Paraeducator's Roles in Supporting Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in PreK-12 Settings

Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages

Students with significant cognitive disabilities are usually supported by paraeducators. Often, support can be on a one-to-one basis, particularly in inclusive settings. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2019), paraeducators outnumber licensed special educators. This situation may reflect a tendency by U.S. districts to overuse paraeducators or to neglect the work of clearly defining and circumscribing the role of paraeducators. In either case, guidance about the appropriate role of paraeducators would seem to be useful to school districts.

Paraeducators are by definition service providers who “stand to the side of” (para) educators. The vast majority are non-professionals, though a small minority (less than 7%) are professional educators (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). Many practicing paraeducators hold high school degrees only, even though stipulations in the reauthorization of IDEA raised expectations for their expertise (Howley et al., 2017).[1] The position can be difficult and stressful. Indeed, paraeducators often report that the stress of the position leads them to seek other work (Brunsting et al., 2014; Carlson et al., 2002; Giangreco et al., 2010).

To assist districts and higher education institutions in their work to prepare paraeducators for their jobs, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) has developed paraeducator standards that speak to the issue of what paraeducators should know and be able to do (CEC, 2015). As with most standards, this set describes an ideal collection of knowledge and skills that paraeducators should possess. These standards, however, might fall short of the mark in important ways. For instance, the standards might reflect a version of “best practice” that districts are unable to attain. Or the standards might envision a role for paraeducators for which these service providers are ill-prepared. Little research has explored the extent to which paraeducators or subgroups of paraeducators possess the knowledge and deploy the skills that the CEC standards present. The closest research to date appears to be a decade-old study (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012) of paraeducators’ roles, responsibilities, and concerns.

The present study involved efforts to elicit the perspectives of paraeducators who were enrolled in an online course at one university. Using the CEC standards for paraeducators, the research sought to identify the extent to which CEC-defined practices were in use. The study administered a researcher-designed survey to gather data, followed by interviews with selected survey respondents.

Problem Statement and Background

By definition, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). These assessments are designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are not able to participate in general assessments even with accommodations. Federal law does not allow assessment participation decisions to be made on the basis of IDEA disability categories, but typically the students who take the AA-AAAS have a primary disability category of intellectual disabilities, autism, and multiple disabilities. These students—like all others—are assessed yearly on their mastery of that common curriculum. But how do they get access to that curriculum?

Problem Statement

Federal law supports that students with significant cognitive disabilities should be educated in the least restrictive environment and access and make progress in the age-grade appropriate general education curriculum. Despite research supporting more positive outcomes across academic, social-emotional, communication, and post-secondary outcomes when students with significant cognitive disabilities are educated in general education classrooms, the data shows that most of these students are educated in the self-contained settings (Kleinert, 2020; Yates et al., 2020). Whether in the general education setting or self-contained classroom, students with significant cognitive disabilities receive instructional support (as well as other forms of assistance) from paraeducators, who may, in some circumstances, actually be asked to provide instruction with little to no direction from licensed professionals (Giangreco et al., 2004; Giangreco et al., 2013; Webster et al., 2010). This arrangement is problematic because, by default, it essentially assigns the responsibility of teaching students with extensive support needs to those paraeducators who are least adequately prepared for the role (Giangreco et al., 2004; Giangreco et al., 2013; Webster et al., 2010).

How significant is the problem? Webster and colleagues (2010), in a large-scale analysis in Britain, found that the assignment of a paraeducator in fact produced a negative educational impact on students. The more time students with disabilities spent with paraeducators (called “teaching assistants” in Britain), the less support they got from teachers and the lower their academic performance, In other words, the typical practice of assigning paraeducators to support students with significant cognitive disabilities and its potential negative consequences (e.g., spending less time with teachers, lack of academic progress) appears to represent a confirmed and widespread problem based on this study. Not all studies provide such definitive evidence, however, and some show achievement benefits associated with support from paraeducators (Bisht et al., 2021).

To help address the problem, guidance is needed about how best to use paraeducators to provide service to students with extensive support needs. In other words, which services to these students need to be provided by teachers and other licensed professionals, and which might be productively delegated to paraprofessionals working under teachers’ supervision? Arguably, the CEC standards for paraeducators provide such guidance. As we address the research-to-practice gap for educating students with disabilities, particularly students with significant cognitive disabilities, in inclusive settings, the field would benefit from considering the CEC standards in light of actual practices. To inform consideration of the applicability of the standards, the current study used a relevant subset of the standards (i.e., notably the standards most closely related to instruction) as the basis for asking paraeducators which practices they actually use in their current work situations.

Background

As with most standards, CEC standards for paraeducators (2015) describe an ideal base of knowledge and skills that paraeducators should possess. In practice, however, paraeducator knowledge and skills typically fall very short of this high standard (Breton, 2010; Juravich, 2015; Pickett, 1999). Furthermore, some research suggests that the standards may present an overly optimistic picture of what could reasonably be expected from service providers with little or no professional preparation (e.g., Frantz et al., 2020).

To date, however, little research has asked paraeducators about how they use (or orient to) the knowledge and skills detailed in the CEC standards. The closest research to date is about 10 years old (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012). In that study paraeducators from one Midwestern state reported that their work responsibilities most often fell into four domains of practice: (a) providing behavioral and social support; (b) implementing teacher-planned instruction; (c) supervising students; (d) providing personal care (see also Carter et al., 2009).

Although the respondents believed the practices were appropriate, the researchers concluded that the roles and responsibilities of paraeducators were not sufficiently differentiated from the work of teachers. This view prevails in the empirical literature on paraeducator preparation and deployment (Giangreco et al., 2013).

