University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An invisible army: access to basic training for special education paraprofessionals

(USC Thesis Other)

An invisible army: access to basic training for special education paraprofessionals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

An Invisible Army: Access to Basic Training for Special Education Paraprofessionals
by
Rebekah L. Ruswick

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Rebekah L. Ruswick 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Rebekah L. Ruswick certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Maria Ott
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
The training needs of special education paraprofessionals are pronounced throughout the
literature. Paraprofessionals commonly report that the respective educational systems they work
within generally have no established training mechanisms in place to provide them access to
appropriate support. When paraprofessionals are provided with appropriate training, however,
student achievement increases, especially for vulnerable student populations. This study
examined the training needs of special education paraprofessionals employed by Mission Unified
School District; a small school district located within Los Angeles County. A convergent parallel
mixed methods design was utilized in which 55 special education paraprofessionals were
surveyed, and 10 special education teachers and four school site administrators were interviewed
regarding their perceptions involving the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals, their
respective training needs, and their self-efficacy. Social cognitive theory, developed by Albert
Bandura (1986), was used as a theoretical lens to guide this inquiry. The findings of this
dissertation largely aligned with the past and present research involving this topic. Findings
indicate that the roles of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are vast and ambiguous. Their
skill levels and educational backgrounds are varied as well. Paraprofessionals desire more
training and demonstrate specific training needs as perceived by paraprofessionals themselves
and the special education teachers and school site administrators they work with. Additionally,
there are prevalent organizational barriers within the work environments of paraprofessionals
involving role definition and clarity, access to training opportunities, and incohesive supervisory
and evaluative systems. This study concludes with the proposal of a detailed set of goals and
recommendations, within the context of social cognitive theory and aligned with the Clark and
Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, to address the findings within this study.

v
Dedication
To the field of education, which has given me everything I have, I humbly dedicate this
dissertation to you. In the spirit of reciprocity, I studied to become a Doctor of Education to
contribute to the very mechanism that contributed to me.

To the many teachers in my life who helped shape and protect me, both as a young child, and
throughout adulthood, I thank you.

To my sweet and loving surrogate mama, the late FiFi the Pitbull, thank you for so clearly telling
me to take care of myself as you exited this world. Only through your exit, did I enter into this
doctoral journey.

To the ferociously protective, yet soft-hearted realm of child advocacy that I am so very proud to
say is my calling - I promise to continue to give to you, as you have given to me.

vi
Acknowledgements
With sincere gratitude, I thank my committee members, Dr. Maria Ott and Dr. Kathy
Stowe, and my amazing committee chairperson, Dr. Courtney Malloy. I am honored to have such
strong, intelligent, and powerful women guiding me throughout this academic journey. I have
taken to heart each piece of feedback you have given me. There is a chance I will hear you call
me “Doctor,” but only after I have absolutely earned it. That moment will be one of the proudest
moments of my life.
To my awesome colleagues, and to the almost 70 survey and interview participants who
volunteered to assist me in this study, I am indebted to you. You truly helped make a lifelong
dream of mine come true.
And finally, to my amazing friends and family, who graciously put up with my absence,
especially over the last year, thank you for your understanding, your love, and your support. To
the few who are present with me on the date of my defense, I am humbled to share this moment
with you.
Fight on, forever.

vii
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ......................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ............................................................... 4
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 13
The Evolution of a Paraprofessional .............................................................................. 13
Training of Paraprofessionals ........................................................................................ 24
The Role of the Teacher ................................................................................................ 30
Theoretical Application ................................................................................................. 34
Summary....................................................................................................................... 38
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 39
Overview of Design ...................................................................................................... 39
Research Setting............................................................................................................ 41
The Researcher ............................................................................................................. 41
Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 42
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 50
Ethics 51
Chapter Four: Findings ............................................................................................................. 52
Participating Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 52

viii
The Roles and Responsibilities of Paraprofessionals...................................................... 61
The Training of Paraprofessionals ................................................................................. 88
The Paraprofessional Work Environment .................................................................... 113
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 137
Chapter Five: Analysis and Recommendations ....................................................................... 139
Analysis of Key Findings ............................................................................................ 139
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 153
Limitations and Delimitations ..................................................................................... 171
Future Research .......................................................................................................... 172
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 174
References .............................................................................................................................. 176
Appendix A: MUSD Instructional Aide Job Description ......................................................... 185
Appendix B: Survey Protocol ................................................................................................. 187
Appendix C: Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol ................................................... 195
Appendix D: School Site Administrator Interview Protocol .................................................... 198

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 40
Table 2: Demographic Overview of Teacher and School Site Administrator Participants 58
Table 3: Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Their Roles 63
Table 4: Special Education Teacher Perceptions Regarding Paraprofessionals Implementing
Differentiated Instruction Techniques 71
Table 5: Teacher and Administrator Perceptions Regarding the Paraprofessional Role of
Monitoring, Supervising, and Observing Students 78
Table 6: Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding the Paraprofessional Role of Ensuring the
“Safety” of Students When Schools Resume “In-Person” Instruction 82
Table 7: Percentage of Paraprofessionals Indicating the Number of Trainings Attended in a
12-Month Time Span 90
Table 8: Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Training They Have Received 92
Table 9: Teachers and Administrators Referencing of Virtual Tools Used for the Delivery of
Instruction while Discussing the Need for Paraprofessional Training in this Area 104
Table 10: Perceptions of Special Education Teachers and School Site Administrators
Pertaining to the Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should Possess 123
Table 11: Administrator Responses to Whether or Not Evaluative Tool Used to Measure
Paraprofessional Performance is Effective 133
Table 12: Special Education Teacher Responses Regarding Participating in Any Formal
Training Within Their Teacher Preparation or Credential Programs Pertaining to Supervising
Paraprofessionals 135
Table 13: Comparison Between MUSD Survey Participant Demographics and
Paraprofessional Demographics Noted in the Literature 141
Table 14: Goals and Recommendations to Enhance and Strengthen the
Paraprofessional-Role-Environment Relationship in MUSD 155

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Paraprofessional-Role-Environment Conceptual Framework 37
Figure 2: Percentage of Paraprofessionals Who Complete Each Task on a “Daily” Basis 65
Figure 3: Percentage of Paraprofessionals Who Complete Each Task At Least Once Per Week or
More Frequently 66
Figure 4: Paraprofessional Certainty Levels Regarding Their Perceived Confidence to
Perform Tasks 94
Figure 5: Percentage of Paraprofessionals who “Never” Complete Each Task 117

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Paraprofessionals working within the field of special education provide a myriad of
supports to students with significant disabilities, however, paraprofessionals are often employed
by educational institutions that do not provide them with systematic and targeted training within
their employing educational institutions (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Douglas et al.,
2015; Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). Paraprofessionals commonly report that the respective
educational systems they work within generally have no established training mechanisms in
place to provide them access to appropriate training (Brock & Carter, 2015; Wright & Prescott,
2018). From the school districts and educational agencies that directly employ paraprofessionals,
to the more broadly and indirectly related state and federal agencies that oversee these school
districts, training for paraprofessionals is not often prioritized (Howley et al., 2017).
The National Education Association defines paraprofessionals as “school employees who
work alongside and/or under the direction of a licensed or certificated educator to support and
assist in providing instructional and non-instructional services to children, youth, and their
families” (National Education Association, 2019b, para 1). Paraprofessionals often provide
support to students with special needs. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) label
these employees as “Teacher Assistants.” As of 2017, there were 1,051,410 of these employees
working within elementary and secondary schools within the United States (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2020). This number is expected to increase at a rate of four percent by 2028
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). In 2018, 413,100 special education teachers were
working within elementary and secondary schools in the United States, demonstrating that
paraprofessionals, as an employee group, more than double the number of special education
teachers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020).
2

Within the literature, paraprofessionals consistently report a lack of role clarity
(Giangreco et al., 2010; Shyman, 2010; Stewart, 2019) and a lack of supervision and training
(Barrio & Hollingshead, 2017; Brown & Stanton, 2017). Paraprofessionals also exhibit an
interest in receiving more professional development (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Mann &
Whitworth, 2017; Walker, 2017). Additionally, many teachers and school district administrators
indicate a lack of clarity related to the roles of paraprofessionals and how to effectively and
systematically support these employees (Biggs et al., 2018; Douglas & Chapin, 2016). Providing
relevant training and support to paraprofessionals has a documented and definitive impact on
student success (Kim et al., 2017; Ledford et al., 2017; Walker & Snell, 2017) and is discussed
within a subsequent section of this chapter. This dissertation is focused on examining
paraprofessional training needs within one specific school district in Los Angeles County and
aims to explore the specific training needs of paraprofessionals employed by this school district
from multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Context and Background of the Problem
Mission Unified School District (MUSD, a pseudonym) is a small school district within
Los Angeles County. MUSD is responsible for educating approximately 5,100 students,
preschool-aged through twelfth grade, in the city of Mission, California (a pseudonym). Within
the total student population are approximately 550 students with special needs ranging from mild
special education eligibilities such as speech and language impairments, mild learning
disabilities, or mild intellectual disabilities, to significantly profound special education
eligibilities such as orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain injuries, more significant forms of
Autism, or severe cognitive disabilities. As of the 2020-2021 school year, there were 28 special
education teachers and approximately 74 paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals comprise one of
3

the largest employee groups in MUSD, second only to teachers. Under the direction of
credentialed teachers, paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are responsible for providing a
range of support services to students with special needs, from more general classroom roles such
as monitoring student behavior or assisting students in small group instruction to more strategic
support like assisting with toileting, gastrostomy tube feeding, or implementing applied behavior
analysis strategies for students with significant behavioral needs. The problem of focus within
this dissertation, and specifically concerning MUSD, is the absence of a coherent system for
training? for approximately 74 paraprofessionals employed by the district to support special
education programming.
Consistent within the broader research regarding an absence of systematic training for
paraprofessionals within the larger educational institutions and systems in which they work,
MUSD has no established training mechanisms in place for the paraprofessionals employed by
the district. Job descriptions (see Appendix A) for special education paraprofessionals are broad
and outdated. These job descriptions do not take into account specific roles and tasks that may be
related to supporting students with more nuanced special education eligibilities, such as students
who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing or students with Orthopedic Impairments. The onboarding
process for newly hired paraprofessionals does not include any type of formal training.
Additionally, there is no training systematically implemented for paraprofessionals within
MUSD except for child abuse mandated reporter training for California school personnel.
Paraprofessionals are encouraged, but not required, to attend non-violent crisis intervention
training (NCI) sponsored by the Crisis Prevention Institute. NCI trainings are held intermittently
throughout each school year at the respective Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) office
associated with MUSD, and these trainings are open to all school personnel. Special education
4

teachers report inconsistencies in ability and skill levels amongst paraprofessionals working
within MUSD. Teachers often request to work with specific paraprofessionals versus others,
given the perceived differences in skill sets. Administrators within the special education
department often rely on an anecdotal or observational analysis of the strengths and weaknesses
of particular paraprofessionals when assigning paraprofessionals to work in specific classrooms
or to support particular students. There is no formal record or database available that documents
specific trainings paraprofessionals have attended or particular skills they have demonstrated or
mastered. For these reasons, this study specifically examines the absence of training systems for
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD by identifying the specific training needs of these
employees.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this inquiry is to examine the specific training needs of special education
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD from the perspective of paraprofessionals themselves.
Additionally, related to the training needs of paraprofessionals, this study addresses the special
education teachers’ perspective and site administrators’ perspective given paraprofessionals
often operate under the direct supervision of those who hold these roles. Social cognitive theory,
developed by Albert Bandura (1986), is used as a theoretical lens into this inquiry. A subsequent
section of this chapter addresses social cognitive theory and how this theory relates to the
outlined problem of practice.
To examine the specific training needs of special education paraprofessionals employed
by MUSD, the following research questions guide this inquiry:
1. What are the perceptions of special education paraprofessionals regarding their roles
and responsibilities, specific training needs, and self-efficacy?
5

2. What are the perceptions of special education teachers and school site administrators
regarding the knowledge and awareness needed for paraprofessionals to fulfill their
roles?
Importance of the Study
When provided with training and support, paraprofessionals can exhibit a dynamic
capacity to positively impact student success. Sufficient training for paraprofessionals directly
correlates to an improvement of positive student outcomes, especially for vulnerable student
populations, such as students with significant disabilities (Kim et al., 2017; Ledford et al., 2017;
Walker & Snell, 2017). Providing training to this employee group corresponds with a more
positive classroom climate (Scheeler et al., 2018). Recent studies aimed at promoting
independence and unprompted positive behavior for students with Autism and Intellectual
Disabilities (Brock & Carter, 2015) along with increasing the overall positive behavior of
students with disabilities (Robinson, 2011), demonstrate that paraprofessionals can implement
evidence-based practices with high levels of fidelity when trained to do so. When provided with
systematic and relevant training and coaching, paraprofessionals can successfully facilitate social
interactions and aid in the increase of positive social skills for vulnerable student populations
(Kim et al., 2017; Walker & Snell, 2017).
Providing systematic training and support to paraprofessionals can be definitively
impactful on a broad scale, especially as the population of students with disabilities in the United
States continues to increase (“National Center for Education Statistics: Table 204.30,” n.d.) and a
significant academic achievement gap continues to exist for this group of students (“Nations
Report Card: Achievement Gaps Dashboard,” n.d.). Additionally, the educational system within
the United States continues to face a dramatic teacher shortage, especially in the area of special
6

education (“National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related
Services: About the Shortage,” n.d.). A seminal article sponsored by the Learning Policy
Institute indicated that by 2018, the United States would experience an estimated shortage of
112,000 teachers per year and that this number would remain closely similar, on an annual basis,
for years after that (Sutcher et al., 2016). The teacher shortage issue addressed in article by
Sutcher et al. (2016) is now dramatically exacerbated given the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on the educational system in the United States at large (Carver-Thomas et al., 2021).
With the teacher shortage in mind, providing quality training to paraprofessionals is even more
important as these individuals outnumber special education teachers by more than double in
elementary and secondary schools (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020).
Equity, in general, is a driving force behind this study. Ensuring that students with special
needs receive equitable instruction and ensuring that the employees that support these students
receive equitable treatment, is a central theme. Providing truly equitable and inclusive instruction
for students with diverse learning challenges, often impacted by a range of disabilities, is
tremendously important as this population of students has been historically marginalized and
evidence of this marginalization is present within our educational systems even today (Waitoller,
2020). With equity in mind, however, there is cause for concern that educational institutions
often employ paraprofessionals, and provide them with little access to instructional training, but
deem them responsible, alongside credentialed teachers, to provide explicit instructional support
to some of the most vulnerable student populations.
Equitable treatment of employees who support students with special needs is also a
motivating factor in conducting this study. When discussing organizational frameworks from a
conceptual standpoint, Bolman and Deal (2017) discuss the power and importance of companies,
7

organizations, and institutions investing in people as a way of creating a skilled and more
fulfilled workforce. The “Human Resource Frame,” termed by Bolman and Deal (2017), is built
on the theories and principles of Maslow (1943, 1954) and McGregor (1960) among others.
These theories have been utilized throughout managerial practice to assist organizations in
arranging conditions so as to meet the basic and more complex needs of their employees and
then, reciprocally, the employees better meet the needs of their respective organizations (Bolman
& Deal, 2017). Paraprofessionals, although employed prevalently throughout special education
settings in the United States, are not provided access to systematic training even though they are
expected to provide relatively specific instructional support to students with special needs. They
also experience issues with role clarity as their roles are often ambiguous and subject to various
interpretations by different stakeholders. With these issues in mind, the self-efficacy of
paraprofessionals along with their capacity and willingness to carry out their duties can be
affected. The reciprocity, or lack thereof, within the relationship between employee and
organization, is addressed in this study’s theoretical framework.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Albert Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is the theoretical lens used within this
inquiry to frame the interconnectedness and reciprocity between paraprofessionals employed by
MUSD, their respective behaviors at work, and their immediate work environments. Social
cognitive theory builds on behaviorism theories and accounts for the importance and effects of
social modeling and observational learning on an individual’s behaviors. Bandura (2005) states
that social models within any given environment shape an individual’s thoughts and actions.
Social Cognitive Theory, then, can be used to understand the behaviors of paraprofessionals at
work, in the absence of systematic training, and how these work behaviors have been molded
8

and shaped by the classroom environments these employees work within along with the teacher
and student influences within these environments. This study uses social cognitive theory to
assist in understanding the environmental and behavioral impacts on the perceptions held by
paraprofessionals related to their particular training needs. Additionally, this study uses social
cognitive theory to address the perspectives of special education teacher and school site
administrators regarding the necessary skill sets paraprofessionals should demonstrate to be
successful. Finally, this study utilizes the theory of self-efficacy, as part of social cognitive
theory, to explore the certainty levels of paraprofessionals regarding their respective beliefs in
their ability to carry out their various roles. Deriving from the usage of social cognitive theory is
a brief explanation of the methodology used to guide this study.
This study utilizes a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to address the guiding
research questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) define mixed methods research as an
integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain additional insight into a
particular problem by combining the two designs (p. 213). More specifically, a convergent
parallel mixed method design is a single-phase approach, meaning the quantitative data and
qualitative data are collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then compared to see if
the findings converge or diverge from one another (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To address the
quantitative portion of this study, the researcher will conduct an online survey of district-
employed paraprofessionals related to their particular training needs. The qualitative portion of
this study involves semi-structured interviews of special education teachers working in MUSD at
each level: preschool, elementary, middle school, high school, and adult transition. Semi-
structured interviews are also conducted with school site administrators across the district. The
purpose of these interviews is to understand the perspectives of special education teachers and
9

school site administrators, related to the skills they perceive as being necessary for
paraprofessionals to possess in an effort to fulfill their roles successfully. Similar concepts will
be addressed, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and will ensure this convergent parallel
mixed-methods design reaches a high level of validity and credibility.
Definition of Terms
This section provides a brief explanation of terms, operationally defined, specifically
related to this inquiry.
• Autism, as defined by IDEIA (2004), is
a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
communication and social interaction, usually evident before age three that
adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics often
associated with ASD are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped
movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and
unusual responses to sensory experiences. (34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(1)).
• Student(s) with special needs pertains to the IDEIA (2004) definition of a “child with a
disability. IDEIA (2004) defines a “child with a disability” as
a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.311 as having an
intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or
language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious
emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as “emotional disturbance”), an
orthopedic impairment, Autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health
impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities,
10

and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. (34
C.F.R. §300.8)
• Emotional disturbance, as defined by IDEIA (2004), is “
a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long
period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance:
A. An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or
health factors.
B. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with
peers and teachers.
C. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
D. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
E. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or
school Problems. (34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(4))
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 is a piece of
federal legislation ensuring all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate
public education. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990) was amended in
1997 and reauthorized again in 2004, adding “Improvement” into its title.
• Intellectual disability became a formal eligibility for special education on July 12, 2017,
when the United States Department of Education released regulations amending the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). The phrase “mental
retardation” was removed and replaced with the term “intellectual disability.” IDEIA
(2004) defines mental retardation as “significantly sub average general intellectual
11

functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested
during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance.”
• Paraprofessionals, as defined by IDEIA (2004), are individuals who are “appropriately
trained and supervised, per State law, regulation, or written policy to be used to assist in
the provision of special education and related services under this subchapter to children
with disabilities.”
• Professional development, according to the the National Education Association (2020), is
defined as ongoing learning opportunities to “gain and improve the knowledge and skills
important to their positions and job performance” (para 1).
• Special education, according to IDEIA (2004), is “specially designed instruction, at no
cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.”
• Special education teacher, according to The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019), is a
teacher who “work with students who have a wide range of learning, mental, emotional,
and physical disabilities.”
• Specific learning disability, according to IDEIA (2004), is “a disorder in one or more of
the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken
or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia
(34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10)).”

12

Organization of the Dissertation
The present chapter offers a broad overview of the context and background of the stated
problem of practice along with the purpose and importance of studying the absence of coherent
implementation of training and training systems for the paraprofessionals employed within
MUSD. The following chapter of this dissertation provides an in-depth review of the literature
about the issues that paraprofessionals face when their respective, employing educational
institutions do not provide them with systematic training. Additionally, the following chapter
outlines the pervasive role ambiguity faced by paraprofessionals. The subsequent literature
review also offers a synthesized analysis of recent studies conducted to which outline the
positive effects of providing systematic and applicable training to paraprofessionals and how
this, in turn, positively impacts specific and vulnerable student populations. An explanation of
the particular methodology of this study is found in the chapter after the literature review,
followed by a chapter related to the findings of this study and a chapter related to the analysis
and recommendations pertaining to the findings.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Over time, there has been a dramatic increase in the employment of paraprofessionals in
the United States. Along with this rise in employment, the roles and responsibilities of
paraprofessionals have completely shifted over time. Presently, there is a substantial amount of
research that indicates when trained, paraprofessionals have the capacity to positively affect
student outcomes. Still, however, there is an even larger body of research indicating that this
particular employee group is largely undertrained and many paraprofessionals experience role
ambiguity stemming largely from barriers within the respective educational organizations they
are employed by. This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the factors noted above along with
a synthesis of the research pertaining to the specific training needs paraprofessionals have. This
chapter ends with a detailed description of social cognitive theory, developed by Albert Bandura
in 1986, and its application related to the outlined problem of practice.
The Evolution of a Paraprofessional
The amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 first
introduced the term “paraprofessional” (National Education Association, n.d., para 2). Today, the
term “paraprofessional” is found within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEIA) of 2004. Federal legislation, before the 1997 amendments to the IDEA, did not
recognize neither the term nor the role of the paraprofessional (National Education Association,
n.d., para 5). Although “paraprofessional” is the current federal term, paraprofessionals are often
interchangeably referred to as paraeducators, teacher assistants, teaching assistants, teachers’
aides, instructional assistants, or learning support assistants. IDEIA (2004) defines this employee
group as individuals who are “appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with State
14

law, regulation, or written policy to be used to assist in the provision of special education and
related services to children with disabilities” [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)].
Increased Demand in Employment
The number of paraprofessionals employed in the United States has dramatically shifted
over the years. Since the 1950s, there has been a pronounced increase in the number of
paraprofessionals employed in U.S. special education classrooms. Paraprofessionals were
employed initially in the 1950s as a response to a significant teacher shortage in the U.S. and
assisted predominantly in the general education setting (Picket, 1986a). Between the years 1965
and 1985, paraprofessionals employed in the U.S. grew from 10,000 to over 150,000 (Pickett,
1986b). French and Gerlach (1999) noted over 500,000 paraprofessionals employed in the U.S.
in the mid-1990s, many of which supported students with special needs. By the early 21
st
Century, the number of paraprofessionals employed in individual states was far more than the
number of special education teachers employed (Giangreco et al., 2009). For example, of the
633,631 paraprofessionals employed in the U.S. during the 2003-2004 school year, 311,908
paraprofessionals were working directly with students with special needs (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2007). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks the number of “teacher
assistants” in the United States explicitly. Presently, there are over one million teacher assistants,
many of whom are paraprofessionals that support students receiving special education services
within public school settings, working within the United States (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2020). By 2028, there is an expected rise in employment of paraprofessionals by four percent
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). The National Education Association cites teacher
shortages, federal and state mandates, increasing numbers of English learners in U.S. public
schools, and the increased employment of one-on-one support personnel for students with
15

significantly impactful disabilities as reasons for the dramatic increase in employment of
paraprofessionals (National Education Association, 2019b, para 2).
Along with an increase in the utilization of paraprofessionals, there have been significant shifts
related to their roles within special education classrooms.
Shifts in Roles and Responsibilities
The role and job title of the paraprofessional has evolved expansively across time. From
predominantly performing clerical duties in the 1950s to providing strategic supports to students
with special needs in the present day, paraprofessionals have seen a complete transformation of
their job titles and responsibilities. Early on, in the 1950s, paraprofessionals were utilized mostly
as administrative support for the teacher (Jones & Bender, 1993). In the 1960s, Jones and Bender
(1993) refer to the role of paraprofessionals as being the “teacher’s helper” (p. 7). Gartner (1971)
explains that paraprofessionals were initially employed to assist teachers and enable them with
more time for planning and instruction. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, while still playing a
support role to the teacher in most cases, research indicates the employment title of “teacher’s
aide” or “teacher’s helper” evolved into titles such as “non-professional worker” (Guess et al.,
1971) or “sub-professional” (Guess et al., 1970). Research during this time alludes to some
paraprofessionals playing a more pronounced role, alongside the teacher, in supporting the
language development of students with intellectual disabilities (Budner et al., 1971; Guess et al.,
1971).
Towards the mid to late 1970s, Gray and Barker (1977) noted that some paraprofessionals
were assigned to assist speech pathologists in speech therapy sessions for students with
articulation disorders. Paraprofessionals assisted the special education preschool population by
providing these students with behavior modification supports according to research conducted by
16

Schortinghuis and Frohman (1974). By the 1980s, Pickett (1986b) describes the role of
paraprofessionals as evolving from the mere provision of clerical support and supervisory
responsibilities during recess and lunch times to becoming engaged in the instructional processes
as “integral members of the educational team” (p. 7) for students with special needs. Frank et al.
(1988) conducted a study of 254 teacher and paraprofessional pairs to determine teacher
perceptions related to specific tasks deemed necessary for paraprofessionals to be able to
complete. Teachers across elementary and secondary programs consistently ranked the task
entitled “help practice skills” (p. 256) as more critical for paraprofessionals compared to any
supervisory task (Frank et al., 1988). Frith and Lindsey (1980), recommended eight specific
paraprofessional job responsibilities. These responsibilities included the administration of
informal assessments, designing lessons and activities, acquiring special equipment and
materials, modifying and adapting curriculum to meet the needs of students with disabilities,
assisting with team teaching, engaging in one-to-one instruction, and supporting home-school
instruction (Frith & Lindsey, 1980).
In the 1990s and along with the adoption of more inclusive practices for educating students
with disabilities in general education classrooms versus special education settings, the roles of
certain paraprofessionals working within inclusive environments became even more complex
(Downing et al., 2000; Marks et al., 1999). In a qualitative study conducted by Downing et al.
(2000), researchers interviewed 16 paraprofessionals supporting students in the general
education setting. On a daily basis, these paraprofessionals indicated engaging in the provision of
behavioral support, monitoring students, providing direct instruction to students both with and
without disabilities, adapting and modifying curriculum, supporting personal care, and
facilitating social interactions between students with and without disabilities (Downing et al.,
17

2000). Similarly, Marks et al. (1999) interviewed 20 paraprofessionals providing support to
students with significant emotional and behavioral disorders in the general education setting.
Paraprofessionals indicated they were tasked with many of the same responsibilities as noted in
Downing et al.’s (2000) study, but with a more pronounced focus on “advocacy” for students
with disabilities. Paraprofessionals noted they were assisting students with special needs outside
of a special education setting (Downing et al., 2000). Paraprofessionals felt strongly that their
advocacy helped to ensure the acceptance of the student in the general education setting by both
the general education teacher and the typically developing peers (Marks et al., 1999).
Transitioning into the 21
st
Century, the role of the paraprofessional became more notable
within the research, specifically related to providing instructional and behavioral supports to
students with special needs. A majority of paraprofessionals indicate they play an integral role in
providing one-on-one instruction to students (Carlson et al., 2002; Carter et al., 2009; Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012; Mann & Whitworth, 2017). Within the Study of Personnel Needs in Special
Education, Carlson et al. (2002) indicated that most of the 888 nationally represented
paraprofessionals surveyed stated that they spent at least 10 percent of their time each week
providing one-on-one instruction and instructional support in small groups. In a study conducted
by Carter et al., (2009), 313 paraprofessionals working across 77 elementary, middle school, and
high school settings were surveyed. Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed indicated they
provided one-on-one instruction to students with special needs on a daily or weekly basis (Carter
et al., 2009). More than 70% of this group indicated they assisted with facilitating social
relationships, providing instructional support, implementing behavior management techniques,
completing clerical work, teaching self-management skills, modifying or adapting materials, and
meeting with teachers on a daily or weekly basis (Carter et al., 2009). Fisher and Pleasants
18

(2012) surveyed 1,867 paraprofessionals related to their roles and the beliefs that these respective
roles were appropriate. Results indicated that 53% of paraprofessionals assumed a primary role
of providing behavioral and social support to students with special needs. Ninety-four percent of
paraprofessionals surveyed believed that this role was an appropriate one (Fisher & Pleasants,
2012). Related to implementing teacher-planned instruction, 48% of paraprofessionals surveyed
indicated this is a primary role, and 81% of all paraprofessionals believed this role was an
appropriate one (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). Other principal roles to which paraprofessionals felt
were appropriate included supervising students and providing personal care support (Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012). Mann and Whitworth (2017) surveyed 56 paraprofessionals, teachers, and
educational administrators who work primarily at alternative schools supporting students with
disabilities. All three employee groups rated the following roles as moderate importance or
above: delivery of instruction, activity preparation and follow-up, supervision of groups of
students, behavior management, ethics, team participation, and clerical work (Mann &
Whitworth, 2017). Altogether, paraprofessionals perform substantial roles, alongside teachers, by
providing academic and behavioral supports to students with special needs. In addition to their
roles, paraprofessionals, as an employee group, demonstrate diverse demographic characteristics
that seem to complement the student groups to which they support.
Demographic Composition of Paraprofessionals
There are definitive trends within the demographic composition of paraprofessionals
working within the United States. Paraprofessionals are predominantly female and middle-aged
with varied years of experience. According to the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education
Fact Sheet (2000), the following description provides an example of the typical paraprofessional
demographic at the time:
19

The typical special education paraprofessional is a 44-year-old female who works in a
regular elementary or secondary school. She has 6.5 years of experience in special
education and 7.9 as a paraprofessional overall. (p. 1)
This description rings true in studies conducted by Biggs et al. (2018), Carter and Sisco (2011),
Fisher and Pleasants (2012), and Walker (2017). Ninety-three percent of paraprofessionals (N =
458) who reported their age in a study conducted by Walker (2017) were female, with 48 being
the average age within a range of 22 years to 77 years of age. Similarly, Carter and Sisco (2011)
noted that 92.5% of paraprofessionals surveyed (n = 319) were female. In a study conducted by
Biggs et al. (2018), 84% of paraprofessionals surveyed (n = 13) were female, and over 66% of
paraprofessionals were older than 40. Fisher and Pleasants (2012) sampled 1,867
paraprofessionals and found their average years of experience to be 6.6 years, with a range of
only three months on-the-job to 34 years of total experience. Biggs et al. (2018) sampled 13
paraprofessionals and also found their average years of experience to be 6.6 years, with a range
of less than one year to 16 years of total experience.
The educational, racial, and ethnic backgrounds of paraprofessionals are varied as well. A
predominant number of paraprofessionals have obtained their high school diploma and have
some level of college experience ranging, ranging from college units to graduate degrees (Brock
& Carter, 2015; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Carter & Sisco, 2011; Fisher & Pleasants,
2012; Walker, 2017). The National Education Association claims that often, paraprofessionals
live within the same neighborhoods as the schools in which they work and represent a similar
demographic compared to the respective student population in the area, including the ability to
speak the languages of the student population (National Education Association, 2019b, para 4).
Studies by Biggs et al. (2018) and Walker (2017) substantiate this claim. These studies show that
20

the racial demographics of paraprofessionals surveyed are commensurate to the racial
demographics of the respective student population these paraprofessionals serve (Biggs et al.,
2018; Walker, 2017). Along with diverse demographic composition and varied roles and
responsibilities, paraprofessionals often work within a variety of educational settings.
Varied Work Environments and Populations Served
Paraprofessionals work within varied educational contexts to support students with
special needs (Bettini, 2019; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Carter et al., 2009; Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012; Mann & Whitworth, 2017; Walker, 2017). One-third of paraprofessionals in the
Carter et al. (2009) study (n = 313) indicated they supported students with disabilities
predominantly within the general education classroom setting. Twenty-seven percent of
paraprofessionals within the study worked exclusively in special education classroom settings.
Close to 40% of paraprofessionals split their time between both the general and special education
classroom environments (Carter et al., 2009). One-fifth of paraprofessionals in the Fisher and
Pleasants (2012) study (n = 1,867) indicated they worked solely within general education
classrooms. Close to an additional one-fifth of paraprofessionals surveyed reported they spent a
predominant portion of their workday within the general education setting. Thirty-five percent of
paraprofessionals surveyed spent their entire workday in special education classroom settings
(Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). Additionally, paraprofessionals work in preschool special education
and preschool general education settings (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017) as well as in
specialized classrooms and schools focused on specific disabilities (Bettini, 2019; Mann &
Whitworth, 2017; Walker, 2017).
Paraprofessionals support students with mild to profound special needs and
predominantly work in settings that serve students with high incidence disabilities, given the
21

much higher proportion of these types of disabilities. High incidence disabilities are much more
prevalent among the special education population in general. They include disabilities such as
speech and language impairments, specific learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral
disorders, high-functioning autism, mild intellectual disabilities, and other health impairments
(Gage et al., 2012). For example, more than half of the paraprofessionals surveyed by Carter et
al. (2009) and Fisher and Pleasants (2012) supported students with high incidence disabilities.
Lower incidence disabilities are not as prevalent and include disabilities such as moderate to
severe intellectual disabilities, more significant autism spectrum disorders, traumatic brain
injuries, orthopedic impairments, deafness, and blindness. Fewer than half of the
paraprofessionals surveyed by Carter et al. (2009) and Fisher and Pleasants (2012) supported
students with low incidence disabilities. Although moderate to severe intellectual disabilities and
autism are considered lower incidence, Giangreco (2009) indicates that paraprofessionals play a
considerable role in supporting students with these types of needs. Altogether, paraprofessionals
support students with a diverse range of needs indicated by the varied student groups they
support. This significant range of need, however, can lend itself to issues with role clarity,
burnout, and job satisfaction.
Paraprofessional Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity has played a central role in the work lives of paraprofessionals. Issues
related to role ambiguity are prevalent for paraprofessionals, given they work within varied
educational contexts; they support a diverse range of complex student needs and have an array of
roles and responsibilities. In the 1980s and 1990s, the varied assortment of paraprofessional roles
and responsibilities became more evident. According to Frith and Lindsey (1982),
paraprofessionals needed to possess a mindset that embodied a “multidimensional and
22

comprehensive job perspective” (p. 19) if they were to be successful in fulfilling their roles.
Frank et al. (1988) concluded that paraprofessionals needed to demonstrate a plethora of
competencies depending on which type of educational setting(s) they worked within.
Realistically, however, possessing these comprehensive mindsets along with these substantial
competencies may have been too idealistic given the documented stressors paraprofessionals
faced during these times (Frith & Mims, 1985; Marks et al., 1999). Given the nature of the work
of paraprofessionals and its involvement with special education populations that often include
significantly impacted students with diverse and varied needs, Frith and Mims (1985) discussed
the burnout faced by many paraprofessionals. According to Frith and Mims (1985), the
predominant cause of burnout experienced by paraprofessionals was stress, which stemmed from
professional stagnation, inadequate training, lack of recognition, and undefined role descriptions
(p. 225). Paraprofessionals noted having to follow the directives of a multitude of practitioners,
given they often worked with several teachers in different settings during any given school day.
Many paraprofessionals indicated this caused ambiguity related to their roles (Frith & Mims,
1985). Marks et al. (1999) discussed the implications of paraprofessionals assisting students with
special needs that exhibited behavioral issues within general education classrooms. The
challenge of managing these behavioral issues with too much autonomy and too little guidance
provided by the general education teacher lent itself to paraprofessionals feeling isolated and
uncertain regarding their roles (Marks et al., 1999). Around the turn of the century, research
continued to indicate that paraprofessionals were operating with a substantial amount of
autonomy and making instructional decisions without much guidance from trained or certified
teachers, especially when supporting students in a one-on-one fashion within general education
settings (French, 2001; Giangreco et al., 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001).
23

