Abstract
Supporting the development and training of paraeducators can be complex; however, that support in rural settings can be especially challenging. The unique structure of rural settings, often with limited personnel and available resources, can create challenges for recruiting and retaining quality candidates within the field of paraeducation. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of rural educators who support paraeducators and their training. Participants were interviewed about how their individual classroom and school district training models support paraeducators. Specific questions were targeted at opportunities for and quality of professional development, performance feedback, and models of support for rural paraeducators in rural areas throughout the Midwest. Overall, seven themes emerged from interviews revolving around the need for initial training to be more specific to setting and student needs, creation of cohesive meeting times with intensive training for the most challenging students, the need for structured meetings, and a clearinghouse of resources and support.
Keywords
Rural schools in the United States are challenged with fixed or declining enrollment and are increasingly scrambling to find ways to compete for high-quality educators and support staff (Monk, 2007). Seventy-two percent of the country’s landmass is rural, and similarly, 53% of the school districts throughout the country are located in rural areas (American Association of School Administrators, 2017). The challenges of rural America are often overlooked, similar to the challenges that face rural schools. While the obstacles are many, the three most commonly cited challenges of rural education relate to recruitment, retention, and training of high-quality educators (Monk, 2007; Parsley & Barton, 2015). Geographic isolation, financial stresses, and decreasing student enrollment impact many rural schools, making it difficult to provide good compensation and resources to attract and retain high-quality educators.
Unique Challenges of Rural Settings
Rural schools, especially those in places with fixed or declining enrollment, are increasingly struggling to find ways to compete for high-quality staff (Power et al., 2020). Rural schools are exploring innovative practices to deal with the shortfall of qualified educators, including programs that provide pathways into the field of education. Research has shown that graduates of rural schools may stay in rural areas after graduation if there are opportunities for good salaries, if there is the possibility of advancement in their jobs, and if there are employment opportunities for spouses or partners (Vazzana & Rudi-Polloshka, 2019). These demands may be most easily met by rural schools located across the United States that are often the “economic engines” and the most reliable source of stable, good-paying jobs in rural areas (Vazzana & Rudi-Polloshka, 2019). When young people perceive more opportunities in rural areas, they are more likely to stay there to start a family (Demi et al., 2009). This perception of opportunity may be something that can be fulfilled by providing paraeducator jobs in rural schools that are supported by intensive, ongoing, and rigorous paraeducator development and training programs that offer employment, health benefits, and salaries at or above the minimum wage (Douglas et al., 2016; Monk, 2007). The specific context of rural schools makes their settings unique. Typically, rural schools have smaller class sizes and faculty report higher levels of job satisfaction than their urban counterparts (Monk, 2007). The smaller number of teachers in rural schools, however, limits the ability of teachers to specialize and may force them to deal with a wider variety of student needs without prior training and necessary, ongoing professional development.
Paraeducator Proficiency in Rural Settings
To compound this challenge, many paraeducators begin their careers in education with little to no prior experience in the field (Carlson et al., 2002). No history in education is required, but a growing realization regarding the effectiveness of paraeducators working in schools has led to the implementation of federal standards to guide the hiring and use of paraeducators in the classroom (No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001: Qualifications for Teachers and Professionals, 2008). These standards are outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) and apply to paraeducators working within schools receiving Title I funds. More specifically, paraeducators must (a) have completed a minimum 2 years of college coursework, or (b) have earned at least an associate’s degree, or (c) demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics instruction through a state or local assessment.
Paraeducator Roles and Responsibilities
Paraeducators are hired to provide support in regular and resource classrooms for students with disabilities. These individuals may be called by different names within educational settings (e.g., paraprofessional, instructional support, aide); however, their role is the same—to support licensed professionals in implementing the goals of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and to support students’ success. Paraeducators are primarily hired to support the education and implementation of services for students with disabilities (Katsiyannis et al., 2000). This role takes place across a variety of educational settings including both general and special education. Paraeducator roles within special education and the inclusionary general education classroom include collecting data, facilitating instruction in both large and small group settings in the classroom, training students in functional life skills, and aiding in the use of social skills for students with disabilities interacting with typical peers (Uitto et al., 2017). The NCLB guidelines also state that paraeducators must perform these roles under the direct supervision of a qualified certified education professional such as an administrator or a teacher. A teacher must be responsible for instructional plans, conducting student assessments, and overseeing the activities performed by the paraeducator in response to providing support for a student’s IEP. These supervising individuals serve to provide support; however, there have been strong recommendations from the field to advance understanding of how to provide professional development and training (Douglas et al., 2016; Yates et al., 2019). The specific training provided to support the development and understanding of cultivating paraeducator skills is minimal and therefore has resulted in paraeducator standards and recommendations (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2015).
