Policy,Preparation,and Practice . . . Oh My! Current Policy Regarding the Paraprofessional Role and Preparation for Working With Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the paraprofessional role has expanded to include a variety of support roles in both general and special education. Although the most recent 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) addressed the necessity of paraprofessional preparation, training, and supervision, the field of education continues to struggle with incorporating these necessary components. In this article, we summarize current policies and standards, both state and federal, for training paraprofessionals in special education. Next, we provide possible recommendations for policy, practice, and future research to ensure the preparation of paraprofessionals and ultimately, the success of students who have disabilities.

Keywords

paraprofessionals educational policy standards and preparation

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, paraprofessionals held about 1.3 million jobs in 2016 (U.S. Department of Labor & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). In addition, 69% of the paraprofessionals employed in 2016 worked in elementary and secondary public school settings and approximately 70% were employed full time. Moreover, the employment and use of paraprofessionals has grown by 131% over the past 25 years (Data Accountability Center [DAC], 2010). This is a staggering number given that the number of paraprofessionals in today’s schools is expected to continue to increase over the next few decades. One major concern with this growth is that while the number of paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities is increasing (Scull & Winkler, 2011), the quantity of licensed special education teachers is decreasing (Tyler & Brunner, 2014). As students with disabilities are increasingly being educated in the general education classroom, the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals are shifting away from the original duties of supporting the special education teacher to that of supporting students in the classroom (Suter & Giangreco, 2009). As a result, this article addresses concerns regarding the policies and standards for paraprofessional preparation related to the provision of services for students with disabilities, with the intent to bring attention to the need for further inquiry into the implications for policy, practice, and research regarding the transformative role of the paraprofessional.

The Paraprofessional Role Defined

Various names for the paraprofessional role have been used over the years, including para, paraeducator, teacher’s aide, education assistant, instructional assistant, and classroom assistant. In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) included several terms that can be used for the role of a paraprofessional, including “paraeducators, education assistant, and instructional assistant” (20 U.S.C.§ 8002 (37)). For the purpose of consistency, we will use the term paraprofessional throughout this article. Both policy and research have provided guidelines for the paraprofessional role. For example, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 defines paraprofessionals as individuals who provide tutoring outside of times students are receiving direct instruction from a teacher, help with classroom management activities, assist with instruction in the library or media center, act as a translator, and support parent involvement activities (34 C.F.R. § 200.58; 34 C.F.R. § 200.59 (b) (c); Title I, §1119 (g) (2)); U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Meanwhile, IDEA (2004) specifies that paraprofessionals are “adequately and appropriately prepared and trained” to work with students with disabilities (34 C.F.R § 300.156 (a)). Notably, NCLB (2001), IDEA (2004), and Doyle (2008) stress that paraprofessionals work under the supervision of a qualified teacher to complete the aforementioned tasks. Another commonality within these guidelines is that paraprofessionals can provide supplemental instruction and support for students in various educational settings. Furthermore, these guidelines highlight that paraprofessionals are not to provide primary instruction to students, including students with disabilities. These guidelines are important considerations as we identify the role of special education paraprofessionals, including the necessary standards required to prepare paraprofessionals to work with students who have disabilities.