A somewhat more nuanced view comes from a team that has been examining paraeducators’ role in providing intensive interventions to students with extensive support needs (Walker et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2021). Their work points towards a role definition in which paraeducators carry out routine teaching-related tasks when assigned one-on-one to students. In theory, such tasks might be appropriately specified and clearly distinguished from those of teachers. Nevertheless, in reality, because of gaps in what teachers learn in their preparation programs, their supervision of paraeducators may be insufficient to ensure that these service providers properly use even narrowly specified instructional practices (e.g., Sobeck et al., 2021).

Existing research related to paraeducators’ work with students with significant cognitive disabilities thus reveals two somewhat different perspectives on how the field should utilize paraprofessional support. On the one hand, some scholars (e.g., Giangreco et al., 2004; Giangreco, 2009) argue that paraeducators’ lack of preparation justifies keeping them away from teaching responsibilities almost entirely, except, perhaps, when they are very closely supervised by trained teachers. On the other hand, the reports of successful training of paraeducators in the use of specific instructional practices (e.g., Calzada et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2021; Zobell & Hwang, 2020) suggest that giving them a limited and well-defined instructional role might be acceptable if appropriate supervision from teachers can be ensured.

The current study builds on the extant research, using data from a survey and follow-up interviews to explore the self-reported knowledge and skills of paraeducators (as specified in CEC standards). It also situates findings about paraeducators’ knowledge and skill levels in relation to relevant background and contextual characteristics, namely, paraeducators’ levels of education, experience, and training (i.e., background characteristics), as well as their assignments by grade level, instructional configuration, and students’ level of need (i.e., contextual characteristics).

Related Literature

Two bodies of related literature are especially relevant to the study: the empirical literature about what paraeducators actually know and do and the prescriptive literature, including standards, asserting what paraeducators should know and do. These two bodies of work showcase the unresolved issue guiding this study, namely the extent to which paraeducators are sufficiently well prepared to take on instructional roles even though they are often assigned to those roles. A review of the empirical literature, in fact, shows that paraeducators, as a group, appear to be used in ways that are at odds with the expectations held for them (prescriptive literature) by teacher educators and professional associations (e.g., Giangreco et al., 2013; Council for Exceptional Children, 2015). Within this literature, as well, a growing body of work (see Brock & Anderson, 2020) considers the potential of paraeducators to support greater inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classrooms.

This recent literature, moreover, discusses ways that resistance to inclusion can be addressed. Within this discussion, findings about paraeducators’ preparation and practice rise to the surface as particularly salient. So too do findings about teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and structural barriers to this demonstrably effective practice. We begin with a brief review of relevant findings and then proceed to the descriptive and prescriptive literature about the practice and preparation of paraeducators.

The Prevalent Exclusion of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Of all students with disabilities, 64% spend at least 80% of their day in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).[2] For students with intellectual disabilities, however, the figure is just 17.3%. Nearly half spend less than 40% of their day in general education. Percentages are lower for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Kleinert (2020) estimates that just 3% are served 80% of the time in general education classrooms. And an additional 4% spend 40%-79% of their time in general education classrooms.

Moreover, since students with significant cognitive disabilities may qualify for special education services under various disability labels in addition to intellectual disability (Karvonen et al., 2021), tracking their placement in general education classrooms with precision is difficult. Even good estimates of the placement rates in general education for this group are difficult to obtain (Kleinert, 2020).

With inclusion focusing on the intention to serve all students most of the time in general education classrooms, schools and districts may need a significant amount of scaffolding in order to enable students with significant cognitive disabilities to experience, and reap the benefits, of inclusion. Arguably, most schools and districts have a long way to go. In fact, many structural conditions, educator attitudes and beliefs, gaps in educators’ knowledge, and habitual practices must change in order for schools and districts to gain momentum in using inclusive practices, especially for students with the most extensive support needs (e.g., Kirby, 2017; Kurth et al., 2014; Saunders et al., 2020).

Considering the magnitude of the necessary commitment and effort, school districts would be well served by undertaking a sustained and system-wide improvement process (Ghere et al., 2020; Lazarus et al., 2019). Supporting a move to inclusion through the assignment of one-on-one paraeducators to students with extensive support needs grossly underestimates the magnitude and complexity of the necessary work. It avoids the systemic issues of heavily relying on often unprepared paraprofessional support to open inclusive education for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Giangreco et al., 2013; Webster et al., 2010).

Empirical Literature: What Paraeducators Actually Do

Improvement efforts need to be grounded in descriptions of prevailing circumstances. Description, in this sense, leads prescription. This section summarizes what is broadly known about what paraeducators actually do. First, it considers the issue in general, and then as it applies to students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Actual Practice in General. Most paraeducators assist, one-on-one, those students with disabilities whom schools perceive as the most complex to educate, no matter the setting (Giangreco et al., 1997; Giangreco, et al. 2013). In fact, paraeducators typically provide most of the instruction that these students receive. In an intensive study of 32 districts, paraeducators provided three-quarters of the instruction actually delivered in special education classrooms by “special educators” (Giangreco et al., 2013, p. 126). The ratio of paraeducators to special education teachers was 3.81:1. These data could provide evidence that the role of paraeducators is inadequately distinguished from that of professional educators in practice.[3]

Moreover, research shows that the paraeducator role remains poorly defined in most school districts (Biggs et al., 2019; Howley et al., 2017; Mason et al., 2021; Zobell & Hwang, 2020). Mason and colleagues (2021) asked a small sample of special education teachers and paraeducators about roles and found that ambiguity about roles and expectations prevailed.