Paraeducator Training
To account for these recommendations and standards, districts have engaged in broad, initial training for paraeducators, which includes a breadth of information regarding district policies. Rather than focus on district policies, depth pertaining to individual student needs and unique characteristics of the environments in which paraeducators will be expected to work is needed. This lack of specificity and the multiple environments in which paraeducators perform their essential job functions lead many paraeducators to feel unsupported, frustrated, and overwhelmed with their current job roles (Giangreco et al., 2010). In addition, the literature on paraeducator training is significantly limited and often consists of online formats that are not individualized to classroom context or specific student support characteristics (Carroll, 2001; Giangreco et al., 2010). Individualized training typically falls on the role of the special educator, which may not have any or limited training on supporting paraeducators (French, 1998).
The current investigation was designed as the first step in a larger project to support rural educators in using a formalized process to support the needs of special education paraeducators with a detailed understanding of the current practices (i.e., contextual format and availability of support within rural settings). Specifically, we sought to gain educator perspectives on unique needs of rural settings (Monk, 2007), available resources (Carlson et al., 2002), current training practices (Giangreco et al., 2010; Mason et al., 2020), and the feasibility of a proposed intervention around special education paraeducator training and support (Uitto et al., 2017). The following questions drove our research:
In this article, we discuss findings from various interviews of special education teachers and administrators responsible for the recruitment, coordination, training, and retention of paraeducators within rural settings.
Method
In this study, we used a convenience sample of special educators and administrators who provide supervision to paraeducators. Interview development was based on previous recommendations on training needs and support for paraeducator within the literature (Giangreco et al., 2010). Questions were general in nature and open-ended to provide broad responses from participants. Questions ranged from descriptions and perceptions of quality for training received by rural paraeducators, frequency of feedback, and collaboration between supervisors and paraeducators, to perceptions of preparedness of paraeducators and recommendations to support diverse rural students. We coded the transcripts for themes and used the thematic analysis to identify consistent themes and recommendations for paraeducator support. Completed interviews were analyzed across rural participants until response saturation was achieved.
Setting
Twenty-seven interviews throughout February and March 2020 were completed with educators from rural settings across three Midwestern U.S. states (Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska). Researchers chose these states because of the number of rural educational settings, and paraeducator training responsibilities are locally controlled, accounting for significant variance dependent on district and school resources. The educators who participated were recruited from school districts that were categorized as “rural” within the federal classification system by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2006).
All interviewees were from distant (i.e., more than 5 miles but less than 25 miles from an urbanized areas or more than 2.5 miles but than or equal 10 miles from an urban cluster) and fringe (i.e., less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area or less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster) classified school districts.
Participants
Various schools were initially contacted based on working relationships with researchers established through previous projects, university coursework, and their support for paraeducators. Educators and administrators were chosen for participation rather than paraeducators as the former are responsible for the training and support of paraeducators. Thirty participants were selected; however, only 27 completed the interviews. The three individuals who declined stated lack of time as the reason for declining. All participants were asked basic demographic questions about themselves and their school districts. Participants understood the purpose of this project was to gain information about current resources and practices and may lead to future participation in a larger study focusing on the development of resources and supports to assist in training and retention of paraeducators.
Schools selected for participation nominated individual participants who are responsible for the supervision and training of paraeducators to complete interview procedures. Investigators, using a standardized set of questions across participants, conducted interviews, and a separate party removed all identifiable information and recorded answers for analysis. Out of the 27 participants, 48% (n = 13) were male and 52% (n = 14) were female. Eighty-five percent (n = 23) categorized themselves as special education teachers and 15% (n = 4) as administrative positions, including two specifically as special education administration. Fifty-nine percent of participants interviewed were from districts categorized by the NCES as fringe (n = 16) and 41% were from districts categorized by the NCES as distant (n = 11). Ninety-three percent (n = 25) of participants reported their race as Caucasian, and two participants did not wish to respond to this question. Participants also reported a mean number of 10.8 years (range = 3 months–38 years) of employment within K–Grade 12 education. Out of the participants selected, 26% (n = 7) chose to complete in-person interviews, 22% (n = 6) chose to complete written interviews, and 52% (n = 14) selected virtual interviews.