Recent research continues to provide insight into the issues of role ambiguity faced by
paraprofessionals. Shyman (2010) surveyed 100 paraprofessionals who provided direct
instructional supports to students with special needs. Within this study, role conflict was the
highest indicator of emotional exhaustion (Shyman, 2010). The author noted that thirty-nine
percent of respondents indicated either high or notable levels of role conflict in their current
positions (Shyman, 2010). In a study conducted by Fisher and Pleasants (2012), more than 25%
of paraprofessionals identified duties they felt were appropriate for them to complete that were
duties explicitly designed for teachers to carry out as outlined in IDEIA (2004). In an article
published by Stewart (2019), the author describes various types of role ambiguity faced by
paraprofessionals. These mainly include performance criteria ambiguity, which indicates that
paraprofessionals are often uncertain about who formally assesses their performance and the
measures by which they will be assessed, and work method ambiguity, in which
paraprofessionals may not understand the exact processes for accomplishing their work (Stewart,
2019). The role ambiguity that paraprofessionals face may stem from the fact that teachers and
school district leaders are unfamiliar with national and state standards outlining the roles of
paraprofessionals and therefore are unable to craft explicit job descriptions delineating their
roles. Giangreco (2010) cites “poorly defined job descriptions” (p. 44) as one of the reasons why
many schools and local education agencies experience difficulties hiring and retaining
paraprofessionals. Howley et al. (2017) surveyed 111 District Superintendents and 73 Directors
of Special Education in Ohio and found that sixty-one percent of respondents were either
somewhat familiar or less than somewhat familiar with the standards related to paraprofessional
roles. The implications of these findings suggest large-scale inattention to the roles and practices
of paraprofessionals on behalf of district-level personnel (Howley et al., 2017). In a study aimed
24

at exploring the teacher-paraprofessional relationship, Biggs et al. (2018) found, based on
teacher interviews, that the universities or teacher preparation programs these teachers attended
largely neglected training in the area of the roles of paraprofessionals and paraprofessional
supervision, delegation, and support. Additionally, many teachers indicated experiencing
insufficient administrative support for teachers in being able to seek the assistance of the
administration to find clarity on the roles of the paraprofessionals they worked with (Biggs et al.,
2018). Overall, the role ambiguity faced by paraprofessionals mirrors the uncertainty across the
United States regarding training requirements, supervision, and evaluation for this employee
group.
Training of Paraprofessionals
IDEIA (2004) refrains from outlining or defining what adequate training, supervision,
and evaluation for paraprofessionals should include. Instead, IDEIA (2004) mandates that
respective states within the U.S. establish and maintain guidelines to ensure paraprofessionals are
trained and have adequate qualifications necessary to serve and support students with disabilities
(National Education Association, 2021, para 3). Guidelines vary from state to state regarding the
type and amount of training and qualifications necessary to be employed as a paraprofessional.
The National Education Association provides recommendations for states to utilize when
creating statewide systems and protocols for paraprofessionals within their public education
systems; however, only some states have adopted specific statewide measures addressing these
factors (National Education Association, n.d., para 2). The following section provides insight
into the training requirements for paraprofessionals, or lack thereof, across states in the United
States. This section also addresses the pervasive lack of training and expertise faced by many
paraprofessionals, along with identifying the documented training needs of paraprofessionals
25

within the literature. This section concludes by addressing the impact of providing
paraprofessionals with strategic training and provides insight into the positive student outcomes
associated with the provision of training.
Training Requirements for Paraprofessionals
Requirements for the certification and licensure of paraprofessionals vary by individual
states and local education agencies. Many states require paraprofessionals to have a high school
diploma or equivalent; however, beyond this requirement, there are definitive differences in
requirements across states (Stewart, 2019). For example, the California Department of Education
(CDE) requires paraprofessionals in California to possess a high school diploma or equivalent
and to either possess 48 college units of any sort, an associate degree or higher or to pass a
locally approved assessment of “knowledge and skills in assisting instruction” (“California
Department of Education: Paraprofessional Requirements for Title 1 Programs,” n.d., para 1).
The CDE does not provide guidelines to be used by local education agencies regarding the
content of any locally approved assessment. Local education agencies can create and utilize
whatever type of assessment they wish as long as the measure includes reading, writing, and
math. The New York State Education Department (NYSED) has various certification levels for
paraprofessionals. To obtain a Level 1 Teaching Assistant Certificate, the NYSED requires
interested persons wishing to become paraprofessionals within the state of New York to possess
a high school diploma or equivalent and to pass a 3-hour exam entitled the New York State
Assessment of Teaching Assistant Skills Test (New York State Education Department, 2019).
Once paraprofessionals pass this exam and are employed, within three years, they must complete
nine college credits to maintain employment and to earn a Level 2 Teaching Certificate. The
completion of an additional nine college is required to attain a Level 3 Teaching Assistant
26

Certification within three years of attaining Level 2 certification (New York State Education
Department, 2019). Kansas, Florida, Virginia, among other states, have no statewide
requirements for paraprofessionals. Some local education agencies within these states, however,
require either two years of college experience or an associate degree, while others require a
particular score on a paraprofessional assessment (“Kansas State Department of Education:
Paraprofessionals in Kansas Public Schools,” n.d., para 1; Learn.org, 2019; “Virginia
Department of Education: Paraprofessionals: Instructional Team Members,” 2010, para 1). Even
with the completion of a certain amount of college units or the achievement of an associate
degree or higher on behalf of the paraprofessional, the prerequisite course work only some states
and school districts require does not have to be related to child development (Stewart, 2019).
Insufficient Training and Expertise
Paraprofessionals, as an employee group, are pervasively undertrained given the
respective organizations they are employed by do not have well established training systems in
place for this employee group. Historically, research documents this lack of training. Frank et al.
(1988) conducted a quantitative analysis of 254 teacher and paraprofessional pairs and explored
the tasks that teachers felt were appropriate for paraprofessionals to be able to complete. The
predominant concern listed in the comments sections of the survey each participant completed
involved the need for more training for paraprofessionals, especially in the area of behavior
management (Frank et al., 1988). French (1999) made a note of the fact that formal training
provided to paraprofessionals by most local education agencies was limited at best. In a
qualitative study conducted across the state of Iowa by Hansen (1997), a key finding indicated
that there was little consistency across the state regarding the type of training paraprofessionals
received, and the list of training needs definitively outweighed the types of training this group
27

had received. Downing et al. (2000) noted that most of the paraprofessionals interviewed (n =
16) indicated that they “taught themselves” (p. 177) about the needs of their students through on-
the-job and in-the-moment type of training. Additionally, these paraprofessionals felt that
training was critical to perform their duties successfully; however, most paraprofessionals
interviewed indicated they received no training upon being hired. In a quantitative study
conducted by Carter et al. (2009), close to 50% of paraprofessionals surveyed (n = 347) indicated
that on-the-job training was also the most common form of training they received.
Presently, paraprofessionals are often assigned to support students with significant
special needs; however, given they are not provided with adequate training, they often lack
fundamental knowledge and expertise in the areas of child development and special education.
When analyzing the survey responses of 1,867 paraprofessionals from one Midwestern state,
Fisher and Pleasants (2012) found that a predominant concern on behalf of paraprofessionals was
“insufficient expertise for roles required” (p. 292). In a study aimed at understanding the
experiences of paraprofessionals working in special education preschool programs, Brown and
Stanton-Chapman (2017) indicate that although paraprofessionals spend a large number of their
workdays supporting students with various needs, they often lack formal education and training
specifically related to the needs of the students they support. Additionally, Brown and Stanton-
Chapman (2017) noted the claims of many paraprofessionals as not having received training
within one year of the survey date, with some stating they were not recipients of any systematic
training since being employed with their respective school district. Barrio and Hollingshead
(2017) surveyed 98 paraprofessionals supporting students with special needs in public school
settings in the Northwest United States. The researchers found that ninety-five percent of the
surveyed participants indicated the need for more training on special education eligibilities such
28

as specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and autism spectrum disorders as well as
the need to know more about evidence-based practices to support these students academically,
socially, and behaviorally (Barrio & Hollingshead, 2017). While current research indicates a
pervasive lack of training faced by many paraprofessionals, present inquiries have also identified
the specific training needs of paraprofessionals.
The Training Needs of Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals supporting students with disabilities have pronounced training needs.
Current research indicates training in the area of behavioral intervention and management is a
prevailing need alongside disability awareness and specific instructional strategies for certain
special education populations. In a quantitative study of 487 paraprofessionals conducted by
Walker (2017), the predominant training need, as indicated by these paraprofessionals, was in the
area of behavioral intervention. Another prevalent need was in the area of specific disability
awareness, such as understanding the foundational aspects of Autism, intellectual disabilities, or
emotional and behavioral disorders (Walker, 2017). Similarly, Barrio and Hollingshead (2017)
found that 95% of surveyed paraprofessionals (n = 98) indicated a need to know more about
disability characteristics along with behavioral management practices, and general instructional
strategies for students with learning disabilities in the general education setting. Mann and
Whitworth (2017) found that although teachers and administrators indicated behavior
management practices such as providing positive reinforcement to students and assisting students
in learning and implementing coping mechanisms were important tasks for paraprofessionals to
be able to perform, a predominant number of paraprofessionals indicated being ill-prepared in
these areas. Within the Mann and Whitworth (2017) study, paraprofessionals felt the least
prepared to assist with the delivery of instruction, while teachers and administrators felt this was
29

a moderately important task for paraprofessionals to be able to implement. Walker et al. (2017)
found that over 50 percent of paraprofessional surveyed (n = 14) and over 80 percent of
supervisors surveyed (n = 15) indicated the area of behavioral intervention to be a predominant
training need. Other substantial paraprofessional training needs, as indicated by both
paraprofessionals and their supervisors, included facilitating peer relationships between students
with and without disabilities, teaching social skills, and teaching vocational skills (Walker et al.,
2017). Although paraprofessionals have prevalent training needs in the outlined areas, when this
employee group receives the training necessary to fulfill their roles effectively, student
performance outcomes improve, and paraprofessional self-efficacy increases.
Benefits of Paraprofessional Training
Paraprofessional self-efficacy increases when appropriate training and support is
provided. When training is accessed, confidence levels of paraprofessionals increase related to
their respective beliefs in their abilities to implement evidence-based strategies and to affect
positive change in the lives of students with special needs. Wright and Prescot (2017) conducted
a study in which 36 paraprofessionals received training via a web-based platform along with in-
person professional development. The focus of the training was to improve the ability of
paraprofessionals to support students with autism within the classroom setting. Paraprofessionals
completed pre and post self-efficacy assessments before and after receiving training. The posttest
showed an almost 30 percent increase in paraprofessional understanding of best practices related
to instructing students with autism along with increased efficacy on behalf of the
paraprofessionals related to their belief in their capacity to meet the needs of students with
autism (Wright & Prescot, 2017). In a study conducted by Feldman and Matos (2012), once
paraprofessionals received training related to implementing social facilitation strategies for
30

students with special needs, all paraprofessionals indicated an increase in confidence related to
their abilities to assist students with autism and their typically developing peers in the area of
social interaction.
Similarly, paraprofessionals who received training in social skills interventions all
indicated an increase in their confidence related to implementing these strategies (Kim et al.,
2017). Additionally, these paraprofessionals reported they would continue to utilize the strategies
within their work (Kim et al., 2017). Overall, there are marked increases in self-efficacy
experienced by paraprofessionals when they are adequately trained.
The Role of the Teacher
Teacher Preparation
For quite some time, teacher preparation programs have lacked substantial instruction
regarding the supervision of paraprofessionals. In a monograph entitled “Paraprofessionals in
Special Education: The State of the Art,” Pickett (1986) indicated that around this period, very
few colleges and universities were providing course work and subject matter to teachers related
to supervising and collaborating with paraprofessionals. French (2001) conducted a study
examining teacher supervisory practices of paraprofessionals. Eighty-eight percent of teachers
surveyed to which directly supervised paraprofessionals (n = 240) indicated the primary source
of their training related to supervisory practices was on-the-job training versus training received
within pre-service programming (French, 2001). Within the Study of Personnel Needs in Special
Education written by Carlson et al., (2002), and funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office of Special Education Programs, 77% of special education teachers indicated their pre-
service training programs did not address the supervision of paraprofessionals. Douglas et al.
(2016) analyzed the experiences of special education teachers related to supervising
31

paraprofessionals. Many teachers indicated a lack of training associated with the supervision of
paraprofessionals. Many teachers felt that learning how to supervise paraprofessionals
adequately would be beneficial given pre-service training nor training once employed as teachers
did not address leadership and management strategies (Douglas et al., 2016). Biggs et al. (2016)
note that teacher preparation programs might include a superficial overview of general
supervisory practices; however, most pre-service teacher preparation programs do not provide
explicit teaching and assessment related to specific competencies addressed within management
and supervision of employees. This lack of training and preparation faced by many teachers
lends itself to even more challenges in the area of collaboration.
Many teachers struggle to collaborate with paraprofessionals, given issues with
confidence and effective time management. In a study conducted by Barnes et al. (2016), many
teachers indicated feeling ill-prepared to take on a supervisory role within the relationship. Biggs
et al. (2016) further examined the teacher-paraprofessional relationship and found that most
teachers interviewed expressed the need to have specific training directly aimed at helping them
learn how to collaborate more effectively with paraprofessionals. Stewart (2019) reports that
many teachers face challenges with finding time to collaborate with paraprofessionals, given the
paraprofessional workday often coincides with the times that students are in school, leaving no
time for collaboration before or after the school day. Similarly, teachers interviewed by Biggs et
al. (2018) indicated struggling to find shared time with paraprofessionals for collaboration and
communication.
Teacher-Paraprofessional Relationship
A strong and collaborative teacher-paraprofessional relationship includes a shared vision,
the willingness for paraprofessionals to be proactive and take initiative, and the ability of
32

teachers to provide praise and recognition to paraprofessionals. When both teacher and
paraprofessional possess a shared vision related to expectations and outcomes for their students,
a stronger teacher-paraprofessional relationship emerges. The first element within the framework
for teacher-paraprofessional interactions, created by Barnes et al. (2016), is “solidarity” (p. 12).
This element is indicative of alignment in the way one party defers to the other related to
decision making in the classroom, the usage of “we” statements when communicating decisions
to students, and the ability of both the teacher and paraprofessional to share tasks and instruction
(Barnes et al., 2016). Similarly, every teacher-paraprofessional team interviewed by Biggs et al.
(2016) indicated that when both parties share the same long-term vision for their students, the
relationship between teacher and paraprofessional is much more collaborative and amicable.
Jones et al. (2012) discussed the importance of joint professional development between teachers
and paraprofessionals. Jones et al. (2012) examined the importance of teachers and
paraprofessionals viewing themselves as “partners” (p. 23) to one another to build a capable
team. Overall, research indicates possessing a shared vision is an essential element of a robust
teacher-paraprofessional relationship. An additional aspect of this relationship revolves around
the paraprofessional taking the initiative to complete tasks without being directed to by the
teacher.
A paraprofessional’s ability to be proactive and to take initiative, without waiting for
teacher direction, can increase trust on behalf of the teacher towards the paraprofessional, and
can lead to a more cohesive collaborative relationship between the two. Biggs et al. (2016)
examined the quality of teacher-paraprofessional relationships. Both teachers and
paraprofessionals discussed the importance of paraprofessionals having a willingness and an
eagerness to initiate the completion of tasks (Biggs et al., 2016). Brown and Stanton-Chapman
33

(2017) examined the dual-connection between paraprofessional motivation and teacher
acceptance and receptivity towards the paraprofessional. Researchers found that the more willing
a paraprofessional was to complete classroom tasks without being directed, the higher the
teacher’s acceptance and receptivity was towards the paraprofessional (Brown & Stanton-
Chapman, 2017). One of the critical elements of the teacher-paraprofessional framework by
Barnes et al. (2016), is the ability of the paraprofessional to “self-start” (p. 13), which means that
the paraprofessional can self-initiate tasks without being directed to complete them. This quality,
as demonstrated by the paraprofessional, allows the teacher to capitalize on his or her time in the
classroom by responding to student need or addressing instructional support (Barnes et al.,
2016). While teachers feel a critical element to a robust teacher-paraprofessional relationship is
the ability of the paraprofessional to take the initiative, paraprofessionals think that recognition
and praise for their work, provided by the teacher, is also essential.
Paraprofessionals perceive teacher recognition and praise as an essential element within
the teacher-paraprofessional relationship. Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2017) found a direct
link between appreciation and gratitude provided to paraprofessionals by teachers and
paraprofessional job satisfaction. Within the Barnes et al. (2016) framework is the element of
“respect” (p. 13). Paraprofessionals feel more secure and satisfied within the relationship when
teachers praise paraprofessionals, speak to them in a respectful tone, and utilize positive non-
verbal gestures. Each teacher-paraprofessional team interviewed within the Biggs et al. (2016)
study indicated that praise provided by the teacher to the paraprofessional assists the
paraprofessional in feeling “valued, welcomed, and needed” (p. 263). Establishing a strong
teacher-paraprofessional relationship consists of a shared vision between the teacher and
paraprofessional and involves recognition by the teacher and proactivity by the paraprofessional.
34

Theoretical Application
Social Cognitive Theory
Albert Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is used throughout this study to
encompass the reciprocity between paraprofessionals employed by MUSD, their respective roles
at work, and their immediate work environments. Bandura (1986) explains that Social Cognitive
Theory is an agentic perspective to self-development, adaptation, and change. He explains that
individuals are “agents” of their life circumstances, either positively or negatively, based on the
ability to self-regulate and self-reflect (Bandura, 2005). Additionally, one of the main
assumptions of social cognitive theory is that individuals learn by observing others (Bandura,
2005). Given the pervasive lack of training and widespread issues with role clarity faced by
paraprofessionals (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Douglas et al., 2015; Fisher & Pleasants,
2012), paraprofessionals as agents, observe their work environments and often assimilate to these
environments without much guidance and support. Therefore, to create some sort of cognitive
representation of their work, paraprofessionals as agents, observe the environment and social
models around them and shape their roles themselves despite the ambiguity they may face
through a lack of training or clearly delineated job descriptions. This demonstrates the overall
resilience of this employee group; however, this resiliency does not necessarily reflect work
behaviors that constitute the usage of evidence-based practices. The usage of these practices can
be implemented by paraprofessionals if they are modeled and reinforced within their work
environments or if paraprofessionals receive training to implement these practices.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1977, 1986) as an individual’s judgment of his or
her capabilities. Self-efficacy relates to one’s motivation, learning, self-regulation, and
35

achievement (Schunk, 2012). Self-efficacy is acquired through the perception of one’s
performance along with vicarious experiences, among other indicators (Bandura, 1997; Elliot et
al., 2017). A large body of research indicates paraprofessionals experience significant role
ambiguity (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Shyman, 2010; Stewart, 2019), making it difficult to assess
their performance. Additionally, numerous studies have indicated the self-report of
paraprofessionals as lacking quality training, making it difficult to fulfill their roles effectively
(Barrio & Hollingshead, 2017; Biggs et al., 2016; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012). Role ambiguity and a lack of training both affect paraprofessional self-efficacy.
Paraprofessional self-efficacy increases when they are the recipients of clear and delineated job
descriptions, along with appropriate training and support.
A paraprofessional’s assessment of his or her self-efficacy is not necessarily
commensurate with adequate performance within their role, however as a paraprofessional
receives appropriate training, learns the requisite skills necessary to be successful in his or her
position, and receives praise and feedback from the teacher, self-efficacy increases (Kim et al.,
2017; Feldman & Matos, 2012; Wright & Prescot, 2017). For example, Layden et al. (2018)
provided 2,212 paraprofessionals with an opportunity to complete a comprehensive online course
related to an area of need deemed to be so by paraprofessionals. Over 85% of paraprofessionals
in this particular study reported an increase in knowledge related to skills covered in the online
course as well as an increase in overall confidence when implementing these skills (Layden et
al., 2018). An increase in self-efficacy can positively affect one’s motivation, effort, and
perseverance (Elliot et al., 2017; Joet et al., 2011; Schunk, 2012). Several studies indicate that
when paraprofessional self-efficacy increases because of training provided, paraprofessionals
become more willing to implement the skills learned while being trained, and ultimately, student
36

outcomes are positively affected (Kim et al., 2017; Feldman & Matos, 2012; Wright & Prescot,
2017). Paraprofessional self-efficacy also increases when teachers provide praise, recognition,
and positive feedback (Barnes et al., 2016; Biggs et al., 2016; Brown & Stanton-Chapman,
2017).
Conceptual Framework
Using Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, Figure 1 depicts a conceptual model of
the relationship between the paraprofessional, their work environment, and their behaviors, or
roles, at work. Each element in Figure 1 is interconnected. This interconnectedness demonstrates
that the aspects of one’s work environment are connected to one’s actions at work, and
connected to an individual’s beliefs, values, and thoughts. The role of a paraprofessional is
dependent on his or her work environment, along with the student demographic and population
served. Research indicates that paraprofessionals often find themselves monitoring and
supervising students and providing instructional and behavioral support to students with special
needs. Then, depending on the specific needs of students, paraprofessionals adjust their roles
accordingly and provide more explicit and individualized support.

37

Figure 1
Paraprofessional-Role-Environment Conceptual Framework

The work environments experienced by paraprofessionals are varied (e.g., general
education classrooms, special education classrooms, alternative schools, etc.), as are the
disabilities and needs of the students whom paraprofessionals support. When paraprofessionals
do not receive sufficient training within their work settings, paraprofessionals experience
38

significant issues with role ambiguity. Additionally, many teachers are underprepared to
supervise and collaborate with paraprofessionals.
With these environmental aspects in mind, the paraprofessional, as agent, resiliently
implements his or her work through means such as observing the social models around them.
Without specific training, however, paraprofessionals are unable to implement evidence-based
instructional and behavioral strategies and interventions with fidelity. Paraprofessionals also
experience waning confidence and lower self-efficacy when they are not provided with sufficient
training opportunities.
Summary
Since the 1950s, paraprofessionals have played a pronounced role in supporting students
with special needs in both general education and special education classroom settings. Over time,
the roles of paraprofessionals have evolved from the mere provision of clerical tasks on behalf of
the teacher to providing systematic implementation of evidence-based strategies to support
students with significant and specific special needs. Although the roles of paraprofessionals have
evolved, research indicates that the systems to which paraprofessionals work within often do not
have cohesive training mechanisms in place to adequately train and support these employees. As
a result, paraprofessionals experience issues with role clarity and role ambiguity. Teachers
indicate a lack of preparation regarding establishing cohesive supervision and management of
paraprofessionals. Emerging research indicates that when provided with sufficient training,
paraprofessionals have the capacity to positively affect student outcomes. The following chapter
outlines the specific methodology of this study and provides a detailed explanation of this
examination into the specific training needs of paraprofessionals will be implemented.

39

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the training needs of special education
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD from the perspective of paraprofessionals themselves as
well as from the perspectives of special education teachers and school site administrators
employed by the same district. This chapter provides an in-depth overview of the methodology
of this study and its various components. This chapter also examines the positionality of the
researcher. This chapter then concludes with an examination of validity and reliability pertaining
to the study along with ethical considerations and a review of potential limitations and
delimitations.
Research Questions
This inquiry served to examine the distinctive training needs of special education
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD. The following research questions were addressed in this
study:
1. What are the perceptions of special education paraprofessionals regarding their roles
and responsibilities, specific training needs, and self-efficacy?
2. What are the perceptions of special education teachers and school site administrators
regarding the knowledge and awareness needed for paraprofessionals to fulfill their
roles?
Overview of Design
A convergent parallel mixed methods design was utilized to address the guiding research
questions of this study. Mixed methods research is an integration of both quantitative and
qualitative methods for the purpose of gaining additional insight into a particular problem by
mixing the two designs (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). More specifically, a convergent parallel
40

mixed method design is a single-phase approach in which the quantitative data and qualitative
data are collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then compared to see if the findings
converge or diverge from one another (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As addressed in Table 1, the
quantitative portion of this study called for paraprofessionals employed within MUSD to
complete an online survey that addresses their perspectives related to the roles they perform and
their possible training needs. The qualitative portion of this study involved semi-structured
interviews with special education teachers and school site administrators employed by MUSD at
each level: preschool, elementary, middle school, and high school. These interviews were aimed
at understanding the perspectives of special education teachers and school site administrators
related to the skills they perceived as necessary for paraprofessionals to possess in order to fulfill
their roles. Results from both quantitative and qualitative portions are analyzed and compared via
a side-by-side comparison.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research Questions
Paraprofessional
Survey
Teacher &
Administrator
Interviews
RQ1: What are the perceptions of special education
paraprofessionals regarding their roles and
responsibilities, specific training needs, and self-
efficacy?

X

RQ2: What are the perceptions of special education
teachers regarding the knowledge and awareness
needed for paraprofessionals to fulfill their roles?

X

41

Research Setting
In alignment with a convergent parallel mixed-methods approach, the quantitative and
qualitative portions of this study were conducted simultaneously during the months of September
2020 and October 2020. During these months, the COVID-19 pandemic was impacting the
operation of all public schools within California. Public health guidelines in Los Angeles county,
at the time of data collection, were such that required the researcher to rely solely on conducting
surveys and interviews within a virtual format. All participants involved in this research study
were employed by MUSD. The quantitative portion of this study was conducted online, via the
usage of an online survey. The qualitative portion of this study included semi-structured
interviews via ZOOM, a live, online platform. Finally, all participants involved in this research
study were employed by MUSD.
The Researcher
Constructivism is the philosophical worldview framing the problem of practice and
purpose of this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Crotty (1998) as cited by Creswell and
Creswell (2018) describes one of the main assumptions of constructivism as involving the
manner in which humans construct varied and deeply subjective meanings as they interact with
the environments surrounding them.
I used Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to provide a framework for the ways in
which humans construct meaning, as indicative of their behavior, given the influence of their
direct environments. A constructivist’s view of the perspectives of the stakeholders included in
this study assumes that these individuals will describe their perceptions related to the training
needs of paraprofessionals based on their experiences, both currently and historically, while
working within the field of special education and in classroom environments in which
42

paraprofessionals support students with special needs. The experiences of paraprofessionals and
special education teachers ultimately shape their perceptions and are a derivative of the
environments and environmental interactions of each individual.
I am a present employee of MUSD, and I worked alongside many of the individuals
being surveyed and interviewed at the time of data collection. So as to ensure there were no
issues involving power dynamics or coercion, I was not a direct supervisor of any of the
participants who participated in the research study. My interest in conducting this study was
taken into account for the purposes of obtaining a doctoral degree.
Data Sources
This section provides a detailed explanation pertaining to the quantitative and qualitative
methods utilized throughout this inquiry. For each method, the participants, instrumentation, data
collection procedures, and data analysis procedures are described.
Quantitative Methods
Special education paraprofessionals, employed by MUSD, completed an online survey to
address the quantitative portion of this inquiry.
Participants, Response Rate, and Survey Duration
Purposeful sampling of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD took place during the
quantitative phase of this study given the intent was to gather information from all
paraprofessionals representing a global paraprofessional perspective within MUSD (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Seventy-four participants, equaling the total amount of special education
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD, were asked to participate in an online, anonymous
survey to which included 52 questions. Between the date range of September 8, 2020 and
September 21, 2020 (13 days), 55 total responses were recorded indicating an initial response
43

rate of 74.32%. By the end of the survey, however, the response rate fell to 48 total responses,
indicative of a 64.8% response rate. The median response time for completion of the online
survey was 32 minutes and 59 seconds.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument utilized in the quantitative portion of this study was created by the
researcher, however, the some of the contents of the instrument were based on adaptations from
instruments already used within the research of Barrio and Hollingshead (2017), Carter et al.
(2009), and Riggs (2001). Additionally, the Assessment Checklist for Paraprofessionals (2007)
created by Connecticut’s State Education Resource Center informed the survey design. Riggs
(2001) conducted a study aimed at understanding relevant professional development
opportunities for special education paraprofessionals. A 15-item survey was distributed to 200
paraprofessionals over the span of two years at workshop-type settings. Paraprofessionals were
asked to rate each item or skill as “no need,” “some need,” or “great need” related to whether or
not they felt training on the skill was an area of need. In 2017, Barrio and Hollingshead (2017)
built upon the survey that Riggs (2001) created and designed a survey to which was distributed
to 98 special education paraprofessionals within rural school districts in the northwestern United
States. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each skill or area of need as it pertained
to their practice. Carter et al. (2009) conducted a survey of 313 paraprofessionals. One aspect of
the survey tracked the frequency in which paraprofessionals completed specific tasks. Similarly,
the State Education Resource Center in Connecticut created a survey for school districts to utilize
in obtaining frequency data based on specific responsibilities paraprofessionals carry out on a
regular basis. Altogether, these tools utilized within these prior studies informed the design of the
respective survey used in this research inquiry. Some items on the survey are taken verbatim
44

from the work of Barrio and Hollingshead (2017), Carter et al. (2009), and Riggs (2001). Mostly,
however, the overall designs of the surveys conducted by the outlined researchers were used as
guides in creating the survey used in this inquiry.
The overall purpose of the survey protocol, entitled “Paraprofessional Training
Assessment (PTA),” served to facilitate participant responses to the first research question
guiding this study. The PTA was designed using Qualtrics, which is an online software program
used to assist in the creation of surveys and the various data collection components that are
associated with the administration of surveys. The interview protocol included 52 questions and
was divided into four sections: participant characteristics, paraprofessional roles and
responsibilities, paraprofessional training needs, and closing questions. Given the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic, certain questions contained qualifiers asking participants to respond to
specific questions in a manner to which assumed that the circumstances of the COVID-19
pandemic were not in effect. A copy of the Paraprofessional Training Assessment is located in
Appendix B.
The first section of the PTA contained demographic questions related to the
characteristics of participants such as preferred pronouns, age, ethnicity, years of experience
working as a paraprofessional, highest level of education, the classroom setting(s) they presently
worked within at the time of data collection, and the student populations they worked with. This
section also included survey items addressing the frequency of any training received on behalf of
paraprofessionals. The section concluded with items designed to capture how much participants
agreed or disagreed with statements related to the types and amounts of training they received as
well as statements related to how well they understood their role.
45