Norms of professional practice, such as requiring teachers to demonstrate adequate knowledge and skill in order to be licensed, also suggest that paraeducators (who often may lack such knowledge and skill) should receive close supervision by professionals. However, they rarely receive adequate supervision. They generally operate with a large measure of autonomy, a reality that has not changed in 20 years (French, 2003; Giangreco et al., 2013; Riggs & Mueller, 2001; Sobeck et al., 2021). The most detailed study of paraeducators themselves (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012) showed that paraeducators reported their primary responsibilities as behavior management, instruction, and supervising students: that is, responsibilities that fall under the area of teaching.

Actual Practice with Students with Extensive Support Needs. About 56% of the 1,827 paraeducators surveyed by Fisher and Pleasants (2012) worked with students with intellectual disabilities at least some of the time. Concurrently, among these 1,827 paraeducators, 36% spent all their time in special education classrooms and only 20% spent all their time in general education classrooms. These data on the assignment of paraeducators thus seem consistent with Kleinert’s data on the placement of students (i.e., at most 7% spent 40%-79% of the instructional day in general education classrooms).

Little is known, however, about the quality of supervision that paraeducators serving students with significant cognitive disabilities receive from the special education teachers in whose classrooms they so commonly serve. Such supervision would likely bear some resemblance to the overall finding that supervision of paraeducators by special education or general education teachers is inadequate overall (Giangreco et al., 2013; Sobeck et al., 2021; Webster et al., 2010; Whitburn, 2013). Teachers are usually not formally prepared to supervise other adults, nor are they often supported (e.g., by building or district administrators) in their performance of a supervisory role (Schmidt et al., 2002; Sobeck et al., 2021; Webster et al., 2010; Whitburn, 2013).

Prescriptive Literature: What Paraeducators Ought to Know and Do

This section reviews literature about, as well as standards governing, what paraeducators ought to know and do. It first considers prescriptions in general and then turns to prescriptions for work with students with significant disabilities.

Prescribed Practice in General. One way to think about prescriptions for paraeducators’ practice is to investigate their self-reported learning needs. What practices do paraeducators, in their own estimation, need to learn and be able to use? Addressing this question, Zobell and Hwang (2020) reported that paraeducators wanted training in the following areas: (a) behavior and classroom management, (b) strategies for supporting students academically, (c) effective communication skills with all school personnel, and (d) assessment. Paraeducators, however, seldom receive much training at all (Giangreco et al., 2013).

Nonetheless, national standards for paraeducator practice exist (CEC, 2015). These standards have sufficient standing to guide personnel practices in school districts in the United States. Nevertheless, many districts, at least in Ohio, do not know about or base practice on these standards (Howley et al., 2017). The standards, however, do cover all circumstances in which paraeducators are employed to work with students with disabilities, including in special education and general education classrooms, and including work with students with significant cognitive disabilities (CEC, 2015).

Focusing on instruction per se, notably standards under Core Competency Area #5 (Instructional Supports and Strategies) speak most directly to the instructional role of paraeducators. CEC’s description of Area #5,[4] for instance, reads,

Paraeducators understand a range of instructional strategies to facilitate student learning and address IEPs. Under the direction of the instructional team, paraeducators support specially designed instruction for students with disabilities. Paraeducators follow written instructional plans, implement accommodations and modifications, reinforce concepts presented by the instructional team, and use effective strategies to facilitate student learning, inclusion, and growth. Tasks performed by paraeducators are under the ongoing guidance and direction of the instructional team.

Despite the emphasis in the standards on adequate guidance and supervision by professionals, they nevertheless construe the helping role of paraeducators as including a range of teaching responsibilities, as the following standards illustrate (CEC, 2015):

• Support[ing] the use of effective and culturally responsive instructional strategies in literacy and mathematics as directed by the instructional team;
• Review[ing] and reinforc[ing] learning activities, essential concepts, and modified content;
• Modify[ing] pace of instruction and provid[ing] organizational cues;
• Mak[ing] responsive adjustments to instruction;
• Provid[ing] least intrusive levels of support, fad[ing] support, and fad[ing] physical proximity from students with disabilities; and
• Provid[ing] feedback to students with disabilities regarding their performance under the guidance of the instructional team.

Regardless of the guidance implicit in the CEC standards, many prominent scholars in the field of special education have provided ethical arguments and empirical findings suggesting that standards supporting an instructional role for paraeducators are inappropriate. Giangreco and colleagues, over many years, have advised—based on descriptions of actual practice and 20 years of improvement attempts—that paraeducators should not teach (e.g., Giangreco, 2021; Giangreco et al., 2013). The position sets a very high bar in light of actual deployment patterns. But either the practice of keeping paraeducators from teaching or the practice of training them on the job for some carefully monitored instructional support responsibilities would be more professionally responsible than the current circumstance in which the least-prepared educators are assigned, and actually expected, to teach the students with the most extensive support needs.

Prescribed Practice with Students with Significant Disabilities. Personnel who work specifically with students with significant disabilities require additional and different skills from those prescribed generally for paraeducators, as well as many special education teachers (Hayes, 2021). These skills, which entail the use of various intensive interventions, enable personnel to address the complex behavioral, motor, communication, and medical needs of students with significant disabilities (Hayes, 2021). In addition to academic and behavioral instructional supports, personnel who are adequately prepared to support the inclusion of students with significant disabilities must understand the social purposes of inclusion. They must also be familiar with explicit approaches for facilitating socialization with peers in various educational settings—especially for students with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems and behavior intervention plans (Lequia, 2018). Paraeducators seldom receive preparation for using these practices (Mason et al., 2020), despite increased educational requirements specified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004).

Even the competencies prescribed for personnel licensed to work with students with significant disabilities inadequately address the issue of students’ meaningful “access to the general curriculum” (Dymond et al., 2007). Moreover, licensure programs often fail to prepare professional personnel to counter the entrenched practice of excluding students with significant disabilities from general education classrooms (Dymond et al., 2007; Mader, 2017). Nevertheless, nearly all special educators interviewed by Dymond and colleagues believed that such access should take place in the general education classroom, even though it rarely did. In other words, even professionals with certificates authorizing them to provide education to students with significant disabilities are unable to alter schooling practices that routinely exclude these students from general education instruction. Under the circumstances, to imagine that paraeducators could underwrite this system transformation is misguided at best.

An arguably more responsible approach is represented in the recent study by Brock and Anderson (2021). These researchers applied the What Works Clearinghouse research standards to 36 experimental studies of paraeducator practice for students with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Their findings provide an unusually robust set of recommendations, including (a) the role of the paraeducator should be narrowly and carefully defined to focus on the implementation of evidence-based paraeducator practices; (b) training and support should feature modeling, implementation checklists, and performance feedback, features of high-quality job-embedded development; (c) school leaders should allocate resources—time, money, and professional development—to help teachers supervise paraeducators well.

Methods

This multi-method study of a select group of paraeducators in PreK-12 settings focused on self-assessments of their practice in relation to those CEC paraeducator standards that focus on instructional practice (CEC, 2015). The first phase of the study designed, administered, and analyzed survey data collected from a select group of paraeducators working in PreK-12 settings. The second phase consisted of interviews with a subset of survey respondents.

Participants

Participants were recruited from those enrolled in four courses in an online program for about 200 paraeducators at Central State University (Wilberforce, OH). The invitation to participate was distributed via email. Although 61 agreed to complete the survey, 50 respondents actually completed all items, and data analyses were based on their responses. In keeping with the provisions of IRB approval at Bowling Green State University, participants completed a consent form clearly indicating that participation was voluntary and that they could omit items on the survey.

Procedures for Phase 1: Survey

The survey included a consent form, demographic items, and substantive items relating to practices specified in the CEC standards. Apart from the CEC standards, item content was informed by the findings of the comprehensive literature review. In keeping with the literature, moreover, the terms “significant disabilities” and “significant intellectual disabilities” were used in place of “significant cognitive disabilities.”

Blocks of substantive items assessed training (14 items, including 3 open-ended items), collaboration (3 items), instructional planning and strategies (20 items), and availability to be interviewed (scheduling matrix). See the Appendix for a facsimile of the survey instrument. The training items were variously rated depending on the nature of the inquiry. Some were dichotomous and others were rated on a 4-point or 5-point scale. The items about instructional practices were rated on a 5-point scale. Notably, the series of items about training also asked respondents to rate the degree to which they felt prepared in six areas:

• academic support;
• behavior management;
• motor skills;
• communication needs of the student;
• medical needs;
• social skills.

The survey was administered online, using the Qualtrics survey platform.

Procedures for Phase 2: Interviews

The researchers interviewed all survey respondents who indicated their willingness to participate and who subsequently made themselves available to be interviewed. Five paraeducators participated in four follow-up interviews (one interview included two participants) in March 2022 that lasted from 20 to 30 minutes. Interviews were conducted online, via the Zoom meeting platform. Six questions comprised the interview schedule:

1. Please introduce yourself and your background for participation in this follow-up interview.
2. What are your perceived roles in working with students with disabilities?
3. Did you feel prepared to be a paraprofessional and work with students with significant intellectual disabilities?
4. What professional development have you been offered since you started as a paraeducator?
5. What practices do you use to enhance education with students with disabilities?
6. What topics or strategies should be covered in a paraeducator preparation program?

Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. These verbatim transcripts were used as the basis for data analysis.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis of survey items reported frequencies only. The researchers believe that frequencies best describe the extent to which respondents use the specified CEC practices. Interview data analysis followed a multi-step approach (Agar, 1980; Creswell, 2012). Research team members read each transcript entirely multiple times to get a sense of the interviews as a whole and to identify and record key concepts. Then, based on the key concepts, an initial set of broad categories was developed and used against additional readings of the transcripts. Through this iterative technique and discussion of the categories, the researchers decided together on the final broad categories to use in coding the data. Coding differences were discussed by the authors, and a consensus was reached in all cases of such difference.

Findings

This section discusses the findings in three subsections. The first subsection reports findings about the characteristics of respondents. The second subsection presents findings from the survey and the third subsection reports findings from the analysis of interview transcripts.

Characteristics of Respondents

The research team sent invitations to 102 potential participants (i.e., students in the CSU course). Of these, 61 expressed interest in completing the survey, and 50 subsequently completed the survey. Respondents were residents of 12 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Half of the survey respondents lived in California and 22% lived in Ohio. Educational attainment levels varied, but 56% held an associate’s degree and 30% a bachelor’s degree. This circumstance suggests that the respondent group was considerably better educated than many paraeducators in the United States workforce.

As to experience working with children with disabilities, 42% had 10 or more years of experience in the role, 28% had 4-9 years of experience, and 20% had fewer than four years of experience. Thirteen (26%) respondents worked at single grade levels only, while all others worked at multiple grade levels.

Most respondents (74%) worked with multiple students daily, but 20% reported working with students one-on-one and 6% reported some other arrangement. Approximately 30% reported working with students with significant disabilities, but the survey did not ask respondents to indicate their levels of experience with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Worksites varied across the placement spectrum: from self-contained special education classrooms to general education classrooms.

Survey Findings

Preparation Adequacy and Training. Paraeducators reported how prepared they felt initially to work with students with disabilities. Results appear in Table 1.