Interview Collection Procedures
Participants completed the interviews based on previous literature on general training needs and supports for paraeducators (Giangreco et al., 2010). Interviews were completed with lead researchers within one of three different format types: in-person interview, written interview, or virtual interview through telecommunication including the Zoom Video Communications (2020) platform. Some of the variability in format was completed in part due to the public health crisis and COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants were given the option to participate in interviews through any of the three options (i.e., in-person interview, written interview, or virtual interview) that best fit their circumstances. This specific flexibility was given to help minimize resistance to the interview process and to help encourage participation as no tangible incentives were given. Interview protocols included 14 open-ended questions. The same 14 open-ended questions were utilized with all participants regardless of the format of the interview. Provided responses were recorded, and if participants did not complete the question or did not address the question asked, they were asked the question again to elicit a response. No agreement or disagreement was verbally or physically demonstrated from the interviewer regarding answer responses (please see the appendix).
In-Person Interviews
The process for conducting in-person interviews was completed either face-to-face or on the phone. Interviews typically lasted 15–30 min. The participant selected a time for the interviewer. Interviews took place outside of the school building or office to ensure confidentiality of responses. Responses were audio-recorded in person or on the phone and then transcribed by a graduate student. Participants were sent interviewer questions prior to the interview. This was done to parallel consistency across participants because written interviews were also administered.
Written Interviews
Participants were emailed a list of interview questions. These questions were parallel to the questions sent prior to in-person interviews and virtual interviews. Written interviews allowed participants to respond to questions on their own time and email back responses. Participants were asked for a preferred email address to which the questions were sent. Researchers did not give specific requirements for returning interviews but recommended that responses be given within 2 weeks. After responses were returned, the researchers reviewed the responses and then asked for clarification about any questions that were not fully answered or if the language provided by participants was ambiguous or had multiple interpretations.
Virtual Interviews
Virtual interviews (such as the Zoom platform) were completed using an online video communication system. Participants were emailed questions prior to the interview for review. Researchers did not give any feedback to participants about responses; however, prompts for clarification were occasionally needed. Virtual interviews lasted between 20 and 30 minutes. All interviews were video recorded and then transcribed by the authors for analysis.
Research Design
All interview transcripts were consolidated into a single spreadsheet by individual questions. Each interview was included with all identifying information removed. A thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012, as cited in Cooper et al., 2012) was conducted with each of the 27 interviews guided by the research questions. Next, the constant-comparative method for analyzing qualitative data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was applied. Thematic analysis was selected as researchers were trying to explore educators’ perceptions, opinions, knowledge, and experiences regarding the training of paraeducators based on interview responses. Responses were then categorized and compared for themes reported using the constant-comparative method.
First, two researchers read through each transcript to identify common themes from the interviews. The two shared and discussed what general ideas they saw within each interview, generating a list of themes describing the overall sentiment of each response to a question or statement. Next, these themes were shared across all the interviewers, and a specific code was created for each theme. Based on the themes and corresponding codes, it was determined that, with the overall repetition of responses, additional interviews would not lead to new or novel responses. No more interviews were solicited. Next, coding of interviews was completed by the fourth primary author and a graduate student.
Data Analysis Procedures
Coding of transcripts was completed line-by-line using thematic analysis and the constant-comparative method. Discrepancies were discussed, an agreement was reached, and responses were re-coded and updated as needed. The data process for creating and refining codes was iterative and required some changes to be comprehensive of the variation in responses. All interviews were coded and recorded if necessary until the codebook accurately reflected codes that encompassed all interviews. All transcripts were coded in their entirety.
The final codes were reviewed by the research team for primary themes using the constant-comparative method condensing the individualized coding and the research questions. These themes provided the basis for interpretation, an understanding of responses, and the consensus of individuals from the rural education settings about paraeducator training. Saturation was completed after 20 interviews, and seven additional interviews were completed to ensure consistency in themes.
Results
In this section, we describe the results of the thematic analysis completed across interviews for each research question. Participant quotes included are examples that highlight the basis for the theme. No demographic information is listed for the participant to ensure confidentiality. In addition, analysis was considered for a distinction across both rural and fringe districts; however, as themes were consistent across district sizes, these were combined for analysis.
Research Question 1
How do you (or your rural district) currently plan paraeducator training around working with students with disabilities? Three themes emerged from the participants’ descriptions of current training.