Over the past 20 years, the roles and responsibilities of the educational paraprofessional have changed drastically (Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008; Lews & Lupert, 2008; Quilty, 2007). When working with students with disabilities, paraprofessionals are taking on more instructional tasks, behavior programs, social interventions, data collection responsibilities, as well as providing one-on-one support for students with disabilities in the general education setting (Giangreco, 2010; Giangreco et al., 2010; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008). Liston et al. (2001) conducted a national survey study to assess the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals in special and general education settings, as well as the barriers paraprofessionals face when providing support to students with disabilities. The respondents included 202 paraprofessionals from 38 states in the United States. Following the survey, the authors conducted interviews with 27 paraprofessionals in the state of California to substantiate the survey themes considering paraprofessional roles in inclusive settings. The authors found that, in addition to working with students with various disabilities (e.g., physical disabilities, behavior disorders, autism, traumatic brain injury [TBI], learning disabilities), respondents indicated that their roles and responsibilities varied greatly as well. Specifically, the researchers identified five subthemes including (a) working one-on one with students, (b) providing instruction (e.g., small group, scaffolding, preteaching and reteaching), (c) behavior supports (e.g., teaching social skills), (d) data collection, and (e) preparation of adapted materials. Liston and colleagues’ research support other similar studies that have found paraprofessionals are expected to engage in more instructional tasks, such as modifying materials for students with disabilities in general education settings, managing small groups, and providing instruction (e.g., Carroll, 2001; Carter et al., 2009; Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Ratcliff et al., 2011). Of note, a survey study conducted by Ratcliff et al. (2011) that also consisted of follow-up observations found that paraprofessionals in early childhood education (ECE) classrooms spent most of their instruction and noninstructional time managing behavior. Interestingly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also indicated that paraprofessionals have the highest rate of injury and illness among all other professions and that 78,600 paraprofessionals left the profession in 2014 (U.S. Department of Labor & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). These statistics are important to note, as paraprofessionals have an integral role in the education of students within various educational environments and it is pertinent they are prepared to support students and educators appropriately in these settings.

Lack of Paraprofessional Training and Preparation

Based on educational policy and the aforementioned research, it appears that the majority of students with disabilities receive various levels of support from paraprofessionals in the educational environment to assist with academic, behavioral, and social concerns (Broer et al., 2005). Relatedly, IDEA (2004) regulations specify all individuals who provide special education services, including paraprofessionals, need to receive appropriate preparation, training, and supervision (34 C.F.R. § 300.156). Nevertheless, paraprofessionals are the least trained and knowledgeable regarding the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for students with disabilities (Breton, 2010). In fact, despite participation in formal training, special education paraprofessionals still report feeling ill-prepared and indicate they receive inadequate supervision (Breton, 2010).

In addition to being the least prepared, special education paraprofessionals are rarely trained to implement the activities they are being asked to perform (Brock & Carter, 2015; Brown et al., 2014; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008; Lews & Lupert, 2008). For example, paraprofessionals are increasingly asked to work one-on-one with students who have disabilities in the general education environment despite having received no formal training (Giangreco, 2010; Giangreco et al., 2010; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008). It is important to note that although there are training programs available for paraprofessionals and their supervising teachers (e.g., the PAR²A Center through the University of Colorado Denver), participation in such programs is usually not mandated by states or districts. Thus, while paraprofessional roles and responsibilities have increasingly grown over the years, there remains overwhelming evidence of the lack of preparation and required training to ensure proficiency in executing these roles and responsibilities. This issue is concerning given the ongoing exposure paraprofessionals have to the most vulnerable population of students, as evidenced by federal requirements for paraprofessionals to work with students in schools receiving Title I funding (ESSA, 2015) or to work with students with disabilities (IDEA, 2004).

The changing roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals in the general education setting is concerning for three major reasons. First, paraprofessionals are rarely trained to perform the duties they are assigned (Brown et al., 2014; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008; Lews & Lupert, 2008). Second, paraprofessionals often lack knowledge of students’ individualized needs when providing various services to students with disabilities in the general education setting (Brown et al., 2014; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008). Finally, the lack of teacher training to supervise and provide feedback to paraprofessionals is extremely problematic given the increasing roles and responsibilities paraprofessionals are provided within the general education setting for the support of students with disabilities (Breton, 2010). These concerns are confounded by the reality that there is a significant gap between policy and practice. Nevertheless, it is important to note that “when appropriately trained and supervised [paraprofessionals] can assist with special education and related services” (Lane et al., 2012, p. 239) more effectively. Consequently, it is essential to focus on ensuring paraprofessionals receive adequate preparation to address the changing role of paraprofessionals, as well as current policy and preparation standards for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities.

Current Federal Policies Specific to Paraprofessional Employment

Despite federal laws (e.g., ESSA, 2015; IDEA, 2004), there are no clear policies in place that ensure paraprofessionals are prepared and trained to effectively employ the aforementioned roles and responsibilities (e.g., taking on more instructional tasks, implementing behavior management programs, providing social skills intervention, and collecting data). ESSA (2015) requires that for schools receiving Title I funds, the state education agency (SEA) is responsible for identifying paraprofessional standards (Title I, §1111 (g) (2) (M); U.S. Department of Education, 2005) and overseeing certification requirements (Title I, §1111 (g) (2) (J); U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Meanwhile, NCLB (2001) specifies that paraprofessionals are considered “highly qualified” by having either (a) 2 years of postsecondary education, and (b) an associate degree, or (c) completed a state or local academic assessment that demonstrates the knowledge of and ability to assist with instructing students in various academic subjects (Title I, §1119 (c) (d); U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Notably, the term “highly qualified” was eliminated from ESSA (2015) and it is now up to the SEA to determine the standards and requirements for paraprofessionals. However, most states continue to follow the “Highly Qualified” requirements established by NCLB (2001) for paraprofessionals providing services to students in schools that receive Title I funding.

Meanwhile, IDEA (2004) specifies paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities must complete “certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services” (34 C.F.R. § 300.156 (b) (1)). Although states must comply with these guidelines, they are responsible for identifying how paraprofessionals meet these requirements. In addition, IDEA (2004) requires paraprofessionals to be prepared and trained to work with students with disabilities (34 C.F.R § 300.156). The language and qualifications listed in IDEA (2004) are very similar to the language and qualifications in NCLB (2001). Specifically, NCLB (2001) states that all paraprofessionals “must have earned a secondary school diploma or it’s recognized equivalent,” but while it is necessary, it is not alone sufficient to meet the necessary requirements of the position (34 C.F.R § 200.58 (b); 34 C.F.R § 200.58 (c) (3) (ii)). As of January 28, 2002, new and existing paraprofessionals must have (1) Completed at least two years of study at an institution of higher education, (2) Obtained an associate’s or higher degree, or (3) (i) Demonstrated the ability to assist in instructing through a formal state or local academic assessment (34 C.F.R § 200.58 (c) (1) (2) (3) (i)). Paraprofessionals must also be able to demonstrate the ability to assist in reading, language arts, writing, mathematics, and readiness skill instruction (34 C.F.R § 200.58 (c) (3) (i) (A) (B)). Under NCLB (2001), there are exceptions to the aforementioned requirements for a paraprofessional providing supports to students who have disabilities. These exceptions pertain to a paraprofessional who (1) (i) Is proficient in English and a language other than English and (ii) Acts as a translator to enhance the participation of limited English proficient children; or (2) Has instructional-support duties that consist solely of conducting parental involvement activities (34 C.F.R § 200.58 (e) (1) (i) (ii) (2)). Essentially, paraprofessionals who do not meet the requirements for NCLB 34 C.F.R § 200.58 (c) (1) (2) (3) (i) can only perform duties related to translation services and family involvement (34 C.F.R § 200.58 (e) (1) (i) (ii) (2)).