The second section included a series of 24 questions pertaining to a range of specific
roles and responsibilities that paraprofessionals are known within the research to complete.
Respondents were asked to identify how often they complete each task, if at all, in the form of
frequency within a typical month, such as “every day,” “a couple times per week,” “once a
week,” “a couple times per month,” “once per month,” or “never.”
The third section was specifically related to the self-efficacy of paraprofessionals. This
section is in matrix form and called on participants to indicate the level of certainty they have for
completing each of the 17 tasks listed. Participants had the choice to rank their certainty levels
regarding the completion of these tasks between the categories of “1,” indicating “not certain at
all,” to “5,” indicating “extremely certain.”
The final section of the PTA included three closing questions. The questions within this
section were open-ended. Given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the fact that
schools in Los Angeles county were not physically open for students and staff during the time of
data collection, the first open-ended question allowed the participants to reflect on their
perceptions related to their most important responsibilities as an instructional assistant when
schools were physically open and students were physically present. The next open-ended
question asked participants to describe their most important responsibilities during the provision
of distance learning, which was the present form of instruction during data collection. This
question allowed for the opportunity to compare and contrast the roles of paraprofessionals
participating in the survey both during and prior to the pandemic. Additionally, this question
assisted the survey in being more contextually relevant. The final open-ended question asked
participants to identify the single most critical training topic they would be interested in
exploring if they were to attend a training the day after taking the survey. This open-ended
46

question allowed for a more thorough understanding pertaining to the specific training needs
these paraprofessionals had at the time of data collection, especially if the need was not
somehow identified by participants within the prior section of the survey.
Data Collection Procedures
Surveys were conducted online. All prospective participants received an email in on
September 8, 2020 from the researcher asking for their participation in the survey. This email
included an information sheet regarding the study. Two reminder emails were sent to prospective
participants over the following two-week period. The survey was administered over a two-week
period and data was compiled and analyzed using Qualtrics software.
Qualitative Methods
Special education teachers and school site administrators employed by MUSD
participated in semi-structured interviews to address the qualitative portion of this inquiry.
Participants, Response Rate, and Interview Length
Purposeful sampling of special education teachers employed by MUSD took place during
the qualitative phase of this study given the intent was to gather information from individuals
with specific expertise related to the subject matter being explored (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Special education teachers were chosen based on the grade level and student population they
served so as to represent all grade bands and student populations served in MUSD. Ten special
education teachers were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews regarding the second
guiding research question of this dissertation, representative of 34% of all special education
teachers employed by MUSD. All special education teachers who were asked to participate did,
in fact, consent to being interviewed. Interviews took place throughout the month of October
2020 via the ZOOM online platform. Interviews were audio recorded. Interviews ranged from
47

approximately 31 minutes to 52 minutes in duration with a 41-minute mean interview length
overall.
Additionally, four school site administrators were requested to participate in semi-
structured interviews regarding the second guiding research question of this dissertation,
representative of 26.6% of all school site administrators employed by MUSD. Administrators
represented elementary schools, middle school, and high school. All administrators who were
asked to participate did, in fact, consent to being interviewed. Interviews took place throughout
the month of October 2020 via the ZOOM online platform. Interviews were audio recorded.
Interviews ranged from approximately 32 minutes to 49 minutes in length, with a 39-minute
mean interview length.
Interviews were aimed at understanding the perspectives of special education teachers
and school site administrators related to the skills they perceive as necessary for
paraprofessionals to possess in order to fulfill their roles. The intent was to facilitate a dialogue
between interview participant and interviewer so as to generate comprehensive data.
Instrumentation
Semi-structured interviews were conducted. In alignment with a constructivist’s
worldview, it was understood that participants would respond to questions in unique ways and
based on their own individual experiences and circumstances (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Semi-structured interviews, then, being more malleable, allowed for the flexibility necessary to
capture the unique views of each participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Teacher participants answered a total of 20 semi-structured interview questions divided
into five question sets eliciting information pertaining to their perceptions related to the elements
of the second guiding research question. A copy of this interview protocol can be found in
48

Appendix C. Administrator participants answered a total of 24 semi-structured interview
questions divided into six question sets designed to elicit information pertaining to their
perceptions related to the elements of the second guiding research question. The additional
question set for administrators addressed questions pertaining to the supervision and evaluation
of paraprofessionals. A copy of this interview protocol can be found in Appendix D.
The first set of questions within the interview protocol for both teachers and
administrators were simplistic and related to the work history of participants and their overall,
daily interactions with paraprofessionals. These questions allowed for a more definitive
understanding pertaining to the longevity of each teacher in relation to how many years of
experience they have working with paraprofessionals. Questions within this section also sought
to uncover the various types of classroom environments teachers may have worked within,
alongside paraprofessionals, and provided a sense of how many paraprofessionals each teacher
worked with on a daily basis. The second set of questions for both teachers and administrators
addressed general roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals either assigned to them by the
special education teachers being interviewed or initiated by paraprofessionals themselves.
Interview participants were asked to identify specific knowledge and skills they felt were
necessary for paraprofessionals to possess in an effort to fulfill their roles effectively.
The third set of questions for both teachers and administrators delved deeper into specific
domains such as ethics, instructional support, behavioral support, and supervision. In this
section, participants were probed to identify specific tasks within each domain to which they felt
were necessary roles for paraprofessionals to complete. The fourth set of questions for both
stakeholder groups participating in interviews involves teacher, paraprofessional, and student
relationships. Participants are asked to identify the elements of a positive teacher-
49

paraprofessional relationship and a positive student-paraprofessional relationship. The fifth set of
questions for both teachers and administrators addressed the concept of training for
paraprofessionals and called on participants to identify any training they provided to
paraprofessionals along with identifying any skill gaps they felt were noticeable amongst the
paraprofessional employee group in general. The interview protocol ended after the fifth question
set for teachers, however, administrators were asked additional questions, in a sixth question set
pertaining to their feelings related to the supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals.
Administrators were asked if they received any specific training regarding evaluating this
specific employee group. They were asked about the evaluation process and the evaluative tool
utilized. All semi-structured interviews ended by allowing participants to share any additional
information with the researcher pertaining to the topic at hand.
Data Collection Procedures
All prospective interview candidates received an email on September 23, 2020 asking
them if they would be willing to be interviewed. This email included an information sheet about
the study. Given the COVID-19 school pandemic and protocols related to social distancing
maintained by public health entities, interviews were held via the ZOOM online platform so as to
ensure social distancing protocols were being followed and to ensure participants could safely
participate in the interviews. Each interview was audio recorded and transcription software was
utilized afterwards to create full transcripts of dialogue and responses. Detailed field notes were
taken pertaining to participant body language, tone of voice, and verbal responses upon the
conclusion of interview.

50

Validity and Reliability
This study used multiple methods of obtaining data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In an
effort to ensure this convergent parallel mixed methods design reached a high level of
quantitative validity and qualitative credibility, similar concepts were addressed in both the
quantitative portion (roles, responsibilities, and specific training needs of paraprofessionals as
perceived by paraprofessionals) and qualitative portion (knowledge and awareness necessary for
paraprofessionals to possess as perceived by special education teachers) of this inquiry.
Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately and then compared to see whether or
not the results converged or diverged (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
While conducting the quantitative portion of this study, specific strategies were used to
ensure the validity and reliability of the research. Before developing the survey protocol, the
researcher analyzed numerous research studies in an effort to create a comprehensive conceptual
framework that outlines the various concepts addressed in the survey. This assisted in
establishing strong content validity. In order to address internal validity of survey items, a pilot
version of the survey was administered prior to research participants actually engaging in the
completion of the instrument. The survey was pilot tested to ensure that items were clear,
comprehensible, and addressed the intended concepts. In addition, standardized procedures were
used to collect data.
Throughout the qualitative portion of this study, specific strategies were used to ensure
the credibility and trustworthiness of the research. Ten special education teachers and four school
site administrators, all employed by MUSD, were asked to participate in semi-structured
interviews. This number of individuals was a strong representative sample of the total number of
special education teachers and school site administrators employed by MUSD and thus,
51

increased credibility of the data compiled. The triangulation of different forms of data was
utilized as a strategy to assist the researcher in ensuring that research findings are credible
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data obtained from semi-structured interviews was cross-referenced
to data obtained through surveys. This data was then compared to current research related to the
topic. Member checking was also utilized as a method to ensure the researcher’s interpretation of
the information that participants have shared through semi-structured interviews and surveys are
fully and comprehensively captured. Extensive field notes were taken. Finally, a peer review
took place in that the researcher asked doctoral-level researchers to examine the raw data to
ensure the conclusions were conceivable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
In an effort to ensure ethical principles of research were applied, permission to conduct
this study was obtained from the superintendent of MUSD. All participants acknowledged
receiving an information sheet about this study and its intended purpose before participating. The
information sheet included details related to how their participation was strictly voluntary and
that they had the option of withdrawing their participation at any time. All identifying
information related to participants was held in confidence by the researcher. Pseudonyms are
used by the researcher when relaying responses by interviewees. So as to ensure there are no
issues involving power dynamics or coercion, the researcher was not a direct supervisor of any of
the participants within the research study. The researcher did provide any compensation or
tangible incentives to participants so as to influence participation; however, gratitude was
expressed through the form of a thank-you card for all interview participants once their interview
concluded. Finally, the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
granted approval for this study before it was conducted.
52

Chapter Four: Findings
When reflecting on her experiences as a supervisor and evaluator of paraprofessionals
over the years, a high school administrator made reference to the juxtaposition that is the
paraprofessional. This juxtaposition is further explored throughout this chapter as the findings of
this study are revealed. Chapter four describes the results of this mixed methods study as they
pertain to the following guiding research questions:
1. What are the perceptions of special education paraprofessionals regarding their roles
and responsibilities, specific training needs, and self-efficacy?
2. What are the perceptions of special education teachers and school site administrators
regarding the knowledge and awareness needed for paraprofessionals to fulfill their
roles?
In this chapter, participating stakeholders are described, followed by an in-depth examination of
the findings related to the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals as perceived by the three
stakeholder groups. Then, perceptions regarding the training needs of paraprofessionals are
explored. This chapter concludes with an examination of the elements of the paraprofessional
work environment through the lens of the various stakeholders. Following this chapter, is a
detailed analysis and recommendations specifically related to the findings outlined in the present
chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
Three stakeholder groups participated in this study. The quantitative portion of this study
called for paraprofessionals employed within MUSD to complete an online survey that addressed
their perspectives related to the first guiding research question. The qualitative portion of this
study involved semi-structured interviews with special education teachers and school site
53

administrators employed by MUSD at each level: preschool, elementary, middle school, and
high school. The qualitative portion of this study addressed the second guiding research question.
Demographics pertaining to both survey participants and interview participants are described in
the sections below.
Survey Participants
This section provides a detailed description of the demographic information of the
paraprofessionals who participated in the online survey for the purpose of addressing the first
guiding research question of this study.
Gender and Age
Survey participants predominantly identified as female (72.4%). Nine of the 55 survey
participants identified as male (16.3%), whereas one participant identified as they/theirs (1.8%).
Five participants (9%) preferred not to answer this question. Approximately 52% of
paraprofessionals who reported their age were 35 years of age or older, with 14.54% of these
paraprofessionals indicating they were 55 years of age or older. Approximately 44% of
paraprofessionals who reported their age were 34 years of age or younger. Twenty-two
participants indicated their age range as being between 25 years of age and 34 years of age,
making the 25-34 age range the range with the highest number of survey participants. Two
participants preferred not to answer the question pertaining to age.
Ethnicity and Bilingualism
Over half of the survey respondents (55%) indicated they were of Latinx ethnicity. This
is commensurate with the special education population of MUSD given, as of October 2020,
approximately 63% of students receiving special education or related services within MUSD
were considered to be Latinx. Paraprofessionals of Asian descent made up 15% of the surveyed
54

population and white paraprofessionals made up 13.3% of the surveyed population. Other
ethnicities noted by participants were Pacific Islander (3.3%) and Black (1.6%). Seven
participants (11.66%) chose not to answer the question pertaining to ethnicity. Twenty-eight of
the 55 survey respondents indicated they were bilingual, demonstrating that slightly more than
half of all paraprofessionals surveyed speak two or more languages. Seventy-five percent of this
bilingual group indicated they were fluent in Spanish. Other languages of note included
Mandarin, Vietnamese, Arabic, Tamil, and Italian.
Years of Experience
Sixty-five percent of survey respondents indicated they had 10 years or less of experience
working as a paraprofessional, with slightly over half of this particular group indicating they had
only five years of less of experience. Twenty-seven percent of paraprofessionals surveyed
indicated having between 11 and 20 years of experience. Seven percent of paraprofessionals
surveyed indicated they had 21 or more years of experience.
Level of Education
Slightly more than half of survey respondents (52.72%) indicated having obtained a post-
secondary degree, while 47.26% of survey respondents indicated either they had obtained a high
school diploma or attended some college, however, did not obtain a degree. Two respondents
(3.63%) indicating they had only obtained a high school diploma, while nine percent of
respondents (n = 5) indicated having a master’s degree.
Work Setting and Grade Levels
Within the framework of MUSD’s special education department, students with special
needs are educated in a variety of settings, which include the general education setting, a
combination of general education and special education settings, or solely the special education
55

setting. Students who predominantly receive their education within the special education setting
and are placed in “special day class” settings to which the teacher of record is a credentialed
special education teacher. MUSD has 13 special day classes across the district to which serve
students in each grade level from preschool through adult transition.
Regarding specific work setting, 30 of the 55 survey respondents (54.55%) indicated
working primarily within special education classrooms prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Seven
survey participants (12.73%) indicated working primarily within general education settings.
Eighteen survey participants (32.72%) indicated working within a combination of general
education and special education settings.
Survey respondents were asked to identify the predominant grade levels of the students in
which they supported prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 45% of survey
respondents worked with elementary-aged students, while 24% of survey respondents worked
with high school aged students. Sixteen percent of survey respondents worked with middle-
school-aged students, while 9% of survey respondents worked with preschool-aged students.
Five percent of survey respondents worked with adult transition aged students.
When comparing the work settings noted by paraprofessionals to the respective student
grade levels in which they support, 23.63% of survey respondents worked in elementary special
education settings prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 14.5% of survey respondents worked within
high school special education settings, 14.5% of survey respondents worked within a
combination of elementary general education and special education settings, and 12.7% of
survey respondents worked within a combination of middle school general education and special
education settings.

56

Eligibilities Supported
Survey respondents were asked to identify the special education eligibilities of the
students they support. Participants were provided a list of 11 special education eligibilities and
asked to “select all that apply” pertaining to the eligibilities of the students in which they
presently supported. Although there are 13 special education eligibilities, the researcher
intentionally left out the eligibility of Deaf-Blindness given the researcher understood that there
were no students in MUSD with this particular eligibility at the time of the survey. Additionally,
the eligibility of Deafness and the eligibility of Hard of Hearing are typically two separate
eligibilities. On the survey instrument, these two eligibilities are combined.
Many respondents indicated working with a student population was representative of
multiple special education eligibilities. For the 55 respondents answering this question, a count
of 255 selections were recorded. On average, each paraprofessional responding to this question
supported a student population to which was inclusive of more than four special education
eligibilities. Only one respondent indicated “I don’t know” regarding this question.
Eighty-three percent of survey respondents indicated supporting a student or students
with Autism. Approximately 73% of survey respondents indicated supporting a student or
students with intellectual disabilities. More than half of survey respondents indicated working
with students in which were impacted with specific learning disabilities or speech and language
impairments. Forty-five percent of survey respondents indicated supporting students with
emotional disturbances and approximately 25% of respondents indicated support students with
the eligibility of “other health impairments.” Less than 25% of survey respondents indicated
working with students in which were impacted with lower incidence disabilities such as vision
57

impairments, orthopedic impairments, deafness or Hard of Hearing eligibilities, or traumatic
brain injuries.
Of importance, 43.64% of respondents (24 individuals) indicated supporting a student or
students with “multiple disabilities,” however typically, this eligibility is very rare and is
considered a low incidence disability. In fact, MUSD had only five students who were receiving
special education services with this eligibility at the time of the COVID-19 school closures and
all five of these students were in high school or adult transition programs. Although the
reasoning behind so many respondents selecting this specific eligibility remains unknown, the
term “multiple disabilities” can be ambiguous if one does not fully understand the formal
definition within federal legislation.
Interview Participants
This section provides an overview of the demographic information of the special
education teachers and school site administrators who participated in online interviews for the
purpose of addressing the second guiding research question of this study. Table 2 represents the
demographics of the interview participants that are described below.

58
Table 2
Demographic Overview of Teacher and School Site Administrator Participants

Participant
Gender
Identity
Years of
Experience
in role
Grade
Level
Student
Population
Classroom Setting
Interview
Duration
(minutes)
Interesting Note
T1 F 6 Middle
Moderate/
Severe
Special Day Class 49:10
Prior
paraprofessional
T2 F 8 High
Mild/
Moderate
Inclusion &
Specialized Academic
Instruction
45:40
Prior
paraprofessional
T3 F 20 Middle
Mild/
Moderate
Inclusion &
Specialized Academic
Instruction
50:44
T4 M 2 Preschool
Moderate/
Severe
Special Day Class 47:15
Prior
paraprofessional
T5 F 7 High
Moderate/
Severe
Special Day Class 52:43
T6 M 5 Elementary
Mild/
Moderate
Inclusion & Learning
Center
33:19
Prior
paraprofessional
T7 F 5 Elementary
Moderate/
Severe
Special Day Class 40:07
T8 F 12 Middle
Mild/
Moderate
Inclusion &
Specialized Academic
Instruction
30:59
Prior
paraprofessional
T9 F 11 High
Mild/
Moderate
Inclusion &
Specialized Academic
Instruction
35:35
T10 M 16
Adult
Transition
Moderate/
Severe
Special Day Class 31:32

59

Participant
Gender
Identity
Years of
Experience
in role
Grade
Level
Student
Population
Classroom Setting
Interview
Duration
(minutes)
Interesting Note
A1 F 3 Elementary All All 32:48
A2 F 16 High All All 49:36
A3 M 7 Middle All All 32:00
A4 F 12 Elementary All All 45:22
Prior special
education
teacher
60

Gender and Years of Experience
Special education teacher interviewees mostly identified as female, with seven of 10
special education teachers identifying as female and three of 10 special education teachers
identifying as male. Years of experience as special education teachers ranged from two years to
20 years, respectively, with an average of nine years of experience. Of particular note, 50% of
special education teachers indicated they were paraprofessionals themselves prior to becoming
teachers. Three of four site administrators identified as female, and one site administrator
identified as male. Years of experience as site administrators amongst interviewees ranged from
three years to 16 years, respectively, with an average of nine-and-a-half years of experience. Of
particular note, all school site administrators were former teachers, and one administrator
participant was a former special education teacher.
Teacher Work Setting
Regarding specific work setting, teacher participants worked with students with special
needs across varied age ranges from preschool aged students (three to five years of age) to adult
transition aged students (18 to 22 years of age) and each age range in between. One teacher
participant taught within the preschool setting, two teachers taught within the elementary setting,
three teachers taught within the middle school setting, three teachers taught within the high
school setting, and one teacher participant taught within the adult transition setting. Five of the
10 special education teachers interviewed worked exclusively in special day class settings, while
the other five special education teachers worked within a combination of special and general
education settings. The range of student need is vastly different across settings. Teacher
participants indicated working alongside between two to five paraprofessionals per day who
were specifically assigned to assist them and the students on their rosters.
61

Administrator Work Setting
Of the four administrators interviewed, one participant was an elementary principal, one
participant was an elementary assistant principal, one participant was a middle school principal,
and one participant was a high school assistant principal. All school sites to which these
administrators supervised include an array special education programs and settings, including
inclusive settings, resource learning centers, and special day class settings, so as to support
students with a range of special needs. Administrator participants indicated supervising between
10 and 15 paraprofessionals per site.
With these demographics in mind, inclusive of three stakeholder groups, the following
section aims to describe the perceptions of each stakeholder group as to roles and responsibilities
that are essential for paraprofessionals to be able to implement.
The Roles and Responsibilities of Paraprofessionals
The roles and responsibilities of special education paraprofessionals are both vast within
the literature and within the findings of this study. As one teacher shared, “I’m trying to think of
all the things that paraprofessionals do because they do a lot.” Often times, what
paraprofessionals “do” is dependent on a myriad of factors, including specific classroom settings,
age level, and variance of student need. Across settings and student populations, however, there
seems to be common roles to which many paraprofessionals perform. This section begins with a
description of the perceptions of paraprofessionals surveyed regarding their roles and the
frequencies to which they carry out these roles. Following this description is an in-depth
examination of the perceptions of all stakeholders regarding these three specific paraprofessional
roles: providing instructional support, monitoring students, and building rapport. Although these
62

three roles are not comprehensive of the many roles and responsibilities that paraprofessionals
seem to engage in, they were the most pronounced on behalf of the stakeholder groups.
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Their Roles
Paraprofessionals were provided with a series of four statements regarding the general
understanding of their own roles and responsibilities. They were asked to select between four
options, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” for each statement. Table 3 outlines the
percentage of paraprofessionals who either agreed or strongly agreed with each statement or who
disagreed or strongly disagreed with each statement. More than 90% of respondents either agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements “my roles and responsibilities are clear to me,” “I have a
clear understanding of the basic characteristics of various disabilities,” and “I have a clear
understanding of ethical practices related to supporting students with disabilities.” In contrast,
about 70% of respondents indicated they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I have a
clear understanding of the special education referral, assessment, and IEP process.” Of the
approximate 30% of respondents that disagreed with this statement, over half had five years or
less of experience, however, this is not considered statistically significant given those with five
years or less of experience were also the largest group of respondents.

63

Table 3
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Their Roles
Agree/Strongly
Agree
Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
My roles and responsibilities are clear to me. 92.31% 7.69%
I have a clear understanding of the basic
characteristics of various disabilities.
90.38% 9.62%
I have a clear understanding of ethical practices
related to supporting students with disabilities.
92.31% 7.69%
I have a clear understanding of the special education
referral, assessment, and IEP process.
69.23% 30.77%

Perceived Frequency of Paraprofessional Roles and Responsibilities
Participants were provided with a list of 19 various tasks deriving from the literature
related to possible roles and responsibilities delegated to paraprofessionals. Participants were
asked to rank the frequency in which they performed each task, if at all. Choices included “every
day,” “a couple times per week,” “once a week,” “a couple times per month,” “once a month,”
and “never.” Figure 2 outlines the percentage of paraprofessionals who selected “daily” to
describe the frequency in which they completed each of the tasks listed. Figure 3 outlines the
percentage of paraprofessionals who indicated they complete certain tasks at least once per week
or more frequently.
As demonstrated in Figure 2, 90.2% of survey respondents indicated that they provide
direct instruction to students on a daily basis. Eighty-four percent of survey respondents
indicated that they monitor or correct student behavior on a daily basis. Between 70% and 80%
of respondents indicated that at least once per week or more frequently, they participate in
leading small group instruction as well as observe students for the purpose of providing input to
teachers or other service providers. Additionally, between 50% and 69% of respondents
64

indicated that at least on a weekly basis or more frequently, they complete the following tasks:
create, adapt or modify student assignments, track or chart student progress or data, assist
students with adapted equipment or technology devices used for communication, supervise the
playground, lunch areas, or passing periods, assist teachers in developing lesson plans or
planning instruction, and collaborate with related service providers. Between 30% and 49% of
respondents indicated that at least on a weekly basis or more frequently, they engage in tasks
such as assisting students with self-help needs, lead whole group instruction, physically assist in
moving students from one place to another, supervise or assist students during community-based
instruction, provide student support during testing, and grade tests or assignments.
Tasks in which respondents very rarely performed, on at least a weekly basis, included
assisting with crisis intervention and assisting with interpreting or translating conversations or
documents in a language other than English. These tasks are extremely nuanced and can only be
performed if one is actually bilingual or has been specifically trained in crisis prevention and the
level of need a student is exhibiting meets the criteria for utilization of the strategies.

65

Figure 2
Percentage of Paraprofessionals Who Complete Each Task on a “Daily” Basis

66

Figure 3
Percentage of Paraprofessionals Who Complete Each Task At Least Once Per Week or More
Frequently

The Role of Instructional Support
As noted, an immense majority of the paraprofessionals who participated in the survey
indicated that direct instruction was the most frequently conducted role in which they perform.
For paraprofessionals, however, and as noted by special education teachers and school site
67

administrators, direct instruction can take many different forms. In conjunction with the survey
results, information shared by special education teachers and school site administrators within
individual interviews indicated the role of instructional support as being an essential duty for
paraprofessionals. Additionally, all participating stakeholders discussed the role of instructional
support as being prominent both prior to COVID-19 school dismissals and during the provision
of online instruction.
Providing instructional support to students is a vital paraprofessional role, according to
the special education teachers and school site administrators who were interviewed. Interview
participants were asked to provide information about the general tasks in which
paraprofessionals complete on a regular basis, either by direct assignment on behalf of the
teacher or administrator, or through anecdotal observation by the special education teacher or
administrator. Additionally, interview participants were asked to specifically identify some of the
skills to which paraprofessionals should be able to implement related to academic instruction.
Overwhelmingly, interview participants named instructional support as being a critical role of
the paraprofessional. Providing this instructional support, however, is comprehensive of
providing direct instruction to students, implementing specific instructional strategies aimed to
differentiate instruction for specific students, planning and preparing in advance for instruction
to take place, and recording data on student academic performance. Additionally, interview
participants spoke of the various ways in which paraprofessionals were providing instructional
support during COVID-19 school dismissal.
Leading Small Group Instruction
All interview participants discussed ways in which the paraprofessionals they work with
implement direct instruction. Many interview participants communicated that paraprofessionals
68

often assisted in instructional delivery by leading small or whole group instructional exercises,
while some interview participants shared how paraprofessionals assisted in providing instruction
to students in an individual, one-on-one format. When asked to provide an idea of the types of
tasks that paraprofessionals would be completing if an outsider were to observe their classroom
or school site, one teacher stated that prior to COVID-19 school dismissal, “the [outsider] would
see me delivering instruction to [paraprofessionals] and then they would be relaying it to the
students.” Another teacher explained that an outside observer would “see the paraprofessionals
interacting with my students in a small group setting.” And yet another teacher responded, “I
would definitely say working with students in a smaller group.” One teacher noted that more
than likely, whomever was observing the classroom would see clearly that paraprofessionals
spend a majority of their time working directly with students. This teacher added, “You’ll see
them in small groups and in large groups, but I would say a majority of the time, they’re
interactive with students.” Administrators largely corroborated the thoughts of the teachers.
When asked to provide information on their observations of paraprofessionals throughout the
school day, an elementary site administrator explained that she sees paraprofessionals “working
with small groups.” A middle school administrator stated, “they’re running small groups,” and
yet another site administrator stated that paraprofessionals are “engaged directly with students.”
Leading Whole Group Instruction
Some teachers spoke of ways in which aides lead whole group instruction. An elementary
special education teacher, who teaches students with moderate/severe disabilities, shared that the
paraprofessionals she works with play a “major role” in arts and crafts instruction and in
implementing lessons to develop the fine and gross motor skills of students, especially when her
class participates in inclusive types of activities with their general education peers. She stated,
69

“So the activities for inclusion, [the paraprofessionals] took over that, which is usually arts and
crafts-based or OT-based. So… we would conference, and I would tell them this is what we’re
targeting this week and they would take over that.” A preschool teacher shared that he expects
that the paraprofessionals he works with should “know how to run circle time independently,
without the teacher running the circle.” An administrator noted that some teachers and the
paraprofessionals they work with share ideas with each other and preconceive how to teach a
particular lesson and who is going to be leading a given lesson. She stated, “I think, depending
on the relationships with their teachers, [paraprofessionals] bring forth a lot of ideas in terms of
how to teach a lesson and whether they want to lead a lesson.” Another teacher, then, stated that
an outsider might observe some paraprofessionals “actually taking over a lesson… so teaching
the content that has been prepared.”
Providing Individualized Instruction
Regarding individual, one-on-one instruction, a number of special education teachers
discussed intentionally pairing a specific paraprofessional with a particular student who might
need additional instructional support. A high school teacher explained that paraprofessionals who
are “busy in the classroom” are “definitely working one-on-one with students.” She went on to
explain that she assigns paraprofessionals to work with specific students based on the “classroom
content knowledge” the paraprofessional possesses because “they can explain content” to the
student. When asked about the tasks that are directly assigned to paraprofessionals regarding
academic instruction, one middle school teacher explained that she relies on paraprofessionals to
“work either with a particular student, depending on what the subject is that’s being worked on,
or work with a group of students on this particular skill.” Another middle school teacher
explained that she has given paraprofessionals the role of supporting students to which she
70

knows “need a little more support.” She then directs a specific paraprofessional to “make sure,
during the lesson, to check-in with [the student].”
Implementing Specific Instructional Strategies
While providing instruction explicitly to students is a role to which both special
education teachers and administrators agree is crucial for paraprofessionals to carry out, many
special education teachers described relying on the paraprofessionals they work with to
implement specific instructional strategies aimed to differentiate content for specific students
when providing instruction to them. Evidence suggests that special education teachers felt that
paraprofessionals should be able to utilize scaffolding techniques, should be able to chunk
content into smaller pieces, and should be able to modify content when instructing students.
Although special education teachers felt that paraprofessionals should be able to use these
strategies, some interview participants indicated certain paraprofessionals could actually
implement these strategies, while others were not able to.
Table 4 demonstrates some contextual documentation regarding the perceptions of certain
special education teachers interviewed as related to their beliefs that paraprofessionals should be
able to implement the outlined instructional techniques. Other instructional strategies noted as
important for paraprofessionals to be able to implement, but at a lesser frequency compared to
the importance of implementing scaffolding or chunking techniques, were modeling techniques
and providing wait time for students to process information. When asked to describe some of the
daily tasks that paraprofessionals implement, one elementary teacher stated, “they’re motivating
students and modeling.” She then explained a specific “I do, we do, you do” modeling technique
the paraprofessionals working in her classroom implement. Another elementary teacher noted the
importance of paraprofessionals implementing wait time when providing instruction. She stated
71

that she needs paraprofessionals to be able to “give an instruction and wait, just wait, don’t
overwhelm” so that the students have enough time to process the information given.

Table 4
Special Education Teacher Perceptions Regarding Paraprofessionals Implementing
Differentiated Instruction Techniques
T2
Paraprofessionals should be able to “communicate information clearly to students…
But I really want to see… their ability to break things down and make things a little
simpler for the students.”
T5
They should “be able to explain hard concepts in a simplified manner…”
T6
“The very important thing, I would say is being able to simplify things that they read
aloud for the students… And a lot of it is just simplifying [content] in a way so that
our students can understand. Being able to be utilize what's given to them and
manipulate it to a more general or easier version for our kids to utilize.”
T7
“The [paraprofessionals] that I have right now, they're really good at breaking apart
skills. Like they'll do one piece and then they'll require the student to do another
piece and then the next day they'll switch those pieces.”
T8
Paraprofessionals should be able to “Take a small group and to present information to
students in chunks. Then say, ‘Okay, once we complete that, let’s move on to this.’"
T9
Paraprofessionals “can explain content. They know how to modify content.”
T10
“I think all my aides have that knowledge, where they're able to break down these
problems for my students, whether it's paragraph construction… or if it's math for
functional academics, they'll be able to explain.”

72

Instructional Planning and Data Collection
Evidence obtained from semi-structured interviews suggested that teachers rely on
paraprofessionals to assist with instructional planning and preparation as well as collecting and
recording academic data on behalf of students. A few teachers and administrators noted the
importance of paraprofessionals carrying out tasks such as “cutting and prepping” instructional
materials for lessons, “preparing materials for the next section of day,” and “proactively thinking
about activities that the kids can get involved in.” One teacher spoke of the importance of the
paraprofessional role in setting up “stations” or “centers” and ensuring all materials necessary
were present and ready for instruction to take place. Regarding data collection, an elementary
administrator noted, “I know some [paraprofessionals] help with data gathering. Each student
typically has a folder with their goals,” indicating goals related to their Individual Education
Programs. A high school teacher who teaches students with moderate to severe disabilities
explained that the paraprofessionals she works with have the “tasks of tracking goals for the
kiddos.” She stated that when she initially became the teacher of her present classroom, she
made sure “that goals were tracked.” Additionally, a preschool teacher noted, “I think it’s super
important that aides know how to take data… and to also to be able to graph the data.” He then
added, “Because it’s so much easier when you’re a teacher and you’re able to go and look at the
visual.”
Pandemic-Specific Instructional Support
Similar to how paraprofessionals assist with providing instructional support in an in-
person format, this is also a crucial role for paraprofessionals, as perceived by special education
teachers and school site administrators, during online or virtual instruction due to COVID-19
school dismissals. According to many interview participants, paraprofessionals are providing
73

direct instruction, planning instructional content, and collecting data in a virtual setting as well.
When speaking about instructional support during COVID-19 school dismissals, however, there
was less discourse from special education teachers and school site administrators regarding the
implementation of specific instructional strategies on behalf of paraprofessionals compared to
when discussing instructional support in an in-person setting.
Pandemic-Specific Direct Instruction
Regarding the provision of direct instruction by paraprofessionals during virtual
instruction, interview participants reflected on the various methods paraprofessionals are using,
inclusive of small group instruction and one-on-one instruction, to provide this instruction. A
middle school administrator explained that paraprofessionals are still implementing small group
instruction in the “COVID environment” and added, “It’s just in a ZOOM breakout room now.”
One teacher explained, “Well, right now, [paraprofessionals] may be supervising a breakout
room, for example, or I might leave them in the main room while I pull a student individually, to
have a little one-on-one time.” Another teacher stated, “During school closures, we work very
closely together on ZOOM.” He then explained that sometimes, paraprofessionals are with him
and the whole class participating in whole group instruction and other times, they are “in a
breakout room, working with support, individually.” A high school teacher has arranged for
paraprofessionals to “check in with a student that they’re assigned to once per week” in an
individual manner, via the ZOOM platform. Another high school teacher arranges for the
paraprofessionals she works with to have designated virtual “office hours.” She then “invites
students into that office hour time” and the paraprofessionals help the students revisit “the
concepts that were taught in their general education classes.”