Theme 1: Paraeducator training is created or implemented at the rural district level by administration, and training typically occurs without input or inclusion of the special education teacher
Across almost all interviews, participants described training provided to paraeducators as district-led. Training typically took place within a 1- or 2-day instructional time period before the start of the school year and included minimal ongoing support for issues that arose. Many of the participants stated this training focused on a “formal” crisis intervention program chosen by the district. The training was done to ensure that if student restraint (i.e., crisis intervention) was needed, the paraeducator could participate.
One special educator explicitly described their personal process for training: “I however, try to take time before meeting with students to teach my paras about each student’s needs. I [at least] require them to read each IEP of the students they are working with.” It was mentioned that, if additional opportunities came along, administrators would encourage paraeducator participation, but many times these opportunities required paraeducators to attend training after contract hours and without pay. One administrator stated, “She [my paraeducator] takes the initiative to learn and do better, but I don’t think it would work for all paras.” Only four participants specifically mentioned that they, as special educators, trained paraeducators in addition to district training. Over half of the participants specifically noted that training was not adjusted or individualized based on specific instructional environments or student needs. Overall, participants found training offered by the district to be inefficient and primarily irrelevant for paraeducators to assist in their designated settings. An administrator stated that “paras frequently are uncertain of how to effectively work with students with social/emotional concerns in the regular education setting while providing the appropriate amount of support [not too much and not too little].” Participants described training as a formality to be completed for job training but that assisted minimally in developing skills and knowledge required to help individuals improve within their paraeducator role. One administrator explained, saying, We still struggle to provide meaningful continuous training throughout the year. A lot of times, there will not be sufficient time to train someone before starting with a new student or even less time to schedule a training in the future, as we cannot pay them, or find times available during the school day.
Theme 2: Content and structure of the primary, rural district–offered training are not focused on specific job roles and responsibilities
Multiple participants referenced that the primary form of training for paraeducators before the start of the school year included procedural training required for employment within a school district.
One special educator stated that “district training happens at the beginning of every year and focuses on the standard set of yearly protocols. Not much is given in the way of learning how to work with students.”
Another special educator stated: A lot of the time, they are just thrown into working with our students with no prior experience. I do know that we have a paraeducator handbook created by the district, but I’m not sure how well it is utilized. There have been workshops and professional development that we have sent paras to but not consistently.
In addition, a significant focus on premade intervention programming from relevant companies was also included at the start of the year. This type of training is commonly focused on employee and student safety in addition to liability coverage. As one special educator put it, “The district provides [formal crisis intervention pre-packaged] training and the rest of it is on the job. Pathetic, I know.” Overall, the sentiment around training described by participants is that the primary amount of focused instructional support for paraeducators takes place at the start of the school year and directly lacks specificity on job roles and responsibilities.
Theme 3: Additional opportunities for training are unpaid and attendance is not mandatory
Participants reported that primarily training focused on procedural formats and integration within the school district with very little time allocated to direct settings or to the specific needs, roles, and responsibilities that paraeducators are tasked with on a daily basis. Instead, this in-depth level of training falls to the special educator to complete. This includes individualized knowledge paraeducators need for working within specific settings and with a given population of students. Participants stated that this approach cannot ensure that paraeducators are accurately equipped with the necessary tools to be successful within their job because no standard requirement or expectation of training details currently exists.
Almost all individuals interviewed mentioned a lack of time for individualized training and indicated that most collaboration together had to take place out of contract time, for example: “The district does offer PD [professional development] opportunities throughout the year, but paraeducators cannot be paid for their attendance and more than 90% of the time they do not attend.” Participants highlighted the lack of individualization, continuity, and ongoing support for paraeducators throughout the school year and the need to meet the specific demands of working with students in diverse and inclusive settings.
Research Question 2
What are the challenges that you (as a rural teacher) consistently face when working with paraeducators? Three primary themes emerged from participant responses and were compounded by lack of resources and supports that exist within rural communities.