Standards for Training Paraprofessionals in Special Education

In 2015, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) worked together with the National Resource Center for Paraeducators (NRCP) to develop paraprofessional common core standards based on the understanding that the roles of paraprofessionals have expanded greatly over the years. The Paraeducators Common Core Guidelines (PCCG) developed by CEC (2015) identify seven domains of professional knowledge and practice for licensed paraprofessionals working with students who have disabilities. Additional standards were also developed for paraprofessionals working with students who are identified as Deaf/Blind, which expand on the complex nature of this specific population of learners. All of these standards were created to align to those established for both early and advanced special educators. This specialty set of standards include active knowledge of and ability to apply skills and practice in the areas of (a) Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences, (b) Learning Environments, (c) Curricular Content Knowledge, (d) Instructional Planning and Strategies, (e) Professional Learning and Ethical Practice, and (f) Collaboration (CEC, 2015). Furthermore, CEC (2015) indicate that these standards were developed to reflect essential knowledge and the minimum expectation of paraprofessionals working with students who have disabilities. However, there is ambiguity in who is accountable for implementation of training and the criteria identified are often times not reflected within any type of evaluation system. Although CEC promotes an effort to encourage districts and agencies to understand the current expectations of special education paraprofessionals and facilitate preservice training as well as continuous professional development for paraprofessionals, this is not directly addressed or stated. Therefore, the practice of leaving special educators accountable to manage, educate, and develop paraprofessionals in isolation during school hours while students are present continues. Furthermore, schools that are rural and frequently lack access to monetary and training resources (including full-time on-site special education staff), access to effective paraprofessional development becomes increasingly difficult.

Special Education Paraprofessional Quality Indicators

Some states have also developed quality indicators for the preparation and training of paraprofessionals. In an effort to increase students with significant needs (SSN) participation in standards-based education, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) developed research-based quality indicators which include, but are not limited to, professional expectations for paraprofessional development. The SSN Quality Indicators (QIs) consist of 10 domains in which to evaluate team performance (CDE, 2010). Although paraprofessionals have a domain exclusive to their professional expectations and development, it is known that paraprofessionals are educational team members who need to have an understanding of the other domains identified. This system encourages teams to rate/evaluate current practices and provides them with a tool to develop goals for improvement (Brewer et al., 2017). In addition, indicators are designed to promote reflection and evidence-based development and advancement of school-based teams, including paraprofessionals, in an effort to improve outcomes for students with SSN which is also routed in best practices (Brewer et al., 2017).

Although some states and the CEC have developed standards and indicators for effective paraprofessional performance, there are no specific guidelines regarding what constitutes the most appropriate training and supervision for paraprofessionals who work with students who have disabilities (e.g., coursework, induction, mentoring). Despite guidelines that specify paraprofessionals should be prepared and “appropriately trained,” there remains to be a dearth of evidence regarding how to train, prepare, and support paraprofessionals to work with students with disabilities. In addition to this challenge, preservice programs frequently lack adequate instruction for educators to train, support, and supervise paraprofessionals in the classroom (Hall et al., 2010). Consequently, vague legal guidelines combined with a lack of educator guidance to address this dilemma point to a critical need. The changing roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities require the development of a thorough training and supervision model aimed at preparing special education paraprofessionals and preservice special education teachers with the necessary skills to be successful in the general education setting.

Paraprofessional Policy by State

State paraprofessional policies were reviewed and summarized in Table 1. First, we searched the department of education websites of all 50 states to obtain evidence that the Title I and IDEA (2004) requirements for paraprofessionals who work with students in schools that receive Title I funding and/or students with disabilities are referenced on their website. Next, if the requirements were not evident through searching the state’s department of education website, a Google Search was conducted to determine whether the state identifies specific requirements for employing paraprofessionals who work with students in schools receiving Title I funding and/or students with disabilities. During this search, we noted other important information regarding paraprofessional preparation, including state requirements regarding certification or licensure, standards or quality indicators for preparation and evaluation, initial training requirements, and ongoing professional development requirements. To ensure an extensive and comprehensive list by state, we compared this information to the databases created by the PAR²A Center and the National Education Association (NEA) regarding policies and requirements for employing paraprofessionals who work with students in schools receiving Title I funding and/or students with disabilities by state. It is important to note that although a comprehensive and exhaustive search was conducted to ensure accurate representation of each state’s current policies and requirements for the employment of paraprofessionals, lack of evidence in Table 1 does not mean such policies and requirements do not exist, but that they were not evident given the current search criteria.

Table 1.

Paraprofessional Policies by State.

State	Title I requirements for paraprofessionals evident	Requirements for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities evident	Certification or licensure requirements for paraprofessionals evident	Standards or competencies for paraprofessionals evident	Initial training requirements for paraprofessionals evident	Ongoing professional development or inservice requirements for paraprofessionals evident
Alabama	X	X
Alaska	X			X		X
Arizona
Arkansas	X	X + ECE			X
California	X
Colorado	X
Connecticut	X	X		X
Delaware	X	X	X			X
Florida	X
Georgia	X		X
Hawaii	X
Idaho	X	X		X		X
Illinois	X		X
Indiana	X	ECE
Iowa	X	X
Kansas	X	X			X	X
Kentucky	X
Louisiana
Maine	X
Maryland	X
Massachusetts	X	X
Michigan	X	X + ECE
Minnesota	X	X		X	X	X
Mississippi	X
Missouri	X	X
Montana	X	X		X
Nebraska	X	ECE
Nevada	X
New Hampshire	X
New Jersey	X
New Mexico	X		X		X
New York	X		X			X
North Carolina	X
North Dakota	X	X			X	X
Ohio	X		X
Oklahoma	X	X
Oregon	X	X
Pennsylvania	X	X				X
Rhode Island	X			X	X	X
South Carolina	X
South Dakota	X
Tennessee	X
Texas	X		X
Utah	X	X		X
Vermont	X
Virginia	X	X + Autism
Washington	X	X	X		X	X
West Virginia	X	X + ECE	X
Wisconsin	X	X		X
Wyoming	X	X

Note. ECE = early childhood education; += included requirements for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities and added specifics for additional requirements.

Table 1 provides valuable information regarding each state’s policies and requirements for preparing and employing paraprofessionals who work with students in schools receiving Title I funding and/or students with disabilities. Most states, except for Arizona and Louisiana, provide guidance on the federal policies and requirements outlined by NCLB (2001) for paraprofessionals working in schools that receive Title I funding. The majority of the states that address these requirements also differentiate between instructional and noninstructional paraprofessionals by indicating that paraprofessionals whose primary responsibilities consist solely of translation services, parent involvement activities, or other noninstructional activities do not need the same qualifications as paraprofessionals who provide instructional support (e.g., one-on-one support, classroom management). While most states provide guidance on the federal policies and requirements outlined by NCLB (2001) for paraprofessionals working in schools that receive Title I funding, some states defer to the local education agency (LEA) or school district to follow and implement Title I requirements for paraprofessionals (e.g., Tennessee and Texas). However, there are a few states, such as Delaware and Washington, that require the same qualifications for all paraprofessionals, regardless of primary job responsibilities.

Twenty-three states cite IDEA (2004) or include specific guidelines for paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities. Several states that cite IDEA (2004) requirements for paraprofessionals also include specific guidelines for training or ongoing professional development to support paraprofessionals who provide instructional support to students with disabilities (e.g., Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Washington). Meanwhile, some states require initial training or ongoing professional development for all instructional paraprofessionals (e.g., Idaho, Minnesota, and Rhode Island), and a handful of states require initial training or ongoing professional development for paraprofessionals who provide instructional support to students in schools receiving Title I funding only (e.g., Connecticut and New Mexico). There are a few states that go above and beyond the federal requirements for paraprofessionals who work with students with disabilities by identifying additional specialized training for paraprofessionals who work with students in ECE (e.g., Arkansas, Michigan, and West Virginia) and two states that only address requirements for paraprofessionals working with students in ECE settings (e.g., Indiana and Nebraska). In addition to identifying requirements for working with students with disabilities in general, Virginia requires additional training for paraprofessionals working with students with autism.

Some states across the United States have developed certification or licensure requirements as well as paraprofessional standards or competencies that extend beyond the minimum federal requirements. Nine states require certification or licensure above and beyond a credential, indicating that the paraprofessional meets the minimum requirements set by federal guidelines for paraprofessionals. For example, North Dakota requires that instructional paraprofessionals obtain a paraprofessional certificate demonstrating that they have met the minimal requirements set by federal and state mandates (e.g., high school diploma or equivalent and 2 years of college, or associate degree, or pass a local assessment), whereas Delaware also requires paraprofessionals to obtain a permit that requires an additional 15 clock hours of professional development and renewal every 5 years. Finally, eight states highlight paraprofessional standards or competencies to ensure purposeful supervision and training for paraprofessionals, most of which address the expectations for all instructional paraprofessionals, regardless of support or setting.

Upon thorough review of the information from Table 1, several states went above and beyond federal requirements to create a comprehensive system for preparing and supporting paraprofessionals. For example, Washington includes evidence that they not only adhere to Title I and IDEA (2004) requirements for paraprofessionals, but also include certification and initial training requirements as well as competencies to help guide supervision and develop highly qualified and proficient paraprofessionals. In addition, several states (e.g., Washington, Connecticut, Montana, and Utah) provide a manual or handbook that reviews information pertinent to paraprofessional roles and responsibilities, including state and or federal regulations and guidelines, important terms and definitions, standards or quality indicators to guide supervision, and training guidelines or practices for ongoing professional development. Other states, including Arkansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, have developed their own training modules or courses for paraprofessional training and continued development. These states provide exemplars in their interpretation and implementation of federal guidelines and mandates for preparing and supporting paraprofessionals to support students and educators with one-on-one support, classroom management, and other instructional activities.

Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research

The purpose of this article was to summarize current policies and practices for paraprofessional preparation and to provide possible recommendations for policy, practice, and future research. A thorough review of each state’s policies was conducted and summarized to identify exemplars for policy interpretation and implementation. Based on the aforementioned issues presented with regard to paraprofessional preparation and training, the following section aims to provide readers with implications for policy, practice, and future research. First, as they are currently written, federal policies such as ESSA (2015) and IDEA (2004) are very broad when describing the required education and training for paraprofessionals. It may be beneficial to look to other state’s interpretation and implementation of federal policies and guidelines as exemplars. For example, several states have implemented additional certification and training requirements with paraprofessional standards and training resources to support creating proficient and highly qualified paraprofessionals. Current training and ongoing professional development received by paraprofessionals who support students with disabilities does not explicitly teach the implementation of EBPs that have been shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. In fact, professional development for paraprofessionals often focuses on district policies, reporting protocols, first aid, and crisis management techniques (Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008). Consequently, the professional development paraprofessionals receive rarely prepares them to work with students with disabilities, let alone to implement EBPs. Guidelines for developing training and ongoing support that focus on teaching paraprofessionals to implement EBPs could help to ensure they are qualified to work with and provide support to students with disabilities. For example, focused training and professional development based on EBPs might include strategies that fall within the realm of Applied Behavior Analysis (Cooper et al., 2007), such as the implementation of function-based interventions upon the completion of a functional behavior assessment (FBA; Walker & Snell, 2017). Second, while the federal law is not intended to provide curricular ideas for practice, the development of required paraprofessional competencies—based on the CEC standards previously identified—could help to ensure that special education paraprofessionals have the knowledge and skills necessary to work with students with disabilities. Such competencies might include developing knowledge of the categories of disabilities and other essential understandings and practices under IDEA (2004), applying accommodations and modifications, collecting various types of student data, and implementing EBPs. Third, an increased focus on developing training and supervision practices that foster collaborative relationships between teachers and paraprofessionals is critical. The relationship between special education teachers and paraprofessionals can directly impact the quality of education students who have disabilities receive. Biggs et al. (2016) conducted semi-structured interviews with nine educational teams comprising 22 special education teachers and paraprofessionals from three different school districts in the United States. A common theme identified throughout the study was the importance of the quality of the relationship between the special education teacher and the paraprofessional. In fact, shared influences described by participants regarding their collaborative relationships included increased rapport due to trust and openness and a shared vision for the classroom and student expectations (Biggs et al., 2016). In response to challenges from lack of preparation and adequate supervision, Breton (2010) recommended (a) a formal system to assess special education paraprofessionals’ competencies, (b) professional development opportunities, and (c) the preparation of special education teachers to supervise paraprofessionals. Although special educators consistently report that the management, training, and supervision of paraprofessionals are part of their job responsibility (Carlson et al., 2002; Douglas et al., 2016; Drecktrah, 2000), many special educators do not feel that their preservice teacher programs prepare them to manage, train, and supervise paraprofessionals (Biggs et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2002; Drecktrah, 2000; Wallace et al., 2001). Thus, there is an identified need to focus on preparing preservice teachers to work with and supervise paraprofessionals.

Special education teachers are often responsible for providing paraprofessionals with on-the-job training and support. The concern is that special education teachers are rarely prepared to train and supervise paraprofessionals (Biggs et al., 2016; Carlson et al., 2002; Drecktrah, 2000; Wallace et al., 2001). There is a scarcity of information regarding teacher-delivered support (e.g., training, coaching, feedback, and supervision) for special education paraprofessionals. In a single-case study, Brock and Carter (2016) investigated whether a training package that included direct instruction, video modeling, and coaching with feedback would improve paraprofessional implementation fidelity when implementing peer support arrangements for students with severe disabilities in a general education setting. Findings revealed teacher-delivered instruction, in addition to coaching and feedback, not only increased implementation fidelity, but also improved outcomes for three of the four students in the study. After all, it is important to know the types of training and support that are effective in improving the practices of paraeducators that positively impact the academic, behavioral, and social outcomes of students with disabilities.

Meanwhile, research about special education paraprofessionals and student outcomes is also limited and ought to receive more attention (Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008; Lews & Lupert, 2008; Quilty, 2007; Ratcliff et al., 2011). Hence, we encourage researchers to continue this line of investigation. Furthermore, increased funding opportunities through rigorous research studies could help to ensure proper training and support for paraprofessionals. The intent of this line of research is to study and identify the proper measures necessary to develop special education paraprofessional competencies needed to make a positive impact on the academic, behavioral, and social outcomes of students with disabilities.

Conclusion

In this article, we presented information related to the changing role of the special education paraprofessional. We also discussed the lack of consensus and clear guidelines regarding the preparation of paraprofessionals who support students who have disabilities in educational settings. Specifically, we focused on the disparity between policy, standards, and practice with regard to the preparation and ongoing support of paraprofessionals who work with students with disabilities. With so many special education paraprofessionals working with students with disabilities in various settings, including the general education environment, it is important that we ensure paraprofessionals have the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully fulfill their role. Our intention is to direct attention to and increase the work that has been completed thus far for the paraprofessional role, so that ultimately, we are able to improve the academic, behavioral, and social outcomes for students who have disabilities.

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.

ORCID iD

Aimee Massafra

References

Biggs

E. E.

Gilson

C. B.

Carter

E. W.

(2016). Accomplishing more together: Influences to the quality of professional relationships between special educators and paraprofessionals. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916665604

Breton

(2010). Special education paraprofessionals: Perceptions of preservice, preparation, supervision, and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 34–45.

Brewer

Carroll

Quintana

(2017). Planning quality services for students with significant support needs. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 17(1), 61–70.

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2015). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal of Special Education, 49(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913501882

Brock

M. E.

Carter

E. W.

(2016). Efficacy of teachers’ training paraprofessionals to implement peer support arrangements. Council for Exceptional Children, 82(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585564

Broer

S. M.

Doyle

M. B.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2005). Perspectives of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional support. Council for Exceptional Children, 71(4), 415–430.

Brown

T. L.

Gatmaitan

Harjusola-Webb

S. M.

(2014). Using performance feedback to support paraprofessionals in inclusive preschool classrooms. Young Exceptional Children, 17(2), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096250613493189

Carlson

Brauen

Klein

Schroll

Willing

(2002). Study of personnel needs in special education: Key findings. https://education.ufl.edu/spense/files/2013/06/Key-Findings-Final.pdf

Carroll

(2001). Considering paraeducator training, roles, and responsibilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 60–64.

10.

Carter

O’Rourke

Sisco

L. G.

Pelsue

(2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324399

11.

Colorado Department of Education. (2010). Quality indicators for assessing individualized services for students (k-12) with significant support needs.

12.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

13.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). Specialty set: Special education paraeducator. What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. https://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Paraeducator-Preparation-Guidelines

14.

Data Accountability Center. (2010). Health sciences center/human development center, Louisiana State University. https://www.ideadata.org/

15.

Douglas

S. N.

Chapin

S. E.

Nolan

J. F.

(2016). Special education teachers’ experiences supporting and supervising paraeducators: Implications for special and general education settings. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415616443

16.

Doyle

M. B.

(2008). The paraprofessional’s guide to the inclusive classroom: Working as a team (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brooks.

17.

Drecktrah

M. E.

(2000). Preservice teachers’ preparation to work with paraeducators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 157–164.

18.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-95, 20 U.S.C. § 1603 et seq. (2016).

19.

Fisher

Pleasants

S. L.

(2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287–297. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/0741932510397762.

20.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2010). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.1

21.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

Doyle

M. B.

(2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consult, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356

22.

Hall

L. J.

Grundon

G. S.

Pope

Romero

A. B.

(2010). Training paraprofessionals to use behavior strategies when educating learners with autism spectrum disorders across environments. Journal of Behavioral Interventions, 25, 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.294

23.

Hughes

M. T.

Valle-Riestra

D. M.

(2008). Responsibilities, preparedness, and job satisfaction of paraprofessionals: Working with young children with disabilities. International Journal of Early Years Education, 16(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.108/09669760701516892

24.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004. Pub. L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C § 1402 et seq.

25.

Lane

K. L.

Carter

E. W.

Sisco

(2012). Paraprofessional involvement in self determination instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 78(2), 237–251.

26.

Lews

Lupert

(2008). Students with disabilities’ perspectives of the role and impact of paraprofessionals in inclusive education settings. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(1), 39–46.

27.

Liston

A. G.

Nevin

Malian

(2001). What do paraeducators in inclusive classrooms say about their work? Analysis of national survey data and follow-up interviews in California. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(5), Article 1.

28.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).

29.

Quilty

K. M.

(2007). Teaching paraprofessionals how to write and implement social stories for students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 28(3), 182–189.

30.

Ratcliff

N. J.

Jones

C. R.

Vaden

S. R.

Sheen

Hunt

G. H.

(2011). Paraprofessionals in early childhood classrooms: An examination of duties and expectations. Early Years, 31(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.57633

31.

Scull

Winkler

A. M.

(2011). Shifting trends in special education. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED520416

32.

Suter

J. C.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313353

33.

Tyler

T. A.

Brunner

C. C.

(2014). The case for increasing workplace decision-making: Proposing a model for special educator attrition research. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(4), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414527118

34.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005, December 19). Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg2.html

35.

U.S. Department of Labor & Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, April 13). Occupational outlook handbook, 2016-17 [Teacher assistants]. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/teacher-assistants.htm#tab-1

36.

Walker

V. L.

Snell

M. E.

(2017). Teaching paraprofessionals to implement function-based interventions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357616673561

37.

Wallace

Shin

Bartholomay

Stahl

B. J.

(2001). Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 520–533.