74

Pandemic-Specific Instructional Planning
Planning instructional content, as a form of instructional support, is yet another role that
paraprofessionals are implementing during virtual instruction, especially paraprofessionals who
work with students who have moderate/severe disabilities. A few teachers, who predominantly
teach this specific student population, spoke of the various ways in which paraprofessionals are
participating in developing and planning content to implement during distance learning. One
teacher stated that the paraprofessionals she works with “prepare teaching materials and
assignments” using “Google Slides.” She stated that she will provide direction to the
paraprofessionals about specific content she wants to deliver, and the paraprofessionals will
create the “text side of it.” This teacher also shared examples of how paraprofessionals are
planning instructional content in the form of “recording themselves completing worksheets.” She
stated that this is a “form of modeling” for the students given as the paraprofessional is
completing the worksheet, “they’re also verbally giving directions and prompts while they’re
recording.” The paraprofessionals that work with this teacher also “record themselves
completing art activities” and couple this with “writing out the steps” using Google Slides.
Similarly, a high school teacher shared that she assigns her aides to record “at least one video a
week of themselves reading a book.” She then explained that some of the paraprofessionals she
works with record videos of themselves completing a life skill or a vocational skill. She gave the
example of a particular paraprofessional who owns farm animals. This paraprofessional will
record herself “feeding [the animals] or taking care of them.” The same teacher then provided an
example about another paraprofessional who “likes to cook, so she usually does cooking videos
with the kids.”

75

Pandemic-Specific Data Collection
Two teachers commented on assigning the role of data collection to paraprofessionals
during virtual learning. Both of these teachers teach students who have moderate/severe
disabilities. One teacher indicated that the paraprofessionals she works with “have to do
observations during live sessions because some of the students’ goals are more focused on
whether or not they’re paying attention to [the teacher] or following along with what we’re
doing.” She then added that she asks the paraprofessionals who are completing the observation to
“do data collection for that student.” Another teacher noted that she assigns the paraprofessionals
she works with to “track goals” and specifically, to collect data regarding the frequency and type
of prompting being used to support the students. She explained that while she is teaching, the
paraprofessionals are “on the side writing down” information about the prompting that is
occurring. The teacher states that this form of data collection helps her so that she can “focus on
what’s happening online.”
Perceptions of Paraprofessionals Regarding Pandemic-Specific Instructional Support
Similar to the information shared by special education teachers and school site
administrators within interviews, paraprofessionals seemed to believe that instructional support
during COVID-19 school dismissals was an important role of theirs. Via the survey, when asked
an open-ended question pertaining to their thoughts on their most important responsibilities
during the implementation of distance learning, many paraprofessionals believed that their main
roles during distance learning included assisting the teacher in any way possible. For example,
one paraprofessional stated, “During COVID-19, my most important responsibility is to support
the teacher.” Another noted, “My main responsibility, to me, is to offer help to everyone
(teachers, students, parents, fellow aides, etc.) is whichever way I can because I understand that
76

these are difficult times for everyone.” And yet another noted their most important responsibility
was to “offer the teacher with as much help as I can provide.”
Within this open-ended response question, some paraprofessionals took note of the
specific format in which they were carrying out their duties during distance learning. Either by
assisting with “live sessions,” facilitating “breakout sessions” on the ZOOM platform, or helping
students learn to “navigate the portals,” meaning the various online platforms being utilized to
provide distance learning, paraprofessionals felt that assisting students through these means was
an essential function of their role. Although there was much uncertainty noted regarding their
ever-evolving role in the midst of distance learning, all stakeholders agreed that instructional
support, carried about by paraprofessionals, is an essential responsibility both in-person and
online. Hand in hand with providing instructional support, the role of supervising and monitoring
students was thoroughly discussed.
The Role of Monitoring Students
Survey results depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that a large majority of
paraprofessionals “monitor,” “supervise,” or “observe” students on a daily basis. In addition to
84.3% of paraprofessionals indicating they “monitor or correct student behavior” on a daily
basis, a high percentage of paraprofessionals indicated that supervising students in various areas
on campus, along with observing students for the purpose of providing input to teachers or
related service providers was a frequently conducted role on their behalf. Similarly, all special
education teachers and school site administrators spoke of “monitoring students” as being an
essential part of the paraprofessional role. The role of “monitoring students,” however, was
described by interview participants as multifaceted. This role encompasses the oversight of the
general, overall physical and emotional safety of students as well as the academic and behavioral
77

supervision of students in a variety of ways. Additionally, special education teachers indicated
relying on paraprofessionals to relay any pertinent information they had gathered while
monitoring the students to the teacher. As one teacher stated, “in the classroom you want
[paraprofessionals] to be a second set of eyes.” Interviewees also described the types of
monitoring that takes place during online instruction given pandemic related school closures
were in effect during the time period of the interviews. Even during virtual or online instruction,
all stakeholder groups noted the importance of monitoring students as being essential to the role
of the paraprofessional. Table 5 provides contextual information, in quotation form, from many
interview participants regarding the paraprofessional role of monitoring, supervising, and
observing students.

78
Table 5
Teacher and Administrator Perceptions Regarding the Paraprofessional Role of Monitoring, Supervising, and Observing Students
Physical & Emotional
Supervision
Instructional Supervision Communicating observations Pandemic Related Supervision
T1: “Just a logical, you know,
make sure no kid is being
harmed. That's a big one…
Whether that be physical or
emotional.”

T4: “I also use them to
supervise students in the
classroom. Some of our
centers are student led… So,
there is a little need for an
adult to be instructing. So, the
adult is just there to supervise
the activity and make sure
there's not too much chaos.”

T5: “For my class, I just try to
tell the aides to make sure that
they're always watching the
students.”

T7: “…because if they're
watching the kids… we'll be
able to kind of tell if this
child's having a good day or
this child's not having a good
day.”
T1: “Paraprofessionals are
making sure [the students]
have the materials they need.
Or even verbalizing my
directions, repeating, to give
that formal instruction again…
I may need them to calm down
the students, to have them
refocus.”

T2: “When I'm working with a
smaller group, or when I'm
teaching, I just want
[paraprofessionals] to be able
to pay attention and know
what the students are doing.
They should be really looking
for those distracted behaviors.”

T5: “They just have to make
sure the students are on task.”

T1: “…relaying information to
me sometimes, because they
are able to observe students
while I'm delivering
instruction”

T2: “Also, for the
paraprofessionals that are
going into gen-ed classes, I
rely on them for a lot of
information about students on
my caseload… I'll ask them to
check in with a certain student
to see if they're making
progress in their writing, or
their math or whatever class it
may be and kind of give me
more feedback about them or
give me feedback about their
behavior.”

T3: “…sometimes I just need
another brain, another set of
eyes.”

T1: “Right now with COVID,
paraprofessionals are
observing the students, and I
may need them to calm down
the students and to have them
refocus.”

T1: “So, a big part of [virtual
instruction] is just watching
students and making sure
they're paying attention.”

T3: “Well, right now, they
may be supervising a breakout
room, or I might leave them in
the main room while I pull a
student individually to have a
little one-to-one time.”

79
Physical & Emotional
Supervision
Instructional Supervision Communicating Observations Pandemic-Related Supervision
A1: “I do appreciate that a lot
of our paras, although they're
really in charge of their special
ed students… they supervise
everybody.”

A3: “They're ensuring safety.”

A4: “Instructional
aides are working directly with
students. They are monitoring
students.”
T6: “I definitely expect them
to help me if I'm doing a
whole group instruction. I
definitely expect them to
monitor kids and make sure
they're paying attention. And if
not, redirecting [the students]
in a way that doesn't distract
them from the rest of the
class.”

T8: “I expect them to be
watching the classroom as
much as I am.”

A3: “If it's an inclusion
class, then [paraprofessionals]
are floating around providing
support. So, they may be
looping back to the special
education students, in
particular, but they should be
looping through whatever kids
need help and being a support
for that class as a whole.”
T4: “Sometimes they see
things going on with students
that I wouldn't notice at the
front of the classroom. And
they'd be like, ‘Oh, so and so's
having a bad day.’ Or ‘The
student spoke to me privately
about this.’”

T7: “They also provide a lot of
one-on-one support to students
that need it and then let me
know about anything going on
with students that I didn't
necessarily see when I was
teaching the class.”

T5: “They also have to do
observations during our live
sessions, because some of the
students' goals are more
focused on if they're paying
attention to me or following
along with what we're doing.”

T7: “So, while I'm
teaching, they're on the side
writing down how many
prompts were needed… And
that helps so that I can focus
on what's happening online.”

80

Monitoring Students for Physical and Emotional Safety
Special education teachers and school site administrators were asked to elaborate on
specific tasks that paraprofessionals complete or are assigned on a regular basis, specifically
related to supervision, both instructionally and non-instructionally. Many interviewees noted the
importance of paraprofessionals monitoring the safety of students across settings within the
instructional day. Some teachers and administrators commented about supervision in general,
while other interviewees specifically discussed supervision for safety within specific
instructional areas, whether it be the classroom setting during whole or small group instruction,
the lunch area, the playground, or during community-based instruction. The comments ranged
from more simplistic in nature, such as “[their] eyes need to be on the students,” to much more
complex. When asking about the roles of paraprofessionals as related to supervision, one teacher
noted, “they are mandated reporters,” referring to the California mandate that educational staff
report signs or neglect or abuse, on behalf of the children they supervise, to the appropriate
authorities, and “they have to know what they can and cannot do in the school setting or what to
do in certain situations.”
Monitoring Students During Instruction
Regarding instructional supervision, a heavy emphasis was placed on paraprofessionals
monitoring students to assist with signs of inattentiveness, making sure the students were on task
and following along with instruction, and reinforcing instruction. Regarding the monitoring of
students during virtual or online instruction, given COVID-19 school dismissals, teachers
indicated that paraprofessionals are tasked with similar responsibilities related to supervision.
Teachers noted their reliance on paraprofessionals to assist students in calming down, remaining
81

focused, monitoring instruction within a breakout room, or observing the student for the purpose
of collecting data.
Communicating Observations to the Teacher
ome teachers also included caveats about the importance of paraprofessionals
communicating their observations to the teacher. One teacher stated, “sometimes
[paraprofessionals] see things going on with students that I wouldn’t notice at the front of the
classroom.” Similarly, another teacher stated, “[paraprofessionals] are able to observe students
while I’m delivering instruction.” And yet another teacher stated that the paraprofessionals she
works with “let me know about anything going on with students that I didn't necessarily see
when I was teaching the class.” A certain high school teacher was the most vocal about this form
of monitoring students given she and the paraprofessionals she works with assist students who
are taking classes within the general education setting, a setting to which the teacher herself may
not be physically present within. This teacher stated, “I rely on them for a lot of information
about the students on my caseload.” She further explained, “I'll ask them to check in with a
certain student see if they're making progress in their writing, or their math or whatever class it
may be and kind of give me more feedback about them or give me feedback about their
behavior.” Finally, one teacher stated, “sometimes I just need another brain, another set of eyes,”
indicative of the fact that she relies on paraprofessionals to communicate their observations of
students to her.
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Monitoring Students Post-Pandemic
Related to the perceptions of special education teachers and school site administrators
regarding the paraprofessional role of monitoring students, paraprofessionals also focused on the
“safety” of their students as being one of their top responsibilities upon returning to in-person
82

instruction, post COVID-19 school dismissals. Some paraprofessionals mentioned “safety” in
terms of being stewards in the provision of a general safe learning environment, which would
include focusing on the overall safety of students with special needs. Others mentioned “safety”
in terms of ensuring specific safety protocols were followed in light of the pandemic situation,
such as ensuring students were utilizing appropriate social distancing measures, sanitization
procedures were being followed, etc. Table 6 outlines contextual information, in quotation form,
from certain paraprofessionals regarding their perceived role in ensuring the safety of students
when schools return to an in-person learning format.

Table 6
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding the Paraprofessional Role of Ensuring the “Safety” of
Students When Schools Resume “In-Person” Instruction
Providing a Safe Learning Environment Pandemic-Related Safety Precautions
“Most importantly, keeping our students safe
in every way possible.”

“I think my first responsibility is to offer a
safe and comfortable learning environment
where the students want to learn.”

“Making sure students feel safe…”

“Making sure the students are safe and have
the best opportunities to learn.”

“My most important responsibilities will be to
supervise and monitor the safety of students
with special needs at all times.”

“Supervising and ensuring that students are
safe at all times.”
“Keeping the students safe and distant.”

“Keeping areas clean, sanitized, and prepared
if the area is a high traffic use center.”

“Making sure all students keep a safe and
reasonable distance from each other and
reminding them to wash their hands often.”

“Making sure areas have been properly
disinfected and cleaned.”

“Keeping the students safe and distant while
still trying to provide adequate teaching
instructions.”

“Reminding students to social distance.”

83

In addition to stakeholders agreeing that the role monitoring students in a variety of forms
is a prominent paraprofessional role, survey participants and interview participants discussed the
importance of paraprofessionals establishing quality relationships with the students in which they
support.
The Role of Building Rapport
The paraprofessional role in building a strong rapport and relationship with students, so
as to motivate students, was pronounced throughout interview responses and noted in survey
responses. Ultimately, interview participants felt that paraprofessionals who exhibited a genuine
care and compassion towards students, who demonstrated a well-developed understanding of the
learning challenges or disabilities students face, and who made an intentional effort to “get to
know” the students they worked with were the most successful at rapport building. Special
education teachers and school site administrators were asked to share their perspective relative to
what they felt fostered a positive relationship between paraprofessionals and students.
Additionally, interview participants were asked to define characteristics or attributes exhibited by
paraprofessionals to which the teacher or site administrator felt were examples of ways
paraprofessionals embodied their roles and made a positive difference in the lives of students.
Rich examples from numerous interview participants were shared regarding ways in which the
paraprofessionals they worked with have established positive relationships with students, and
sometimes, even established stronger relationships with students than even the teacher or the
administrator. Finally, responses to an open-ended survey question on behalf of
paraprofessionals indicate their perceived belief in the importance of rapport building during
COVID-19 school dismissals.

84

Exhibiting Care and Compassion Towards Students
Regarding the care and compassion towards students, many interview participants shared
examples of how students were positively affected by these attributes as exhibited by
paraprofessionals. A middle school teacher noted the importance of paraprofessionals exhibiting
a “concern and compassion for students and the challenges that the students are facing, and a
willingness to keep the students at the center of their work.” This particular middle school
teacher commented on a paraprofessional making an intentional effort to keep track of the grades
of the students she worked with and then to ensure that these students knew that she was doing
this. This teacher stated that the paraprofessional “really keeps an eye on their grades… and
would reach out to them and they feel that, of course. They feel that care and that support.” An
elementary site administrator noted, “If that genuine affection for the child and the child's
wellbeing is there, that helps with the way that the aide treats the child… because then the child
feels safe.” A preschool teacher stated that paraprofessionals “have to be compassionate with our
kids, that’s number one.” And yet another teacher commented that paraprofessionals should
demonstrate “a sense of caring, which the kids can spot at 20 paces, and at the same time, a
willingness to work with them and not against them.”
Disability-Specific Awareness and Understanding
Special education teachers and school site administrators spoke of the importance of
paraprofessionals demonstrating an understanding of the disabilities that students are facing as a
method of rapport building and motivation for students. One administrator noted, “I've noticed
that the ones that really are good at their jobs are the ones who understand a child's development
and understanding the range of development that they should have.” She then added, “I think it's
when they don't have enough understanding of where the students are, is when they're not
85

working to the best of their ability. Regarding relationships, a high school teacher shared, “I
think what fosters [positive relationships] is really having an understanding of the disability
because when you don't… you're really not going to know how to best support that student.” She
then added, “So I think when [paraprofessionals] can understand what the disability is, it's really
going to help them build a better relationship with that student.” An elementary teacher shared an
example of a paraprofessional to which was experienced in working with students on the Autism
spectrum. He explained that because this paraprofessional understood the child’s disability and
understood how to complete a “preference assessment,” the child was motivated to comply
behaviorally. This teacher stated, “The paraprofessional was very knowledgeable of how to work
with a student on the spectrum. He knew certain things to look out for with working with
students from that demographic.” The teacher then went on to explain, “When I asked him to do
a preference assessment, he knew exactly what that was already… And then we were able to get
some of the goodies to help on motivate the child, which was our biggest task.” Finally, when
asked to define the characteristics of paraprofessionals who embody their role, a preschool
teacher noted, “They have an understanding of disabilities. They have an understanding of why
[the students] are here.”
Connecting With Students
Examples of ways paraprofessionals connected with and learned about the students they
work with, so as to build rapport with them, were prevalent amongst interview participants. A
high school teacher shared an experience with a paraprofessional she worked with and stated that
this particular paraprofessional “kind of just has a natural aptitude for helping students out with
their problems and listening to kids.” One middle school teacher noted that some
paraprofessionals “just really have a huge heart for the kids… There’s an approachability to them
86

and the students feel comfortable going to them.” The same teacher shared an example of a
paraprofessional who “spoke that language,” referring to engaging with the students about their
interests as a method of building rapport. This teacher shared, “So he had this great relationship
with the kids and they just loved him. But how does that happen? He would know things about
them that I didn’t know, like about their personal lives.” She then went on to explain, “He would
know if they’d played on a team or who their coach was. And he would notice if they got a new
pair of shoes or things like that.” Another middle school teacher noted that paraprofessionals
who simply “talk” with their students have the capacity to develop a strong rapport with these
students. She explained that these paraprofessionals are “willing to explore different things with
the students, or just even speak to the students... Even without the instructional aspect, just
asking students, ‘How was your day?’ ‘How are you?’ I think that has a big impact on students.”
Finally, a preschool teacher noted “So it's really important that as a paraprofessional, you get
down to [the students’] level and you play with them and you start to build and foster a
relationship with the kids.” He then added, “And that might be that you get down on the ground
and you play Paw Patrol… Or you might build blocks with the kids. Or you might do peekaboo,
depending on their skill set of the student.”
Positive Effects of Building Rapport With Students
Interviewees spoke of the lasting, positive effects that rapport building, nurtured by
paraprofessionals, creates for students. They discussed these lasting effects as reasons to which
they felt rapport building was such a critical part of the role of a paraprofessional. A preschool
teacher noted the importance of paraprofessionals fostering a positive relationship between
themselves and students given “once you have buy-in, it’s easier to work with the kids.” He then
added, “If the kids like you, they’re more willing to work with you.” A middle school
87

administrator noted that when paraprofessionals are able to get to know the students they work
with, this “really opens up the possibilities of what kids will do. Usually, the discipline issues
either disappear or are mitigated, and then the learning starts to happen.” And to reinforce this,
some interview participants called attention to what could potentially happen if paraprofessionals
do not build positive rapport with students. A high school teacher noted that “the moment that a
kid feels that they don’t have that respect from their aides… it goes sideways quickly.” An
elementary administrator noted, “if a student can’t trust [a paraprofessional] and if there’s just
not that cohesiveness to the relationship, that then causes a problem.” Ultimately, however, many
interview participants focused on the positive outcomes that occur for students when
paraprofessionals successfully build rapport with students. As one teacher shared, when
paraprofessionals build positive rapport with students, “the students know [the paraprofessionals]
care and they want to help them.”
Paraprofessional Perceptions on Building Rapport With Students
Similarly, paraprofessionals spoke of their beliefs regarding the importance of rapport
building, especially given the unprecedented circumstances occurring during COVID-19 school
dismissals. Via an open-ended survey question, when asked to state their most important
responsibilities as paraprofessionals during COVID-19 school dismissals, and when students
were receiving their predominant form of instruction within a virtual format, many
paraprofessionals focused on the importance of building and maintaining rapport and
engagement, despite the challenges of distance learning. For example, one paraprofessional
commented, “For me my most important responsibility at this moment is provide [the students]
with a learning atmosphere that is close to school and provide engagement that they wouldn't
maybe have in the home learning environment.” Another paraprofessional stated, “My most
88

important responsibilities during distance learning has been to check-in on students and remind
them that they are supported.” And still, yet another paraprofessional commented, “Probably to
keep the student engaged and connected to the activity we are performing.”
Summary
Altogether, the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals are pronounced and varied.
Providing instructional support, monitoring students in a variety of different ways and for a
variety of different functions, as well as building rapport with students are roles in which
paraprofessionals, special education teachers, and school site administrators seem to believe are
essential for the paraprofessional to be able to perform. Having discussed the frequent
responsibilities carried out by paraprofessionals, the following section aims to describe the
findings of this study pertaining to the specific training needs of paraprofessionals as perceived
by all stakeholder groups.
The Training of Paraprofessionals
When asked to reflect on the training of paraprofessionals, a high school administrator
stated, “They don’t receive any training at all.”. When making this assertion, she was reflecting
on the recent programmatic shift at her school site in which the practice of co-teaching was
adopted. In this model, special education teachers and general education teachers co-teach with
one another so as to provide more inclusive and wholesome learning opportunities for students.
She explained that “a lot of training was thrown at the teachers,” but not provided to
paraprofessionals even though paraprofessionals were also responsible for providing
instructional support within these co-taught settings. She assumed that this was because teachers
and paraprofessionals are not seen as “equal,” and therefore the assumption might be “we don’t
need to train them, right?” She then went on to explain that another assumption might be that
89

“the teacher will be the authority and take control of the situation,” meaning the classroom
instruction or the training for paraprofessionals and therefore, training for the paraprofessionals
was not necessary.
Examples such as the one described are very common throughout the literature. Given the
pervasive issue of deficient access to training for an employee group that is expected to provide
quality instructional supports to students with special needs, this study aimed to explore the
specific training needs of special education paraprofessionals within MUSD in hopes to provide
in-depth recommendations to remediate this concern. This section begins with a presentation of
the findings related to the number of trainings paraprofessionals report having attended in the 12
preceding months prior to taking the survey. This section then describes the perceptions of
paraprofessionals regarding any training they have received. The self-efficacy of
paraprofessionals is then explored, followed by an in-depth examination of three key findings
related to the specific training needs of special education paraprofessionals.
Frequency of Trainings Attended by Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals were asked to identify the number of training sessions they attended for
their job within 12 months of the date of the survey. While approximately 15% of respondents
indicated they had attended more than four training sessions within the preceding 12 months,
49.06% of those surveyed indicated they attended no more than two training sessions in the 12
months prior to taking the survey. Approximately 36% of survey respondents indicated attending
three to four training sessions within the 12-month time span. Table 7 outlines the percentage of
paraprofessionals who attended a specific number of trainings in the 12 months prior to taking
the survey. In addition to surveying paraprofessionals regarding the number of trainings they had
90

attended, paraprofessionals were asked to provide their perceptions regarding the training they
did receive, if any.

Table 7
Percentage of Paraprofessionals Indicating the Number of Trainings Attended in a 12-Month
Time Span
Amount Percentage
Did Not Attend Any Training 1.89%
Attended 1 to 2 Trainings 47.17%
Attended 3 to 4 Trainings 35.85%
Attended 4 to 5 Trainings 5.66%
Attended 5 or More Trainings 9.43%

91

Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Training Received
Participants were provided with a series of four statements to rank general perceptions
about the training they have received as instructional assistants. They were asked to select
between four options, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” for each statement. Table 8
outlines the perception rankings of paraprofessionals pertaining to the training they have
received.
Approximately 77% of paraprofessionals agreed that the training they received within the
12-month time period preceding the completion of the survey was useful, however, 22.64% of
respondents disagreed that the training they received over the same time period was useful.
Approximately 83% of respondents agreed that the training they typically receive is aligned with
the work they do as paraprofessionals, while almost 17% of respondents indicated that the
training they typically receive is not aligned to the work they do as paraprofessionals.
Additionally, a strong statistically significant relationship was found between the selections
regarding this statement and the respondents’ age group. Of those who disagreed with this
statement, 55.55% of respondents were 55 years of age or older.
When provided with the statement “I receive adequate training to do my job well,”
approximately 28% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Of the percentage of
respondents that disagreed with this statement, 46.66% of these individuals had 5 years of less of
experience working as a paraprofessional. The remaining percentage of paraprofessionals who
disagreed with this statement, which is 53.34%, had between six and 20 years of experience.
Most importantly, however, an overwhelming majority of paraprofessionals (88.68%) indicated
they would like to receive more training. Overall, paraprofessionals seemed to feel that the
training they had received was useful, however certain paraprofessionals felt they did not receive
92

adequate training to do their job well. Almost all paraprofessionals surveyed indicated they
would like to receive more training. In addition to surveying paraprofessionals about the
frequency they attended trainings and their general perceptions regarding the training they had
received, participants were surveyed about their confidence levels pertaining to carrying out their
roles as paraprofessionals.

Table 8
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Training They Have Received
Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
Agree/Strongly
Agree
Overall, the training I have received over the past 12
months has been useful to me in my job.
22.64% 77.35%
The training I typically receive is aligned with the
work I do as an instructional assistant.
16.98% 83.02%
I receive adequate training to do my job well. 28.3% 71.7%
I would like to receive more training 11.38% 88.68%

93

Paraprofessional Self-Efficacy
Paraprofessionals were presented with 17 various tasks deriving from the literature
related to possible roles and responsibilities delegated to paraprofessionals. Participants were
then asked to reflect on each task and were requested to rank their confidence levels in
performing each task if they were to do so in a hypothetical, in-person manner (given COVID-19
school dismissals). Participants ranked their certainty levels from “1,” being the minimum value
and indicating “not confident at all,” to “5,” being the maximum value and indicating “extremely
confident.” Questions in this section were formatted via a “slider,” to which participants were
able to slide their mouse or finger across a bar, between a range of 1 and 5, to indicate their level
of confidence in completing each task.
Overall, participants indicated a relatively high level of self-efficacy regarding their
confidence in performing these 17 tasks. Figure 4 further depicts the certainty levels of
paraprofessionals for the tasks listed.

94

Figure 4
Paraprofessional Certainty Levels Regarding Their Perceived Confidence to Perform Tasks

95

Across these 17 tasks, certainty levels ranged from a mean of 3.78 to a mean of 4.51 with
the mean certainty level being 4.14. Participants rated themselves as being most confident in
performing tasks such as providing positive reinforcement to students (M = 4.51), collaborating
effectively with teachers, related service providers, and staff members (M = 4.49), supervising
and monitoring the safety of students (M = 4.49), and completing clerical tasks (M = 4.43).
Although all mean confidence levels for each of the 17 various tasks were above 3.5, participants
were relatively less confident in performing tasks such as teaching reading strategies to students
with special needs (M = 4.02), teaching mathematics strategies to students with special needs
(M = 3.9), creating, modifying, or adapting instructional materials (M = 3.88), helping students
utilize assistive technology or communication devices (M = 3.8), and teaching test-taking
strategies to students with special needs (M = 3.78).
Of each of the five tasks to which participants ranked as being less confident in
performing, paraprofessionals working with preschool-aged students (n = 4) and
paraprofessionals working with high-school aged students (n = 12) ranked their confidence levels
consistently below the mean. For example, participants ranked the task “teaching test-taking
strategies to students with special needs” at a mean of 3.78, which indicated that overall, they
were the least confident in performing this task. Within this mean, however, paraprofessionals
supporting preschool-aged students ranked their average confidence level at 3.5 and
paraprofessionals supporting high-school-aged students ranked their average confidence level at
3.25. This lower-than-average ranking was consistent for paraprofessionals supporting these two
age groups for each of the five lowest ranked tasks pertaining to confidence level.
Overall, paraprofessionals indicated being relatively certain and confident in their
abilities to perform the tasks outlined, however, they noted less overall certainty in being able to
96

perform specific tasks such as teaching reading and math instruction, modifying and adapting
materials, and teaching test-taking strategies. In addition to lesser confidence in these areas, all
stakeholder groups discussed the need for paraprofessionals to access training that provides a
more detailed understanding of the implementation of behavioral supports so as to assist students
with special needs.
Training Need: Behavioral Support
Paraprofessionals, special education teachers and school site administrators discussed the
need for training, on behalf of paraprofessionals, in the area of behavioral support. Interview
participants were asked to identify specific training topics that might be important for
paraprofessionals to explore further. Additionally, interview participants were asked to
hypothetically envision a training for paraprofessionals that would happen the day after their
present interview. Interview participants were then asked to describe the concepts that would be
addressed in this training for paraprofessionals. Overall, the ability for paraprofessionals to be
able to utilize strategies within the realm of behavioral support was a theme amongst responses.
Many teachers expressed the need for paraprofessionals to receive more training in the
implementation of certain, more broadly used behavioral strategies designed to prevent problem
behaviors and increase overall independence. Some teachers and administrators expressed the
need for paraprofessionals to gain training in crisis response and de-escalation techniques when
students exhibit significant acting out behaviors. Finally, some teachers mentioned the
importance for paraprofessionals to receive more training in the area of behavioral data
collection. Similarly, paraprofessionals were asked to identify training concepts they would like
to explore if provided a hypothetical training opportunity the day after taking the survey. Some
97

paraprofessionals did indicate the concept of behavioral support as being a desirable training
topic.
Utilization of Specific Behavioral Strategies
Many special education teachers believed that training for paraprofessionals should
encompass the understanding and usage of specific behavioral strategies designed to either
prevent specific student behaviors from occurring, or the lesson the potential impact for
escalation when behaviors exhibited by students are occurring. Additionally, some teachers
discussed the importance of paraprofessionals using these strategies as a way to increase the
ability for students to become more independent and to increase their ability to self-manage. One
high school teacher stated that although paraprofessionals are typically “around a special
education teacher” and that “they can always ask for help,” if a student is “acting out,” she feels
that paraprofessionals “need to also be confident in situations when they don’t have a teacher
there.” An adult transition teacher explained that sometimes, the paraprofessionals he works with
need explicit instruction on how to ensure that their own interactions, as staff, are not increasing
the likelihood of frustration on behalf of the students. He discussed the importance of training for
paraprofessionals to include methods in which they can use to avoid “setting students off.” He
then reflected on a situation in which he had to remind a paraprofessional to “avoid calling out
students in front of other students,” meaning to avoid redirecting students publicly so as to
alleviate potential embarrassment. A preschool teacher noted the importance of paraprofessional
training in addressing methods in which can be used to foster independence. He explained, “As
much as I love the paraprofessionals, they are helping our students too much. They’re not letting
them be as independent as they should, not letting them try things first before stepping in.”
Another teacher noted the importance of training for paraprofessionals to include “prompting and
98

priming strategies.” She also reflected on the importance of paraprofessionals being able to use
“modeling strategies.” She stated, “Surprisingly, modeling behaviors has been something that
they’ve been… I’ve had to show them directly, explicitly, this is how you model.”
Utilization of Crisis Response and De-Escalation Techniques
Some special education teachers felt that paraprofessionals should receive training on
how to effectively implement the strategy of “planned ignoring,” which is an evidenced-based
behavioral strategy designed to lessen certain attention seeking behaviors. An elementary teacher
shared his wish that paraprofessionals were equipped with a more comprehensive understanding
of how to use the strategy of planned ignoring. This teacher stated, “there are a lot of times the
kids are trying to seek attention and if you ignore the behavior, the kids will mellow back down
and they’ll want to seek that positive attention instead of that negative attention.” Another
elementary teacher, who supports students with moderate to severe special needs, described that
often times, she feels that paraprofessionals want to “fix” the behaviors that occur, versus ignore
the behaviors so as to naturally allow these behaviors to fade on their own. She explained that
when a child is exhibiting tantrum-like behaviors, if they are not harming themselves or others,
she wishes that paraprofessionals would understand the importance of “stepping back and
clearing the area and letting them tantrum.” She then went on to explain, “a lot of time the paras
want to fix that. They want to stop [the child] from tantrumming, they want to get them off the
floor and it’s like, no, leave them. And that’s been hard for them.” A high school teacher
reflected on the fact that paraprofessionals might not know formal terminology for behavioral
strategies such as “planned ignoring,” even if they are implementing the strategy or parts of the
strategy itself. She explained, “So, it’s like that professional language that you learn when you go
to… Like, I went to school for it, so they might not have that access to the language, in terms of
99