Theme 4: There exists a lack of time to conference and support rural paraeducators within a timely manner regarding issues
Participants reported that typically, a paraeducator’s day does not include planning time or collaboration time with a supervisor or classroom teacher. Any time to plan for the day, to discuss changes in a student’s programming, or to address schedule changes must occur when students are present, can interfere with teacher schedules, and can affect the delivery of special education services. One special educator stated that to provide collaboration time for discussion with students, something was always sacrificed: “I have had to combine classes so that another teacher could watch my students to meet or wait until after school [when the paraeducator is not paid].” Having situations and environments where collaboration is not built into a schedule provides additional burdens on rural classrooms, student instruction, and the overall level of support that is provided to paraeducators. One administrator spoke of the challenges faced by paraeducators working within multiple environments throughout the day and suggested that the process should be streamlined to allow for a specific point of contact. This administrator stated that many times, when issues arise, paraeducators do not know who to report the issue to and how to address the situation with required personnel. Another administrator stated, “Having the paras report to a designated supervisor makes it easier to address some items. Dealing with four people is easier than 20.”
A consistent concern reported by participants centered on the need to get critical information to student case managers, but some paraeducators did not see these individuals throughout their day and were not directly working within the same environment. A special educator noted, There are some issues with “chain of command,” as in some paras want to take on a larger role in the education [of students with special needs] and do things they feel is best, despite the case manager not being informed or having struck down ideas [during Individualized Education Program meetings].
Without time for conferencing, the rural paraeducator is working off of an assumption or previous experience that is contradictory to the individualized nature of special education programming and support. Participants stated that interventions and resources are specific for students and are evolving as students meet benchmarks and objectives. In addition, participants found it challenging to address the needs of students when training and support required for an effective instructional environment, and to ensure maximum student achievement, are constantly evolving.
Theme 5: A stronger skill set and training is needed for working with students who have challenging behaviors and for some of the most challenging students within rural districts
Participants reported that rural paraeducators are tasked with working closely with some of the most challenging students within the district. Students with the highest needs are oftentimes served by paraeducators who are inadequately trained for the specific challenges that they may face. As reported for Research Question 1, a significant focus on initial training and professional development centers on crisis intervention or procedural rural district requirements, not on the direct instructional dispositions or skills for academic and behavioral success. In addition, it was stated that expecting rural paraeducators to have this skill set is also not appropriate as they are there to help implement and not design instruction. However, the success of the implementation role often requires a strong, innate knowledge of how to respond to student needs or on-the-job training. A special educator stated: Many of the paras are good people with kind hearts but have no formal training on how to deal with a kid with EBD [emotional and behavioral disorders] throwing a chair or someone trying to run programming who has never been given direction on how a program is to be run.
Participants stated that the specific directions that are given to rural paraeducators are minimal and can often change for each student and within each setting.
When thinking about how to support students, participants described that the common profile for a rural paraeducator is one who wants to “help students.” However, with the constant job availability and lack of applicants, individuals do not always encapsulate desired dispositions for the paraeducator role. One special educator stated: In the past I have had some [paraeducators] that did not take their job seriously and one who did not even think that my most severe students were capable of learning. They often do not have training in behaviors and do [even] escalate behaviors at times. I had to constantly keep my paras on task . . . and remind them about confidentiality.
A fast pace, working with multiple students, traveling from setting to setting, working with multiple educators, minimal pay, and downtime during the day can be a recipe for paraeducator burnout (Giangreco et al., 2010). One special educator expressed their frustration: The current one . . . does not jump in to help, will not offer to help, and only does what is specifically asked of her even if it’s a daily request. You have to tell her step-by-step what to do [each time]. . . . When [I am] dealing with behaviors she will not go get other students to give them services, she will not deal with behaviors—she goes and gets help instead of trying to help.
Frustration on behalf of the educators is apparent. Unfortunately, participants stated that finding qualified individuals in a very limited pool is a constant struggle for their rural school districts. It was reported that many times paraeducators who do not meet expectations are not released from their positions. Instead, participants felt that paraeducators are passed from setting to setting until something hopefully works out. Based on participants’ feedback on paraeducator skill sets, they felt that shifting of roles was an inefficient use of district time and resources. Participants hypothesized that this construct could be mitigated with the use of adequate training around individual settings and paraeducator needs. Participants discussed that additional training could provide resources and direct feedback for improvement, and if no improvements were made, tangible documentation of training and lack of response could provide evidence for paraeducator dismissal rather than a transfer.
Theme 6: Most feedback in the rural setting occurs informally and without documentation
The need for feedback and collaboration was consistent across participant responses and was discussed within Research Question 2. This issue is compounded when situations arise where there should be documentation about training and supports that have been offered to paraeducators to help improve the instructional context. A special educator described this: Most feedback is informal and conversations between those involved. Most of the time it comes from a “let’s try this” [conversation], but it sometimes needs to be a “next time, do this.” I have my paras check in with me at the end of every day, even if all I have to say is “go home”.
