models that are intentionally tailored to eradicate these inequities and increase access to the profession for paraeducators (Garcia et al., 2019).
Unfortunately, barriers also persist for paraeducators even after they become teachers, which means responsive and tailored support are not only required during the preparation stage but must also be extended to include professional development and mentorship support when paraeducators become teachers of record. Paraeducators turned teachers are frequently alienated, experience weak professional networks (Berecin-Rascon, 2008), and have limited resources when transitioning to become certified teachers (Amos, 2018). Furthermore, they are embedded in educator power structures in which they are often marginalized and on the periphery in their roles (Ernst-Slavit & Wenger, 2006) because their professional expertise is devalued (Rueda & Monzó, 2002). However, even in the face of these inequitable barriers, research indicates teachers who have prior experience as paraeducators may be more likely to be retained in schools in comparison with teachers without such prior experiences (Clewell & Villegas, 2001; Fortner et al., 2015). This suggests that paraeducators may be a critical teacher pool for ensuring all students have access to effective and experienced teachers. Therefore, if inequitable barriers are left unchecked, paraeducators will be prohibited from maximizing their potential to advance their educational careers and become teachers. Figure 1 illustrates the barriers that emerge when working as paraeducators, preparing paraeducators to teach, and transitioning paraeducators to become teachers.
Structural barriers for paraeducators.
New Research on Paraeducators
Given the professionalization challenges paraeducators face, this special issue features four research studies, offering a new line of research on paraeducators. The first two studies spotlight research on preparing paraeducators to teach, and the latter two studies investigate paraeducators’ teaching and professional development experiences. Collectively, these four studies highlight innovative program design features, draw from and build on paraeducators’ funds of knowledge and community cultural wealth, and identify organizational structures in schools essential to supporting paraeducators’ development.
In the first research study, Ernst-Slavit, Newcomer, Morrison, Morrison, Lightner, Ardasheva, and Carbonneau explore how Latina paraeducators use their cultural assets and strengths (Moll et al., 1992, 2005; Yosso, 2005) to navigate and persist in a Grow Your Own (GYO) teacher preparation program. Recognizing the obstacles faced by paraeducators endeavoring to become teachers, the researchers use narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) to unpack the ways that six Latina paraeducators leverage their community cultural wealth to overcome obstacles that continue to “keep out and push out” Teachers of Color and Indigenous Teachers (e.g., Andrews et al., 2019) and prevent them from becoming certified educators. A central theme of this study is the importance of high-quality GYO programs, providing participants with targeted and individualized support. In the second research study, Gonzalez-Worthen, Smart, Diaz, Bowman, and Gist examine the ways in which a bilingual/bicultural paraeducator program differentiates academic advising through a sociocultural lens to support paraeducators’ degree completion and certification. The authors highlight the following four aspects of academic advising which are critical in helping support paraeducators persist in a GYO program: (1) taking the time to know and value paraeducators’ biographies, (2) personalizing and attending to paraeducators’ psychosocial needs, (3) building supportive relationships through the GYO seminar, and (4) advocating for institutional accommodation.
The latter two research studies shift focus from the types of strategies and approaches necessary to enable paraeducators to thrive in educator preparation programs and begin to offer a broader perspective on paraeducators’ experiences in early childhood environments and international school contexts. The third study, conducted by Jacoby and Corwin-Renner, presents research investigating how assistant teachers in Head Start programs perceive their roles, experience job satisfaction, and remain committed. This study offers key insights because assistant teachers could be important contributors to a workforce pipeline that diversifies Head Start staff. The authors found that workplace attributes with instrumental value, such as wages and support for professional education, along with those with symbolic value, such as the robustness of the program, both played an important role in assistant teachers’ satisfaction with and commitment to their job. Finally, the last study by Shi provides an international perspective, exploring a personalized professional development intervention designed to support teacher assistants’ learning in a private bilingual school in China. Informed by positioning theory, the study reveals how three paraeducators’ varying self-positioning practices led to different responses to the professional training and different professional performances in their classrooms. The findings provide insights into the complex dynamics involved in paraeducators’ responses to professional training.
Looking Ahead: Policy Spotlights and Core Commitments
A state-by-state analysis of GYO teacher policies and programs reveals that 34 states have at least one program designed to help paraeducators earn a degree and teacher licensure (Garcia, 2020). However, many of these programs are led by school districts rather than through state initiatives and investments. Fewer than 10 states offer competitive grant programs that provide funding for GYO programs (Muñiz, 2020), but the sustainability of these efforts is unclear given constrained budgets and shifting priorities. A scarcity of research on the long-term impacts of paraeducator to teacher programs (Gist et al., 2019) may also limit and complicate advocacy efforts focused on renewing and increasing state and district investments in these programs. We also need more GYO program leaders and practitioners to share the story behind the design, implementation, and experiences of candidates to help build the research base on effective approaches for preparing nontraditional teacher candidates from racially and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Innovations must take place not only to transform educator preparation, but also to improve the training and career development of paraeducators.