‘planned ignoring’ or understanding what ‘planned ignoring’ means in a step-by-step manner.”
She then went on to explain, “They might just know ‘planned ignoring’ as ‘Oh, I’m going to step
back and give [the student] a break,’ but they don’t know that it’s an actual technique that you
do.”
Certain special education teachers and school site administrators felt that
paraprofessionals should be provided with training to explicitly assist students during a time
period of behavioral escalation. Although these types of behavioral episodes occur less
frequently, overall, than other types of behaviors exhibited on behalf of students, some interview
participants felt paraprofessionals need to be equipped with the skills necessary to respond
appropriately in these situations. When asked about the hypothetical training situation, an
elementary special education teacher plainly stated, “the training would cover how to deescalate
an intense behavior.” A high school administrator very similarly stated, “[the training] would
include how to handle a situation where a student gets angry and is reacting strongly.” Another
elementary teacher stated that he would like to see more training for paraprofessionals in the area
of “behavior support for some of the more severe behavior issues that we have.” He then
explained that during or after a student exhibits escalated behavior, he often has to debrief with
the paraprofessionals he works with and explain to them the different strategies that could be
implemented. He then stated, “it would definitely be beneficial if they had some proper training
maybe prior or during” these types of behavioral situations. This particular teacher and two other
administrators discussed the importance of paraprofessionals receiving “CPI” training. This
acronym stands for “Crisis Prevention Institute,” however, this is the name of a company that
trains educators in non-violent crisis intervention techniques. Many special education teachers
and administrators working in MUSD are certified in non-violent crisis intervention through
100

“CPI.” Only some paraprofessionals are trained. When asked about her perception of the training
needs of paraprofessionals, one administrator noted “I think training needs to cover some
behavioral supports. Whether it’s CPI or even simple positive reinforcement.” The teacher noted,
“when we had a kid who had severe behavior issues, CPI training was very important to have
learned.” He then added, “because there are times when paraprofessionals are asked to help out”
with crisis intervention, implying that this form of training is important for paraprofessionals.
Utilization of Behavioral Data Collection Techniques
Regarding data collection, specifically related to behavioral functioning, two teachers
indicated the need for formal training for paraprofessionals in this area. Both of these teachers
spoke of the importance of paraprofessionals being able to collect data using applied behavior
analysis (ABA) type methods. A preschool teacher explained that upon expecting the
paraprofessionals in his classroom to record data, he realized, “the aides didn’t truly know how
to collect data in the sense of a typical ABA style collection of data.” He then stated that because
of this, he “changed the way we collected data, just because... it was easier to do it that way for
multiple reasons.” Additionally, an elementary teacher shared that she expects the
paraprofessionals she works with to track the frequency and types of prompts they are using. She
explained that she needs the paraprofessionals to “describe it,” meaning the form of prompting
they are using and to “write it down.” She then went on to explain, “I know they’ve been trained
on charting [the data], on what it should like… but I think I just don’t know… I don’t know how
well the training went.”
Paraprofessional Perceptions on Training Needs in the Area of Behavioral Support
Similar to teachers and administrators, certain paraprofessionals indicated they would
like more training related to providing more effective behavioral and social emotional support to
101

students with special needs. Some paraprofessionals listed training in the area of behavioral
management and support as being critical. One paraprofessional stated that training “to
understand the types of child behavior and to learn techniques” was crucial. Another
paraprofessional indicated the need for training that included “more tools on how to deescalate a
child who is angry and threatens violence.” And another aide mentioned the importance of
training on “social emotional strategies to help students with the mental health due to many
students coming from many difficult diverse communities, and also, due to the times we are
living in right now with COVID.”
Just as access to more comprehensive training for paraprofessionals in the area of
behavioral supports was deemed necessary by all stakeholder groups, these groups identified the
necessity for training in technological skills and virtual instructional delivery, especially given
the circumstances of COVID-19 school dismissals.
Training Need: Technological Skills and Virtual Instructional Delivery
Special education teachers and school site administrators seemed to agree that many
paraprofessionals are in need of training related to the awareness and usage of basic
technological skills. While some paraprofessionals exhibited an advanced skillset in this area and
were even better at navigating technological tools and online instructional programming than
teachers, interview participants agreed that many paraprofessionals are in need of training to
assist them in further understanding and navigating the technological components associated
with virtual instructional delivery. Given interviews occurred in the midst of a global pandemic
along with the instructional circumstances associated COVID-19 school closures, many
interview participants placed emphasis on the need for paraprofessionals to be able to assist
teachers in the delivery of instruction within the virtual setting. Some interview participants,
102

however, also took note of the gaps in technological skills they were observing on behalf of
certain paraprofessionals even before the pandemic. Additionally, some special education
teachers discussed issues with certain paraprofessionals not having the appropriate access to
hardware or licensures that these teachers felt were necessary in ensuring that paraprofessionals
can adequately assist in the delivery of instruction within the virtual setting. Finally, some
paraprofessionals themselves indicated the need for additional training to become better
equipped at assisting during virtual instruction.
Navigating and Utilizing Instructional Technology
Most special education teachers and administrators discussed the need for
paraprofessionals to receive training in navigating and utilizing instructional technology, whether
this be online learning platforms, digital tools, or specific educational websites and virtual
programs. A high school teacher stressed the importance of paraprofessionals being “fully
confident in the classes they’re supporting and confidence with the technological tools the
teachers are using.” When asked to identify an important, hypothetical training topic for
paraprofessionals, an elementary administrator stated that the training should cover “how
[paraprofessionals]can support the technology that teachers are currently using right now.” On
the other hand, a preschool teacher made mention of the potential complications associated with
providing training to paraprofessionals related to the various virtual tools being used considering
the sheer assortment of these tools being used amongst teachers could be overwhelming. He
explained, “I know different teachers use different educational tools… There's so many different
tools out there that we're all using… There's so many different apps that it makes things very
hard.” Despite the myriad of virtual instructional tools and programs being used, however, this
teacher emphasized that “teaching [paraprofessionals] how to use all these different tools will be
103

really important during virtual learning, and during blended learning, too.” This teacher seemed
to be thinking ahead to a point in time in which a hybrid form of instruction would be taking
place. Hybrid instruction would accommodate some students receiving instruction in an in-
person format, and others remaining at home receiving virtual instruction. He further explained
the importance of training paraprofessionals in the usage and implementation of online
instructional tools when he shared,
“Here's the thing, when we go to blended learning, we're also going to be teaching in
person and online at the same time. So, someone's going to have to be supporting us
while we're teaching in the classroom. So, someone's going to have to be running the tech
while we teach. It'd be something we're going to have to rely heavily on with our aides.
And I know that that's very specific to this timeframe. But it makes it a complicated
situation.”
Table 9 outlines the various learning platforms, digital tools, specific websites, and virtual
programs discussed by special education teachers and site administrators throughout their
respective interviews. The tools listed in this figure were identified by interview participants as
being important for paraprofessionals to understand how to use in an effort to assist the teacher
in virtual instruction. Some teachers expressed that the paraprofessionals they work with utilize
the tools or programs with ease, while others indicated that they felt additional training was
necessary.

104

Table 9
Teachers and Administrators Referencing of Virtual Tools Used for the Delivery of Instruction
while Discussing the Need for Paraprofessional Training in this Area
Online Tool
Interview Participants Who Referenced
Tool
Google Workspace (formerly known as G-Suite) T3, T4, T5, T7, T8, T9, T10, A1
Zoom T1, T3, T4, T6, T8, A4
Google Classroom T3, T4, T6, T9
Nearpod T3, T4, A2
iReady T3, T6
Canvas T9
Classcraft T3
Flipgrid T4
Khan Academy T4
Amplify T3
Screencastify T5
Clever T6

Utilizing Specific Technological Platforms Designed for Virtual Instructional Delivery
A majority of interview participants identified the importance of paraprofessionals being
more thoroughly and formally trained in the usage of Google Classroom and Google Workspace,
formerly known as “G-Suite,” which encompasses Google Drive, Google Docs, Google Forms,
etc. An adult transition teacher explained, “There’s certain things like on the Google platform…
that I really have to go over with all of [the paraprofessionals].” He then went on to explain, “As
teachers, we get a lot of Google training, so we know a lot of the features that we can use, but a
lot of instructional aides are just like ‘Well, I’m not quite sure what’s going on there.’” He
concluded by saying, “If [paraprofessionals] are trained a little more, we might be a little more
on the same page.” Similar to the adult transition teacher, a preschool teacher highlighted the
importance of paraprofessionals “having a knowledge of G-Suite” and “all of the Google
105

applications” as being essential in assisting the teacher during distance learning. And yet another
high school teacher agreed that “an intro to Google Suite would be good” as a training topic for
paraprofessionals.
Developing an Awareness of Basic Technological Skills
Setting virtual instructional delivery aside, some interview participants discussed the
need for paraprofessionals to possess a more developed understanding of basic technological
skills, such as utilizing email in an adequate fashion, navigating the internet, and formatting
documents utilizing common computer software. When asked to describe any gaps in skill that
paraprofessionals may face, one teacher stated, “In our district, obviously, checking, sending,
and communicating through email is important.” She then went on to explain that she has had to
assist many paraprofessionals in the area of navigating and utilizing their emails in a manner to
which was “not rudimentary.” An elementary administrator corroborated this issue by stating,
“I’m not sure how comfortable [paraprofessionals] are with using email, you know what I mean?
They may email, but I don’t know if they’re fully comfortable.” One teacher spoke of the
importance of paraprofessionals gaining “an ability to understand some of the basics” when it
comes to navigating the internet. This teacher went onto explain that some paraprofessionals
need to learn “how to find a menu on a website” or “how to get help” when navigating any given
website. Another teacher spoke of the importance of all paraprofessionals being able to “format a
Word document,” meaning Microsoft Word. And yet another teacher spoke of the importance of
paraprofessionals being able to take directives from the teacher about creating any given
document and “adding images” to it. This teacher reflected on the time savings that occurs, on
her behalf, when paraprofessionals are able to complete tasks such as formatting documents
based on her direction.
106

Interview participants discussed what they perceived as technological skill gaps amongst
paraprofessionals. Many participants attributed these skill gaps to an age gap and an overall lack
of self-efficacy in this area. Although quite a few interview participants outlined the various
ways in which the paraprofessionals they work with exhibit strong skills in these areas, some
teachers and administrators spoke of discrepancies amongst paraprofessionals, regarding skillsets
in the usage of basic technological tools designed to allow teachers to navigate and implement
virtual instruction. Regarding technological skills, a high school teacher explained, “There’s big
gaps in what our aides can do… some aides are doing more than others.” A different high school
teacher, who is younger than the paraprofessionals she works with, reflected on her experiences
having to abruptly pivot to providing virtual instruction given COVID-19 school dismissals. She
explained that the change was “really hard” for the paraprofessionals she works with given their
unfamiliarity with the usage of technology. She was reflective of her positionality and explained
that for her, growing up, she took “three computer literacy classes. One in sixth grade and two in
high school.” Given she had received this instruction from an early age, she explained, “I know
how to do a lot of computer stuff.” The teacher then reflected on what she believed to be the
experiences of the paraprofessionals she works with. She stated, “They might not know how to
do these things because they were never trained,” implying that they did not receive training in
school like she did. When discussing the need for paraprofessionals to receive training in the area
of technological skills, an elementary administrator stated, “It’s really an age gap. The older
aides, I think, are having a harder time with [technology] where you have some younger aides
who are tech savvy.” She then went on to explain that she observes this perceived age gap and
resulting variances in technological skillset to be “across the board, whether it’s teachers or
whether it’s instructional aides.” An adult transition teacher, who works with some
107

paraprofessionals younger than he, shared similar beliefs regarding the technological skill gap
stemming from an age gap. He stated, “I mean, I think a lot of [paraprofessionals], as far as 21
st

century skills go, especially the ones that are younger than me are pretty savvy already as far as a
lot of the tech that’s out there.”
Teachers and Administrators’ Perceptions Regarding Paraprofessional Self-Efficacy Related
to technological Skills
Regarding the self-efficacy on behalf of paraprofessionals, in relation to technological
skills, some interview participants spoke of an overall lack of confidence exhibited by
paraprofessionals. One high school teacher noted, “Now that we're in this virtual world,
[paraprofessionals] are feeling lost, many of them.” A middle school teacher discussed a specific
paraprofessional’s lack of confidence in utilizing technology. She stated, “Well, this
paraprofessional feels like she isn’t very strong at computer skills, but again, she’s willing to
learn. I don’t think she’s as far behind as she sees herself. I just think [technology] makes her a
little bit nervous.” When asked to specifically describe any skill gaps that paraprofessionals
might face, one teacher explained, “Because we’re on ZOOM, during COVID times, it’s been a
challenge. There is a sense of nervousness over technology.” She further explained that the
paraprofessionals she works initially had difficulties with “sharing the screen” on ZOOM while
“multi-tasking and calling on students to participate.” She spoke of experiencing these
difficulties herself, however, she also stated the difficulties were “understandable” because
COVID-19 pandemic situation was “kind of unexpected for all of us.” A high school teacher
described the need for training in the area of technological skills by emphasizing, “A lot of
[paraprofessionals] are feeling completely lost with Google Classroom and Canvas.” She then
went on to explain, “There’s all these different programs and platforms that they’ve had to learn
108

and they’re learning by just asking as much as they can. I’m sure they’re feeling at a loss, not
being able to help kids as much as I know they want to.”
Adequate Access to Technological Tools
Although some teachers attributed an age gap or self-efficacy issues to variances in
technological skillset, certain interview participants noted that some paraprofessionals still did
not have access to the appropriate technological tools necessary to ensure they could
meaningfully participate in assisting the teacher and students during virtual instruction. When
asked to describe possible solutions to address some of the challenges that paraprofessionals are
facing in the area of technological skills, one teacher stated, “What we can really do to help aides
right now would be first, to give them all the tools they need.” She then went on to explain,
“They don’t have the technology tools. They don’t even have the correct laptops to use to help
support students, despite them going to the school and trying to get additional support.” She
concluded by saying that some of the paraprofessionals she works with “can’t support our
students the way teachers expect them to because they don’t have the technology.” Along the
same lines, a middle school teacher shared, “I just found out yesterday… the aide who’s been
working one-to-one with a student for seven weeks does not have set of textbooks or access to
the digital curriculum.” The teacher explained that when she asked the paraprofessional why she
didn’t have access to these tools, the paraprofessional stated, “they told me that they were out of
subscriptions.” When discussing needs on behalf of paraprofessionals in the area of
technological skills, even an administrator noted, “I think our district needs to do a better job
with making sure everyone is getting the technology they need.”

109

Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Training in the Area of Technological Skills and
Virtual Instructional Delivery
When paraprofessionals were asked to provide a list of the most critical topics they would
like to see addressed if they were hypothetically going to attend a training “tomorrow,”
responses varied, however, responses were largely inclusive of the need for training in virtual
learning. Many paraprofessionals focused on identifying training topics specifically related to
technology and the virtual or distance learning situation they were presently experiencing. As
one paraprofessional noted, “We were not trained to support students in this manner,” meaning
trained to support students within the virtual setting. Another paraprofessional stated, “The most
critical topic is to learn how to teach students virtually because this is a new form of teaching
that we have not done that is not physically hands-on.” Yet another paraprofessional noted the
necessity for training to be conducted on “navigating the ZOOM classroom, how to use/create
google slides, jamboards, word banks, etc.,” to which are all online learning tools. Similarly,
another paraprofessional discussed the need for training in the more technical components of
online learning by understanding how to navigate “things like split screens, navigating ZOOM,
changing volume settings, opening new tabs, and screen sharing.” And finally, one
paraprofessional noted the importance of being trained on how to be an “online teaching
assistant” overall.
Providing paraprofessionals with access to training so as to advance their technological
skills and abilities to implement virtual instruction was considered to be critical by many
individuals within each stakeholder group. Also noted as important, was the need for
paraprofessionals to have a more comprehensive understanding of the characteristics associated
with the various disabilities to which the students they may support are faced with.
110

Training Need: Foundations of Special Education
Many special education teachers and school site administrators agreed that
paraprofessionals would benefit from a more well-developed understanding of the basic,
fundamental foundations of special education. This type of training, from their perspectives,
should focus on an awareness of the characteristics of various disabilities and how these
characteristics may affect learning. Additionally, interview participants spoke of the need for
paraprofessionals to be equipped with a basic understanding of child development so that they
might have the appropriate instructional expectations for students given they would be able to
identify the range of skills a student may or may not present with. Interview participants spoke of
how important this type of knowledge is when working with students with special needs,
especially when supporting students academically. Ultimately, teachers and school site
administrators seemed to acknowledge that some paraprofessionals may not have a background
in special education and thus possessing this type of knowledge, especially when working within
special education, is essential. Finally, some paraprofessionals themselves indicated the desire
for training in the areas as described.
Disability-Specific Knowledge and Awareness
Regarding awareness related to the characteristics of various special education
eligibilities, interview participants seemed to recognize that, as one high school teacher stated,
“A lot of times when paraprofessionals are hired, they really don't have any background in
special education or know much about working with students with disabilities.” This teacher
recognized that through observation and experience, paraprofessionals often “pick up” on this
type of information, however, this teacher stated, “it might be beneficial for them to have more
explicit direction” in understanding the characteristics of various disabilities. When asked to
111

identify training concepts that might be beneficial for paraprofessionals, a different high school
teacher shared, “I think the training would need to cover how to support students with very
specific disabilities.” This teacher then went on to explain that training of this nature should
include instruction on how to explicitly support students with “autism,” students with “Down
syndrome,” and students with “attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder” (ADHD). She stated that
“giving [paraprofessionals] a toolbox of different strategies to use on their own” is important.
Along the same lines, another high school teacher shared, “I do think a lot of [paraprofessionals]
would enjoy hearing more about specific disabilities, because some of them don’t fully
understand what it means to have a processing deficit, or what it looks like when a student has
ADHD.” She then stated that the training should provide them with the tools necessary to
“recognize how to offer support for certain students based on their area of disability.”
Knowledge of Basic Child Development
Interview participants discussed the importance of paraprofessionals being able to adjust
their expectations of certain students based on their overall areas of strength and need and then to
pair these expectations with appropriate instruction. When reflecting on the training needs for
paraprofessionals, one teacher explained, “I think, definitely, you see a lot of where they’re not
really sure to what expect from students with disabilities, or how to provide types of support for
students with disabilities.” An elementary administrator stated that training should “cover the
awareness of the different ability levels and what they can and should not expect [students] to
do.” She spoke of the importance of paraprofessionals being able to recognize, based on skill
level, when to “intervene” or when to “back off.” Similarly, another elementary administrator
spoke of the need for paraprofessionals to understand the “range of skills” a particular student
has so that they know how to “scale” their support for this student. Ultimately, however, teachers
112

and administrators felt that when paraprofessionals understand the characteristics of various
disabilities affecting students and thus are able to adjust their expectations appropriately,
paraprofessionals are able to more effectively support students.
Paraprofessional Perceptions Regarding Training in Foundations of Special Education
When asked to provide a list of the most critical topics they would like to see addressed if
they were hypothetically going to attend a training “tomorrow,” some paraprofessionals
indicated the urgency for training that included disability-specific content given, as one
paraprofessional stated, “different disabilities require different attention or instruction.” Another
paraprofessional stated, “All of the students are so diverse, so it would be nice to learn about the
different types of disabilities.” Regarding specific special education eligibilities, one
paraprofessional stated, “I would like more training on the effects of Autism.” Another noted,
“For my position in particular, I would like to learn more and/or different teaching strategies,
especially for students with learning disabilities.” Another noted the need for training so that
they could learn “more about emotional disturbed cases and how to work with them.” Other
paraprofessionals stated they would like training specifically related to assisting students with
“moderate to severe disabilities,” or training that provides “more ways to help our blind and non-
verbal students.”
Summary
Altogether, as described throughout this chapter thus far, the roles of the
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are vast and inclusive of providing instructional support,
monitoring students, building rapport, and many other responsibilities. Along with this vastness,
comes pronounced training needs regarding tasks to which paraprofessionals might be less
confident in their capacity to implement with certainty, such as the instructional delivery in
113

reading and math intervention. Additionally, all three stakeholder groups indicate that providing
paraprofessionals with access to training in the area of behavioral supports, technological
supports, virtual instructional delivery, and certain foundational information pertaining to special
education is crucial in order to assist them in fulfilling their roles in an effective manner. The
following section of this chapter provides additional contextual information obtained through
survey results and interviews. This information correlates specifically with certain information
presented in the literature review of this dissertation pertaining to the varied work environments,
and all-encompassing facets of this, faced by paraprofessionals in their respective workplaces.
The Paraprofessional Work Environment
The work environments paraprofessionals are as complex and varied as their roles. Thus
far, the findings of this study have begun to shape a truer idea of what the role of a
paraprofessional entails. Additionally, the findings of this study have shaped a more
comprehensive understanding of the training needs of paraprofessionals. In order to further
explore the roles of paraprofessionals and to further understand the necessary knowledge and
awareness needed in order for them to effectively fulfill their roles, an examination of the
findings regarding specific elements of their work environments is provided in this chapter. Built
within the role of a paraprofessional is pervasive role ambiguity stemming from contradictory
expectations on behalf of special education teachers and school site administrators. The
supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals is yet another factor of the paraprofessional work
environment that is difficult to comprehend. While one group assigns specific tasks and
responsibilities to paraprofessionals, a different group evaluates and measures their performance.
The following section aims to describe, in detail, the ambiguity that paraprofessionals face
114

within their roles and explore the reasons why this ambiguity might exist. This exploration
assists in answering this study’s research questions to the fullest extent.
Pervasive Role Ambiguity
Although all three stakeholder groups who participated in this study seem to agree that
there are specific roles and responsibilities for paraprofessionals are important for them to be
able to implement, survey and interview data suggest that role ambiguity is prevalent throughout
the work experiences of paraprofessionals. This role ambiguity is dependent on a variety of
factors that will be discussed throughout this section. Paraprofessionals are responsible for
completing numerous tasks on a daily or weekly basis, however, often times, these tasks differ in
the degree of implementation given the varied age, grade level, and degree of student need
reflected within the population the paraprofessionals are supporting. Role ambiguity is also
demonstrated through the discussion, on behalf of teachers and administrators regarding their
access to the district-specific job descriptions for paraprofessionals employed by MUSD.
Additionally, data suggests that teachers and administrators have diverse expectations related to
the types of academic or instructional knowledge any given paraprofessional should possess.
And finally, many teachers and administrators discussed their perceptions regarding the fine line
between the role paraprofessional and teacher.
Varied Number and Frequency of Tasks Completed by Paraprofessionals
As noted in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively, all surveyed paraprofessionals were
asked to rank the frequency in which they performed each task, if at all. Figure 2 provides the
results of how paraprofessionals ranked their implementation of each task using the qualifier
“daily.” Visibly, the roles that most paraprofessionals complete on a daily basis (e.g., providing
direct instruction to students, monitoring or correcting student behavior, supervising the
115

playground, observing students for the purpose of providing input to teachers, etc.) are noted
towards the top half of the graph. Towards the bottom half of the graph, the tasks in which less
paraprofessionals complete on a “daily” basis are listed. In Figure 2 and across the 55 surveyed
participants, all of the 19 tasks listed were implemented by at least some paraprofessionals. The
difference in percentage, however, was in the number of paraprofessionals choosing “daily” as
the ranking for completing these respective tasks. For example, while most paraprofessionals
surveyed (90.2%) noted having provided direct instruction to students on a daily basis, only
about half of paraprofessionals surveyed (45%) assisted students with self-help needs such as
eating, dressing, toileting, etc., on a daily basis. Even then, approximately 23% of
paraprofessional surveyed assisted students with community-based instruction on a daily basis.
And still, on a daily basis, an even smaller percentage of paraprofessionals implemented tasks
such as assisting or interpreting conversations or documents in a language other than English
(5.9%) or assisting with crisis intervention (2%). Although these tasks were implemented by a
lesser number of paraprofessionals, Figure 2 demonstrates that all of the tasks listed were carried
out by at least some paraprofessionals on a daily basis.
Results change when examining the data in Figure 3. This table provides the results of
paraprofessionals when ranking the frequency of completing each of the 19 tasks using the
qualifier “a couple times per week” or “once a week,” but not “daily.” Although some
paraprofessionals might not complete many of these tasks on a daily basis, some do on at least a
weekly basis. For example, while 13.7% of paraprofessionals indicated providing whole group
instruction on a daily basis, 49% of paraprofessionals indicated providing whole group
instruction at least once per week or more often, but not daily. Similarly, while 25.5% of
paraprofessionals indicated they create, adapt, or modify student assignments, instructional
116

materials, or tests on a daily basis, 68.7% of paraprofessionals indicate completing this task on at
least a weekly basis. Even regarding tasks such as interpreting or translating documents or
conversations and assisting with crisis intervention, although very few paraprofessionals
indicated completing tasks such as this on a daily basis, a much higher percentage of
paraprofessionals indicated completing these tasks on at least a weekly basis.
For the indicated frequency of certain tasks by paraprofessionals, there were stark
polarities regarding responses. While some paraprofessionals might complete a task “daily,”
others may “never” complete this particular task. Figure E outlines the percentage of
paraprofessionals who indicated “never” for each of the 19 tasks listed. For example, only 3.9%
of all paraprofessionals surveyed “never” create, adapt, or modify student assignments,
instructional materials, or tests, while 74.5% of all paraprofessionals surveyed “never” assist
with interpreting or translating conversations or documents in a language other than English. Of
course, tasks such as translating conversations or documents are situational and would depend on
first, whether a particular paraprofessional is bilingual and second, the situation. Other tasks
listed in Figure E are also entirely circumstantial dependent on student need.

117

Figure 5
Percentage of Paraprofessionals who “Never” Complete Each Task

For example, 45.1% of all paraprofessionals surveyed indicate they assist students with
self-help needs (e.g., eating, dressing, personal care, toileting, etc.) on a “daily” basis, however
41.2% of all paraprofessionals surveyed indicate they “never” complete a task like this.
Similarly, 37.3% of all paraprofessionals surveyed indicated they assist students with movement
from one place to another, or to stretch, on a “daily” basis, while 49% of all paraprofessionals
surveyed indicate they “never” complete this task. These stark differences in frequency rankings
118

are indicative of a paraprofessional’s role being dependent on the level of student need present.
If particular students need specific supports, such as assistance with toileting or assistance with
safely moving in and out of their wheelchair, these needs are pervasive and the paraprofessionals
supporting these students must provide this assistance on a daily basis.
Paraprofessional Role Dependent on Varied Student Population
Teachers and administrators also took note of the paraprofessional role being dependent
on the specific students or student populations they support. When discussing the roles of
paraprofessionals, a middle school teacher described the paraprofessional role in a very broad
manner when stating, “In general, they're here to support the kids. They're here to support the
teacher. The main thing is supporting the kids to make sure the kids are safe. However, that looks
like for each classroom, though, is different.” A middle school administrator echoed this
sentiment when he stated that paraprofessionals often “work with kids that are highly variable in
skills, behavior, and content knowledge.” When specifically discussing the need for
paraprofessionals to assist students with self-help skills, one teacher stated, “I don’t know if [the
support] looks the same in every classroom.” When speaking about his particular classroom and
how paraprofessionals support the students in the special education preschool setting, the teacher
noted, “There’s so much going on. It’s hard to assign specific roles.” He elaborated by reflecting
on what he thought a paraprofessional might feel like on any given day by saying, “I mean,
there's some days where you come into the classroom and you're like, ‘Oh, I'm going to be
prepping.’ And then there's other days where a student is having a behavior. So, you're going to
have to assist the teacher with that behavior.” And finally, a high school teacher summarized the
role of a paraprofessional by saying “it all varies.”

119

How Teachers and Administrators “Know” What Paraprofessionals Are Supposed to Do
The varied and often ambiguous role of the paraprofessional continued to evidence itself
in interviews when special education teachers and school site administrators responded to the
following question: “How do you know what paraprofessionals are supposed to do?” Responses
varied; however, some teachers drew on their own experiences as former paraprofessionals. A
high school teacher reminisced about her experiences as a former paraprofessional when
responding to the question. She stated, “I remember when I was a paraprofessional. When I first
started, they just kind of put me in a classroom and were like ‘Here.’ And the teacher I was
assigned to at the time was like, ‘Well, I'm not really sure what you're supposed to be doing.’ So,
I just had to figure it out.” She discussed how she went about observing the students and getting
to know them and how she went about observing the teacher and this teacher’s expectations for
his students in order to build her own role. This teacher then discussed that her prior experience
of having to “figure it out,” as a former paraprofessional helps her to design the roles of the
paraprofessionals she works with. She discussed the importance of asking the paraprofessionals
what roles they are comfortable or good at performing. She noted, “When I have a new
paraprofessional, I ask them what sort of things they prefer doing and what they're comfortable
with. That's kind of the approach that I've always taken.” Similarly, a middle school teacher
reflected on her experiences as a former paraprofessional in response to the question posed. This
teacher spoke of observing and interacting with the “models” she had around her, in the form of
the teachers she supported, in order to understand her role as a paraprofessional. She spoke of a
teacher who told her, “You're not going to run copies, you are going to help students. You're
going to help me instruct." She then stated, “I really appreciated her so much because I had this
wonderful model… it was just about working as a team. She taught me how to be better.” The
120

same middle school teacher, however, also noted that she experienced “models of really horrible
teachers.” She stated, “I could see how one teacher was not in control of herself and the kids
could read that. So, observing that I’m like ‘Okay, don’t do that, but do that.’” She then
concluded by saying that the observations she made as a prior paraprofessional “kind of built up”
and that through observation, she knew “what worked and what didn’t work.”
Observing Paraprofessionals to Become Familiar With Their Roles
Most special education teachers and school site administrators described using the
method of observation, as a guide, in understanding what the roles of paraprofessionals should
encompass. When asked how they knew specifically what paraprofessionals were supposed to
do, an elementary administrator stated, “I don't actually. I do a lot of surveying. I go into
classrooms quite often. I try to be very visible during pickup and lunchtime and recess time, so
that I can see what everybody's doing.” She went on to say, “So from there I can kind of deduce
like, ‘Oh, that's what they've been doing. They do small groups or they're assisting the one-on-
one.’” A high school administrator responded to the question posed by saying, “I have no idea.
How do I know that? I don't know how I know that. Over time, hearing from people who know
more than me.” She then added to her response by reflecting on an experience she had while
working at a prior district. She stated, “I remember somebody talking about it being a problem
that an aide just stood at the back of the room. And I never had an aide when I was a teacher,
myself, so it was new to me, like, ‘Oh, so they're not supposed to stand at the back. Okay, tuck
that away.’” An elementary teacher mentioned how he knows what paraprofessionals do by
stating, “I’ve been through a lot of classrooms, so I see how paraprofessionals are utilized.”
Another elementary teacher reflected on her experience growing up with an aunt who was
impacted with a significant disability. In response to the question posed, this teacher explained
121

“How do I know? Watching. First of all, when I was younger, I saw the paraprofessionals in my
aunt’s classroom… I saw them as support for the students… I think that’s what they have to do,
support no matter what that is.”
Ambiguity Involving the Paraprofessional Job Description
Along the same lines, interview participants were asked if they knew where to locate the
district-specific job description for paraprofessionals and if this job description had ever been
provided to them. Many participants guessed that the job description could be located on the
district’s website, or on “Edjoin,” which is an education job website used prevalently throughout
California. Some participants felt that they might be able to look up what a general job
description for a paraprofessional would look like on the internet or ask someone at the district
office for a copy of the job description. Many exchanges in response to the questions posed in
this paragraph emulated the following example,
Interviewer: “Where can you find a written record of their job responsibilities?”
Teacher 2: “I imagine I would be able to find that at the district, I’m guessing… But in all
honesty, it’s always kind of been vague to me. We kind of just make it work. I don’t
know if I’ve ever actually like looked up what they should be doing.”
Interviewer: “And so, has a job description ever been given to you?”
Teacher 2: “I don’t think so. No. I don’t think even when I was a paraprofessional. I had
no idea what my actual job was.”
Or, in this example:
Interviewer: “Where can you find a written record of their job responsibilities?”
Administrator 1: “I don't know. I guess I would have to check human resources for that
job description.”
122

Interviewer: “Has the job description ever been provided to you?”
Administrator 1: “I don’t think so.”
Overwhelmingly, a majority of interview participants, both special education teachers and school
site administrators, stated they have not been provided with the district-specific job description
for paraprofessionals. Only one administrator noted having the job description in his position and
another noted seeing the job description when interviewing prospective paraprofessionals.
Varied Perceptions Regarding Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should Possess
In addition to the various responsibilities that paraprofessionals carry out dependent upon
the student populations they support, and the ambiguity on behalf of interview participants
regarding the specific elements of the actual job descriptions of paraprofessionals within the
district, interview participants demonstrated vast differences in their expectations pertaining to
the types of academic content knowledge paraprofessionals should possess in order to effectively
fulfill their roles. Special education teachers and school site administrators were asked to identify
the types of academic or instructional skills that paraprofessionals should be able to implement.
Table 10 outlines some contextual evidence pertaining to the responses of interview participants
to the question outlined and demonstrates the differences and similarities regarding their
perceptions. Some of the differences in perception might be attributed to the grade levels of the
students in which the teachers are teaching, and the students’ level of academic need related to
their disabilities. For example, a preschool special education teacher who supports students with
moderate to severe disabilities notes, “If [paraprofessionals] are going to be working in
preschool, they’re not going to need to know algebra,” whereas a middle school special
education teacher who supports students with mild to moderate disabilities believes that
paraprofessionals should demonstrate “high school level math skills.” Administrators largely
123

focused on the need for paraprofessionals to be able to adjust their instruction depending on the
developmental abilities and skill sets of the students they support.