This participant highlights the need for those conversations and connection points, but when situations occur where something different needs to happen next time, a level of documentation, even if informal, is essential for accountability and consistency across all involved parties. Without this level of documentation, problems may continue to arise, and the reason for the problem recurrence may be unclear. An administrator stated that “some paras are just there. They exist in the classroom, but don’t really engage with students. The ‘warm body’ concept.” This idea demonstrates the need for ongoing professional development and support for these individuals. It also highlights the educator’s and paraeducator’s need for clear reflection, ongoing monitoring of job performance, and provision of feedback for consistent improvement related to essential job functions. Compounding this issue, it is clear in the deficit-oriented language of the rural special educator that a level of frustration exists for both the teacher and the paraeducator within this specific setting.
One special educator who had a more formalized process for feedback stated the following: I try to establish from the beginning that our [paraeducator and educator] relationship can be personal and professional at the same time. I may have to correct an issue, but they need to know it’s coming from the professional side of things. We have had weekly para meetings before [when there has been time], and those have shown an increase in communication amongst them [paraeducators and staff]. Any larger issues tend to work up to an admin level. We also encourage the classroom teacher to be the first line. If there is an issue in the room, try to take care of it yourself first but still let us know.
Although this method described by this participant was one of the most solidified for providing feedback to rural paraeducators, the opportunity for feedback and communication was on a weekly level. It was also discussed by this participant that optimal meetings included teachers and all paraeducators; however, the inclusion of all of these participants on a weekly time period was rare. This participant reported that the normal meeting involved the teacher and whichever paraeducator was available (e.g., student in crisis during meeting time, paraeducator absence or tardiness). They reported that it is hard to imagine addressing necessary areas with valid conversations and analyzing situations effectively after that much time has passed.
Overall, rural participants conveyed that lack of communication and opportunities for feedback and collaboration were consistent frustrations and tended to be interwoven throughout each of the themes within this research question. The development of a communication plan that is structured enough to provide meaning but also flexible enough to work within varied times and conversations is a challenge, which almost every interview reflects. Participants stated that educators and paraeducators must have strong working relationships where concerns, need for modifications, and instructional adjustments for students can be communicated reciprocally between the two individuals. They felt that direct and consistent communication ensures that both parties are well-versed in student needs.
Research Question 3
What are your thoughts regarding a structured training model that could be individualized to your specific rural setting, ensure consistency among rural educators, and assist in providing both formative and summative feedback? This research question resulted in one theme that focused consistently on educators needing more help in the development of roles, responsibilities, and supports for paraeducators.
Theme 7: More training is needed for rural paraeducators that can be individualized but also can be a clearinghouse for independent support and instruction to improve paraeducator knowledge
Evident within the research questions and the themes of this study is a need for training conveyed by the participants. However, only one participant mentioned that their district included a handbook for paraeducators; however, the handbook was underutilized and not updated. Many of the participants consistently expressed that time was not available to work through problems step-by-step with paraeducators or to help support paraeducators within individualized contexts. Therefore, we felt the need to directly ask questions about models for providing feedback and resources. One administrator described this support: “I think this could be a useful tool. I think it could normalize what is expected from a para across the board and keep consistency from para to para and even school to school.” Another special educator, when asked about the need for a clearinghouse for resources geared toward paraeducators stated, “100% yes. It needs to happen, and honestly, needed to happen years ago. It would eliminate many issues and increase the ability of our staff.”
An overwhelming number of participants who were interviewed supported the concept of a clearinghouse for materials that would be readily available for in-the-moment training. These resources would provide clear guidelines for educators and paraeducators on best practices.
In addition, several participants stated that formative feedback was not given to rural paraeducators, and that paraeducators were only told after the fact, typically at the end of the year, if personnel were not satisfied with their performance. However, when asked about how often formal feedback should occur, responses ranged from “quarterly” to “twice a week” with an emphasis on informal feedback occurring more frequently. One administrator summarized their perception of how feedback should be provided: Teachers are required to always supervise paraeducators. In this supervision, teachers should be able to easily and informally provide corrective feedback when there is a misunderstanding of the provided lesson or intervention practice. For bigger issues, paras and teachers [or admin when needed] can meet formally to retrain and discuss.