Table 1: Initial Preparedness by Service Area

Table 1 shows that, except for dealing with medical needs, more than half of respondents considered themselves to be at least somewhat prepared as they began working with students. Most respondents (56%) reported that they received ongoing training specific to their assignment. In response to a question about how they received training, 88% reported on-the-job training and 86% reported district-provided training.

Collaboration. Three questions were asked about collaboration. First, nearly all respondents (98%) reported understanding their role in inclusive environments. Second, 73% reported that a collaborative relationship among all stakeholders prevailed always or most of the time. Finally, 69% of respondents reported that discussions with teachers about students occurred always or most of the time. Overall, respondents’ replies indicate that collaboration was prevalent. Nonetheless, in a substantial minority of cases, collaboration was reported as more sporadic.

Practices. The central purpose of this study concerned practices represented in the CEC standards (Standard 5, instructional planning and strategies). Tables 2 through 5 report the results.

Table 2. Frequency of CEC Practices (Standard 5)

Table 3. Frequency of CEC Practices (Standard 5)

Table 4. Frequency of CEC Practices (Standard 5)

Table 5. Frequency of CEC Practices (Standard 5)

The data reported in the tables show that, for every practice, most respondents reported using it either “always” or “most of the time.” Combined percentages for “always” and “most of the time” varied from a low of 73% (following written plans and seeking clarification as needed) to a high of 86% (using age- and ability-appropriate instructional strategies). Across the instructional practices in the five tables, moreover, a remarkable number of participants reporting using them “always” (i.e., a high of 76% and a low of 44%).

A related finding shows how infrequently respondents indicated that they used practices “sometimes” or “never.” Among the items with somewhat larger percentages of “sometimes” or “never” responses were those relating to (a) following written plans (14%); (b) teaching higher-order thinking skills (14%); (c) supporting students’ use of assistive technology (12%); (d) reteaching and reinforcing concepts (12%); and supporting the use of alternative and augmentative communication skills (12%).

Interview Findings

Five paraeducators (four from California and one from Ohio) participated in the follow-up interviews. Responses to questions were analyzed and themes were developed as follows. In response to Question 1, all five paraeducators indicated that they were working with students with significant disabilities.

Question 2 asked, “What are your perceived roles in working with students with disabilities?” Responses indicated that interviewees occupied a variety of roles. Two of the responses indicated service provider roles (e.g., helping the teacher or helping students with self-care). One suggested a more precise technical role (i.e., as a “behavior technician”).

Question 3 focused on the extent to which interviewees felt that they had been prepared to work with students with significant cognitive disabilities. All interviewees reported that they had not been well enough prepared. Three indicated that they had received no relevant preparation. Two others reported that they were unprepared to use specific practices, such as behavior intervention, token economies, and visual schedules.

The focus of Question 4 was on professional development (PD) since the time of their employment as paraeducators. Answers suggested that the interviewees had received little to no relevant PD. Two of four respondents indicated that they had “learned on the job,” and their answers suggested that this had been something they took on themselves rather than something that the district had arranged for their benefit.

Question 5 asked, “What practices do you use to enhance education with students with disabilities?” Taken together, interviewees’ answers showed that they used a variety of practices, depending on the character of their work, their own skill sets, and the assignments given to them by mentor teachers. Among the practices used were those focusing on behavior (e.g., token economies), social skills (e.g., PBIS), and academics. Of these, strategies for improving behavior were mentioned most often.

The final question asked interviewees to comment on the topics or strategies that should be covered in paraeducator preparation programs. Interviewees offered a number of suggestions. The three general focus areas that were most often mentioned include (a) preparation for understanding the education context in general (e.g., relevant laws); (b) training in the use of effective instructional practices (e.g., behavior management strategies); (c) preparation that provided insight into site-specific conditions (e.g., observation in classrooms).

Discussion

This section interprets finding from the study and then discloses study limitations. It concludes with a brief set of recommendations to guide practice as well as future research efforts.

Interpretation of Findings

The paraeducators in this study reported comparatively strong initial preparation for their roles and, in fact, largely reported using the CEC Standard 5 practices. Based on related literature, these findings appear unusual. Data about study participants, moreover, suggest that they may comprise an elite group that differs from the general population of paraeducators across the United States.[5] Nevertheless, responses from this group characterize the scope of work that might, under the right circumstances, be assigned to paraeducators. But what constitutes the “right circumstances?” And what does a proper scope of work entail?

Throughout the CEC standards - in fact at the end of almost every standard - is the phrase, “as determined by the instructional team.” Taken seriously, the phrase implicates a range of communication and supervision strategies that seem to occur infrequently in actual practice (e.g., Sobeck et al., 2021). Some findings from the current study pointed to possible issues with adequate supervision. These findings included the percentage of survey respondents who did not follow written plans and the interview respondents who noted limited opportunities for professional learning.

Effective supervision strategies do exist, however, and some of these strategies have been specified in recent scholarship on paraeducator-supervisor interactions (e.g., Brock & Anderson, 2021; Giangreco, 2002; Howley, 2017; Zobel & Hwang, 2020). Table 6 presents a cross-walk showing communication, supervision, and coaching practices that various recent publications recommend for teachers who supervise the work of paraeducators. These strategies can be used by instructional teams as well as by individual teachers.

Table 6: Recommended Communication, Supervisory, and Coaching Practices

In addition to the implementation of effective supervisory strategies, the right circumstances for the effective use of paraeducators might include improvements in system-wide structures and procedures. For example, districts might:

• develop and share clear descriptions of roles and responsibilities for paraeducators and supervising teachers and teams;
• structure schedules to offer sufficient time for communication and collaboration;
• provide mentoring support through well-structured activities and meetings;
• involve paraeducator-teacher teams in shared professional learning sessions;
• offer opportunities for paraeducators to have a voice in discussions about students, teaching practices, and other education-related matters (see e.g., Ghere et al. 2020; Howley, 2017).

A Possible Scope of Work

With sufficient support and supervision in place over an extended period of time, paraeducators ought to be able to learn to perform the tasks specified in the CEC standards. For instance, with adequate and sustained support, they should be able to, among other practices: (a) prepare and organize materials to support teaching and learning; (b) use instructional strategies and materials, (c) modify the pace of instruction and provide organizational cues; (d) reteach and reinforce essential concepts and content across the general education curriculum. As the current study showed, a select group of paraeducators judged themselves competent with these and other instruction-related practices. Because most paraeducators do not resemble respondents to the survey, however, specification of paraeducators’ scope of work and determinations about how to prepare them for that work seems to require much more than a set of standards.

Study Limitations

As noted above, this study elicited perspectives on the work and preparation of paraeducators from an apparently elite and atypical sample.[6] Because the sample was far from representative (i.e., a convenience sample of participants primarily from two states), findings cannot be generalized to paraprofessional educators overall. Moreover, the paraeducators in the sample were also different from the norm in that their educational level was far higher: 86% of them held at least an associate’s degree, and 30% had a bachelor’s degree. In fact, a majority of paraeducators nationwide have high school completion as their highest educational attainment level. In a 2001 study, just about one-third of respondents reported holding an associate’s degree (SpENSE, 2001)[7].

Furthermore, apparent inconsistencies in the findings (i.e., differences in survey and interview results) open up the possibility that social desirability bias might have influenced responses to the survey. Notably, highly reported use of practices included in CEC standards might have resulted from survey respondents’ desire to show that they knew about and were using standards-based practices.

Notable conflicts between survey and interview findings also call into question findings about the extent to which respondents actually work in collaborative settings and the effectiveness with which they use the range of practices specified in the CEC standards. The interview data portray interviewees as appreciative of training and collaboration but in clear need of more training and support. By contrast, the survey data indicate far less need for training and support in any of the practices specified in CEC’s Standard 5. Because the interviewees represent just 10% of the survey respondents, however, their perspectives are likely to be idiosyncratic in relation to those of survey respondents, but, curiously, more in keeping with findings from other studies (e.g., Walker et al., 2017).

The interview findings, far more than the survey findings, also reflect themes in the related literature. For instance, they touch on issues stemming from widespread neglect of the paraeducator role—a finding often reported in the extant literature (e.g., Giangreco et al., 2013). These issues include a lack of preparedness and a lack of support.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

This study appears to demonstrate the value of training and experience as ways to promote paraeducators’s development of practices that align with CEC standard. The training received by these paraeducators, judging from the interview data, however, was not systematic. Their most systematic training experience was likely the CSU program in which they were enrolled. Additional research into the effectiveness of training in cultivating mastery of the practices specified in the CEC standards seems needed. In fact, given the relatively small body of related studies and the large numbers of practicing paraeducators, the need for such research seems urgent.

The provision of training to paraeducators who are learning to work with students with significant cognitive disabilities is of particular interest in light of Brock and Anderson’s (2021) perspective on training paraeducators to perform discrete instruction-related tasks embedded in inclusive settings. Hence, the results of this study tend to support the continued efforts of school and district leaders to provide training for paraeducators.

However, context also matters (Giangreco et al., 2013). Within districts, leaders must consider particular needs and circumstances as a basis for strategizing how the district ought to deploy paraeducators. One option is to limit the overall instructional role of paraeducators, but not eliminate it. From this perspective, one interviewee illustrated what a focused instructional role might look like:

An important component of having focused instructional roles such as this would be the presence of a collaborative instructional team to direct, integrate, and generalize this expertise to benefit the student.

This testimony approximates the sort of role and training recommended by Brock and Anderson. The results of this study, combined with the cautions of the Giangreco team (e.g., 2013) and the recommendations of Brock and Anderson (2021) suggest that, under some circumstances, districts might be well served by training paraeducators for specific roles to support students with significant cognitive disabilities. Of particular value might be roles in which paraeducators assist teachers and instructional teams in implementing behavior plans, intensive instructional interventions, assistive technologies, and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) methods. Even when better training options are used, however, the caution embedded in the phrase, “as determined by the instructional team” ought not to be downplayed.

References

• Biggs, E. E., Gilson, C. B., & Carter, E. W. (2018). Developing that balance: Preparing and supporting special education teachers to work with paraprofessionals. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 42(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418765611
• Bisht, B., LeClair, Z., Loeb, S., & Sun, M. (2021). Paraeducators: Growth, diversity and a dearth of professional supports. (Issue EdWorkingPaper: 21-490). (EdWorkingPaper: 21-490). Providence: Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform. https://doi.org/10.26300/nk1z-c164.
• Breton, W. (2010). Special education paraprofessionals: Perceptions of preservice preparation, supervision, and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 34–45.
• Brock, M. E., & Anderson, E. J. (2020). Training paraprofessionals who work with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What does the research say? Psychology in the Schools, 58(4), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22386
• Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1973 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681–711.
• Calzada, E. J., Caldwell, M. B., Brotman, L. M., Brown, E. J., Wallace, S. A., McQuaid, J. H., Rojas-Flores, L., & O’Neal, C. R. (2005). Training community members to serve as paraprofessionals in an evidence-based prevention program for parents of preschoolers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-6851-5
• Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. (2002). SPENSE: Study of personnel needs in special education-Key Findings. Rockville: Westat.
• Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2008). 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
• Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). Paraeducator preparation guidelines. https://exceptionalchildren.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Specialty_Set_Special_Education_Paraeducator.pdf
• Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1–15.
• Fisher, M., & Pleasants, S. L. (2012). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287–297. DOI: 10.1177/0741932510397762.
• Frantz, R., Douglas, S., Meadan, H., Sands, M., Bhana, N., & D’Agostino, S. (2020). Exploring the professional development needs of early childhood paraeducators and supervising teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 42(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121420921237
• French, N. K. (2003). Paraeducators in special education programs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(2), 1–16.
• Ghere, G., Sommerness, J., & Reyes, E. (2020). Pivoting between paraprofessional support in inclusive schools and distance learning (DL #23). University of Minnesota: The TIES Center. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/building-engagement-with-distance-learning/dl23-pivoting-between-paraprofessional-support-in-inclusive-schools-and-distance-learning.
• Giangreco, M. (2009). Critical issues brief: Concerns about the proliferation of one-to-one paraprofessionals. Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities; http://www.dddcec.org/positionpapers.htm.
• Giangreco, M. F. (2002). Model for paraprofessional and supervisor training designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities in general education settings (Final Report; ED471808). University of Vermont. ERIC document; https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471808.pdf.
• Giangreco, M. F. (2021). Maslow’s hammer: Teacher assistant research and inclusive practices at a crossroads. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(2), 278–293.
• Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. (1997). Helping or hovering: Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 7–18.
• Giangreco, M. F., Halvorsen, A. T., Doyle, M. B., & Broer, S. (2004). Alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 17(2), 82–90.
• Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2011). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015
• Hayes, L. (2021). Strengthening intensive intervention preparation: A guide for teacher preparation faculty. National Center on Intensive Intervention.; https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/faculty-guide-intensive-intervention.
• Howley, A. (2017). Teachers coaching paraprofessionals. University of Cincinnati Systems Development & Improvement Center, Ohio Partnership for Excellence in Paraprofessional Education; https://www.opepp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/teachers-coaching-parapros.pdf.
• Howley, C., Howley, A., & Telfer, D. (2017). Special education paraprofessionals in district context. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29(2), 136–165. https://www.mwera.org/MWER/volumes/v29/issue2/V29n2-Howley-FEATURE-ARTICLE.pdf.
• Juravich, N. (2015, February 4). Paraprofessional educators and labor-community coalitions, past and present. Labor Online. http://lawcha.org/wordpress/2015/02/24/paraprofessional-educators-and-labor-community-coalitions-past-and-present/
• Karvonen, M., Beitling, B., Erickson, K., Morgan , S., & Bull, R. (2021). Students with significant cognitive disabilities and dual sensory loss. National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB).; https://www.nationaldb.org/media/doc/NCDB_Student_Characteristics_Report_a_YMQLEgQ.pdf.
• Kirby, M. (2017). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: Promoting full inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 175–191.
• Kleinert, H. L. (2020). Students with the most significant disabilities, communicative competence, and the full extent of their exclusion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 34–38.
• Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239.
• Lazarus, S. S., Ryndak, D., Howley, C. B., McDaid, P., Liu, K. K., Taub, D., Howley, A., Cosier, M., Clifton, J., Telfer, D., Holden, K., Thurlow, M., & Vandercook, T. (2019). Using systems change efforts to implement and sustain inclusive education practices in general education settings for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: A review of the literature (TIES Center Report 102). University of Minnesota: The TIES Center; https://files.tiescenter.org/files/fx6E4mmJkP/ties-center-report-102.
• Lequia, J. L. (2018). Social acceptance and paraprofessional support for students with severe disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 330–342.
• Mader, J. (2017, March 1). How teacher training hinders special-needs students. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/how-teacher-training-hinders-special-needs-students/518286/.
• Mason, R. A., Gunersel, A. B., Irvin, D. W., Wills, H. P., Gregori, E., An, Z. G., & Ingram, P. B. (2020). From the frontlines: Perceptions of paraprofessionals’ roles and responsibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 44(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419896627
• Picket, A. L. (1999). Strengthening and supporting teacher/provider-paraeducator teams: Guidelines for paraeducator roles, supervision, and preparation. City University of New York: Center for the Advanced Study of Education (ED440506); ERIC, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED440506.
• Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35, 54–62.
• Saunders, A. F., Wakeman, S., Reyes, E., Thurlow, M. L., & Vandercook, T. (2020). Instructional practices for students with the most significant disabilities in inclusive settings: A review of the literature (TIES Center Report 104). University of Minnesota: The TIES Center.; https://files.tiescenter.org/files/gMyqghMkcj/ties-center-report-104.
• Schmidt, K., Greenough, R., & Nelson, S. (2002). Designing state and local policies for the professional development of paraeducators. (ED476693). Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory; ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED476693.pdf.
• Sobeck, E. E., Douglas, S. N., Chopra, R., & Morano, S. (2021). Paraeducator supervision in pre-service teacher preparation programs: Results of a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 58(4), 669–685.
• SPeNSE. (2001). The role of paraprofessionals in special education [SPeNSE Fact Sheet]. (ED469294). Westat, Inc. ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469294.pdf.
• Thurlow, M., Wu, Y., Quenemoen, R. F., & Towles, E. (2016). Characteristics of students with significant cognitive disabilities. In National Center and State Collaborative. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. https://files.tiescenter.org/files/T6Q6Naghfi/ncsc_brief_8.
• TIES Center. (2022). Who are students who are a primary focus for TIES? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota: The TIES Center. https://tiescenter.org/about/stakeholders/students. https://tiescenter.org/about/stakeholders/students
• U.S. Department of Education. (2019). IDEA Section 618 data products. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/index.html.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Digest of education statistics, 2019. National Center for Education Statistics; https://nces.ed.gov.
• Walker, V. L., Douglas, K. H., & Chung, Y.-C. (2017). An evaluation of paraprofessionals’ skills and training needs in supporting students with severe disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 466–471.
• Walker, V. L., Kurth, J., Carpenter, M. E., Tapp, M. C., Clausen, A., & Lockman Turner, E. (2021). Paraeducator-delivered interventions for students with extensive support needs in inclusive school settings: A systematic review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(4), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211055127
• Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., & Russell, A. (2010). Double standards and first principles: Framing teaching assistant support for pupils with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 319–336.
• Whitburn, B. (2013). The dissection of paraprofessional support in inclusive education: “You’re in mainstream with a chaperone.” Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 147–161.
• Yates, P. A., Chopra, R. V., Sobeck, E. E., Douglas, S. N., Morano, S., Walker, V. L., & Schulze, R. (2020). Working with paraeducators: Tools and strategies for planning, performance feedback, and evaluation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910740
• Zobell, E., & Hwang, J. (2020). An examination of the current status of paraprofessionals through their lens: Role, training, and supervision. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 9(1), 1–19.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Appendix A

Consent Items

1. Are you interested in participating in the study of paraeducator practices to best support students with disabilities?

• Yes, I am interested in participating.
• No, I am not interested in participating.

2. The Paraeducator Consent document details the research study and what participation entails. Click on the document below and carefully read the consent document to determine if you consent to participate in the research.

Paraeducator consent form final 10.12.21

By continuing to the survey, you are indicating your consent to participate in the research including the paraeducator follow-up interview.

• Continue to the survey.
• Do NOT continue to survey.

Introduction

Research supports students with disabilities are progressively being included for more time in the general education classroom requiring the support of a special education paraeducator. The role of the paraeducator is to support the individual physical, emotional and instructional needs of the student.

We are interested in understanding how paraeducators could and should contribute to improved outcomes for children with disabilities. In order to gain this insight, we first developed a survey to incorporate identified practices that should be used by paraeducators to effectively support all students, specifically students with significant disabilities.

Demographic Data

1. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?

• High School Diploma / GED Specialized Certificate Program
• Associate's Degree
• Bachelor's Degree
• Master's Degree
• Ph.D. or Higher
• Other: (Please Specify)

2. How many years have you been working with students with disabilities?

• 0-3 Years
• 4-6 Years
• 7-9 Years
• 10+ Year

3. What state do you provide services to students with disabilities? [Select from dropdown menu]

4. What grade level(s) do you currently service? Please select all that apply. [Select from dropdown menu]

5. How many students do you work with daily?

• One-on-one with the same student
• One-on-one with various students
• Multiple students at the same time
• Multiple students at different times
• Other (Please Specify):

6. What students do you work with daily? Please select all that apply.

• Students with mild disabilities
• Students with moderate disabilities
• Students with significant disabilities
• Other (Please Specify):

7. Please select all environments where you service students as a paraeducator and identify the percentage of time you spend within that specific environment.

Paraeducator Training

8. What professional training have you received to serve as a paraeducator for students with disabilities?

9. Where did you receive your professional paraeducator training?

10. Do you receive ongoing training specific to your job assignment? (Yes/No/Unsure)

11. How well prepared did you feel when you started working with students with disabilities in the following areas:

12. Do you have an established collaborative relationship between all key stakeholders (administration, classroom teacher, student and parent)? (Never, Sometimes, About half the time, Most of the time, Always)

13. Do you understand your specific role within the inclusive environment? (Yes, No)

14. How often do you get to collaborate and have discussions with the classroom teacher and/or intervention specialist to determine what is working or not working with the student(s) you work with? (Never, Sometimes, About half the time, Most of the time, Always)

Instructional Planning and Strategies

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) collaborated with the National Resource Center for Paraeducators (NRCP) to develop and validate the Special Education Paraeducator Guidelines which identifies the necessary knowledge and skills for paraeducators specifically working with students with disabilities. Within the guidelines, the necessary knowledge and skills are organized into seven preparation standards: (1) Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences; (2) Learning Environments; (3) Curricular Content Knowledge; (4) Assessment; (5) Instructional Planning and Strategies; (6) Professional Learning and Ethical Practice; and (7) Collaboration.

The following questions will focus on Preparation Standard 5: Instructional Planning and Strategies.

How often do you utilize the following practices to support students with significant disabilities?

Note: Adapted from Council for Exceptional Children. (n.d.). Paraeducator preparation guidelines. https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/paraeducator-preparation-guidelines .

Follow-Up Interview

If selected, I consent to participate in the paraeducator follow-up interview via Zoom. (Yes, No)

Note: Other items were included to assist the researchers in finding a workable interview time.

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

• Murray, M., & Seals, M. (2023). Paraeducator’s Roles in Supporting Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities in PreK-12 Settings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, TIES Center.

TIES Center is supported through a cooperative agreement between the University of Minnesota and the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (# H326Y170004). The Center is affiliated with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) which is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration (ICI) at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: Susan Weigert

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) leads the TIES Center partnership. Collaborating partners are: Arizona Department of Education, CAST, University of Cincinnati, University of Kentucky, University of North-Carolina–Charlotte, and the University of North Carolina–Greensboro.

TIES Center

University of Minnesota

Institute on Community Integration

2025 East River Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone: 612-626-1530

www.tiescenter.org

This document is available in alternate formats upon request.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.