Table 10
Perceptions of Special Education Teachers and School Site Administrators Pertaining to the
Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should Possess
Grade Range
Student
Population
Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should
Possess
T1 Middle School Moderate/Severe
Paraprofessionals should understand “basic
number sense” and “knowledge of basic
academic skills… up to a fifth-grade level.”
They should “have the ability to review
material in order to instruct the material... and
quickly understand [the material] enough to
convey that thought.”
T2 High School Mild/Moderate
“I would say they have to have pretty strong
basic knowledge of whatever subjects they're
going to be asked to work in.”
T3 Middle School Mild/Moderate
Paraprofessionals should have “solid reading
skills, and not just decoding but in
comprehension.”
They should be “able to comprehend high
school level material at minimum…”
“I think an aide should have the basics of being
able to understand the macro structure of a
text… in addition to the micro-structure to
then be able to go in close.”
Paraprofessionals should demonstrate “high
school level math skills… that’s probably
more important than the reading skills.”
T4 Preschool Moderate/Severe
“There is basic knowledge [paraprofessionals]
need to know, but that really comes down to
their grade level that they’re going to be in.”
“If they’re going to be working in preschool,
they’re not going to need to know algebra.”
T5 High School Moderate/Severe
Paraprofessionals should understand “the basic
foundations for reading…”

124

Grade Range
Student
Population
Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should
Possess
T6 Elementary Mild/Moderate
“So, in terms of academic skills, I would
expect them to know, at least like some of the
more basic skills that the kids would be tested
on.”
Paraprofessionals should have “some basic
knowledge of math, reading, writing, general
biology, history, and science.”
T7 Elementary Moderate/Severe
Paraprofessionals should “understand the
academic, at least the very basic academic
needs and vocabulary” that students are
working on.
T8 Middle School Mild/Moderate
Paraprofessionals “should be able, I think, to
help the students in any format that they’re
working on.”
Paraprofessionals should be able to “walk
[students] through something that they’re not
going to be familiar with, especially when it
comes to math.”
Paraprofessionals should take “the time to
learn… so that the [paraprofessional] is able
to turn around and help the kids.”
T9 High School Mild/Moderate
Paraprofessionals should “have that content
[knowledge] or be able to take some initiative
on their own to learn the material they have
to be able to support the kids with.”
Paraprofessionals should “have excellent
executive functioning skills because right
now it's teaching kids how to be organized,
how to stay on top of their assignments…”
T10
Adult
Transition
Moderate/Severe
Paraprofessionals should be able to assist
students with solving “life skill problems and
with money management skills…”
“My expectation of them is that they’ll be able
to explain something that any high school
graduate would be able to solve or explain.”

125

Grade Range
Student
Population
Academic Knowledge Paraprofessionals Should
Possess
A1 Elementary ALL
“I've noticed that the ones that really are good
at their jobs are the ones who understand a
child's development and understanding the
range of development that they should have.
So knowing like, "No, you can do this,
because this is the range of skills you have,"
Or understanding the range of the disability
that the child has, so then they know how to
kind of scale that.”
A2 Middle School ALL
“Now, it's nice when there is some ability to
listen to a teacher teach and understand
what's being taught and then support
students academically, but I think given how
much that position actually pays, right, it's
an even balance between personality
characteristics and academic content
acquisition.”
A3 High School ALL
“Yeah, I think a lot of it is flexibility, right?
Because they're following different students
from year to year, they're moving from
classes to classes and content area to content
area. I think it's the flexibility and
willingness to reach out and understand,
what does the student need, but what does
the teacher, right? Because that's where the
relationship is. So understanding the skill set
that that student comes with, understanding
the skills that the teacher wants them to
learn, and then being that middle piece that's
really bridging those two together. I think
that's what's critical.”
A4 Elementary ALL
“I think, in my mind, academically the aid
needs to be able to do that task also
independently,” meaning whatever task is
being assigned to students.

Perceptions regarding the paraprofessional role being synonymous with the role of
the teacher. Despite the rampant role ambiguity associated with the paraprofessional role, and
the differing expectations by teachers and administrators regarding the academic skill set
126

necessary to fulfill their roles effectively, many interview participants plainly commented on
how the roles of paraprofessionals are aligned with the roles of teachers. When asked to provide
an explanation of what tasks paraprofessionals are completing on a daily basis, a preschool
teacher noted “It's so hard to explain every single thing an aide does. It’s kind of like explaining
every single thing a teacher does in a classroom.” A middle school teacher described something
similarly. When asked to provide an explanation of the types of tasks an outside observer would
see a paraprofessional completing, a middle school teacher stated, “For the most part I would
say, if they were looking and saw our educational assistants, they may wonder who the assistant
is, or who's the teacher, because in our math classes we're able to create three groups, and so the
kids are receiving the same instruction from all three of us.” When referring to paraprofessionals,
another middle school teacher explained, “They're co-teachers. They do the same amount of
instruction I do. We all deal with the behavior. So, everything is a team effort. I felt that it's just a
difference in title.” When describing how paraprofessionals assist during inclusion activities
occurring at her site, an elementary principal shared how paraprofessionals often take the lead in
facilitating the instruction. She stated that the students “don’t know whether [the
paraprofessionals] are the teacher or the aide.” And finally, an adult transition teacher shared,
“My aides are an extension of myself.” In closing, many teachers and administrators seemed to
agree that a paraprofessional’s role is closely associated to that of a teacher’s role, however,
paraprofessionals are not employed as teachers nor are they evaluated as teachers. The following
section of this chapter discusses the supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals and outlines
the party responsible for assigning their roles within MUSD and the party to which is responsible
for evaluating paraprofessionals in the district.

127

The Supervision and Evaluation of Paraprofessionals
The supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD was discussed
throughout each of the interviews associated with this study. This section begins with an outline
of some evidence regarding how the roles of paraprofessional are assigned in MUSD along with
who is responsible for assigning these roles. Information is shared related to how
paraprofessionals are evaluated in the district and details pertaining to the evaluative tool used to
measure the evaluation of paraprofessionals are discussed. This section concludes with teacher
and administrator responses describing any preparation or training they may have received in
order to effectively supervise and evaluate paraprofessionals.
Teachers Assign the Roles of Paraprofessionals, While Administrators Evaluate
Paraprofessionals
Evidence suggests that in MUSD, special education teachers predominantly assign roles
and responsibilities to the paraprofessionals they work with, whereas school site administrators
primarily evaluate paraprofessionals. Both teachers and administrators were asked to identify
what specific tasks they assign to paraprofessionals on a regular basis. Teachers largely
discussed assigning tasks related to providing instructional support and monitoring students,
among other tasks, as described in an earlier section of this chapter. All administrators, however,
very clearly indicated they infrequently assign tasks and responsibilities to paraprofessionals and
relied more so on teachers to do this. When reflecting on the tasks that she directly assigns to
paraprofessionals, one elementary administrator stated, “I have to say that I don’t have to do a lot
of assigning.” She then stated, “I feel like our teachers do a really good job communicating with
[the paraprofessionals] in terms of what they need to happen in their classrooms.” This
administrator indicated that she takes care of the logistical needs of the schedules of the
128

paraprofessionals on her campus, like ensuring they have “staggered lunch breaks” and
“staggering their arrival and departure” so there is enough coverage for supervision during the
arrival and departure of students, however, for the most part, she does not assign specific roles to
paraprofessionals. A high school administrator shared similar thoughts. When asked to define the
tasks that she explicitly assigns to paraprofessionals, she responded by saying, “I actually do not
directly assign tasks to instructional aides. I create their daily environment.” When asked to
explain more about what creating this daily environment meant, she indicated that often times,
she would oversee the schedules that paraprofessionals follow or would assign specific
paraprofessionals to work with specific teachers, however, she explained, “I don’t actually give
the assignments per se.” In response to the same question, a middle school administrator stated,
“I don’t assign their roles, they’re assigned to me based on certain classifications,” indicating
that paraprofessionals are assigned to work on his school campus by the district special education
office when there is an opening of some sort. He provided an example, however, of the logistical
environment he creates in relation to the schedules that paraprofessionals follow or which
teachers and students they support. He explained,
For the non-one-on-one aides, I pair them up, usually, with a special education teacher.
And then that may shift depending on the period. So, they may primarily support one
teacher, but depending on where the needs are, they may float. Like for instance, in sixth
period, I have concentrations of special education students in electives, so I end up using
certain paraprofessionals to support that general education teacher so that we have more
elective opportunities for all kids.
He went on to explain that his role in assigning tasks to paraprofessionals predominantly
involves him having to ask himself, “Who do I pair that paraprofessional up with that will help
129

that person grow?” And finally, the remaining elementary administrator shared a similar
sentiment when asked what specific tasks she assigns to paraprofessionals. When referring to
roles within the classroom setting, she explained, “I know I don’t really give them many of those
kinds of tasks. The teachers usually do.” She then went on to explain,
The only time I really instruct them is when we're having a specific activity that I want to
make sure the students are being engaged or participating in. I will ask them, ‘Hey, get
that student in there, or could you do this activity with them?’ Because they are going to
need some assistance. I usually do not direct them in the classroom of what the academic
activities are, but I may instruct them on how to handle a student or a situation in a
specific way. Like during the bathroom time, making sure those things are covered.
Sometimes hallway or yard supervision, I'll instruct them more in that.
Altogether, administrators very clearly outlined that they rely on teachers to delineate tasks and
responsibilities to paraprofessionals, while they handle much of the logistical flow and sequence
of the paraprofessional workday.
Teacher Ambiguity Involving Who Evaluates Paraprofessionals and What Performance
Measures They Are Evaluated On
In MUSD, school site administrators are responsible for evaluating paraprofessionals on
their performance, however, not all teachers interviewed were aware of this. Most teachers that
did indicate an awareness of the site administrator being responsible for this task also indicated
that the site administrator would informally reach out to them for feedback about a given
paraprofessional’s performance, prior to the evaluation taking place. Although all ten special
education teachers interviewed for this study work closely with paraprofessionals, three of the
teachers interviewed indicated they believed someone other than the site administrator was
130

responsible for the evaluation of the paraprofessionals they work with. These three teachers
incorrectly named the “special education department chairperson” at their school site or the
district’s “special education program administrator” as responsible for the evaluation of
paraprofessionals. Prior to the evaluation of a paraprofessional, however, most teachers that
correctly named the site administrator indicated that they were asked to contribute feedback
regarding the paraprofessional’s performance. A high school teacher explained, “I always just
get an email saying ‘Can you give me feedback about how this paraprofessional is working in
your class?’” She then stated, “I just highlight some of the things they’re doing, what their areas
of growth are and things like that. There’s never really any specific areas that I’ve been asked to
comment on.” Another high school teacher explained,
So usually, the assistant principal will reach out to teachers and the department chair and
ask for feedback and input because we're the ones directly working with
[paraprofessionals]. That assistant principal might put together a schedule, but she doesn't
see them on the day to day and what they're doing in the classroom to be able to really
give an evaluation that's accurate.
And finally, an elementary teacher shared, “The one that formerly evaluates the
paraprofessionals at my school is the admin, but I work closely with the admin so that the data
that they have accurate or as accurate as possible.”
Although most teachers were able to correctly identify the site administrator as the
evaluator of paraprofessionals and acknowledged that these administrators reach out to them for
feedback, many teachers were not able to name, with certainty, the specific skills that
paraprofessionals are formally evaluated on. This is demonstrated in the dialogue between the
interviewer and a high school teacher in the following example:
131

Interviewer: “Who formally evaluates paraprofessionals?”
Teacher 5: “Last year it was [the assistant principal]. This year it’s [the assistant
principal].”
Interviewer: “Okay, and do you know any of the skills that they’re specifically evaluated
on?”
Teacher 5: “No.”
And again, demonstrated in the following example between the interviewer and a preschool
teacher:
Interviewer: “Okay. And who formally evaluates the aides on your campus?”
Teacher 4: “The principal.”
Interviewer: “And do you know any of the skills that they are specifically evaluated on?”
Teacher 4: “Not in this district.”
Interviewer: “Okay. Have you in the past?”
Teacher 4: “Yes.”
Interviewer: “And what were some of those skills?”
Teacher 4: “I'm trying to remember. It's been a while. It must be on something I
reviewed. It's been a really long time. Sorry.”
Although many teachers were unaware of the specific skills that were measured on the
evaluations of paraprofessionals, a few teachers were able to name some skills they believed to
be a part of the evaluations of paraprofessionals. One teacher stated that paraprofessionals were
evaluated on whether or not they were “on time,” meaning punctual in beginning their work, or if
“they took direction well.” Another teacher stated that the particular skills paraprofessionals
were evaluated on included a listing of the specific strengths and areas for growth demonstrated
132

by each paraprofessional. All in all, there was not a sense of certainty that emerged in their
responses.
Administrator Perceptions on Evaluative Tool
espite some teachers incorrectly identifying who, on their site, is responsible for the
evaluation of paraprofessionals, all school site administrators seemed to agree that they should,
in fact, be the individuals responsible for evaluating the paraprofessionals who work on their
sites. None of the administrators, however, felt the evaluative tool used to measure the
performance of paraprofessionals was effective in measuring growth or performance. Table 11
outlines the responses of each administrator when asked, “Do you feel the evaluative tool used to
measure the performance of paraprofessionals on your site is effective?” Administrators seemed
to agree that the tool utilized was broad in scope and not specifically formulated to effectively
measure the performance of paraprofessionals. Three of the four administrators interviewed
mentioned that the evaluative tool utilized is used for all classified employees working within
MUSD as agreed to by this group’s union representation. This classified employee group, within
MUSD, consists of janitors, maintenance workers, food service workers, occupational therapists,
office managers, and paraprofessionals amongst other positions.

133

Table 11
Administrator Responses to Whether or Not Evaluative Tool Used to Measure Paraprofessional
Performance is Effective
Administrator 1
“Not really. I mean, it's the same tool that we use for all classified
employees and have you ever seen that form? I'm sure you have. One of
the areas is like ‘loyalty to the organization.’ I was like, ‘Hmm, no, we're
not a fascist society.’ But just… it’s kind of antiquated. I mean, some of
the areas are like ‘knowledge of the job’ and ‘follow through.’ Those are
all really great things, but then there’s really three options including
satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and needs improvement. I don't think it's a
real good measure. It's a generic measure. It's not a bad, bad measure, but
it's still, it's not a good measure of what they do and what they know.”
Administrator 2 “I would not say [the tool] is very effective for professional growth.”
Administrator 3
“It's very generic, so it's meant to cover all classified staff regardless of
their role and position. So, it's almost so broad. It's not very tailored. It
also doesn't really give them an opportunity to identify any of their own
goals, and steps that they might want to take towards achieving those.
Particularly they're in an instructional role… I don't think the tool we
currently have really fits the role all that well. I mean, it's okay, but I think
it could be better.”
Administrator 4
“No, because actually the evaluation for instructional aides, what we have
to use is just from the Teamsters agreement with classified.”

While administrators seemed to believe that the evaluative tool used to measure the
performance of paraprofessionals is not entirely effective, and along with the fact that teachers
predominantly assign the roles of paraprofessionals, but administrators evaluate this group,
interview questions also centered on the concept of training for teachers and administrators in
relation to being able to effectively manage, supervise, and evaluate paraprofessionals.
Administrator and Teacher Training on Appropriate Supervisory Practices Regarding
Paraprofessionals
134

When asked to describe any preparatory training they had received that focused
specifically on how to effectively supervise or evaluate paraprofessionals, most interview
participants noted that they had received minimal training at best. Although this was not a
question specifically included on the interview protocol for teachers, at the end of each
interview, the researcher specifically asked teachers to reflect on their teacher preparation
programs or credential programs they had participated in, and to then discuss if they had ever
been provided with any explicit instruction regarding how to supervise or manage
paraprofessionals. Overwhelmingly, teachers responded that they had not received explicit
instruction in this area. Table 12 outlines the responses of teachers to this question. As part of the
interview protocol, administrators were asked to describe any professional development they had
participated in related to supervising paraprofessionals. Administrators noted they had not
participated in any formal training regarding this topic. One administrator considered her years
of experience as being the training she needed to effectively carry out the role of evaluating
paraprofessionals, however, most administrators simply stated that they had not received any
guidance or training in this area.

135

Table 12
Special Education Teacher Responses Regarding Participating in Any Formal Training Within
Their Teacher Preparation or Credential Programs Pertaining to Supervising Paraprofessionals
Teacher 1 “No, and I think that's needed. I think that is completely needed, very much so
in any program. I feel like, because I was a paraprofessional, I was lucky
enough to get that experience, and I feel that a lot of teachers, they might
benefit from that experience to be in their shoes and understand this is how it
feels to be a paraprofessional.”
Teacher 2 “My program was a masters slash credential program. And the first class we
took we touched on [supervising paraprofessionals” very briefly, but it wasn't
a lot of instruction. It wasn't as though we had a course in that. And I mean, it
was a very accelerated program. But I feel like yeah, definitely, that could
have been covered more. I don't think it was as much as it should have been.”
Teacher 3 “Not that I can remember. Let's see. Not that I can remember… It's just one of
those things that not a lot of teacher prep programs are covering. And honestly,
I mean the teacher prep programs are not all that... I don't know, they're not
that great.”
Teacher 5 “We got a lot of essays on how to talk with our paraprofessionals, but it was
just mostly, ‘Figure it out.’”
Teacher 6 “Not that I remember at the moment, but I have taken some classes where they
do briefly go over how to have a positive relationship with your staff
members. So, I have some general training from that, but not a specific
course.”
Teacher 7 “I mean, it wasn't a full class, like a full, like, this is how you handle it. But it
was a lot of letting us know, letting the teacher know us as future teachers,
know what was in our control, what we can do to motivate, what we can do to
teach and what we can expect from [paraprofessionals].”
Teacher 8 “You know, probably it was in one day that we talked about [supervising
paraprofessionals]. I do remember discussing… I wouldn't even call it a
training; it was more like a discussion. Like, ‘Let's read some articles and talk
about what this is going to look like in your classroom.’”
Teacher 10 “Not really. Not so much, because I think a lot of the programs I was in…
They might have said, ‘Oh, you might have a class aide here and there,’ but
classes were mostly just about what the teacher's responsibilities were. So, a
lot of the classes I had in my credential program didn't really focus a whole lot
on instructional assistants.”

136

Altogether, most administrators and special education teachers interviewed indicated they
had never received any explicit training regarding how to effectively manage or supervise
paraprofessionals. The findings within this section, related to the supervision and evaluation of
paraprofessionals, seem to exacerbate the already compounding effects of role ambiguity faced
by paraprofessionals within their work lives.
Summary
In closing, paraprofessionals are faced with pervasive role ambiguity as demonstrated by
the sheer number of tasks they perform and dependent on the student populations, grade levels,
and developmental levels they support. Most interview participants stated they were not in
possession of nor aware of the components of the MUSD job description specifically designed
for paraprofessionals. Many teachers and administrators shared contradictory expectations
regarding their feelings related to the academic content knowledge paraprofessionals should
possess in order to effectively fulfill their roles. In fact, many teachers and administrators
compared the roles of paraprofessionals to those of teachers. Supervising and evaluating
paraprofessionals in MUSD is an ambiguous role as well given teachers are predominantly
responsible for assigning tasks to paraprofessionals, however, administrators are responsible for
evaluating them. Administrators perceive the evaluative tool used to measure the performance of
paraprofessionals to be ineffective and teachers are unable to identify, with certainty, the specific
skills paraprofessionals are specifically evaluated on. Finally, most teachers and administrators
indicate receiving little to no explicit training in the area of effectively supervising or managing
paraprofessionals.

137

Conclusion
The work of a special education paraprofessional is meaningful and important, yet varied
and complex. Special education teachers, school site administrators, and paraprofessionals who
participated in this study provided many examples of ways in which paraprofessionals are relied
on to support vulnerable student populations within the educational setting. At the same time,
paraprofessionals are not provided with access to any form of systematic or structured training
opportunities. This chapter identified specific roles and responsibilities that all three stakeholder
groups who participated in this study seemed to agree were important roles for paraprofessionals
to be able to carry out. Additionally, this chapter identified key areas of need regarding training
topics and concepts essential for paraprofessionals. Furthermore, the work experiences of
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD were discussed as related to the role ambiguity present
within their work. Systemic flaws in the area of supervision and evaluation of this employee
group were discussed as well.
The juxtaposition that paraprofessionals face is a conflict between expectation and
reality. They comprise a large, but incohesive employee group within MUSD. Altogether, special
education teachers and school site administrators feel that paraprofessionals are extensions of the
teachers they support, yet they are not employed as teachers nor are they trained as teachers.
Paraprofessionals are expected to provide differentiated and individualized instruction to
students with exceptional needs, yet there are significant access issues pertaining to the receipt of
training on their behalf. Additionally, special education teachers and school site administrators
have vastly different expectations for paraprofessionals regarding academic content knowledge
they should possess in order to be successful at fulfilling their roles, however, the educational
requirements one has to meet in order to become a paraprofessional are nowhere close to that of
138

the educational requirements for credentialed teachers. Teachers are expected to direct and
delegate roles to paraprofessionals; however, they have received little to no preparation to do so.
Administrators are expected to evaluate paraprofessionals, yet they have not received any
explicit direction on how to do so nor are they the personnel that delegates tasks and
responsibilities to paraprofessionals on a daily basis. Administrators are also expected to
evaluate paraprofessionals using a tool that has been deemed ineffective. Chapter 5 provides an
in-depth analysis of the findings of this study and outlines specific recommendations for
remediating the issues that have risen to the surface through these findings.

139

Chapter Five: Analysis and Recommendations
Chapter Four presented the findings of this study related to the two guiding research
questions indicated below:
1. What are the perceptions of special education paraprofessionals regarding their roles
and responsibilities, specific training needs, and self-efficacy?
2. What are the perceptions of special education teachers and school site administrators
regarding the knowledge and awareness needed for paraprofessionals to fulfill their
roles?
Based on the key findings in relation to the guided research questions, this chapter serves to
analyze these findings in comparison to specific elements described within the literature review.
Additionally, this chapter provides a series of specific goals and recommendations aimed at
strengthening the Paraprofessional-Role-Environment relationship, as was introduced in Chapter
Two, within the conceptual framework guiding this dissertation. Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social
cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory along with the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis are
also utilized to frame the recommendations in this chapter.
Analysis of Key Findings
The findings of this study are largely commensurate with the literature regarding this
topic. Demographically, the 55 paraprofessionals who participated in this study are mostly
representative of larger groups of paraprofessionals noted within the research relating to
paraprofessionals employed throughout the United States. Additionally, the roles and
responsibilities of paraprofessionals, their respective training needs, and the systemic issues they
face within their unique work environments are largely comparable to what has been found
within the larger body of research pertaining to this subject. This section aims to connect the
140

findings of this study to the broader body of research outlined within the literature review of this
dissertation. In some instances, within this analysis, social cognitive theory and self-efficacy
theory are discussed in an effort to assist in comparing and contrasting findings.
Demographic Analysis of Paraprofessionals Participating in this Study
Demographically, the paraprofessionals employed by MUSD who participated in this
study were predominantly representative of paraprofessional demographics noted within the
research. There are some differences, however, between paraprofessionals participating in the
present study and those generally noted within the larger body of research. Table 13 represents a
comparison between the demographics of the 55 paraprofessionals who completed the online
survey associated with this study and the demographics associated with larger bodies of
paraprofessionals represented within the literature and as described in chapter two of this
dissertation.

141

Table 13
Comparison Between MUSD Survey Participant Demographics and Paraprofessional
Demographics Noted in the Literature

MUSD Survey Participant
Demographics
Paraprofessional Demographics in
the Literature
Gender Identity Predominantly identify as female Predominantly identify as female
Age
Slightly younger than the average
age noted in the research (52% of
MUSD paraprofessionals are 35
or older; 44% are 34 or younger)
Middle-aged
Years of
Experience
Slightly less years of experience
than the average noted in
research (largest group of
paraprofessionals surveyed had
five years or less of experience)
6.5 years of experience on average
as special education aide; 7.9
years as an aide overall
Level of Education
Ranging from high school
diplomas through advanced
degrees
Ranging from high school
diplomas through advanced
degrees
Ethnicity &
Bilingualism
Over half of paraprofessional
surveyed are Latinx and are
bilingual; this is reflective of
MUSD’s student population
Reflective in race and language to
demographics of student
population
Eligibilities
Supported
Predominantly work with high
incidence disabilities (heavy
emphasis on supporting students
with autism and intellectual
disabilities)
Predominantly work with high
incidence disabilities (heavy
emphasis on supporting students
with autism and intellectual
disabilities)

As noted in Table 13, in comparison to the general demographic composition of
paraprofessionals within the research and as noted in chapter two of this dissertation, MUSD’s
population of paraprofessionals both parallels and differs with this generalization.
Overall and commensurate with the research (Biggs et al., 2018, Carter & Sisco, 2011,
Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Walker, 2017), paraprofessionals working within MUSD are
142

predominantly female. However, MUSD’s paraprofessionals are, on average, slightly younger
than the average age of paraprofessionals in other research. Larger, more recent studies indicate
the average age of paraprofessionals to be older than 40 years of age and around 48 years of age
(Biggs et al., 2018; Walker, 2017). In the present study, 44% of paraprofessionals who indicated
their age were 34 years of age or younger. Close to 15% of paraprofessionals indicated they were
55 years of age or older.
In addition to being slightly younger than the average age, paraprofessionals in MUSD
seem to have slightly less years of experience on-the-job. A large majority of paraprofessionals
working within MUSD have 10 years or less of experience, however of this group, 55% of
paraprofessionals surveyed have five years or less of experience. Although a plethora of research
indicates that larger bodies of paraprofessionals have an average of six-and-a-half years of
experience (Biggs et al., 2018; Fisher & Pleasants, 2012), the demographics regarding years of
experience for survey respondents employed by MUSD indicates that they are slightly less
experienced in comparison to the larger body of research.
Regarding education, paraprofessionals employed by MUSD seem to have similar
educational backgrounds compared to the national average. Recent studies indicate that a
predominant number of paraprofessionals have obtained their high school diploma and have
some level of college experience ranging, ranging from college units to graduate degrees (Brock
& Carter, 2015; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Carter & Sisco, 2011; Fisher & Pleasants,
2012; Walker, 2017). This is similar to the paraprofessionals working within MUSD over 90% of
respondents indicated they had some college experience or had obtained a post-secondary
bachelor’s or master’s degree.
143

Regarding ethnicity, Latinx paraprofessionals comprised the largest ethnic group of
paraprofessionals in MUSD. Similarly, Latinx students comprise the largest ethnic group of
students with special needs in MUSD. Additionally, 50.9% of paraprofessionals surveyed
indicated they were bilingual. Of this bilingual group, 75% of surveyed participants indicated
they speak Spanish fluently. The National Education Association claims that often,
paraprofessionals represent a similar demographic compared to the respective student population
in the area, including the ability to speak the languages of the student population (National
Education Association, 2019b, para 4). This is reflected in both the ethnicity and bilingualism
noted amongst MUSD paraprofessionals. Overall, the paraprofessionals participating in this
survey, as employees of MUSD, were comprised of relatively similar demographics when
compared to the demographics of larger bodies of paraprofessionals found within the literature.
An Analysis of the Roles and Responsibilities of Paraprofessionals
The roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals, as found within this study, mostly
parallel with literature surrounding this topic. In the present study, a majority of
paraprofessionals indicated that, on a daily basis, they predominantly engage in the provision of
direct instruction to students, whether this instruction is provided within a small group setting, a
whole group setting, or in an individualized fashion. Additionally, paraprofessionals indicated
that monitoring, supervising, and observing students for the purpose of fulfilling a variety of
different objectives are some of their key roles. There were numerous other roles that
paraprofessionals indicated were a part of their daily, weekly, or even monthly work
responsibilities, however, those noted seemed to be the most prominent. Administrators and
teachers perceived the roles of paraprofessionals to predominantly include monitoring students
for a variety of different functions, building rapport with students, and providing instructional
144

support. All stakeholders provided examples of ways in which paraprofessionals fulfilled these
roles both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, even amidst a dramatic change in
instructional format.
When examining the research regarding the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals
since the turn of the 21
st
century, numerous research studies have found that the majority of
paraprofessionals employed within the United States play an important role in providing
individualized instruction to students as well as engaging in the supervision and oversight of
students (Carlson et al., 2002; Carter et al., 2009; Fisher & Pleasants, 2012; Mann & Whitworth,
2017). Of interest, the present study, although somewhat larger in terms of sample size, slightly
mirrored a study by Mann and Whitworth (2017) in which the perceptions of the same three
employee groups were taken into account. All three employee groups in the Mann and
Whitworth (2017) study, inclusive of paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators, indicated
that providing instructional support, supervision, and behavioral management were essential
responsibilities for paraprofessionals. Similarly, Fisher and Pleasants (2012) found that
paraprofessionals (n = 1,867) assumed a primary role of providing behavioral, instructional, and
social support to students with special needs. The roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals
in MUSD are predominantly commensurate with the roles and responsibilities delineated in
recent research involving this topic. The training needs of paraprofessionals, as found within this
study, are relatively similar to the training needs noted within the recent literature involving this
subject as well.