One of these innovations is taking place in Washington state. In 2017, they formed a Paraeducator Board that is responsible for setting policy regarding paraeducator standards, professional development, and career ladders (Garcia & Manuel, 2018). As described in the authorizing legislation, providing paraeducators with opportunities to grow and develop their skills will ultimately benefit students, “By setting common statewide standards, requiring training in the standards, and offering career development for paraeducators, as well as training for teachers and principals who work with paraeducators, students in these programs have a better chance of succeeding” (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1115, 2017). Before the pandemic, the Board was working on developing certificates designed to help paraeducators further develop their skills and knowledge as education professionals in areas such as English learner and special education. In addition, the state offers several pathways into the teaching profession for paraeducators through GYO and scholarship opportunities.
Other states have also been creative about how to leverage federal funding to support the development of career pathway programs for paraeducators. The Tennessee Department of Education (2020) used funding from the CARES Act to launch the GYO Partnership Competitive Grant program, which aims to increase access to educator preparation programs by removing financial barriers. The program requires educator preparation programs to partner with a local school district and covers the total cost of tuition, fees, and books. GYO candidates work as paraeducators while simultaneously studying to earn their teaching degrees. In their campaign’s education platform as part of a focus on teacher diversity, the Biden-Harris administration also voiced a commitment to supporting paraeducators to earn teacher licensure. So just as we face challenges, we also face opportunities to increase investments in programs geared toward supporting paraeducators’ skill development and career advancement. As such, we conclude with a recommended set of three core commitments for program designers, researchers, policy makers, or community and school district leaders dedicated to ensuring equitable paraeducator professional pathways in the educator workforce. Work to eliminate inequitable barriers to the profession: Design paraeducator pathways at district, state, and federal levels that are committed to eliminating inequitable access to the profession. Foundational to this commitment involves valuing Black, Indigenous, and People of Color paraeducators’ community cultural wealth and funds of knowledge, which requires grounding programs in strength-based and critical frameworks, while simultaneously interrogating race and racism in program designs and implementation. This includes designing paraeducator pathways that (a) offer wraparound support for paraeducators through the recruitment, preparation, and induction years (e.g., cohort structure, scholarships, licensure test preparation, assistance navigating college admissions process, etc.); (b) provide paid work–based experience under the guidance of a mentor teacher who aligns with educator preparation coursework; (c) create opportunities for paraeducators to advance toward required teaching credentials and certification with and without bachelor’s degrees; (d) develop and advocate for multiple approaches to measuring educator skills and competencies for program completion and certification exams; (e) employ community- and school-based teacher educators; and (f) create data systems to track program completion, job placement, and retention. Support efforts to advance research on paraeducators: There is a need for systematic lines of inquiry on paraeducators that are driven by critical theoretical perspectives, take up a range of methodological approaches that value nondominant knowledge systems, and employ a wide array of research designs (e.g., interpretive, design-based, and effect studies) including longitudinal investigations. Research studies on paraeducators may investigate (a) practices and policies that eliminate structural barriers and expand equitable access to the profession during each stage of paraeducators’ career trajectory; (b) innovative curriculum and learning models that responsively and effectively develop and strengthen paraeducators’ disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical practice; (c) workplace factors and conditions that increase the retention and effectiveness of paraeducators turned teachers across various types of school and demographic contexts; and (d) paraeducators’ engagement in local school communities and their impact on student learning and parent involvement. Encourage and foster strategic partnerships: Research practice partnerships, networked improvement communities, and/or research collaboratives dedicated to paraeducator pathways must be formed to ensure strong collaboration and coordination in order to be responsive to the needs of the local school community. Partnership stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, school district leaders, scholars, community activists, teacher union leaders, policy makers, community colleges, and education preparation program directors. The work of these partnerships should broadly center on problems of practice related to supporting the advancement of paraeducators and can involve creating or redesigning program interventions, developing research investigations to better understand structural barriers to the educator workforce; offering professional development and learning series that expand knowledge and capacity within education systems and local school communities; and/or advancing policy initiatives that address systemic inequities for Black, Indigenuos, and People of Color.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