Overall, participants highlighted that educational environments dictate the opportunities for success of rural paraeducators. They stated that by providing opportunities for additional training and support, educators are given a pipeline of qualified staff and the ability to retain and support quality candidates for paraeducator positions, leading to increased outcomes for students. When asked directly about the feasibility of creating collaborative environments where consistent feedback was given, a simple response was given by this special educator: “We give students feedback immediately, why shouldn’t we do the same for adults? Yes, it is feasible. We make it feasible.”
Discussion
Rural educators expressed many frustrations concerning the professional development and training of paraeducators but also gratitude for the support and structure that paraeducators can provide students with disabilities. In exploring our research questions, seven primary themes emerged highlighting areas that can be targeted by the educational community. Overall, participants expressed that more extensive and structured training for paraeducators is needed, and that this training should center on specific skill sets for challenging students. In addition, training should be an ongoing and supportive process with formal meeting times. Participants were very open to a model that is systematic in nature, includes paid time for all requirements, is time-sensitive, and is tailored to already busy schedules.
The qualitative research method we used in this study promotes that rather than proclaiming any specific knowledge that stems from our analysis can be generalized to other rural school settings, our findings be considered through a lens of transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The consistency in themes across the participants, the location of the educators who participated in our interviews, and our concentrated, specific descriptions of the themes that emerged give us assurance that readers will find these themes common to what is seen in their respective schools. Based on the themes that developed from our data, we came away with a deeper understanding of perceptions for implementation of paraeducator training in rural areas.
This research project was the beginning of research on a larger project involving rural educators’ needs and current resources for training paraeducators. The use of a systematic paraeducator training process is being created, and more research will continue in this area to help support rural paraeducators and educators. From the interviews, vital information was gathered on how we will work with educators and paraeducators as we execute the training project in rural schools over the next several years. Those personnel who help train, recruit, and utilize paraeducators in rural areas will benefit from the findings that were gathered in these interviews to help maximize professional development efforts.
Research Question 1: Paraeducator Training in Rural Context
As discussed above, three main themes were gathered from interviews with educators in paraeducator training, and they were not surprising. Training was implemented primarily at the district level and was systematic in nature but focused more on mandates and specific legal requirements for working with vulnerable populations. Training was not usually based on what a paraeducator would need day in and day out to work with students in these rural contexts or on specific skills of how to collaborate with multiple adults within multiple environments. Critical features of the paraeducator role involve collaboration and the ability to provide instructional support around the Individualized Education Plan for student success. These are universal characteristics that every paraeducator within every context needs for implementation. Understanding their specific role and how to provide communication to their supervisor and the student’s case manager about the student process is essential. However, additional needs exist that are specific to student populations and settings. Therefore, comprehensive training (i.e., consistent, scheduled meeting times, a focus on individualized settings, detail based on students’ academic and behavioral needs) for paraeducators is needed in collaboration with district support. These trainings should not only focus on mandated processes but, with the direct support of special educators, should include individualized training on specific supports and resources that are needed for their unique context and population of students.
Research Question 2: Challenges When Working With Paraeducators
Participants consistently reported (a) not having a set standard for ongoing training and supports for paraeducators and (b) significant variance in structured meeting times. Participants expressed an appreciation and desire for a structured approach based on best practices and training for their paraeducators, which could be focused on development of skill sets specifically targeted to challenging behavior and some of the most severe and intensive students. The lack of a common and consistent meeting time with paraeducators was an ongoing concern across interviews. Participants reported that a lack of time to conference and support paraeducators within a timely manner regarding issues was a major barrier, and that ongoing performance documentation should be provided on a more consistent basis. Time for collaboration along with a practical and time-efficient training program on specific skills for working with challenging students must be created and implemented for rural educators to support paraeducator development.
Research Question 3: Implementation of a Structured Training Model
In addition, participants believed that feedback for paraeducators should occur much more frequently and should include formal and informal methods with accompanying documentation. Having both formal and informal methods of communication would help develop a needed working relationship. In addition, corresponding documentation should accompany this feedback process. That way, documentation would be readily available if similar problems continued to arise or if there were ever questions about the role and support that should be provided to students.
Resources developed as part of these methods could be combined as a clearinghouse where specific strategies and resources based on best practice and student need could be housed for reference. Participants were overwhelmingly in support of a clearinghouse for resources that would help in their training efforts and could be individualized based on students’ needs and context. In addition, the participants provided critical topics and support they believed were missing within current paraeducator training. These topics could assist in paraeducator development and ready individuals for unique factors within settings. More specifically, participants recommended the creation of a handbook containing broad, district-level information as well as specific details for each individualized setting within a given district.
Limitations
Findings from this research need to be considered in light of several limitations. First, the interviews all took place in the U.S. Midwest region using a convenience sample. To expand this research and make it more applicable to their rural areas, more rural area educators in different parts of the United States must be interviewed, and a less biased sample should be selected. In addition, the sample of interviews was completed with special educators and administrators. Interviewing paraeducators and/or including paraeducator interviews along with their supervisors’ will allow a more in-depth understanding of support provided and how levels of support are directly interpreted and implemented by paraeducators. A second limitation was the small sample size of interviews: 27 that were gathered as a part of this ongoing research project. Due to the timing of the research, we encountered an unprecedented global pandemic, which caused our schools to be closed and resulted in virtual instruction. Due to these constraints, some in-person interviews that were scheduled had to be done via Zoom or email communication. Also, although anything within the rural school NCES definition was included, there is significant variability in the number of students, resources, and supports that exist even within the broad construct of rural education settings. A more refined approach differentiating the categories within rural locale codes (i.e., fringe, distant, and remote) should be explored to see whether there are any variations in themes that emerged.
Recommendations
Based on the themes that emerged from the interviews with rural educators, we believe that systematic training for both paraeducators and educators should be a priority for all school districts. At minimum, training should include an individualized handbook based on specific contexts, a format for ongoing and consistent performance feedback, and increased opportunities for communication between the educator and the paraeducator. First, a structured support (i.e., paraeducator handbook) should be created and implemented by all school districts, which would then be individualized for specific schools and settings. Having a formal process and guide for training purposes will help new and seasoned paraeducators to understand roles and responsibilities of the job. Each guide must be tailored to meet the needs of the corresponding rural population and include information necessary for successful execution of the paraeducator role based on best practices. Currently, many states do not provide guidance for the training and support of paraeducators; however, the Council for Exceptional Children does have Paraeducator Professional Development Standards (CEC, 2015).
Second, educators should be trained on how and when to give constructive feedback to paraeducators and how to document these occurrences (see Table 1). This process will ensure that paraeducators are receiving timely feedback necessary to help them grow in their designated roles and should include both formative and summative assessments. Studies have shown that ongoing feedback, along with modeling and direct instruction, show long-term improvement in the area of performance not only for the teacher but for the paraeducator as well (Mason et al., 2019; Rispoli et al., 2011). Waiting until the end of the year to provide such insight is an outdated practice that must be abandoned.
Research Questions, Theme(s) Identified, Recommendation(s) and Suggested Resources.
Third, time for purposeful communication with educators across settings needs to be part of a paraeducator’s everyday schedule. This could come in the form of a morning meeting where all required personnel discuss important topics critical to the provision of special education services. Topics could include, but are not limited to, an overview of the day’s events, updated information on IEPs, behavior strategy modeling and sharing, time for questions, and mini lessons on professional development topics necessary to support forward growth of the individual and team as a whole. Designating a time every day or several times a week will create a time for all members of the special education team to be on the same page. This will allow for channels of communication to open up, the development of strong working relationships, and for members of the team to grow their knowledge together. Such communication will allow for stronger relationships among staff members and between paraeducators and students. Current research is being conducted on the creation of models of support and communication to help define key components of success (Mason et al., 2020).
Implications for Future Research
Future research should focus on the inclusion of paraeducator perceptions combined with teacher and administrator perceptions regarding training and support for student support staff. In addition, a comprehensive training model should be created and implemented within rural settings to see whether some of the themes documented within this research can be alleviated. Also, an additional question should be included for supervisors about what specific training they have received on providing supervision to paraeducators and their level of comfort in carrying out supervisory duties. Finally, the themes presented within the perceptions of rural educators and administrators should be compared with suburban and urban settings to determine whether similar needs exist across settings.
Conclusion
Utilizing a systematic approach to training paraeducators for working with students with disabilities is a vital component to maintaining and safeguarding high-quality education for all students. With the perceptions and guidance from our 27 interviews, we gained new understanding into how school districts and educators are currently training paraeducators, the challenges educators may face in this training process, and educators’ ideas for how to use a more formal training model to improve the student outcomes and the success of their paraeducators in rural settings. The themes offered from these interviews offer direction for the ongoing work of creating and executing professional development and training models for paraeducators in rural schools.
Footnotes
Appendix
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.