145

An Analysis of the Training Needs of Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals have pronounced training needs as evidenced by the findings of this
study. In this section, the specific findings involving the training needs of paraprofessionals are
analyzed in comparison to the literature involving this topic.
Frequency of Training Received
Commensurate with the body of research associated with the training needs of
paraprofessionals over the past 20 years, the findings of this study outline significant training
needs for special education paraprofessionals given a lack of access to training opportunities
offered through their employing school districts and educational institutions. As recipients of
training in general, findings within the present study indicate an overwhelming desire, on behalf
of paraprofessionals, to participate in additional training opportunities. Additionally, close to half
of all paraprofessionals surveyed noted having attended no more than two training sessions in the
preceding 12 months prior to survey completion. Approximately 30% of all paraprofessionals
surveyed felt that they do not receive adequate training to complete their jobs in an effective
manner. Within the literature pertaining to the frequency of training opportunities provided to
paraprofessionals, these employees often report a lack of access to training opportunities (Brown
& Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Carter et al., 2009; Downing et al., 2000). When examining the
frequency of training opportunities attended by paraprofessionals in general, For example,
Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2017) found that many paraprofessionals, similarly to those
employed in MUSD, had not received any training within one year of the survey date. Some
paraprofessionals in the Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2017) study indicated not receiving any
training since employed with their respective school district. Both Carter et al. (2009) and
Downing et al. (2000) found that the predominant form of training for most paraprofessionals,
146

within their respective studies, involved on-the-job type training. Clearly, paraprofessionals need
more frequent access to systematic training opportunities outside of teaching themselves.
Research indicates that when paraprofessionals are provided with systematic training
opportunities, their self-efficacy levels increase (Feldman & Matos, 2012; Kim et al., 2017;
Wright & Prescott, 2017).
Self-Efficacy of Paraprofessionals
Within the research, there is evidence that the self-efficacy of paraprofessionals improves
when they are given access to and participate in quality training. The present study, however, did
not aim to prove or disprove these findings. Instead, one of the elements of this study served to
examine the perceptions of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD regarding their self-efficacy
levels using Albert Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social cognitive and self-efficacy theories as a
theoretical lens. Overall, the paraprofessionals surveyed indicated relatively high levels of self-
efficacy when asked to rank their confidence levels in performing 17 various tasks found to be
prevalent roles of paraprofessionals within the research. The mean confidence levels for all tasks
provided, as self-ranked by paraprofessionals between 1, being “not certain at all” and 5, being
“extremely certain,” never dropped below a mean of 3.78. Paraprofessionals were most confident
in performing tasks with less of an instructional emphasis such as providing positive
reinforcement to students (M = 4.51), collaborating with teachers (M = 4.49), and supervising
and monitoring students (M = 4.49). Paraprofessionals were relatively less confident in
performing tasks to which would be embedded within the provision of quality direct instruction
to students. Tasks in which paraprofessionals felt relatively less confident in implementing were
tasks such as teaching reading strategies (M = 4.02), teaching mathematics strategies (M = 3.88),
and creating, modifying, or adapting instructional materials (M = 3.88). The tasks in which
147

paraprofessionals felt the least confident in performing, all of which are associated with quality
instruction, were the same tasks in which paraprofessionals reported engaging in on a frequent
basis. For example, paraprofessionals reported feeling relatively less confident in teaching
reading and math strategies to students and adapting instructional materials to meet the specific
needs of students, however, over 90% of paraprofessionals indicated that they provide direct
instruction to students on a daily basis and over 70% of paraprofessionals indicated providing
small group instruction to students on at least a weekly basis or more. These findings imply that
paraprofessionals are most frequently completing tasks to which they are the least confident in
implementing, many of which involve the provision of explicit and direct instruction to students
with special needs. The delivery and the differentiation of instruction, although a predominant
part of the role of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD, takes explicit training and systematic
practice, all of which these paraprofessionals are not receiving.
Also involving self-efficacy and although the confidence levels of paraprofessionals were
quite high related to their performance regarding the 17 listed tasks, close to one third of those
surveyed stated they did not feel they received adequate training to do their jobs well. Almost
90% of paraprofessionals indicated the desire for more training. With social cognitive theory in
mind, and the thought that individuals are “agents” of their life circumstances, in the absence of
access to explicit training, paraprofessionals employed by MUSD observe their environments
and the social models around them. They assimilate to these environments without much
guidance and support. They create cognitive representations of their work based on their
observations and interactions with their environment – an environment that lacks access to
substantive training. This demonstrates the resilience of this employee group, however, without
148

proper training and guidance, the delivery of quality instruction to students with special needs by
paraprofessionals, inclusive of evidenced-based instructional strategies, cannot be ensured.
Specific Training Needs
Findings within the present study regarding the specific training needs of
paraprofessionals are largely commensurate with the literature centered on this topic, with one
exception. Overall, paraprofessionals reported lesser degrees of efficacy involving concepts
related to instructional delivery, indicating a need for training in this area. Special education
teachers and school site administrators indicated that paraprofessionals would benefit from
training in the area of behavioral support. All three stakeholder groups indicated training in the
area of technological skills, virtual instructional delivery, and foundations of special education,
which includes disability-specific awareness. Current research indicates a prevalent need for
paraprofessionals to receive training in the areas of behavioral intervention and management,
disability awareness, and specific instructional strategies for certain special education
populations (Barrio & Hollingshead, 2017; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2017; Fisher &
Pleasants, 2012; Mann & Whitworth, 2017; Walker, 2017; Walker et al., 2017). The pronounced
need for training in the area of technological skills and virtual instructional delivery, as described
by all stakeholders associated with this study, is a unique result of this study taking place during
the COVID-19 pandemic. During data collection, schools in MUSD were physically shuttered,
and instruction was provided to students by teachers and paraprofessionals completely within a
virtual setting. All participants described the unique, contextual challenges associated with the
provision of instruction in a virtual format. This format of instruction, however, highlighted
specific technological training needs, on behalf of paraprofessionals, that must be addressed.
Even post-pandemic, there are strong possibilities of dramatic shifts in the manner in which
149

instructional delivery for students takes place. Equipping paraprofessionals with technological
knowledge and awareness is essential in order to provide students with special needs appropriate
access to quality instruction.
Altogether, most of what was found in this study pertaining to the frequency of training
received, the self-efficacy of paraprofessionals, and the specific training needs they have aligned
with current research centering on this topic. The following section provides an analysis of the
findings involving challenges built within the work environments of paraprofessionals employed
by MUSD.
An Analysis of the Work Environments of Paraprofessionals
Paraprofessionals play an integral role in educating and supporting students with special
needs; however, their work environments are often plagued with role ambiguity and the
supervision and evaluation process they experience is often vague and incohesive. The following
section analyzes the findings of this study, as they relate to the research involving this topic,
regarding the role ambiguity faced by the paraprofessionals employed by MUSD, Additionally,
an analysis of the findings regarding the supervision and evaluation process that
paraprofessionals experience within MUSD is provided.
Paraprofessional Role Ambiguity
The present study highlights significant role ambiguity found within the parameters, or
lack thereof, of the roles of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD. Within this study,
paraprofessionals highlighted 19 different tasks they complete, yet noted that they complete
these specific tasks with varied frequency. Examples of these tasks ranged from providing
explicit direct instruction to students, to supporting students with self-care, toileting, and hygiene
needs, to completing clerical tasks. Some paraprofessionals completed certain tasks on a daily
150

basis much more than others and vice versa. All stakeholders, inclusive of paraprofessionals,
teachers, and administrators spoke of the unique nature of each paraprofessional’s role being
dependent on the age, grade level, and population of students with special needs they support.
Special education teachers and school site administrators held various perceptions regarding the
tasks in which paraprofessionals carry out within their respective classrooms and school sites.
When asked how they knew what paraprofessionals were supposed to do, quite a few teachers
drew on their experiences as prior paraprofessionals and spoke of the absence of explicit role
clarity. Instead, many teachers reminisced on how, as prior paraprofessionals, they had to
observe the students and environments surrounding them so that they could make sense of their
roles. Administrators were asked to share how they, too, knew what paraprofessionals were
supposed to do. Administrators admitted not knowing exactly what paraprofessionals were
supposed to do, however, they highlighted the usage of observation, as a guide, in understanding
better what the roles of paraprofessionals encompassed. A majority of special education teachers
and school site administrators indicated they had not been provided with the district-specific job
description for paraprofessionals, yet these individuals worked closely with, and even
supervised, paraprofessionals on a regular basis. Additionally, teachers and administrators held
varied expectations regarding the academic knowledge that paraprofessionals should possess in
order to fulfill their roles effectively. Finally, most teachers and administrators felt that the roles
of paraprofessionals were closely synonymous with the roles of teachers often describing the
roles of paraprofessionals as including the responsibility of providing explicit, differentiated
instruction to students with special needs. Paraprofessionals employed by MUSD, however, are
not trained as teachers nor are they employed as teachers.
151

Unfortunately, issues with role clarity and pervasive role ambiguity are associated with
the roles of paraprofessionals across the research involving this topic (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012;
Giangreco, 2010; Howley et al., 2017; Shyman, 2010). Contributing to the concept of role
ambiguity faced by this employee group are factors such as poorly defined job descriptions for
paraprofessionals (Giangreco, 2010), large-scale inattention to the composition of the roles of
paraprofessionals on behalf of district-level personnel (Howley et al., 2017), and the expectations
that paraprofessionals should be completing duties explicitly designed for teachers to carry out
(Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). In the United States, the basic requirements for certification and
licensure of paraprofessionals vary from state to state and local education agency (Stewart,
2019). IDEA (2004) mandates that paraprofessionals should be adequately trained, however,
leaves what constitutes this training up to individual states. This has resulted in a myriad of
varied expectations for paraprofessionals across the United States. Even within states, such as in
California where MUSD is located, there is ambiguity involving the requirements for
paraprofessionals to actually obtain employment within respective school districts. MUSD can
either require prospective paraprofessionals to show proof of a certain amount of college credits
or they can require that these individuals pass a district-created exam. The role ambiguity for
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD begins when they are employed with the district given,
they all have varying educational backgrounds. This role ambiguity is then exacerbated by a
significantly vast student population with varied needs. The ambiguity is then compounded by
the fact that teachers and administrators do not have a clear idea as to what the job description of
a paraprofessional entails and they hold various expectations for these employees, to which may
or may not be commensurate with the level of education and training they have received. As if
152

role ambiguity was not enough, paraprofessionals also experience a system of supervision and
evaluation that is incohesive and vague.
The Supervision and Evaluation of Paraprofessionals
The systems of supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are
beset with uncertainty, however, this is largely commensurate with the research. While special
education teachers predominantly assign and define the roles of paraprofessionals, administrators
formally supervise and evaluate these employees. Even though administrators are the supervisors
and evaluators of paraprofessionals, most administrators discussed that they are not fully aware
of all that is encompassed within the roles of paraprofessionals at their respective school sites.
Additionally, many teachers indicated uncertainty regarding who, on their respective campus or
within the district, evaluates the paraprofessionals they work with. Many teachers also indicated
uncertainty regarding the exact measures of performance to which are included within the
evaluations of paraprofessionals. All administrators felt the evaluative tool used to measure the
performance of paraprofessionals was either antiquated, ineffective, or both. Most teachers and
administrators noted having received little to no training regarding effective supervisory
practices of paraprofessionals. And finally, most teachers highlighted critical missing
components within their respective teacher preparation and credential programs centered on
explicit and detailed instruction and training regarding how to effectively support and manage
paraprofessionals.
The research involving the supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals often denotes
issues with ineffective evaluative tools and ambiguous evaluation measures (Biggs et al., 2018;
Stewart, 2019). Additionally, there is a plethora of research noting that pre-service teacher
preparation programs do not address the effective supervision of paraprofessionals within the
153

classroom setting (Biggs et al., 2016; Carson et. al., 2002; Douglas et al., 2016). Performance
criteria ambiguity, as termed by Stewart (2019), was found to be a pronounced issue for
paraprofessionals. Although the present study did not ask paraprofessionals about who or how
they are evaluated, teachers, employed by MUSD, indicated not knowing who evaluates
paraprofessionals or what specifically they are evaluated on. This raises accountability concerns
given teachers in MUSD seem to be the individuals who assign and define the tasks and
responsibilities that paraprofessionals carry out, however, they are unclear as to the evaluative
measures utilized to formally record their performance. Accountability concerns are then
intensified by the fact that teachers seem to be primarily responsible for assigning and delegating
roles to paraprofessionals, yet they receive little to no training or preparation within their pre-
service teaching programs so as to learn to carry out this role effectively (Biggs et al., 2018).
Summary
Altogether, the findings of the present study strongly align with the larger body of
literature associated with the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals, the specific training
needs of this employee group, and the ambiguous aspects of their work environments.
Additionally, the findings provide additional insight into these areas given the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The following section outlines key recommendations in addressing the
critical needs found to be evident within this study involving issues with role clarity, training,
and the supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD.
Recommendations
This section provides recommendations designed to enhance and strengthen the
Paraprofessional-Role-Environment within MUSD. This Paraprofessional-Role-Environment
conceptual framework is rooted in social cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory (Bandura,
154

1977, 1986). The following recommendations are provided with Bandura’s theories in mind;
however, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is utilized to frame the
recommendations provided as well. Each recommendation provided is aligned with an
overarching goal linked to both social cognitive theory and this dissertation’s conceptual
framework along with an element of the Clark and Estes (2008) framework. There are 12
recommendations provided aligned with six respective goals. Table 14 outlines these goals and
recommendations. This section begins, however, with a brief overview of the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis framework and how this framework aligns with social cognitive theory. This
section then provides a detailed description of each recommendation and corresponding
organizational goal.

155

Table 14
Goals and Recommendations to Enhance and Strengthen the Paraprofessional-Role-
Environment Relationship in MUSD
Social
Cognitive
Theory
Conceptual
Framework
Clark &
Estes
Gap
Analysis
Goals Recommendations
Behavior Role K
Establish and
define the roles
of
paraprofessionals
employed by
MUSD.
1. Re-envision and
revise the
paraprofessional job
description.
2. Update the hiring and
onboarding processes
for paraprofessionals.
Behavior Role K
Provide
opportunities for
paraprofessionals
to participate in
systematic
training.
3. Develop a
comprehensive,
systematic training
system for
paraprofessionals.
Person Paraprofessional M
Enhance the
supervisory and
evaluative
systems for
paraprofessionals
employed by
MUSD.
4. Re-design the
evaluative tool and
evaluative process
used for formal
evaluation of
paraprofessionals.
5. Provide ongoing
training to
administrators and
teachers to assist
them in their role of
supervising and
evaluating
paraprofessionals.

156

Social
Cognitive
Theory
Conceptual
Framework
Clark &
Estes
Gap
Analysis
Goals Recommendations
Person Paraprofessional M
Create
opportunities for
paraprofessionals
to actively
engage, connect,
and collaborate
with others
throughout the
organization.
6. Emphasize the
wellness of
paraprofessionals.
7. Cultivate
relationships between
paraprofessionals and
teachers and amongst
paraprofessionals
themselves by
providing specific
collaboration time.
Environment Environment O
Communicate
initiatives and
provide ongoing
support in the
areas of
knowledge, skill,
and motivation to
all stakeholders.
8. Comprehensively,
cohesively, and
consistently
communicate the
elements of all newly
designed systems and
initiatives for
providing
paraprofessional
support
9. Centralize an online
space for
paraprofessionals to
utilize in accessing
resources designed to
strengthen their
knowledge.
10. Establish ongoing
and systematic
accountability
measures to ensure
initiatives are
successful.

157

Social
Cognitive
Theory
Conceptual
Framework
Clark &
Estes
Gap
Analysis
Goals Recommendations
Environment Environment O
Reexamine the
utilization of
staffing and
create a
“paraprofessional
to teacher”
pipeline.
11. Establish a
committee to re-
imagine the present
staffing allocation in
relation to special
education teacher
caseloads and
paraprofessional
support involving
these caseloads.
12. Collaborate with
local universities and
area school districts
to develop a
“paraprofessional to
teacher pipeline.”

Overview of Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework in Relation to Social
Cognitive Theory
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework assesses the humanistic function
associated with various performance issues within organizations and then provides a way in
which to identify appropriate solutions to address identified issues (p. 41). The framework
addresses three separate causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational barriers (p. 43). Social cognitive theory, being a theoretical framework, discusses
how an individual person, and his or her respective behaviors, are shaped through the
interactions within their environments.
In this dissertation, the “person,” within the social cognitive theory framework, is the
“paraprofessional.” The paraprofessional possesses a certain level of “motivation” based on both
158

who they are as individuals and their interactions within their environment. Related to Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework, the paraprofessional’s motivation directly influences his
or her behavior within the work setting. Also in this dissertation, any given paraprofessional’s
“behavior” is considered their role. When carrying out these roles, paraprofessionals possess any
given level of “knowledge and skill” associated with Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework. The “environment” within social cognitive theory represents the work environment
of paraprofessionals in this dissertation. The work environment of the paraprofessionals
employed by MUSD is related to the “organizational barriers” represented in the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis framework. Table 14 demonstrates how the theoretical and conceptual
framework guiding this dissertation relates to the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework
and how these frameworks undergird the goals and recommendations provided.
Goals and Recommendations
Using Table 14 as a guide, six goals and 12 respective recommendations are outlined so
as to assist MUSD in its effort to address the knowledge and motivation of paraprofessionals
employed by the district. Additionally, these goals and recommendations are meant to address
the organizational barriers present within the environment of the organization that seem to be
affecting the knowledge and motivation of paraprofessionals.
Goals to Address the Knowledge of Paraprofessionals
The “knowledge” component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework
relates to the importance of individuals within organizations knowing how to achieve their goals
and carry out their respective roles. Information, education, and training are most associated with
this element of the framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). The findings of this dissertation indicate
that the roles of paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are vast and ambiguous. Additionally,
159

access to systematic training systems for these employees is lacking within the organizational
structure of MUSD and paraprofessionals, from the lens of all stakeholders associated with this
dissertation, have specific training needs. Within social cognitive theory, the “knowledge” aspect
of the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework is most closely related to the roles of
paraprofessionals. In order for paraprofessionals to feel as if they have clearly delineated roles
and are fully equipped to carry out and fulfill these roles, their knowledge and skills must be
addressed. The roles of paraprofessionals must be clearly established and defined, and systematic
training opportunities must be provided to paraprofessionals.
Recommendation 1 (Knowledge): Re-Envision and Revise the Paraprofessional Job
Description
MUSD should consider formally revising and defining the roles and responsibilities of
paraprofessionals within the district. The creation of an up-to-date and comprehensive job
description, accurately reflecting the duties of paraprofessionals, is essential in establishing role
clarity. Given the variability of roles within this particular position, “auxiliary” roles and
respective responsibilities associated with these “auxiliary” roles should be defined as well (e.g.,
outlining specific roles for a paraprofessional who works one-to-one with a student with
significant behavioral issues or paraprofessionals who support students with toileting or hygiene
needs). Relevant stakeholders must play a part in this process. Paraprofessionals themselves,
external stakeholders, and supervisors (e.g., union representatives, site administrators, teachers,
district-level administrators, parents, and possibly students) should be included in this process so
as to assess the perceptions of the role and to come to a general consensus related to the details
of the job descriptions being created. The usage of focus groups or work groups including
various stakeholders should be considered. The findings of this study should be utilized to assist
160

focus groups or work groups with the process of revising the present job description. Finally, the
newly revised job description should include any updated job components based on changes that
have occurred in the day-to-day, fundamental work of special education paraprofessionals given
the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a strong possibility that the roles of special education
paraprofessionals will evolve given the changes that have occurred within the field of education,
and the changes that will remain, due to the pandemic.
Recommendation 2 (Knowledge): Update the Hiring and Onboarding Processes
The hiring process for prospective or newly hired paraprofessionals should be thoroughly
revised. Based on the newly revised job description and with the state’s educational requirements
for paraprofessionals in mind, MUSD’s human resources department should develop specific
screening criteria for any potential applicants to ensure that only qualified applicants advance
forward to participating in interviews. Regarding the interview process, the interview protocol,
which contains questions utilized for interviewing potential new hires, should reflect the
elements of job description. A rubric should be aligned with the interview protocol so that
interview panel members can systematically rank candidate responses.
Once a paraprofessional is hired, procedures for on-boarding should be established so as
to ensure the paraprofessional is fully aware of his or her job responsibilities and has the
opportunity to become familiar with specific, applicable systems in place to access support. This
onboarding process should take no more than one or two workdays and should include a series of
meetings with the following stakeholders:
• A broad, general meeting with Human Resources to discuss overall district mission and
vision statements. At this meeting, the newly hired paraprofessional can become
161

generally familiar with district demographics and other district-specific information to
assist the new hire in understanding the larger district context they are a part of.
• A meeting with special education district leadership. District special education leadership
should review the district-wide supports available to the newly hired paraprofessional,
including a review of the dedicated online space that paraprofessionals can access for
resources related to their employment (see recommendation nine). Additionally, at this
meeting, district leadership and paraprofessional should discuss the training protocols and
dates for upcoming training opportunities.
• A meeting with the site administrator and evaluator. Before the paraprofessional begins
to assist teachers or students, the newly hired paraprofessional should meet with the site
administrator, who is his or her evaluator, and the site administrator and paraprofessional
should revisit overall expectations for the paraprofessional. The site administrator should
review any site-specific expectations, review the evaluation protocol and criteria, and
facilitate a tour of the campus. The site administrator should then introduce the
paraprofessional to applicable personnel on campus and should sent out correspondence
to staff regarding a newly hired paraprofessional joining the school team.
• Meetings with any pertinent personnel such as teachers, school psychologists, and related
service providers who may be interacting and collaborating with the paraprofessional.
Recommendation 3 (Knowledge): Develop a Comprehensive Training System for
Paraprofessionals
A systematic, long-term professional development and training program should be
established for paraprofessionals. The findings of the present dissertation regarding the specific
training needs of paraprofessionals should be utilized to inform this training program.
162

Additionally, an updated “needs assessment” should be conducted to address topics and concepts
paraprofessionals wish to learn more about. Finally, training components involving any potential
changes in the way the field of education works in the future, due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
should be incorporated into the training package. If virtual instruction continues to be
implemented moving forward, a focus on the various concepts specifically related to the delivery
of this form of instruction, should be included.
In an effort to assist with the transfer of learning, elements of coaching and feedback
should be provided on an ongoing basis after any training opportunities offered. Prior
knowledge, on behalf of the paraprofessionals participating in training, should be revisited at the
next training session. Data, on behalf of paraprofessional performance, should be tracked in an
effort to inform usage of training initiatives. This data should be communicated to both the
paraprofessionals and their respective supervisors. For any newly hired paraprofessional, within
the immediate 60-day probationary period following their initial hire date, they should
participate in key training opportunities to as to ensure every paraprofessional has achieved a
baseline of training. Finally, when any teachers who work alongside paraprofessionals are
provided with training opportunities that address elements of inclusion and co-teaching,
paraprofessionals should be included in these training opportunities as well.
MUSD should consider creating a paraprofessional mentorship program in which
experienced paraprofessionals, who have demonstrated strong implementation of quality skill
and practice, are paired with newly hired paraprofessionals as employment mentors. This
mentorship can provide immediate feedback to newly hired paraprofessionals, can assist in
building connection and camaraderie with fellow employees, and can increase motivation and
accountability for both the newly hired paraprofessional and the more experienced
163

paraprofessional. MUSD should consider the possibility of incentivizing mentorship by
providing a stipend to anyone who is willing to provide this mentorship.
Regarding the “motivation” aspect associated with the gap analysis framework, Clark and
Estes (2008) discusses the importance of members within any given organization feeling
connected to their work and feeling driven to achieve their performance goals. Within MUSD,
there is an evaluation process for paraprofessionals, however, there is ambiguity on behalf of
special education teachers regarding the specific measures used to assess the performance of
paraprofessionals, even though special education teachers are predominantly responsible for
assigning paraprofessionals the various roles and responsibilities they carry out. Additionally,
school site administrators, those in which are responsible for evaluating paraprofessionals, feel
the evaluative tool utilized is antiquated and ineffective and the performance goals within the
tool are not personalized enough to assist the employee in feeling fulfilled. Both teachers and
administrators overwhelmingly report not receiving any training regarding effective supervisory
practices for paraprofessionals. Clark and Estes (2008) states that “vague and constantly
changing performance goals and feedback” is one of the “main destroyers of motivation” (p.87).
The motivation, then, of paraprofessionals must be addressed through the enhancement of
supervisory and evaluative practices within MUSD. Additionally, opportunities for
paraprofessionals to feel actively engaged with the organizational system must be created in
order to enhance their motivation.
Recommendation 4 (Motivation): Re-Design the Evaluative Tool and Evaluative Process
A strengths-based evaluation system for paraprofessionals should be developed. This
evaluation system should consider the frequency and nature of evaluation, guidelines for the
development of quality performance goals, and the revision of all evaluative tools associated
164

with the formal evaluation of paraprofessionals. Within this newly designed evaluation process,
ongoing feedback loops between paraprofessionals their supervisors must be established. Built
within the strengths-based evaluation system, there should be an emphasis on specific and
descriptive praise. Paraprofessionals should be praised and acknowledged for a job well done.
Supervisors should name specific behaviors demonstrated by the paraprofessional to substantiate
the praise.
In an effort to develop this new evaluative system, a variety of stakeholders should
participate in its creation so as to provide input and to inform the process. Stakeholders should
include paraprofessionals, teachers, administrators, district leadership, and union representatives.
The classified union must be an integral part of this process given whenever evaluative measures
for represented employees are being discussed, union approval is necessary. Given teachers
cannot formally evaluate paraprofessionals, given union contract clauses and given a formal
evaluator must hold a California administrative credential, site or district-level administrators
must be defined as supervisors of paraprofessionals. Feedback, however, from teachers who
work in close proximity with paraprofessionals needs to be taken into account by the supervisors
in a systematic manner. A feedback loop between teachers and supervisors of paraprofessionals
must be established in an effort to thoroughly and systematically supervise and evaluate
paraprofessionals within their roles.
Recommendation 5 (Motivation): Provide Ongoing training to Administrators and Teachers
MUSD should establish guidelines regarding what constitutes the appropriate and
effective supervision and evaluation of paraprofessionals. Training and ongoing support should
be provided to supervisory personnel, especially related to performance feedback, employee
motivation, problem solving, etc. Additionally, teachers should be provided with ongoing
165

training and support related to the definition and parameters of the roles of paraprofessionals and
how to support and provide feedback to paraprofessionals in an effective manner. Teachers
should participate in training that emphasizes dynamic performance feedback. Finally, for any
supervisory personnel, their respective job descriptions need to reflect their role in the
supervision of paraprofessionals and these supervisors must be held accountable by their
respective supervisors for the implementation of appropriate supervision and support of this
employee group.
Recommendation 6 (Motivation): Emphasize the Wellness of Paraprofessionals
MUSD should focus on the emotional wellness of paraprofessionals and should ensure
that this employee group is incorporated and included into any district wellness initiative.
Training should be provided to paraprofessionals to which focuses on alleviating potential
emotional exhaustion. Training in this area should also provide practical, applicable strategies to
address any symptomology associated with emotional exhaustion. Paraprofessionals should be
provided with a list or chart of district-level support services to address any potential
symptomology they may be experiencing. Supervisors should provide ongoing support to
paraprofessionals, during feedback loop check-ins, to address any extraneous stressors.
Paraprofessionals should be made aware of information associated with the district’s “wellness
committee” and their participation should be encouraged in any committee planning or events.
Leaders within the special education department should closely examine paraprofessional-
student matches. Regarding paraprofessionals who are assigned to support students with
significant medical or behavioral needs, additional check-ins with supervisors should be
established to address any compounding, potential stressors. The transfer of assignment, after a
fixed period of time, may be suggested to alleviate stressors.
166

Recommendation 7 (Motivation): Cultivate Relationships
MUSD should consider planning for consistent and dedicated teacher-paraprofessional
collaboration time. Even if this opportunity is only once or twice per month, specific
collaboration time should be established. Sample agendas for this collaboration should be
provided, initially, to assist the collaboration team in framing and carrying out this established
practice. Additionally, opportunities for paraprofessionals to collaborate and discuss their roles
with one another should be established on an ongoing basis. This might translate into the
development of paraprofessional work groups or committees so as to inform practice and
policies. This group can also provide feedback to site and district level administrators regarding
their roles and provide an additional level of organizational and employee insight used by the
organization to inform decisions or future plans and initiatives.
Regarding the “organizational barriers” element of the gap analysis framework, Clark and
Estes (2008) state that often times, a “lack of efficient and effective organizational work
processes” (p. 103) is an underlying cause of performance gaps within organizations. As MUSD
implements goals and recommendations addressing the enhancement of the knowledge and
motivation of paraprofessionals employed by the district, the organizational processes must be
adapted (Clark & Estes, 2008). Communication and innovation, on behalf of the organization as
a whole, is an essential part of ensuring barriers are eradicated. As MUSD embarks on
implementing the goals and recommendations, clearly communicating, to stakeholders
throughout the district, regarding any new initiatives or processes that have been established,
along with the purpose of potential benefit of said processes, is essential. In the area of
innovation, MUSD may want to reexamine the utilization of staffing regarding teachers and
paraprofessionals in general. By undergoing a thorough investigation, additional staffing
167

configurations that may benefit students and staff alike might be generated. Finally, MUSD
should consider creating a “paraprofessional to teacher pipeline” so as to assist with the nature of
the present teacher shortage and to build capacity, amongst its own employees, within the
district.
Recommendation 8 (Organizational Barriers): Clearly Communicate the Elements of all
Newly Designed Initiatives
MUSD should consider developing a comprehensive communication system to which
systematically establishes district-wide awareness of any newly designed initiatives or revised
systems. MUSD should acknowledge the importance of a district-wide communication plan, to
which provides clarity to all stakeholders throughout the district, prior to starting the revision of
any new initiative, a plan for communicating progress while the initiative is actively being
developed or revised, and a plan to review any new initiative or procedure after it has been
finalized. This plan should specifically be followed for initiatives such as the revision of the job
description and evaluative process for paraprofessionals and the creation of a new onboarding
process. Within this comprehensive communication plan, MUSD should clearly name and
identify the direct and indirect supervisors of paraprofessionals. A model depicting the
supervision and oversight of paraprofessionals should be created as a visual aid for all
employees. Finally, teachers should be made aware of the defined and agreed upon elements of
the newly designed job description for paraprofessionals.
Recommendation 9 (Organizational Barriers): Centralize a Space for Paraprofessionals to
Access Resources
MUSD should consider establishing a centralized, online space to house and store
employment related information for paraprofessionals (e.g., job description, updated evaluative
168

tool, etc.). Additionally, this centralized space should include resources to assist them in
implementing their roles, information about upcoming training opportunities, and information
about ways in which they can access support in their roles. Wellness information for
paraprofessional should also be housed in this space.
Recommendation 10 (Organizational Barriers): Establish Ongoing Accountability Measures
As with any new initiative or process that has been established, MUSD should consider
establishing an ongoing and systematic method of accountability to ensure that initiaves are
successful. On a yearly basis, an Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) should be conducted
focusing on the perceptions of paraprofessionals related to their roles, work environments, etc.
Focus groups should then be held to discuss, in detail, the themes apparent in this survey. A plan
to address any barriers related to knowledge, motivation, or organizational issues should then be
created. Additionally, after some time spent in implementation, all stakeholders affected by the
newly designed job description for paraprofessionals should be asked to provide feedback about
the document and whether or not the elements outlined in the job description are being fulfilled.
Revisions should be made as necessary. This should also occur for the newly designed
evaluation system. Paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators should be asked to provide
feedback upon implementation of the newly designed evaluation system so that revisions can
take place if necessary. Results of any solicitation of feedback should be communicated to all
necessary stakeholders.
Recommendation 11 (Organizational Barriers): Re-Imagine the Present Staffing Allocation
MUSD should consider establishing a committee to re-imagine the present staffing
allocation in relation to special education teacher caseloads and paraprofessional support
involving these caseloads. At the time of data collection regarding the present study, MUSD
169

employed close to 74 paraprofessionals to support 28 teachers across the district and served
approximately 550 students with special needs. Already designated, are the financial resources to
employee this number of paraprofessionals and special education teachers. With these designated
financial resources in mind, along with the strategic plan to raise the achievement of students
with special needs, MUSD should consider whether there are different staffing configurations
involving the number of paraprofessionals and special education teachers employed that might
assist the district in raising the achievement of students with special needs and alleviating the
challenges associated with large teacher caseloads.
Both presently and historically, the roles of special education teachers are considered to be
complex and multifaceted. There is ongoing debate regarding the class and caseload sizes of
special education teachers. In addition to the complexity of the roles of special education
teachers, the United States has experienced and is experiencing significant challenges associated
with a special education teacher shortage. As a result of these challenges, school districts across
the United States have employed paraprofessionals to assist special education teachers in
educating and supporting students with disabilities. These employees, however, are not trained or
certificated as teachers, however, as is found within this dissertation and in other studies across
the literature, special education paraprofessionals are expected to carry out many of the same
instructional roles that special education teachers are expected to carry out.
Both within the research and within current student performance data acquired by MUSD,
students with special needs, on average, perform significantly below their typically developing
peers in all academic areas. All stakeholders participating in this study, however, agreed that
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD assist the teacher in delivering explicit direct instruction
to students with special needs and often times, paraprofessionals are expected to provide specific
170

differentiation techniques and adapt and modify instructional materials on their own, without the
direct guidance of special education teachers. Altogether, MUSD should consider the
appropriateness of employing paraprofessionals to provide explicit instruction to students with
special needs given their educational backgrounds do not call for specific certification within the
area of instruction. At the same time, MUSD should consider the complexity of the roles of
special education teachers and should consider, whether or not the present staffing configuration
is the most beneficial to students with special needs and to the organization as a whole.
Recommendation 12 (Organizational Barriers): Create a “Paraprofessional to Teacher
Pipeline”
MUSD should consider creating a consortium comprised of personnel associated with local
universities and other area school districts to develop a “paraprofessional to teacher pipeline.”
Collaboration with these stakeholders might assist with the present special education teacher
shortage faced by Los Angeles county and beyond. Additionally, this “pipeline” offers the
possibility of enhanced opportunities for special education paraprofessionals to build upon their
capacities to educate and support students with special needs, thus positively affecting student
achievement. Establishing a consortium of this sort might also enhance dialogue between
districts and amongst universities pertaining to the overwhelming need for more training for pre-
service teachers in the area of effective management and supervision of paraprofessionals.
Summary
Overall, the previous section served to highlight six specific goals and 12 specific
recommendations associated with these respective goals for MUSD to utilize to enhance and
strengthen the Paraprofessional-Role-Environment relationship within the district targeting areas
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers present within MUSD. All goals and
171

recommendations provided were linked to social cognitive theory, the conceptual framework
utilized in this dissertation to which is rooted in social cognitive theory, and Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis framework. The section below outlines ideas for future research involving
the study of special education paraprofessionals.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations and delimitations in the present study. Related to limitations,
this study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ways of living dramatically changed in
the United States and specifically within California, and especially in Los Angeles county, over
the course of 2020 and into 2021. Within public education, during the time of data collection,
public schools were shuttered and were not providing in-person instruction. Teachers, school
staff, and students were interacting with one another utilizing virtual platforms. The roles of
special education teachers and paraprofessionals changed dramatically in a short period of time.
Many survey and interview questions required participants to respond to questions based on their
last work assignment, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, interviews were not
conducted in person, but utilized an online platform. Technological difficulties presented
themselves during interviews, only for brief moments, given internet connectivity issues.
Additionally, there was limited body language the researcher could observe utilizing an online
platform when completing interviews. Moreover, however, and as would be the case in typical
times, the researcher was not able to control the truthfulness of respondents, both via survey and
interview.
Another potential limitation involves the researcher being an employee of MUSD,
however, the researcher was not a direct supervisor of any potential participant. Given this factor,
172

however, responses may be skewed based on the relationship between researcher and
participant.
An additional delimitation of this study was the researcher’s choice to survey and
interview participants from only one relatively small school district within Los Angeles county.
The researcher’s interest was to conduct a dissertation-in-practice and to focus on organizational
change within the present work environment of the researcher. Results may not reflect a more
global sample of paraprofessional, special education teacher, and school site administrator
perceptions related to specific training needs that paraprofessionals possess. Additionally, not all
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD at the time of data collection participated in the survey.
Only a percentage of special education teachers and school site administrators employed by
MUSD participated in semi-structured interviews. Therefore, the voices of those that did not
participate were not captured in the results of this dissertation.
A final delimitation of this study includes the absence of the voices and perceptions of
general education teachers. General education teachers were not included as stakeholders in the
present study. In many cases, however, general education teachers are the credentialed staff
members working alongside paraprofessionals more so than special education teachers, even
though these teachers may not assign the roles and responsibilities of special education
paraprofessionals like special education teachers do. Altogether, however, these delimitations
were not barriers in collecting a plethora of useful findings so as to thoroughly highlight in-depth
answers to the research questions guiding this dissertation.
Future Research
The findings of this study align closely with the past and present research involving
special education paraprofessionals; however, these findings illuminate possibilities for future
173

research involving this employee group. Possible future research might involve the study of
staffing allocation regarding special education teachers and paraprofessionals. Strategic analysis
might be beneficial, involving whether or not the academic performance of students with special
needs increases, decreases, or remains the same, when either teacher caseloads are reduced or
more paraprofessionals are added to assist the present caseloads of teachers. This analysis could
assist in informing the field as to what level of staffing is appropriate within special education
settings so as to positively affect student achievement. Another possible area of future research
might involve general education teacher and special education teacher perceptions about the
provision support and facilitation of independence for students with disabilities. Differences and
similarities could be noted and as to whether or not each group believes students with special
needs are supported in the right manner, provided with too much support so as to inhibit
independence, or provided with not enough support so as to exacerbate need. Additionally, the
pronounced need for training in the area of technological skills and virtual instructional delivery
was a unique finding of this dissertation and largely attributed to data collection occurring during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research might include whether or not the need for training in
these areas exists outside the parameters of a pandemic situation. Although the COVID-19
pandemic is not fully over, the manner in which education is delivered and facilitated in the
United States is changing dramatically. The need for additional training in the area of
technological skills and virtual instructional delivery might just be an ongoing training need
moving forward. Finally, future research might explore how teaching and learning, moving
forward, will change for both special education teachers and special education paraprofessionals.
Through the hardships of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, a reimagination of education, in
general, has begun to unfold. Capturing these possible changes within the research is essential.
174

Conclusion
This dissertation examined the training needs of special education paraprofessionals
employed by one small school district in Los Angeles County. Within the research involving this
topic, paraprofessionals commonly report that the respective educational systems they work
within generally have no established training mechanisms in place to provide them access to
appropriate training (Brock & Carter, 2015; Wright & Prescott, 2018). When paraprofessionals
are provided with appropriate training, however, student achievement increases, especially for
vulnerable student populations, such as students with significant disabilities (Kim et al., 2017;
Ledford et al., 2017; Walker & Snell, 2017). Through the usage of a convergent parallel mixed
methods design, this inquiry examined the specific training needs of special education
paraprofessionals, employed by MUSD, from the perspective of three stakeholder groups:
paraprofessionals, special education teachers, and school site administrators. Social cognitive
theory, developed by Albert Bandura (1986), was used as a theoretical lens to guide this inquiry
and a conceptual framework entitled the Paraprofessional-Role-Environment relationship was
developed to assist in guiding this inquiry as well. The findings of this dissertation largely
aligned with the past and present research involving this topic. Findings indicate that the roles of
paraprofessionals employed by MUSD are vast and ambiguous. Their skill levels and
educational backgrounds are varied as well. Paraprofessionals desire more training and
demonstrate specific training needs as perceived by paraprofessionals themselves and the special
education teachers and school site administrators they work with. Additionally, there are
prevalent organizational barriers within the work environments of paraprofessionals involving
role definition and clarity, access to training opportunities, and incohesive supervisory and
evaluative systems. This dissertation concludes with providing a comprehensive package of
175

goals and recommendations for MUSD to utilize in addressing the areas of need as outlined. All
goals and recommendations provided align with social cognitive theory, the conceptual
framework guiding this study, and Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework. If MUSD
chooses to implement these goals and recommendations, the achievement of students with
special needs is bound to increase.

176

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (eds)
Great Minds in Management (pp. 9-35) Oxford University Press.
Barrio, B., & Hollingshead, A. (2017). Reaching out to paraprofessionals: Engaging
professional development aligned with universal design for learning framework in rural
communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(3), 136–145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517721693
Biggs, E., Gilson, C., & Carter, E. (n.d.). “Developing that balance”: Preparing and supporting
special education teachers to work with paraprofessionals. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 1-15. doi:10.1177/0888406418765611
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brock, M., & Carter, E. (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. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882
Brown, T., & Stanton-Chapman, T. (2017). Experiences of paraprofessionals in US preschool
special education and general education classrooms. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 17(1), 18–30.doi:10.1111/14713802.12095

177

Budner, S., Arnold, I., Goodman, L., & Budner, S. (1971). The plan and the reality: training and
utilization of paraprofessionals for service to the retarded. American Journal of Public
Health, 61(2), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.61.2.297
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment and Wages,
May 2017. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes259041.htm (visited January 01,
2020).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Teacher
Assistants. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/teacher-
assistants.htm#tab-6 (visited January 01, 2020).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Special
Education Teachers. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and
library/special-education-teachers.htm (visited December 23, 2019).
Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L., & Pelsue, D. (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
Carver-Thomas, D., Leung, M., & Burns, D. (2021). California teachers and COVID-19: How
the pandemic is impacting the teacher workforce. Learning Policy Institute.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.

178

Douglas, S., Chapin, S., & Nolan, J. (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.
doi:10.1177/0888406415616443
Downing, J., Ryndak, D., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms: Their own
perceptions. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 171–181.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100308
Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation.
The Guilford Press.
Fisher, M., & Pleasants, S. (2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators:
Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287–
297.doi:10.1177/0741932510397762
Frank, A., Keith, T., & Steil, D. (1988). Training needs of special education
paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 55(3), 253–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805500308
French, N. K. (1999). Paraeducators: Who they are and what they do? Teaching Exceptional
Children, 32(1), 65-69.
Frith, G. H., & Lindsey, J. D. (1980). Paraprofessional roles in mainstreaming multihandicapped
students. Education Unlimited, 2, 17-21.
Gartner. A. (1971). Paraprofessionals and their performance: A survey of education, health, and
social service programs. Praeger.

179

Giangreco, M., Suter, J., & Doyle, M. (2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review
of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356
Giangreco, M., Suter, J., & Hurley, S. (2013). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion
oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015
Gray, B., & Barker, K. (1977). Use of aides in an articulation therapy program. Exceptional
Children. http://search.proquest.com/docview/63853826/
Guess, D., Rutherford, G., Smith, J., Ensminger, E., & Guess, D. (1970). Utilization of sub
professional personnel in teaching language skills to mentally retarded children: An
interim report. Mental Retardation, 8(2), 17–23.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/80781515/
Guess, D., Smith, J., & Ensminger, E. (1971). The role of nonprofessional persons in teaching
language skills to mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 37(6), 447–453.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297103700604
Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1996). Breaking the class ceiling: Paraeducator pathways to
teaching. Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.
Howley, C., Howley, A., & Telfer, D. (2017). Special education paraprofessionals in district
context. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(2), 136–165.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, U.S.C. § 1412 (2004).
Joët, G., Usher, E. L., & Bressoux, P. (2011). Sources of self-effiacy: An investigation of
elementary school students in France. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 649-663.

180

Jones, K. H., & Bender, W. N. (1993). Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: A
review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7-14.
Kansas State Department of Education (2020). Paraprofessionals in Kansas Public Schools.
https://www.ksde.org/Agency/Division-of-Learning-Services/Early-Childhood-Special-
Education-and-Title-Services/Title-Services/Federal-Programs/Title-I-Part-
A/Paraprofessional
Kim, S., Koegel, R., & Koegel, L. (2017). Training paraprofessionals to target socialization in
students with ASD: Fidelity of implementation and social validity. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 19(2), 102–114. doi:10.1177/1098300716669813
Layden, S., Hendricks, D., Inge, K., Sima, A., Erickson, D., Avellone, L., & Wehman, P.
(2018). Providing online professional development for paraprofessionals serving those
with ASD: Evaluating a statewide initiative. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(2),
285–294. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180932
Learn.org (2020). Becoming a teacher’s aide in Florida: Requirements and certification.
https://learn.org/articles/becoming_a_teachers_aide_in_florida_requirements_certificatio
n.html
Ledford, J., Zimmerman, K., Chazin, K., Patel, N., Morales, V., & Bennett, B. (2017). Coaching
paraprofessionals to promote engagement and social interactions during small group
activities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26(4), 410–432. doi:10.1007/s10864-017-
9273-8
Mann, S., & Whitworth, J. (2017). Responsibilities and training of paraprofessionals in
alternative schools: Implications for practice. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 20(2), 25–34.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2101588499/
181

Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Issue brief: Description and employment
criteria of instructional paraprofessionals. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007008.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2109). Table 204.30.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_204.30.asp?current=yes (visited
December 6, 2019).
National Coalition on Teacher Shortages. (2020). About the shortage.
https://specialedshortages.org/about-the-shortage/
National Education Association. (2019a). Education support professionals.
http://www.nea.org/home/67111.htm
National Education Association. (2019b) Who are paraeducators?
http://www.nea.org/home/67057.htm
National Education Association. (2020). Professional development.
http://www.nea.org/home/30998.htm
National Education Association. (2021). Education support Professionals.
https://www.nea.org/about-nea/our-members/education-support-professionals
Nations Report Card. (2019). Achievement gaps dashboard.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx#
New York State Education Department. (2019). Teaching assistant certificates.
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/certificate/ta.html
Pickett, A. (1986a). Certified partners: Four good reasons for certification of paraprofessionals.
American Educator, 10(3), 31-47.
182

Pickett, A. (1986b). Paraprofessionals in special education: The state of the art.
Center for Advanced Study in Education, Graduate School and University Center of the
City of New York.
Pickett, A. (1997). Paraeducators in school settings: Framing the issues. In A.L. Pickett & K.
Gerlach (eds), Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach (pp 1-24).
PRO-ED.
Riggs, C. (2001). Ask the paraprofessionals: What are your training needs? TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 33(3), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300312
Robinson, S. (2011). Teaching paraprofessionals of students with Autism to implement pivotal
response treatment in inclusive school settings using a brief video feedback training
package. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(2), 105–118.
doi:10.1177/1088357611407063
Scheeler, M., Morano, S., & Lee, D. (2018). Effects of immediate feedback using bug-in-ear
with paraeducators working with students with Autism. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 41(1), 24–38. doi:10.1177/0888406416666645
Schortinghuis, N., & Frohman, A. (1974). A comparison of paraprofessional and professional
success with preschool children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(4), 245–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221947400700411
Schunk, D., & Usher, E. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In The Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0002

183

Shyman, E. (2010). Identifying predictors of emotional exhaustion among special education
paraeducators: A preliminary investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 47(8), 828–841.
doi:10.1002/pits.20507
State Education Resource Center. (2007). Assessment checklist for paraprofessionals:
Preschool-Grade 12.
https://portal.ct.gov//media/SDE/Paraeducator/para_checklist_2008.pdf?la=en
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research methods for
business students (5th ed). Pearson Education India.
Stewart, E. (2019). Reducing ambiguity: Tools to define and communicate paraprofessional
roles and responsibilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(1), 52–57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218782431
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?
Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.
United States Office of Special Education Programs. (2000). SPeNSE: Study of personnel needs
in special education fact sheet.
https://education.ufl.edu/spense/files/2013/05/parasFinal.pdf.
Virginia Department of Education (2010). Paraprofessionals: Instructional team members.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/regulations/state/fast_facts/fast_fact_paraprofessi
onals.pdf
Waitoller, F. R. (2020). Why are we not more inclusive? Examining neoliberal selective
inclusionism. In C. Boyle., S. Mavropoulou, J. Anderson, & A. Page (Eds.), Inclusive
education: Global issues and controversies (pp. 89–107). Sense Publishers.
184

Walker, V. (2017). Assessing paraprofessionals’ perceived educational needs and skill level
with function-based behavioral intervention. Exceptionality, 25(3), 157–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196443
Walker, V., Douglas, K., & Chung, Y. (2017). An evaluation of paraprofessionals’ skills and
training needs in supporting students with severe disabilities. International Journal of
Special Education, 32(3), 460–471.
Walker, V., & Snell, M. (2017). Teaching paraprofessionals to implement function based
interventions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 114–123.
doi:10.1177/1088357616673561
Wright, P., & Prescott, R. (2018). Utilizing technology for professional learning in the
dissemination of evidence-based practices to paraprofessionals working in public
education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(3), 331–337.
https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018336191

185

Appendix A: MUSD Instructional Aide Job Description
MISSION UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MISSION, CA

TITLE: INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE - CLASSROOM

QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Graduation from high school or equivalent.
2. Complete two years of higher education study (48 units) or obtain an AA degree or higher or
pass a formal District academic assessment test.
3. Knowledge of: Basic methods and techniques for effective instruction of students. Correct
English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. General needs and behavior patterns of
students at level to which assigned. Typing, filing and other general clerical skills. Basic
arithmetic skills.
4. Ability to: Project a mature, constructive, stable, and positive attitude in a learning
environment. Perform routine, general clerical tasks. Operate a typewriter and operate or learn to
operate other standard office equipment. Learn pertinent procedures and functions quickly and
apply them without close and immediate supervision. Under the basic concepts of child growth
and development and possess a genuine liking of students. Operate or learn to operate audio-
visual equipment. To understand and carry out oral and written directions. Establish and
maintain cooperative working relationships with others.

REPORTS TO AND EVALUATED BY: School Principal or designee

JOB GOAL:
Under general supervision, to assist teachers in the instruction of students, individually, or in
groups, in a classroom or similar learning situation, following prescribed courses of study; to
oversee and supervise students; to perform clerical and para-professional tasks both outside and
in the classroom; and to do other related work as may be required.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Assist teachers by providing instructional assistance to individuals and small groups in
reviewing and reinforcing previously introduced skills.
2. Read to students, explain work assignments, coordinate and assist students in learning groups
and centers.
3. Assist students in the selection of books and resource materials.
4. Follow teacher's lesson plans and assist in preparation of plans or develop own plans based on
the teacher's direction and explanation of students' academic needs.
5. Assist in the evaluation of the instructional and the students' progress and problems.
6. Organize and classify resource materials.
186

7. Assist teacher in preparing a variety of learning materials including preparation and
maintenance of bulletin boards, interest centers, educational displays and teaching devices.
8. Operate audio-visual equipment such as video tape decks, motion picture projectors, film strip
and overhead projectors, and collect and inventory equipment.
9. May be required to operate or learn to operate electronic teaching machines and computer
terminals.
10. Perform a variety of routine clerical and record keeping activities such as taking roll,
collecting monies, filling out forms and applications, and correcting papers.
11. File and record test scores, grades and other data in student records.
12. May be required to assist in administering, proctoring and scoring tests and charting student
progress.
13. May be required to check out, order, process and maintain books and various reference
materials in a library or resource room.
14. Prepare materials for parent meetings.
15. Operate office equipment such as typewriter, duplicator, and copy machine in the preparation
of instructional materials, bulletins, rosters, or other materials.
16. Straighten or organize the classroom or other learning facility.
17. May be required to accompany students on field trips.
18. May be asked to attend in-service training programs and workshops, Back-to-School nights
and other activities.
19. Respect the confidential nature of pupil records and school reports.
20. Assist in maintaining student contracts, observe and report to teacher unusual or atypical
behavior or other problems.
21. May be asked to attend parent conferences.
22. Assist teachers in maintaining discipline and monitor classroom, playground or other areas.

This list of essential functions and responsibilities is not exhaustive and may be supplemented as
necessary.

TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT:
Salary and work year to be established in accordance with the Classified Salary Schedule and
Classified Work Year Calendar.

EVALUATION:
Performance of this job will be evaluated in accordance with provisions of the Board’s policy on
Evaluation of Personnel.

187

Appendix B: Survey Protocol
PARAPROFESSIONAL TRAINING ASSESSMENT

The Paraprofessional Training Assessment (PTA) helps identify the primary roles and
responsibilities of paraprofessionals and instructional assistants working in the field of special
education. The PTA also assesses paraprofessional self-efficacy and helps identify the specific
training needs of paraprofessionals and instructional assistants. The PTA is broken down into
four sections and includes 54 questions.

SECTION 1: PARAPROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Q1: Please indicate your preferred pronouns.

_____ He/His
_____ She/Her
_____ They/Their
_____ I Prefer Not to Answer

Q2: Please indicate your age group.

_____ between 18-24 years old
_____ between 25 to 34 years old
_____ between 35 to 44 years old
_____ between 45 to 54 years old
_____ between 55 to 64 years old
_____ between 65 to 74 years old
_____ between 75 years or older
_____ I Prefer Not to Answer

Q3: Please indicate your ethnicity (select all that apply).

_____ Asian
_____ Black/African
_____ Caucasian
_____ Hispanic/Latinx
_____ Native American
_____ Pacific Islander
_____ I Prefer Not to Answer

188

Q4: How many years of experience do you have working as an instructional
assistant/paraprofessional?

_____ 0 to 5 years
_____ 6 to 10 years
_____ 11 to 15 years
_____ 16 to 20 years
_____ 21 or more years

Q5: What is your highest level of education you have completed?

_____ High School Diploma or Equivalent
_____ Some College, No Degree
_____ Bachelor’s Degree
_____ Master’s Degree
_____ Doctorate Degree

Q6: Are you bilingual or trilingual?

_____ Yes
_____ No

Q7: What languages other than English do you speak fluently?

____________________________

Q8: Were you employed as an instructional assistant in MUSD before COVID-19 school
dismissal began on March 13, 2020?

_____ Yes
_____ No

Q9: Thinking of your last work assignment before COVID-19 school dismissal, in what type
of classroom settings did you predominantly work?

_____ Primarily Special Education Classrooms
_____ Primarily General Education Classrooms
_____ Both General and Special Education Classrooms Equally

189

Q10: Thinking of your last work assignment before COVID-19 school dismissal, what student
grade levels did you predominantly work with?

_____ Preschool
_____ Elementary; Grades K-5
_____ Middle School; Grades 6-8
_____ High School; Grades 9-12
_____ Adult Transition

Q11: Thinking of your last work assignment before COVID-19 school dismissal, what types of
disabilities were your students impacted with? Check all that apply.

_____ Autism
_____ Deafness or Hard of Hearing
_____ Emotional Disturbances
_____ Intellectual Disabilities
_____ Multiple Disabilities
_____ Orthopedic Impairments
_____ Other Health Impairments
_____ Specific Learning Disabilities
_____ Speech and Language Impairments
_____ Traumatic Brain Injuries
_____ Visual Impairments

Q12: In the past 12 months, how many training sessions have you attended for your job as an
instructional assistant?

_____ None
_____ 1 to 2 training sessions
_____ 3 to 4 training sessions
_____ 4 to 5 training sessions
_____ More than 5 training sessions

190

Q13: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the training you
receive as an instructional assistant?

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
Overall, the training I’ve received in the past
year has been useful to me in my job.

The training I typically receive is aligned
with the work I do as an instructional
assistant.

I receive adequate training to do my job
well.

I would like to receive more training.

Q14: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the
understanding of your role as an instructional assistant?

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
My roles and responsibilities are clear to me.

I have a clear understanding of the basic
characteristics of various disabilities.

I have a clear understanding of ethical
practices related to supporting students with
disabilities.

I have a clear understanding of the special
education referral, assessment, and IEP
process.

191

SECTION 2: PARAPROFESSIONAL ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
This section helps identify your main roles and responsibilities as a paraprofessional or
instructional assistant.

In a typical month, on average, and before COVID-19 school dismissal, how often do you
complete the following tasks?

ROLE OR RESPONSIBILITY
Every
Day
A Couple
Times per
Week
Once a
Week
A Couple
Times per
Month
Once a
Month
Never
Q15 Assisting teachers to develop
lesson plans or to plan instruction

Q16 Tracking or charting student
progress or data

Q17 Monitoring or correcting student
behavior

Q18
Planning instruction with general
education teachers, special
education teachers, or related
service providers

Q19
Collaborating with related service
providers (e.g., speech
pathologists, occupational
therapists, adapted physical
education teachers)

Q20
Creating, adapting, or modifying
student assignments, instructional
materials, or tests

Q21 Providing direct instruction to
students

Q22 Providing student support during
testing

Q23
Assisting students with self-help
needs (e.g., eating, dressing,
personal care, toileting, etc.)

Q24
Observing students for the
purpose of providing input to
teachers or other service
providers

192

Q25
Grading tests or assignments

Q26 Supervising the playground, halls,
lunch area, or passing periods

Q27 Assisting students with adapted
equipment or technology devices

Q28
Physically moving students or
assisting students with movement
from one place to another or to
stretch

Q29
Leading whole group instruction

Q30
Leading small group instruction

Q31 Assisting with crisis intervention
using CPI/NCI techniques?

Q32
Assisting with interpreting or
translating conversations or
documents in a language other
than English

Q33
Supervising or assisting students
during community-based
instruction

SECTION 3: PARAPROFESSIONAL SELF-EFFICACY

This section helps identify your confidence level pertaining to specific roles and responsibilities
that you may be asked to complete during your workday. Please indicate how confident you feel
in completing the tasks listed. Rank your certainty between 1, indicating “not confident at all”, to
5, indicating “extremely confident”.

If COVID-19 school dismissals were lifted today, and students were able to physically return to
school campuses, how confident do you feel you in completing the following tasks if asked or
requested?

193

TASK
1
Not
Confident
at All
2 3 4
5
Extremely
Confident
Q34
Providing effective academic
instruction for students with learning
difficulties

Q35 Creating, modifying, and/or
adapting instructional materials

Q36
Helping students utilize assistive
technology or communication
devices

Q37
Facilitating positive social skills and
the development of positive social
relationships in students with special
needs

Q38 Teaching mathematics strategies for
students with special needs

Q39 Providing positive reinforcement to
students

Q40
Supervising and monitoring the
safety of students both in the
classroom setting and during
unstructured times

Q41 Assisting students with language
and communication skills

Q42 Collecting data for behavior and
academics

Q43
Completing clerical tasks (e.g.,
making copies, organizing materials,
designing bulletin boards, grading
papers, etc.)

194

Q44 Assisting students with self-
management and coping skills

Q45 Teaching reading strategies for
students with special needs

Q46 Helping students learn independence
skills

Q47
Collaborating effectively with
teachers, related service providers,
and staff

Q48 Assisting students during
community-based instruction

Q49 Teaching test-taking strategies for
students with special needs

Q50 Teaching students with disabilities
in a small group setting

SECTION 4: CLOSING QUESTIONS

Q51 When schools are physically open and students are physically present, what are your
most important responsibilities as an instructional assistant? Why?

Q52 During COVID-19 school dismissal, what are your most importan responsibilities as an
instructional assistant? Why?

Q53 If you were going to attend a training tomorrow, what are the most critical topics you
would like to see addressed in this training? Why?

195

Appendix C: Special Education Teacher Interview Protocol
PARAPROFESSIONAL TRAINING NEEDS
SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
QUESTION SET 1: WORK EXPERIENCES WITH PARAPROFESSIONALS

The first set of questions are related to your every-day-work experiences with paraprofessionals.

1. How many years of experience do you have working with paraprofessionals?

2. In what types of classroom environments have you worked with special education
paraprofessionals?
a. Were you ever a paraprofessional yourself?

3. About how many paraprofessionals do you interact with daily?
a. How many paraprofessionals work specifically within your classroom?

QUESTION SET 2: GENERAL ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
PARAPROFESSIONALS

For the next set of questions, I’d like you to think about the general roles and responsibilities you
feel are necessary for paraprofessionals to possess.

4. On a typical school day, if an outsider were to observe your classroom, what are some of
the tasks he or she would see paraprofessionals completing?

5. What are some of the roles and responsibilities you directly assign to paraprofessionals
who support students on your caseload?

6. Think of the paraprofessionals you have worked with that have embodied their role and
made a positive difference. Tell me about them and what types of knowledge and skills
they have exhibited?
a. How about those who made a positive difference with students?

7. No need to share names, but have you ever worked with a paraprofessional who exhibited
the opposite? Meaning, someone who did not embody their role and did not make much
of a positive difference?
a. Describe this individual and what behaviors he/she exhibited?

8. How do you know what paraprofessionals are supposed to do?
a. Where can you find a written record of their job responsibilities?
b. Has a job description ever been provided to you? Explained to you?

QUESTION SET 3: SPECIFIC DOMAINS

196

Our third set of questions focus on specific domains like ethics, instruction, behavior,
supervision, etc. Be as descriptive as possible.

9. In terms of ethics on the job and in the classroom, describe some of the ethical qualities
you feel are important for paraprofessionals to demonstrate.
a. Can you give me any examples?

10. Instructionally or academically, what are some of the skills that paraprofessionals should
be able to implement with your students?
a. Can you give details?

11. Behaviorally, tell me about some strategies you feel are essential for paraprofessionals to
be able to implement?
a. Can you give examples?

12. Regarding the supervision of students, how do you depend on paraprofessionals to assist
in this area?

13. In the area of self-help skills, how are paraprofessionals relied on to assist your students?

14. Can you give me some examples of any clerical or administrative type tasks you feel are
necessary for paraprofessionals to be able to complete?

QUESTION SET 4: TEACHER-PARAPROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Our next set of questions involves professional relationships involving paraprofessionals.

15. Regarding the teacher/paraprofessional team or relationship, can you tell me what you
feel fosters a positive relationship?

16. How about the student/paraprofessional relationship? What fosters a positive relationship
between students and paraprofessionals?

QUESTION SET 5: TRAINING FOR PARAPROFESSIONALS

Our final set of questions involves the concept of training for paraprofessionals.

17. Give some examples of when you were able to provide training to paraprofessionals?
a. On what topics?
b. In what kind of format was the training delivered?
c. How do you provide feedback?
d. In what ways can you be sure the training has been successful?

18. Tell me about any gaps in skill that you feel paraprofessionals experience?
a. What specific skills are they missing?
b. What do you think it would take to fix these skill gaps?
197

19. If the paraprofessionals you work with currently were to attend a training tomorrow, what
are some topics you hope the training would cover?
a. What would this training look like?
b. Format?

20. In closing, what are the most important/critical/valuable skills paraprofessionals need to
demonstrate?
a. Give me an example/some context of experiences in which a paraprofessional
exhibited this particular critical skill at the right time?
b. What were the impacts on student progress?
c. How did this make you feel?

198

Appendix D: School Site Administrator Interview Protocol
PARAPROFESSIONAL TRAINING NEEDS
SCHOOL SITE ADMINISTRATORS SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
QUESTION SET 1: WORK EXPERIENCES WITH PARAPROFESSIONALS

The first set of questions are related to your every-day-work experiences with paraprofessionals.

1. How many years of experience do you have as a site administrator?

2. How many years of experience do you have as a site administrator who has
supervised paraprofessionals?

3. On your site, in what types of classroom environments are paraprofessionals working
in?

4. About how many paraprofessionals work at your site on a daily basis?

QUESTION SET 2: GENERAL ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
PARAPROFESSIONALS

For the next set of questions, I’d like you to think about the general roles and responsibilities you
feel are necessary for paraprofessionals to possess in order to effectively do their jobs.

5. On a typical school day, if an outsider were to observe the classrooms on your site,
what are some of the tasks he or she would see paraprofessionals completing?

6. What are some of the roles and responsibilities you directly assign to
paraprofessionals who support students on your site?

7. Think of the paraprofessionals you have supervised that have embodied their role and
made a positive difference. Tell me about them and what types of knowledge and
skills they have exhibited?
a. How about those who have made a positive impact on students?

8. Have you ever supervised a paraprofessional who exhibited the opposite? Meaning,
someone who did not embody their role and did not make much of a positive
difference?
b. Describe this individual and what behaviors he/she exhibited?

QUESTION SET 3: SPECIFIC DOMAINS

Our third set of questions focus on specific domains like ethics, instruction, behavior,
supervision, etc. Be as descriptive as possible with your answers.

199

9. In terms of ethics on the job and in the classroom, describe some of the ethical qualities
you feel are important for paraprofessionals to demonstrate.
a. Can you give me any examples?

10. Instructionally or academically, what are some of the skills that paraprofessionals should
be able to implement with the students they support?
a. Can you give details?

11. Behaviorally, tell me about some strategies you feel are essential for paraprofessionals to
be able to implement?
a. Can you give examples?

12. Regarding the supervision of students, how does your site depend on paraprofessionals to
assist in this area?

13. In the area of self-help skills, how are paraprofessionals relied on to assist students?

14. Can you give me some examples of any clerical or administrative type tasks you feel are
necessary for paraprofessionals to be able to complete?
a. Are there any clerical or administrative type tasks you feel are not appropriate for
paraprofessionals to complete?

QUESTION SET 4: TEACHER-PARAPROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Our next set of questions involves professional relationships involving paraprofessionals.

15. Regarding the teacher/paraprofessional team or relationship, can you tell me what you
feel fosters a positive relationship between teachers and the paraprofessionals they work
with in their classrooms?

16. How about the student/paraprofessional relationship? What fosters a positive relationship
between students and paraprofessionals?

17. What types of skills do teachers need in order to be effective managers of
paraprofessionals? Do you feel teachers receive adequate training in this area?

QUESTION SET 5: EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION OF PARAPROFESSIONALS

Our next set of questions involves paraprofessional evaluation and supervision.

18. How do you know what paraprofessionals are supposed to do?
a. Where can you find a written record of their job responsibilities?
b. Has a job description ever been provided to you? Explained to you?
c. Have you ever participated in professional development specifically related to
supervising paraprofessionals?

200

19. Do you feel the evaluative tool used to measure the performance of paraprofessionals on
your site is effective?

20. Who, on the site, should be the evaluating supervisor of paraprofessionals? Why?

QUESTION SET 6: TRAINING FOR PARAPROFESSIONALS

Our final set of questions involves the concept of training for paraprofessionals.

21. Give some examples of when you or someone else on your site, including teachers, were
able to provide training to paraprofessionals?
d. On what topics?
e. In what kind of format was the training delivered?
f. How do you provide feedback?
g. In what ways can you be sure the training has been successful?

22. Tell me about any gaps in skill that you feel paraprofessionals experience?
h. What specific skills are they missing?
i. What do you think it would take to fix these skill gaps?

23. If the paraprofessionals who work on your site currently were to attend a training
tomorrow, what are some topics you hope the training would cover?
j. What would this training look like?
k. Format?

24. In closing, what are the most important/critical/valuable skills paraprofessionals need to
demonstrate?
d. Give me an example/some context of experiences in which a paraprofessional
exhibited this particular critical skill at the right time?
e. What were the impacts on student progress?
f. How did this make you feel?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The training needs of special education paraprofessionals are pronounced throughout the literature. Paraprofessionals commonly report that the respective educational systems they work within generally have no established training mechanisms in place to provide them access to appropriate support. When paraprofessionals are provided with appropriate training, however, student achievement increases, especially for vulnerable student populations. This study examined the training needs of special education paraprofessionals employed by Mission Unified School District

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-tiered system of supports to address significant disproportionality in special education

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Multi-source feedback in the U. S. Army: an improved assessment

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Interrupting inequitable systems: evaluating a teacher leadership development program

PDF

Collective Impact: a framework to advance health promotion in higher education

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

Preparing student affairs administrators to support college students of color with mental health needs

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Promising practices for building leadership capital in educational organizations

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study

PDF

The disproportionality of African Americans in special education programs: an exploratory study

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS

PDF

Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Ruswick, Rebekah Lee (author)

Core Title An invisible army: access to basic training for special education paraprofessionals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 05/03/2021

Defense Date 04/16/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,paraeducator,paraeducators,paraprofessional,paraprofessionals,Special Education,special education paraeducator,special education paraprofessionals,special education support,special education teacher's assistant,special education training,special education training needs,teacher's aide,teacher's assistant,teacher's assistants

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Ott, Maria (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email rruswick@gmail.com,ruswick@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-458615

Unique identifier UC11669015

Identifier etd-RuswickReb-9585.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-458615 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RuswickReb-9585.pdf

Dmrecord 458615

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ruswick, Rebekah Lee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA