November 2022 – Special Educator e-Journal

U.S. Department of Education Awards Nearly $120 Million Over Five Years to Support Educators of English Learner Students

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) recently announced awards of nearly $120 million over five years under the National Professional Development Program (NPD) to support educators of English learner students.

The NPD program provides grants to eligible Institutions of Higher Education and public or private entities with relevant experience and capacity, in consortia with states or districts, to implement professional development activities that will improve instruction for English Learners (ELs). Following the education priorities of the Biden-Harris Administration as stated by Secretary Cardona, these grants align with his call to boldly address opportunity and achievement gaps by investing in, recruiting, and supporting the professional development of a diverse educator workforce, including bilingual educators so education jobs are ones that people from all backgrounds want to pursue.

“I grew up speaking Spanish at home and thrived as an English learner in school thanks to great teachers who helped me realize that my bilingualism and my biculturalism would someday be my superpower,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. “As our nation grows more diverse than ever before, we must level up our investments in educators who can provide students from all backgrounds with equitable opportunities to succeed. This $120 million, five-year investment will support high quality professional development and teacher preparation programs across the country. It will also help us grow a pipeline of diverse and talented educators who can help more English learners realize their own bilingual and multilingual superpowers.” 

These grants can be awarded to educators of ELs including teachers, administrators, paraprofessionals or other educators working with ELs. Professional development activities may include teacher education programs and training that lead to certification, licensing, or endorsement for providing instruction to students learning English.

Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement and success. To improve the academic achievement of ELs, the NPD program supports pre-service and in-service instruction for teachers and other staff, including school leaders, working with ELs. Selected applicants submitted proposals to improve access to culturally and linguistically responsive early learning environments for multilingual learners and that increase public awareness about the benefits of proficiency in more than one language.

“The NPD grants support the professional growth of the education workforce by promoting the skills and critical dispositions of educators and leaders. These grants can enhance the capacity of the education workforce to create equitable learning environments that promote language, literacy and diversity. This work is vital to increase educator effectiveness in meeting the needs of English learners?and their families,” said OELA Acting Director Montserrat Garibay.

The NPD program has funded a range of grantees that are currently implementing 182 projects across the country, including the most recent grantees. As the EL population continues to grow, it has become increasingly important to identify and expand the use of evidence-based instructional practices that improve EL learning outcomes.

The Department projects this new cohort of 44 grants will serve approximately 1,638 pre-service and 6,271 in-service teachers.

A full list of awards can be found below:

Name	State	Total Granted Over 5 Years
The University of Alabama in Huntsville	AL	$2,799,244
University of Alabama at Birmingham	AL	$2,985,871
University of Arkansas System	AR	$2,955,256
San Diego State University Foundation	CA	$2,947,479
The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles	CA	$2,944,015
California State University San Marcos Corporation	CA	$3,000,000
California State University, Dominguez Hills Foundation	CA	$2,571,938
The Regents of the University of Colorado	CO	$2,822,251
University of Delaware	DE	$2,666,354
University of South Florida	FL	$2,061,703
The Florida International University Board of Trustees	FL	$2,503,029
The University of Central Florida Board of Trustees	FL	$2,603,976
Florida Atlantic University	FL	$1,788,835
University of Northern Iowa	IA	$1,489,701
Trustees of Indiana University	IN	$2,999,075
Kansas State University	KS	$2,940,478
University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc.	KS	$2,290,405
University of Massachusetts Boston	MA	$2,946,798
Lasell University	MA	$2,504,012
Trustees of Boston University	MA	$2,868,044
National Association for Bilingual Education	MD	$2,965,801
Grand Valley State University	MI	$2,705,208
Western Michigan University	MI	$2,969,991
Wayne State University	MI	$2,289,939
Southeast Service Cooperative	MN	$2,716,643
William Paterson University of New Jersey	NJ	$2,863,634
The College of New Jersey	NJ	$2,998,231
Board of Regents, NSHE obo Nevada State College	NV	$2,004,285
University of Cincinnati	OH	$2,963,816
University of Oregon	OR	$2,992,611
Western Oregon University	OR	$2,989,591
Temple University – Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Edu	PA	$2,998,194
Cabrini University	PA	$2,981,534
Clemson University	SC	$2,332,682
BakerRipley	TX	$3,000,000
The University of Texas at El Paso	TX	$2,831,807
Region 18 Education Service Center	TX	$2,812,771
Texas A&M University	TX	$3,000,000
Stephen F. Austin State University	TX	$2,530,139
University Of North Texas at Dallas	TX	$2,761,155
Weber State University	UT	$2,787,029
Western Washington University	WA	$2,588,559
University of Washington	WA	$2,995,811
Board of Regents of UW-System on behalf of UW-Milwaukee	WI	$2,870,290
Total		$119,638,185

A Case Study of Compounding Views of Paraprofessional Roles and Relationships in Preschool Classrooms: Implications for Practice and Policy

Tiara Saufley Brown, Ph.D.

James Madison University

 

Tina Stanton-Chapman, Ph.D.

University of Cincinnati

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to extend a previous study by Brown & Stanton-Chapman (2014) by exploring the dynamics between teachers and paraprofessionals in preschool classrooms. Specifically, researchers examined the relationship between eight paraprofessionals’ perspectives of job responsibilities and satisfaction in comparison to their assigned eight teachers’ perspectives of these same ideas. Data collection included semi-structured interviews of the 16 participants as well as classroom observations and document collection. Four key themes emerged from data collection: responsibilities are often influenced by the level of teacher and paraprofessional motivation; paraprofessionals often assimilate to match the lead teacher’s demeanor and perspectives; teachers and paraprofessionals view recognition and appreciation very differently; and the majority of classroom outcomes are primarily influenced by structured school policies. Considering these findings, implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords:  paraprofessional, teaching assistant, educational assistant, relationship, preschool

A Case Study of Compounding Views of Paraprofessional Roles and Relationships in Preschool Classrooms: Implications for Practice and Policy

When 28 parents of children with disabilities were asked about paraprofessional supports for their child, 25 percent reported that paraprofessionals made inclusion in school possible (Werts, Harris, Tillery, & Roark, 2004). Additionally, 61 percent of the sample said their child spoke of the paraprofessional at home as much as he or she did about the classroom teacher (Werts et al., 2004). This finding is supported by a rich body of evidence that emphasizes the importance of paraprofessional relationships with teachers (Blalock, 1991; Burgess & Mayes, 2009), students (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005; Healy, 2011) and families (French & Chopra, 1999; Werts et al., 2004). These relationships also play a central role in the academic and social outcomes for student success (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). For example, paraprofessional supports have been linked to increased social interactions among children from different backgrounds (Chopra, Sandoval-Lucero, Aragon, Bernal, De Balderas, & Carroll, 2004) and to an increase in academic achievement in inclusive settings (Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney, 2006). For these reasons, researchers studied the views and perspectives of paraprofessionals to obtain information on their classroom obligations, job fulfillment, and expertise (Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001). Yet, results have pointed to universally negative perceptions of the job of a paraprofessional due to the low wages, ambiguous responsibilities, and power struggles between paraprofessionals and teachers (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). Researchers studied this phenomenon in order to understand why this job is viewed as undesirable despite the important impact paraprofessionals have in the classroom (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014).

In a recent study of paraprofessional relationships, Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) used qualitative observations and interviews in addition to a quantitative survey to explore the relationship between paraprofessionals’ perspectives of their responsibilities and the corresponding satisfaction and issues surrounding their job (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). Three key themes emerged from data analysis: a) there is often confusion over job responsibilities; b) job satisfaction is highly influenced by both monetary compensation and recognition; and c) relational power dynamics exist between teachers and paraprofessionals (Brown and Stanton-Chapman, 2014). And, interestingly, paraprofessionals and teachers viewed key classroom issues very differently. For example, while teachers often felt paraprofessional pay was adequate, paraprofessionals felt undervalued and overworked for the compensation they received (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). Findings also indicated that there were additional divergences between paraprofessional and teacher perspectives including: differences in perceived roles and responsibilities between the two groups, lack of perceived appreciation from the paraprofessional while teachers felt appreciation was adequate, and a back-and-forth exchange between paraprofessional motivation and teacher receptiveness to classroom responsibilities (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). This 2014 study did not explore these views in depth, however, and understanding these differences has potential to inform practice and further understand classroom relationships. The current study will explore this further through an in-depth case study of eight paraprofessionals and eight teachers in order to provide insight into the complexities of teacher and paraprofessional perspectives on multiple classroom issues (Stake, 1994). The present study will also include further analysis of paraprofessional and teacher dynamics and how these perspectives differ between both parties in the five key areas of extant paraprofessional research: skills/experience, job fulfillment, roles and obligations, preparation and coaching, and relationships with teachers and students (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). Findings from the current study hope to further inform researchers and practitioners about vital issues relating to different perspectives among teachers and paraprofessionals. These findings may provide implications for informing job responsibilities, increasing job contentment, and understanding how relationships function in successful preschool classrooms.

Literature Review: Five Key Areas of Paraprofessional Research

There are over one million paraprofessionals in PK-12 classrooms across the United States (Ashbaker, Dunn, & Morgan, 2010). Sometimes referred to as an instructional aide or paraeducator, a paraprofessional is an education employee who may not be licensed to teach but executes numerous classroom duties and collaborates with lead teachers for academic and behavioral support (Department of Education, 2012). Despite this definition, the responsibilities and job requirements vary based on locale (Allen and Ashbaker, 2004). However, there is a growing body of evidence to support paraprofessional efficacy in many roles including: assisting students with disabilities (Werts et al., 2004), collaborating with teachers and parents (Chopra & French, 2004; Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney, 2006), and maintaining and supporting important classroom relationships (Burgess and Mayes, 2009; Lewis, 2004).

Over the past 30 years, a growing body of research has explored multiple aspects of the experiences of paraprofessionals. Several studies investigated paraprofessional assignments with individual students and noted the negative effects paraprofessional-student proximity can have on academic success and peer interactions (Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001; Malmgren & Causton-Theoharris, 2006; Skar & Tamm, 2001). The overarching theme from these studies focused on the idea that paraprofessional-student relationships, and the proximity in which these two groups work, vary and can be both beneficial or detrimental for student success (Malmgren & Causton-Theoharris, 2006; Skar & Tamm, 2001). Similarly, studies in this area have also investigated the over-use of paraprofessionals for multiple classroom tasks including: behavior management, instructional planning and delivery, and contact with families (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005; Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy, 2005). Ultimately, the vast majority of paraprofessional studies focus on five key areas: skills, job fulfillment, roles, preparation, and relationships. This research is succinctly summarized below.

Skill and expertise. Research indicates paraprofessionals often lack important teaching skills, formal education, and hands-on experience (Bolton & Mayer, 2008). Additionally, studies have shown that paraprofessionals are attracted to the job hours and benefits, but they are often underpaid (Conway, Rawlings, & Wolfgram, 2014; Johnson, 2016). This generally lures less qualified applicants to the profession (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). To combat this problem, the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) established minimum qualifications for paraprofessionals by requiring Title I schools to comply with federal restrictions (Nichols, 2013). This included: obtaining a high school diploma, passing a standardized exam, and completing 30 college credits (Nichols, 2013). However, many school systems are forced to hire candidates who do not meet these requirements due to lack of applicants and low job desirability (Appl, 2006). Additionally, while several studies have alluded to the need for extensive experience and education for paraprofessional success (French, 2003; Picket & Gerlack, 2003), other findings revealed paraprofessional supports can be beneficial despite their level of education or prior experience (Jones & Bender, 1993; Giangreco et al., 2001). Regardless of these conflicting findings, paraprofessionals of all skill and experience levels often leave the profession due to low job fulfillment (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012).

Job fulfillment. The majority of paraprofessional research occurs in the area of job fulfillment. In a survey of 19 paraprofessionals, Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) discovered that the majority of paraprofessionals did not feel they were fairly compensated for their work, had no opportunities for advancement, and had limited job contentment (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). Moreover, it is well documented that paraprofessionals often receive minimal pay (Conway, Rawlings, & Wolfgram, 2014; Johnson, 2016; Katsiyannis, 2000). In addition to monetary compensation, professional fulfillment is often influenced by classroom roles and obligations and varies among paraprofessionals in different settings (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). Specifically, paraprofessionals feel they are required to take on too many tasks (e.g., leading small groups, planning lessons, enforcing rules and procedures) leaving them unsatisfied with their job (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014).

Classroom roles and obligations. Paraprofessional tasks and classroom obligations can drastically vary based on geographical location. While some classrooms and school systems require paraprofessionals to lesson plan, to help with curriculum development, and to assist with behavioral issues, others use paraprofessionals in a supplemental role to ‘aid’ the teacher in the classroom (Appl, 2006; Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005). In many instances, the classroom teacher is responsible for delegating specific roles and obligations (Appl, 2006; Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney, 2006). In other cases, paraprofessional obligations are vague and unsupervised (Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney, 2006). One study found that almost 70 percent of paraprofessionals in special education inclusive classrooms reported they made decisions without asking the lead teacher for advice (Giangreco & Broer, 2005). These ambiguous job descriptions and unclear roles make it difficult to adequately train, coach, and prepare all paraprofessionals similarly (Armstrong, 2010).

Job preparation and coaching.With regards to job preparation and coaching, several studies found paraprofessionals receive little training on a variety of classroom responsibilities (Armstrong, 2010; Tarry & Cox, 2013). Teachers and paraprofessionals often feel unprepared for some of the academic and social demands of working with students (Armstrong, 2010). This is especially evident for paraprofessionals who work with children with disabilities (Allen & Ashbaker, 2004). Research suggests that there are benefits to providing training and coaching opportunities to paraprofessionals (Jones et al., 2012). Specifically, several single subject studies provide evidence that adequately trained paraprofessionals have a positive impact on classroom relationships (Rueda & Monzo, 2002) and student engagement (Abbot & Sanders, 2012). However, training does not always happen. Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) found that the majority of paraprofessionals did not receive adequate classroom training with more than half of the paraprofessionals reporting they received no training within the last year. This lack of preparation can cause discontentment in the classroom and impact classroom relationships.

Relationships with teachers and students. Research recognizes paraprofessional relationships as critical to the overall classroom environment (Blalock, 1991; Downing, Ryndak & Clark, 2000).  Paraprofessionals work intimately with teachers, administrators, students and their families, often forming close relationships with all parties (Blalock, 1991; Burgess & Mayes, 2009). The nature of these relationships is often affected by paraprofessionals’ perceived appreciation and job satisfaction. Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) found this to be true in their recent study of paraprofessional perspectives. Specifically, when paraprofessionals were asked if their classroom teacher made clear expectations for them, 21 percent (n=4) strongly agreed, 37 percent (n=7) agreed, 26 percent (n=5) disagreed, and 16 percent strongly disagreed (n-3). Theoretically, research dating back to 1985 has indicated the critical need for teachers and paraprofessionals to work as a team, thus confirming the importance of positive classroom relationships (Bennett, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997; Downing, Ryndak, & Clark, 2000; Lacattiva, 1985).

Multiple Perspectives

With each of these key areas taken into consideration, a recent systematic review of paraprofessional relationships with teachers, students, and families revealed only 10 out of 28 studies (36%) explored more than one perspective in a study—that is, studies either focused on one particular issue or on the views of teachers, paraprofessionals, and students individually (Brown, 2016).  This means 18 of the 28 (62 percent) studies reported one-sided interpretations and understandings of paraprofessional interactions and did not get reports from both sides about classroom issues. Specific to teacher and paraprofessional relationships, sixteen total studies were retrieved and only two (Chopra & French, 2004; Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney, 2006) reported perspectives from the teacher and paraprofessional (Brown, 2016). Instead, fourteen studies relied solely on the relationship perspective from the paraprofessional and did not include confirming or conflicting views from the teachers. This omission is important because researchers could not compare reports from both sides to corroborate or refute paraprofessional statements.

Of the two studies that looked at both teacher and paraprofessional views, Giangreco, Smith, & Pickney (2006) found that teachers reported very different ideas of classroom relationships than their paraprofessionals and both indicated these interactions were often strained due to varying expectations, roles, and responsibilities. Chopra & French (2004) looked at paraprofessional and teacher relationships with parents to determine the extent of communication involved with both parties. Findings revealed that paraprofessionals and teachers viewed communication with parents very differently, and teachers interacted less frequently but in a much more professional, and less personal, context than paraprofessionals (Chopra & French, 2004).

Overall, limited research involved sustained time in the field with the purposes of exploring the nuanced relationships between teachers and paraprofessional and what this looks like in classroom settings (Armstrong, 2010). Very few studies utilized methodology that allowed researchers to explore relationships over a sustained period of time in order to make assertions about teacher and paraprofessional dealings (Armstrong, 2010; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). An in-depth exploration of the perspectives on the paraprofessional and teacher relationship from the viewpoints of both paraprofessional and teacher is missing from the literature and can offer useful insight into how administrators and teachers can best support the hiring, training, support, and retention of paraprofessionals (Lewis, 2004). 

Current Study

The current study extends a study conducted by Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) by using a qualitative case study design to examine the relationship between paraprofessionals’ perspectives of skills, job responsibilities, training, relationships, and satisfaction and teachers’ perspectives of these same ideas.  Findings from the Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) study indicate there is a difference between paraprofessional and teacher perspectives, but the study did not investigate these views for a sustained amount of time (more than 20 hours). The current study addresses this by thoroughly exploring compounding views of teacher and paraprofessional jobs. Most importantly, it will also fill a gap in the research by comparing multiple perspectives, on the five key areas of paraprofessional research, from teachers and paraprofessionals. The following research questions were addressed:

1. What are the skills, experiences, training, and responsibilities of paraprofessionals and teachers, and how does this impact job satisfaction and classroom relationships?
2. To what extent are these interpretations shared, or not shared, across teachers and paraprofessionals?
3. How do paraprofessionals relate to themselves, classroom teachers, students, and the school community, in narrative re-tellings and through structured observations?

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

The present study is informed by both narrative theory (Gibson, 1996) and symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1986). The interviews arise from narrative theory, or the understanding that humans are rational beings and find meanings in their stories (Andrews, Squire, & Tambokou, 2008; Trahar, 2013). Narratives are a way for persons to make meaning of their unique experiences. In research, this allows for methodical examination of the construction of a participants’ stories and responses. In this study, paraprofessional and teacher narratives about their experiences will provide insight into how they make meaning of their respective roles with regards to five key themes: a) skill and expertise, b) job fulfillment and satisfaction, c) classroom roles and obligations, d) job preparation and coaching, and e) overall classroom relationships.

In addition to narrative theory, the study is framed by the theory of symbolic interactionism, which serves as a purposeful lens to examine paraprofessional and teacher identity as well as the formation of interactions among these groups (Blumer, 1986). Symbolic interactionism relies on three premises: (1) human beings use meanings they make to act upon certain occurrences or objects, (2) these meanings arise from the social interactions humans have with one another, and (3) these meanings are handled in an interpretive process “used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters” (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). A major component of symbolic interactionism emphasizes that human actions result from their individual interpretation of objects and proceedings surrounding them (Blumer, 1969). In the case of paraprofessionals and teachers, these parties serve as active agents who interpret their environment and respond and behave accordingly. In this study, symbolic interactionism shaped the researchers understanding of how paraprofessionals and teachers interpreted and made meaning of the five common themes in the literature: skills/experience, job fulfillment, roles and obligations, preparation and coaching, and relationships with teachers and students (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014).

Methods

A qualitative case study design was used to investigate the perspectives of paraprofessionals and teachers on multiple issues including: skills and expertise, preparation and training, job fulfillment, roles and obligations, and overall classroom relationships. The qualitative method was selected because the phenomenon to be reviewed includes complex human interactions between the teachers and paraprofessionals (Peterson & Spencer, 1993). Additionally, Klingner and Boardman (2011) note that many studies in special education do not utilize the correct methods to capture “complicated issues faced in schools” (p. 208). As with all case study research, the goal of this study is to deeply understand the boundaries of the case and the intricacy of the behavior patterns of the bounded system (Stake, 1995). In this instance, the bounded system includes the preschool paraprofessionals and teachers in one school system in a mid-Atlantic state.

Participants and Context

This study was conducted in eight preschool classrooms across one rural county in Western Virginia. The school district contains 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, and five high schools with a total enrollment of approximately 10,500 students. Ninety-three percent of the school population is White, five percent is Black or African American, and the remaining two percent is comprised of Latino, Asian-American, and American Indian students.

The sample consisted of eight paraprofessionals and the eight teachers they directly worked with. The classroom and participants were selected based on proximity to the researcher’s location and because a previous study was conducted in a neighboring school district (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014).

Table 1

Paraprofessional and Teacher Demographics

Data Sources and Analysis

Data collection concentrated on perspectives of both the teachers and the paraprofessionals who worked directly with them, in their classroom. The objective was to understand both perspectives in order to make assertions and ultimately create overall themes from the settings. In addition to case study methodology, narrative inquiry, as described above, was used to “impose order on the flow of experience to make sense of events and actions” (Riessman, 1993, p. 2). Narrative theory helped the researchers utilize direct conversations and interview transcripts in order to make sense of the observed events and actions. Data were collected through: a) classroom observations; b) semi-structured interviews; and c) document collection.

Classroom observations. A total of 24 classroom observations were conducted (three in each of the eight classrooms). The observations lasted for a total of one hour each, or 24 total hours of observation and were conducted by two researchers in the eight classrooms. Overall, the observations took place over the course of two months and were conducted equally before, during, and after interviews of the participants. During observations, both researchers documented what they saw through detailed field notes in a spiral notebook that were later transcribed. To focus the observations, a detailed observation protocol was established. The researchers also generated post-observation analytic memos that detailed “interpretations, methodological notes, observation notes, theoretical assertions, and high- and low-level inferences” (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). These analytic memos served to inform the researchers on specific questions or actions to observe the next time they entered a classroom.

According to Schwandt (1997), in qualitative inquiry, reliability “is an epistemic criterion thought to be necessary but not sufficient for establishing the truth of an account or interpretation of a social phenomenon” (p. 137). To establish reliability, Researcher One served as the primary coder and observed in each classroom twice, for a total of 16 hours, and then again in four of the classrooms a third time, for an overall total of 20 hours. Researcher Two, for agreement purposes, observed in four of the eight classrooms twice, for a total of four hours. The two researchers then analyzed the data in order to jointly agree on four common themes or assertions. It is important to note, according to Harris, Pryor, and Adams (2006), these assertions are “general in nature” and reliability comes in the form “that two credible researchers or research teams studying the same or similar contexts will generate consistent overall result patterns, and any variance between result sets will be traceable to documented changes in informants and/or researchers” (p. 9).  Additional information on validity criteria are further explained in the data analysis section.

Interviews. After concluding observations, eight paraprofessionals and eight teachers were interviewed with a pre-determined interview protocol informed by themes emerging from observations in conjunction with the five common themes drawn from the extant literature. Researcher One designed two discrete interview protocols (one for the teachers and one for the paraprofessionals) in order to obtain multiple perspectives. Each interview lasted approximately one hour, for a total sixteen hours of interview.

Table 2

Sample Interview Questions

Document collection. Document collection consisted primarily of the school system’s preschool handbook. The handbook is 253 pages and covers all aspects of instruction, responsibilities, relationships within all parties in the preschool program, etc. The handbook specifically covers how to build family partnerships, how to work as a team, procedures for instructional guidance, and necessary forms and other components of the preschool program. In addition to the handbook, several other documents were collected including lesson plans with designated roles and daily instructional notes voluntarily provided by three teachers and four paraprofessionals.

Data Analysis

Thesame two researchers who conducted the classroom observations conducted the qualitative data analysis. Researchers used naturalistic and interpretive research to seek out meanings of participants. Expressly, this study aimed to gain an understanding of classroom relationships and interactions that took place in eight preschool settings (Erickson, 1986). The data consisted of observations, field notes, the researcher’s analytic journal, interview transcriptions, and gathered documents. Researchers explored ongoing qualitative data from the interpretivist paradigm and used the method of analytic induction (Erickson, 1986). Specifically, investigators engaged in an iterative and recursive process where data was continually collected, analyzed, and themes were generated from emerging assertions. Analytic induction, in this sense, was used to form systematic evaluations of social phenomena surrounding the paraprofessionals, and teachers, to develop concepts, ideas, and assertions. Quotations from observations, transcribed interviews, and analytic vignettes were used to illustrate the confirmation of events and validate assertions. A reflective journal was kept to provide trustworthiness for the study in what way?(Stake, 2005).

Qualitative analysis used the following five steps, adapted from Erickson (1986) and Znaniecki (1934): (1) Investigators created a definition of a happening and used this to generate an assertion (i.e. Teachers and paraprofessionals share similar classroom responsibilities).  (2) Researchers reassessed observations notes, document collection, and interview data to verify or disprove the assertion. (3) If the assertion was not verified, the investigators examined ways to alter the original assertion.  (4) Researchers reviewed supplementary interviews, document collections, and observational notes to facilitate adding additional evidence to the new assertion.  (5) Ultimately, when an assertion was not substantiated, the investigators found added information to make a new assertion until there were no data unaccounted for.  Furthermore, the same two researchers examined the data and assertions to jointly agree on the collective themes. This process, using triangulation, corroborated the evidence from both researchers, all of the data, and established validity (Creswell, 2002; Stake, 2005). After an assertion was confirmed by evidence, it was called a theme.

Figure 1: Analytic Induction from Erickson (1986).This figure represents a visual representation of the analytic induction process.

Findings

Findings revealed four themes based on interviews, observations, and document analyses.  The themes generated in this study were compiled and presented in relation to topics in prior literature and investigated with multiple perspectives in mind. The four themes highlighted (a) the responsibilities and motivation of paraprofessionals in competition with the receptiveness of teachers, (b) the ways in which paraprofessional behaviors assimilate to mimic teacher behaviors, (c) the mismatch between displayed recognition and appreciation from the teacher, and perceived recognition and appreciation by the paraprofessional, and (d) the governing influence that school, district, and regional policies have on individual classroom outcomes and relationships.

Theme 1: Responsibilities, Motivation, and Receptiveness

Teachers and paraprofessionals share similar classroom responsibilities. There is a direct connection between paraprofessional motivation (willingness to engage in specific tasks) and teacher receptiveness (willingness to relinquish responsibilities to paraprofessionals).

Classroom roles, responsibilities, and interactions are often determined by lead teachers and passed on to paraprofessionals.  Lead teachers can either be receptive to help with instruction and classroom interactions or be hesitant to relinquish control. On the other side, paraprofessionals may display strong motivation to become involved in classroom activities, or he or she may require more support and take less initiative. The interchange between these two parties often influences many aspects of the classroom environment.

Table 3

Examples of the Dual-Connection between Paraprofessional (P) Motivation and Teacher (T) Acceptance/Receptiveness

	High P Motivation	Low P Motivation
High T Receptiveness	T says in an interview of P, “The way our system works, she pretty much does everything I do. It’s great and really helpful. The kids treat us the exact same.” (Interview with Teacher 3)	During center time, T asks P if she wants to help lead an art activity. P responds, “No. I’m not really good with crafts. You know that.” (Observation in Classroom 5)
Low T Receptiveness	P asks if it is acceptable to begin another story because her group finishes before T’s group. T responds, “You stick to the schedule. Just wait.”  (Observation in Classroom 4)	T becomes agitated in an interview and says of the P, “I don’t want her to do anything because she doesn’t know how to do it anyway. Plus, she’s fine just sitting on her butt, so that’s one thing we agree on.” (Interview with Teacher 1)

The above table illustrates four examples of the interchange among paraprofessional motivation and teacher receptiveness to responsibilities.  As described in Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014), motivation is defined as a “paraprofessional’s willingness to perform classroom tasks” (p. 6).  Receptiveness is defined as “the teacher’s willingness to relinquish control and allow the paraprofessional to complete classroom tasks” (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014, p. 6). In the occurrence of high teacher receptiveness and high paraprofessional motivation, Mrs. Hailey, emphasized the importance of mutual communication and collaboration. “She pretty much does everything I do. It’s great and really helpful,” said Mrs. Hailey.  Mrs. Hailey also made a point to illustrate the positive impact this had on the students in the classroom by stating they treated her and her paraprofessional “The exact same.” (Interview, 4/12/16).

An example of the exact opposite of this interchange can be seen in a teacher with low receptiveness and a paraprofessional with low motivation. Mrs. Chelsea became very agitated when discussing her relationship with the paraprofessional. She made multiple comments about how the paraprofessional “Doesn’t know how to do it anyway” and she does not “want her to do anything.” (Interview, 3/22/16). These remarks were reinforced during a separate classroom observation illustrated in the following vignette:

The students return from specials (art today) and enter the room quietly in a single-file line. Sandra leads the line. As everyone arrives, Mrs. Melissa asks the students to sit on the farm-themed carpet. Sandra immediately retreats to chair in the back corner of the room. Mrs. Melissa begins to ask the students what they did in art, how their weekend was, and other introductory morning questions. One student, who is having trouble sitting still, stands up and walks to the back corner of the room which is adjacent to Sandra. Sandra does not acknowledge him but instead picks up a magazine and begins flipping the pages. Mrs. Melissa carries on with her questioning of the children and then notices the stray student. She appears slightly irritated and says, “Steven. Get back to the carpet.” Sandra briefly looks up from her magazine, rolls her eyes, and then continues to read.

Steven retreats to the rug. He places both hands in the air and begins to wave them around. Only two students look at him. Mrs. Melissa keeps reading. Suddenly Steven begins making animal noises. He snorts like a pig several times and uses his index finger to turn up the tip of his nose (seemingly imitating a pig). Mrs. Melissa glances at Sandra. She is still reading her magazine. Steven, continuing to make the pig noise, starts to get the attention of at least five students. Mrs. Melissa politely asks him to, “Please be quiet during story time.” Sandra again briefly looks up from her magazine, smiles, and lets out a small chuckle. (Observation, 2/23/16).

In this vignette, the paraprofessional, Sandra, made no attempt to assist when a student displayed inappropriate or distractive behavior. Similarly, Mrs. Melissa made no attempt to engage Sandra in the classroom activity or ask for her assistance in managing the behavior. This is an observed example of the paraprofessional displaying low motivation while the teacher simultaneously displays low receptiveness to paraprofessional support.

The two other types of relationships are low paraprofessional motivation coupled with high teacher receptiveness and high paraprofessional motivation coupled with low teacher receptiveness. As seen in Table 4, there is a conflict when a paraprofessional displays low motivation but the teacher is receptive to help. For example, in an observation, Mrs. Brittany (the teacher) asked Tonya (the paraprofessional) to help lead an art activity. Tonya responded with, “No. I am not really good at crafts. You know that.” (Interview, 4/5/16). Conversely, in another observation, the opposite was witnessed. In this case, the paraprofessional (Hannah) asked her teacher (Mrs. Catherine) if she could begin another story when her group finished their book. Mrs. Catherine immediately responded, “You stick to the schedule. Just wait.” (Observation, 3/2/16). In this instance, although the paraprofessional took initiative, the teacher was not receptive to her help. Ultimately, this theme of motivation and receptiveness has an impact on the classroom relationship and can be seen in Theme Two.

Theme 2:  Relationships and Demeanor Assimilation

 Paraprofessionals often assimilate to match the lead teacher’s demeanor and perspectives.  A power dynamic exists between the teacher and paraprofessional which causes the paraprofessional to work not only to please the teacher, but the paraprofessional may actually take on some of the personality traits displayed by the teacher. This is more commonly visible in classrooms where teachers and paraprofessionals have worked with one another for longer periods of time.

Analogous to Theme One, the interchange between paraprofessional motivation and teacher receptiveness often leads to the formation of the relationship power dynamic in the classroom. Specifically, teacher-paraprofessional relationships can be significantly influenced by the paraprofessional’s attitude and demeanor. Some paraprofessionals, especially those who have worked with a teacher for a long time, tend to “act” like and take on personality characteristics of the lead teacher in the classroom. When this happens, teachers can either be receptive or non-receptive.

Figure 2. Personality Assimilation. This figure illustrates paraprofessional assimilation to teacher demeanor and personality.

This figure can be further supported through classroom observations and interviews. The following vignette is an example of a paraprofessional, Sally, who tries to assimilate to the teacher’s personality by taking on similar views:

The students are engaged in center time. Some are playing with blocks, trains, and barn animals while others are enjoying the art area or water table. A group of three girls play house and have a small disagreement over who should be the “mom” and who should be the “baby”. Mrs. Chelsea sits with two boys, near the art center, to demonstrate the vocabulary word of the day — “huffing”. The boys giggle as Mrs. Chelsea uses various objects (sand, paper, cotton, and wood) to see if they move by simply blowing on them. Sally is in the opposite corner of the room helping a student navigate ABCmouse on the computer.

A visitor comes in and speaks with Sally. The visitor says, “Wow. It must be a full moon or something because the kids are off the wall.” Sally smiles and says, “I know! I thought the same thing.” The visitor leaves. Minutes later Sally walks up to Mrs. Chelsea and says, “Is it a full moon?” Mrs. Chelsea quickly replies, “Why? I don’t believe in that. It is not researched-based.” Immediately Sally says, “Oh, I know. Me neither. It’s just a dumb thing people say.” (Observation, 3/2/16).

           

This vignette represents one example of a paraprofessional agreeing with or assimilating to the teacher’s beliefs. Sally mentioned how “knowledgeable” Mrs. Chelsea is and how they “agree on everything.” (Observation, 3/2/16). This as a strong example of a positive relationship between the paraprofessional and teacher with mutual respect and veneration. In this instance, the paraprofessional is proud of sharing similar qualities with the teacher, and the teacher is receptive to this assimilation. This idea was confirmed with this specific teacher and paraprofessional pair in a subsequent interview with Sally where she mentioned she feels “fortunate to have such a great teacher as a role model.” (Interview, 3/22/16). In a separate interview Mrs. Chelsea commented she is “proud of how Sally is turning into such a great educator” thus confirming this assimilation is seen as positive among both parties. (Interview, 3/22/16).

A very different view of this demeanor assimilation can be seen in Mrs. Catherine’s classroom. In this setting the researcher witnessed Hannah, the paraprofessional, attempt to “get along” with Mrs. Catherine on a personal level. During a candid discussion at the playground Hannah made several comments to the teacher about how they both liked the same television shows and lived in the same area. One comment was made about “hanging out outside of work.” (Observation, 3/2/16). Mrs. Catherine just smiled and nodded and did not reply to this request. In a subsequent interview Mrs. Catherine told the researcher it can be “frustrating” when Hannah spends too much time “trying to please me” and less time “focusing on her job responsibilities.” (Interview, 4/5/16).

Additional comments from three paraprofessionals through interviews and observations include:

• “I just follow her lead. She went to school, so I assume she is right.” (Interview, 4/5/16).
• “People say I’m a lot like her (teacher). Do you see it?” (Interview, 4/21/16).
• “We tend to get along because we do things the same. Sometimes the kids get us confused.” (Interview, 3/22/16).

These comments illustrate varying views from multiple paraprofessionals but reflect there may be some form of power dynamic which results in the paraprofessional adjusting their opinion and perspectives to meet teacher needs. Perhaps this is why, in some cases, the paraprofessional tries to take on the role of the teacher’s personality in order to “fit in” and get along. Overall, these classroom relationships often impact recognition and appreciation, as demonstrated below in Theme Three.

Theme 3:Multiple Views – Mismatch Between Displayed Recognition/Appreciation and Perceived Recognition and Appreciation

Teachers and paraprofessionals have contrasting views on several factors including what constitutes appropriate recognition and appreciation. While teachers often state they value paraprofessionals this appreciation is often not “seen” or obvious to paraprofessionals. Contrastingly, paraprofessionals often feel undervalued, overworked, and undercompensated.

Paraprofessional contentment as a result of both responsibilities (Theme One) and relationships (Theme Two) repeatedly revolves around the concept of recognition and appreciation. These lines become blurred when a paraprofessional does not perceive he or she is respected or appreciated, but the teacher feels he or she is demonstrating outright appreciation. In many instances teachers may believe that their appreciation is noticed when it is often actually undetected by the paraprofessional. Additionally, these paraprofessionals internalize this lack of appreciation causing them to feel devalued and overtasked. Examples of both of these outcomes were present during this study and are described below.

Views from teachers.In conversations with the teachers, seven of the eight made a point to discuss their display of appreciation for the paraprofessional in their classroom. Specifically, Mrs. Catherine stated she often gave “gifts” to show her appreciation. (Interview, 4/5/16). In a conversation with Mrs. Amy she mentioned she “enjoyed working” with her paraprofessional and felt she did a “good job” showing it.(Observation, 2/4/16). Additional comments from the teachers through interviews and observations include:

• “I always tell her thank you. Even if we don’t have time to talk, I just make sure I say at least that.” (Interview, 3/22/16).
• “Every Friday we order lunch. Sometimes I’ll offer to pay for hers. She doesn’t always accept, but I just want her to know she’s valued.” (Interview, 4/12/16).
• “Yea, I think she knows how thankful I am to have her. We have a very challenging class, and I wouldn’t be able to get all of these things done if she wasn’t here.” (Interview, 4/5/16).

Views from paraprofessionals. In interviews and candid conversations with the paraprofessionals only three outwardly reported the teacher engaging in positive affirmation for their work, making statements like “She is encouraging,” “She lets me know when I do something correctly,” and “She always compliments how hard I work.” (Interview, 4/12/16). The other five assistants displayed very different views. For example, Rebecca stated she “got along” with her cooperating teacher but she never really felt like there was a “mutual respect” or “connection.” (Interview, 4/12/16). Similarly, during a candid conversation, Sally discussed how she works extremely hard for the teacher, school, and students and “nobody seems to care.” (Interview, 3/22/16).  Additional comments from the paraprofessionals include:

•  “I kind of just do what I’m told. She doesn’t really say much.” (Interview, 4/12/16).
• “I think she does like having me here, but she isn’t really good at showing it. It’s just her personality, I guess.” (Interview, 4/21/16).
• “I think getting more appreciation from her would make the job a lot more fun. I love the kids but sometimes I feel like that’s not enough.” (Interview, 4/5/16).

Due to these competing views, the primary researcher decided to candidly ask one paraprofessional and lead teacher the same question. This pair were chosen for further examination because both the teacher and paraprofessional were very open with their interview responses previously and the researcher wanted to know if different views would be displayed. The question and corresponding answers can be seen in Figure 3. As demonstrated, while the teacher felt she showed appreciation for her assistant through a formal Christmas gift, the assistant did not even remember receiving the gift. Instead, she remembered the teacher did not directly thank her for support in the classroom. This is a robust example of the mismatch between the displayed recognition and appreciation from the teacher and the perceived recognition and appreciation from the paraprofessional. This relationship dynamic was also influenced by school configuration and policies, as seen in Theme Four.

Figure 3: Comparing Views. This figure represents comparing views, between the teacher and paraprofessional, on the same question of recognition and appreciation.

Theme 4:Governing Influence by School Configuration and Policies

While classroom relationships are often impacted by paraprofessional-teacher relationships, school and district policies greatly influence classroom outcomes. Individual teacher choice and freedom is first and foremost affected by institutional governing policies. Therefore, instruction and interactions between paraprofessionals, teachers, students, and families may vary based on different school system policies.

Despite the above themes relating to appreciation, relationships, and responsibilities, teachers and paraprofessionals are often at the mercy of their school system. Specifically, district policies often dictate the curriculum (Werts, Harris, Tillery, & Roark, 2004), expectations (Drecktrah, 2000), and policies (Riggs & Mueller, 2001). This means that different school systems may alter paraprofessional-teacher and paraprofessional-student relationships based on their own policies. While some schools may require paraprofessionals to take more of a “back seat” to the teacher, and serve as a supplementary or supportive role, other systems require paraprofessionals to take on very similar roles and responsibilities.

For this study, researchers accessed, through document collection, the school system’s preschool handbook. A component of the handbook shows little difference between teacher and paraprofessional roles. For example, many sections state the teacher and paraprofessional are responsible for the same obligations. Table 4 illustrates an example of these similarities. Additionally, the handbook discusses the importance of parallel collaboration between all members of the instructional team. Table 5 is just one of many examples of how paraprofessionals and teachers in this district are viewed as equal entities with a common goal for student success.

Table 4

Example of Similar Teacher and Paraprofessional Responsibilities from the Preschool Handbook

Table 5

Demonstration of Paraprofessionals and Teachers as Equal in the Preschool Handbook

This district-level policy was easily observed in the classrooms, as well. An example is displayed in the following vignette:

Mrs. Carla quickly arranged the classroom for the read-aloud. She placed two of the same books, The Three Little Pigs, in separate areas of the room. Just as she did this, Jessica arrived with the students. They entered the classroom, one by one, and Mrs. Carla said, “Ok. Those in my group come on over!” Seven students walked and calmly sat down on the carpet in front of Mrs. Carla. The remaining eight students walked to the other side of the room, along with Jessica, and sat on a round carpet in front of her. Then, Mrs. Carla and Jessica began to talk.

Mrs. Carla said, “How many of you have ever been to a farm?” The students enthusiastically raised their hands or shouted, “Me!” Across the room, Jessica could be heard saying, “Have any of you ever been to a farm?” The students shouted and exclaimed, “I have!” Next, Mrs. Carla asked, “Do you know what your house is made out of?” Almost simultaneously, Jessica, talking to her group, asked, “What materials are your homes made from?” After these questions, Mrs. Carla and Jessica each read the book to their respective groups, with both stopping at similar times for discussion and extension activities. (Observation, 3/10/16).

This vignette is an example of the district policy in action. For example, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) created a policy document to help bridge the gap between research and practice, by providing guidance to all stakeholders involved in the education of young children. Part of the policy on teaming collaboration states the following:

The quality of the relationships and interactions among these adults affects the success of these programs. Teaming and collaboration practices are those that promote and sustain collaborative adult partnerships, relationships, and ongoing interactions to ensure that programs and services achieve desired child and family outcomes and goals (DEC Recommended Practices, 2014, p. 14)

In this instance, the paraprofessional took on the same role as the teacher when it came to this academic task. Additionally, there was evidence of collaboration and mutual understanding because the teacher and paraprofessional led the group instruction very similarly, including asking the same extension and discussion questions. This lends itself directly to a policy in the handbook, shown in Table 5.

Discussion

In this study, paraprofessional and teacher views were investigated in order to discover answers to important questions on skills/expertise, job fulfillment, roles and obligations, preparation and training, and classroom relationships. Furthermore, this study expanded on previous research by using an in-depth approach to include multiple perspectives on classroom experiences. Overall, the findings support existing paraprofessional research in these five domains (e.g., Giangreco et al., 2012).

Skills/expertise. Collective data analyses offered added points to the extant literature.  First, research emphasizes the role of the classroom teacher as a supervisor to the paraprofessional (Appl, 2006). Teachers commonly have higher levels of education and are put into supervisory roles based on expertise (Nichols, 2013). While this is the case in many schools, analyses from this study revealed that district, regional, state, and national policies actually have a larger impact on classroom dealings than teacher supervision. It was noted that while several systems may ask paraprofessionals to serve in a supportive role to the teacher, other schools require paraprofessionals to take on additional classroom roles. In this study, the school system investigated set forth a specific policy treating paraprofessionals and teachers as equals. Although the teacher was still the “supervisor,” she was not treated with more respect in the classroom than the paraprofessional with less education. Both were equivalent members in the classroom and expected to perform similar classroom duties including supervision, discipline, and instruction.

Preparation and coaching. Similar to skills/expertise, extant research identified paraprofessional education and experience as the major influencing factors on job performance (Bolton & Mayer, 2008). Brown & Stanton-Chapman (2014) discovered that motivation, on both the part of the teacher and paraprofessional, actually played a larger role than formal education and training or coaching. This follow-up study confirmed Brown and Stanton-Chapman’s (2014) findings, in Theme One by recognizing that educational levels and training had little impact on classroom performance but rather “a bigger influence was the ability or inability of the paraprofessional to engage in classroom responsibilities coupled with the desire or unwillingness of the teacher to relinquish control in her classroom” (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014, p. 10). This theme was seen again in the current study as both teachers and paraprofessionals viewed the motivation of the paraprofessional was viewed as more important than their previous experience or levels of training. Specifically, the current study found that teachers who allowed paraprofessionals more freedom and autonomy reported higher levels of successful classroom relationships and outcomes than those teachers who allowed less flexibility. This finding was in contrast to previous studies that documented the lack of training as the major impacting factor for classroom success (Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009; Frith & Lindsey, 1982).

Job fulfillment. Next, several previous studies discuss the negative impact of minimal pay for paraprofessionals (Appl, 2006). Additionally, Brown and Stanton-Chapman (2014) found that while paraprofessionals feel underpaid, teachers do not always feel paraprofessionals deserve more compensation. In this study, reports from paraprofessionals and teachers alike indicated that both parties are underpaid. While previous research alluded to this as a more pressing issue in paraprofessional research (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014; Katsiyannis, 2000), this study showed that policies, specifically in this Mid-Atlantic region, have made it difficult for pay advances for all members of the school community no matter their job title. Perhaps more importantly, evidence from Theme 3 revealed this fulfillment is also more likely to be impacted by non-monetary compensation and appreciation. While teachers often felt they demonstrated recognition and appreciation for their assistants/paraprofessionals, the paraprofessionals saw these displays of recognition very differently and often felt under-appreciated while over-utilized for classroom tasks. Findings from interviews and observations revealed this mode of appreciation was more significant and discussed more frequently than monetary compensation.

Roles and obligations. Similarly, document collection and observation revealed a strong indication that higher officials hold an important influence on all aspects of classroom interactions. Particularly, while teachers often supervise paraprofessionals and dictate their responsibilities, this changes from location to location based on the flexibility and autonomy allowed by each school system.  This was further revealed in Theme 4 where the district policy had a larger impact on all aspects of classroom dealings than simply teacher or paraprofessional discretion. In this study, teachers and paraprofessionals had very specific duties outlined in a handbook. This finding is consistent with previous research that outlines national, state, and district policies for paraprofessionals (Armstrong, 2010; Katsiyannis, 2000), but it places an added emphasis on the importance of structured requirements for paraprofessionals and notes these requirements vary from location to location.

Classroom relationships.  Finally, the issue of classroom relationships was revealed in all themes. Theme 1 was consistent with Brown and Stanton-Chapman’s (2014) research findings. In this theme, researchers found that responsibilities, motivation, and receptiveness impact all aspects of the classroom including curriculum and student contentment. More specifically, when teacher receptiveness is coupled with paraprofessional motivation a dynamic exists that can drastically change classroom occurrences. Additionally, a second finding in the relationship domain was revealed in Theme 2 and included an interesting component on teacher-paraprofessional relationships relating to a power-dynamic. Consistent with previous literature, paraprofessionals and teachers often form close relationships due to their work proximity (Blalock, 1991; Burgess & Mayes, 2009). Explicitly, the current study found this to be true and also found many paraprofessionals, who are often under-trained and under-educated, attempt to assimilate to the teacher’s position and demeanor in order to positively impact the overall classroom atmosphere.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study is not without limitations.  First, the majority of this study relied only participant’s self-reported data. Although, there is a growing body of work emphasizing the validity of self-reported data (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005), researchers paid particular attention to responses that occurred from selective memory (omitting experiences in memory), telescoping (recalling events at the wrong time), attribution (attaching positive events to personal success and negative events to external factors), and exaggeration (embellishing responses and events) (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013).  Also, triangulation of data was used to combat validity concerns. Despite the awareness of these issues, it is simply not possible to independently verify each interview respondent’s answers.

Second, the overall sample was not demographically diverse. All observation and interview participants were white, female, and ranged in age from 25 to 51. Additionally, the study was conducted in one rural school district in the Mid-Atlantic region. Although findings may contribute to the literature and provide further insight into paraprofessional issues, they cannot be generalized outside of the population and specific bounded system.

With those limitations delineated, future research should emphasize three areas:  First, further studies should use larger, more defined and diverse samples. While this study expanded on a previous investigation, future research should continue to explore these same questions with a larger sample size, a different geographical region, and differentiated demographic specifications. Second, future research should explore both case studies and larger survey studies in order to get more in-depth qualitative analysis from case studies and more evidence for statistical comparison in larger survey studies. Third, further research should be conducted on outcomes for schools that utilize paraprofessionals and teachers in different ways, particularly distinguishing between schools that follow or do not follow DEC Standards (DEC Recommended Practices, 2014). Finally, additional research should be conducted on the interplay of these findings including paraprofessional-teacher relationships in multiple settings and the influence of culture and varying demographic categories on these interactions.

Practice and Policy Implications 

These findings have considerable implications for policy-makers and stakeholders in U.S. school systems. This study provides preliminary evidence of different perspectives among paraprofessionals and teachers across almost all domains mentioned in the public-school setting. Throughout the course of the interviews and observations, findings were revealed that could have practice implications, in four primary areas: (a) responsibilities, motivation, and environment, (b) relationships and demeanor assimilation, (c) mismatch between displayed recognition/appreciation and perceived recognition/appreciation, and (d) governing influence by school configuration and policies.

Responsibilities, motivation, and environment.    

Research notes that paraprofessional and teacher responsibilities vary from location to location (Appl, 2006; Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014). In this study, although teachers reported higher levels of education and job training compared to their direct paraprofessionals, interview and observational data confirmed that this was not mentioned as an impacting factor for classroom duties. Specifically, teachers and paraprofessionals both made multiple mentions of the impact that motivation and enthusiasm had on classroom activities. There were only two instances where paraprofessionals stated they did not have adequate education to perform the same duties as teachers. With this in mind, policy makers could consider additional factors that contribute to classroom outcomes. Although the United States government has attempted to require paraprofessionals to earn more educational requirements through No Child Left Behind and Title 1 restrictions there are other factors that influence classroom performance (Nichols, 2013). Additionally, according to Katsiyannis (2000), “Credentialing systems are not widespread, and in most cases paraeducators are untrained personnel who are often employed for economic, political or logistical reasons” (p. 303). Taking this into account, policy-makers should look for other ways to determine the impact paraprofessionals have on classroom occurrences (i.e. inclusion, student outcomes, instruction, and discipline) and provide meaningful ways to allocate resources and establish hiring and supervisory procedures.

Relationships and demeanor assimilation.

Secondly, extant research has looked at the ways that paraprofessionals interact with their supervisors and teachers and noted that working in close proximity often influences many aspects of the classroom environment (Blalock, 1991; Burgess & Mayes, 2009). In the current study, researchers found that paraprofessionals often assimilate to teacher behaviors in order to “please” or “succumb” to teacher demands. This has important implications for policy as school systems may want to look at “who” is a paraprofessional, why they chose the position, and what attracts them to this occupation. Additionally, this relationship between teachers and paraprofessionals has important research implications to consider and explore which types of relationships provide the best outcomes for students in the classroom.

Mismatch between displayed and perceived recognition and appreciation.

Thirdly, this study was among the first to look at multiple perspectives from teachers and paraprofessionals on classroom issues, particularly in the preschool setting. While existing research recognizes many paraprofessionals and teachers are attracted to the profession based on hours and benefits, there is also evidence to show low job desirability based on pay (Appl, 2006). Additionally, research recognizes that paraprofessionals often leave due to low job fulfillment (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). Little is known about the rates of paraprofessionals that leave the occupation based on both monetary and non-monetary compensation. Findings from this study highlighted that paraprofessionals and teachers often perceive recognition and appreciation differently. Many paraprofessionals in the study reported low levels of recognition and appreciation from their supervising teacher. Contrastingly, teachers perceived they adequately recognized and showed appreciation for the paraprofessional in their classroom. This finding alone has policy implications for two reasons. First, these outcomes may indicate a need for teacher sensitivity or awareness training in order to provide recognition and support that is desired from the paraprofessionals. Second, school systems may better service their teachers and paraprofessionals and promote job satisfaction by surveying their needs, fulfillment, and desirability for retention.

Governing influence by school configuration and policies.

Finally, the majority of policy implications from this study lie in the governing influence by school configuration and policies. It is important to mention that national, state, district, and local policies all impact classroom operations. Findings from this study indicated paraprofessional and teacher roles, responsibilities, and even overall contentment were based on the district policies outlined explicitly in a handbook. Research has shown that these policies vary based on location (Brown & Stanton-Chapman, 2014; Nichols, 2013). With this in mind, there are important implications for varying school systems to decide in which ways they wish to utilize their personnel. This has practice and policy implications for all areas to determine which schools are most successful in distinctive domains (i.e. discipline, academics, job retention) based on their use of personnel. Practice may improve if these groups adopt anti-deficit model attitudes and assume that each party has a stake in creating a positive environment and enhancing educational and social outcomes for all children (Song & Pyon, 2008).

In conclusion, more research is needed on paraprofessional roles, contentment, education, and training. This situation is of concern because paraprofessionals work closely with teachers and students but are utilized in many different ways. A few concluding questions that emerge from the data presented in this study include: (a) How can schools best utilize paraprofessionals and teachers collectively? (b) What comprises effective training and education levels for paraprofessionals given their diverse job requirements? (c) How can teachers and administrators plan for successful classroom outcomes while utilizing paraprofessionals in varied settings?

References

Abbott, E. A. & Sanders, L. (2012). Paraeducators’ perceptions of music therapy sessions. Music Therapy Perspectives 30(2), 145-150. doi: 10.1093/mtp/30.2.145.

Allen, M. & Ashbaker, B. Y. (2004). Strengthening schools: Involving paraprofessionals in crisis prevention and intervention. Intervention in School & Clinic, 39, 139–146.

Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tambokou, M. (2008). Doing Narrative Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Appl, D. (2006). First-year early childhood special education teachers and their assistants. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38, 34–40.

Armstrong, J. (2010). How effective are minimally trained/experienced volunteer mental health counselors? Evaluation of CORE outcome data. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 10, 22-31.

Ashbaker, B. Y., Dunn, S. C., & Morgan, J. (2012). Paraprofessionals in Special Education. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Third Ed.) pp. 780-787. Elsevier: Oxford.

Augusta County Schools. (2016). Contract salary scales. Staunton, VA: Author.

Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. A. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of  teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115-131.

Blalock, G. (1991). Paraprofessionals: Critical team members in our special education programs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(4), 200-14.

Blumer, H. (1969). The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method, 1–60.

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bolton, J., & Mayer, M. D. (2008). Promoting the generalization of paraprofessional discrete trial teaching skills. Focus?on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 23(2), 103-111.

Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F. (2005) Perspectives of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional support. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 415-430.

Brown, T. S. (2016). A systematic review of paraprofessional relationships in U.S. classrooms: Implications for future practice and cultural considerations. Manuscript in preparation.

Brown, T. S., & Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2014). Experiences of paraprofessionals in U.S. preschool special education and general education classrooms. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12095.

Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013).Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39, 48-75.

Burgess, H., & Mayes, A. S. (2009). An exploration of higher level teaching assistants’ perceptions of their training and development in the context of school workforce reform. Support for Learning, 24, 19-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01393.x

Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15-25.

Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 344–359. doi:10.1177/0741932508324399

Chopra, R. V., & French, N. K. (2004). Paraeducator relationships with parents of students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 4, 240-251.

Chopra, R. V., Sandoval-Lucero, E., Aragon, L, Bernal, C., Berg de Balderas, H., & Carroll, D. (2004). The paraprofessional role of connector. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 219-231.

Conway, C., Rawlings, J., & Wolfgram, T. J. (2014). Collegiate connections: The story of a licensed teacher in a paraprofessional music position – A cautionary tale. Music Educators Journal, 101, 83-87. doi: 10.1177/0027432114543564.

Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative  and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Department of Education: United States of America. (2012). Title I paraprofessionals. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/paraguidance.pdf.

Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec sped.org/recommendedpractices

Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms: Their own perceptions. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171-182.

Drecktrah, M. E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ preparation to work with paraeducators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 157–164.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd Ed.), pp. 119-161. New York: Macmillan.

French, N. K. (2003). Managing paraeducators in your school: How to hire, train, and supervise non-certified staff. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.?

French, N. K., & Chopra, R. V. (1999). Parent perspectives on the roles of paraprofessional. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(4), 259-272.

Frith, G.H., & Lindsey, J. D. (1982). Certification, training, and other programming variables affecting special education and the paraprofessional concept. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 16, 229-236. doi: 10.1177/002246698201600210

Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10-26.

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. S. (2012). Constructively responding to requests for paraprofessionals: We keep asking the wrong questions. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 362–373.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., & Broer, S. M. (2001). Respect, appreciation, and acknowledgement of paraprofessionals who support students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 485-498.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 485-498.

Giangreco, M. F., Smith, C. S., & Pickney, E. (2006). Addressing the paraprofessional dilemma in an inclusive school: A program description. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3). 215-229.

Gibson, A. (1996). Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Harris, J. B., Pryor, J., & Adams, S. M. (2006). The challenge of intercoder agreement in qualitative inquiry. Research Gate, 1-27.

Healy, C. (2011). One-to-one in the inclusive classroom: The perspectives of paraeducators who support adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 1, 72-92.         

Idaho State Department of Education. (2007). Idaho Special Education Manual: Chapter

10. Retrieved from www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/docs/manual_

documents/StandardsParaprofessionalsSupportingStudents.pdf.

Johnson, K. (2016). Looking back, looking ahead: A reflection on paraprofessionals and the

AFT. American Educator, 40, 22-26.

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.

Jones, C. R., Ratcliff, N. J., Sheehan, H. & Hunt, G. H. (2012) ‘An analysis of teachers’ and  paraeducators’ roles and responsibilities with implications for professional development.’ Early Childhood Education Journal, 40, 19–24.

Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Paraeducators. Remedial & Special Education, 21, 297-304.

Klingner, J. K., & Boardman, A. G. (2011). Addressing the ‘research gap’ in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 208-218.

Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, RICs, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63-82.

Lacattiva, C. (1985, March). The use of paraprofessionals as part of the teaching team. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Chicago, IL.

Lewis, K. C. (2004). Instructional aides: Colleagues or cultural brokers? School Community Journal, 14(1), 91-112.

Likins, M. (2003). NCLB implications for paraprofessionals. Principal Leadership, 35, 10–13.

Malmgren, K. W., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N. (2006). Boy in the bubble:  Effects of paraprofessional proximity and other pedagogical decisions on the interaction of a student with behavior disorders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 301-312.

Monzo, L. D., & Rueda, R. S. (2003). Professional roles, caring, and scaffolds: Latino teachers’ and paraeducators’ interactions with Latino students. American Journal of Education, 109, 438-471.

Nichols, L. (2013). Paraprofessional requirements for title one programs. Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/paraprofessionals.asp

Peterson, M. W., and M. G. Spencer (1993). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to academic

culture: Do they tell us the same thing? In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. IX, pp. 344–388. New York: Agathon Press.

Pickett, A. L., & Gerlach, K. (2003). Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.?

Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30). Sage.

Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 54.

Rueda, R., & Monzo, L. D. (2002). Apprenticeship for teaching: Professional development issues surrounding the collaborative relationship between teachers and paraeducators. Teacher and Teacher Education, 18, 503-521.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Skar, L., & Tamm, M. (2001). My assistant and I: Disabled children’s and adolescents’ roles and relationships to their assistants. Disability and Society, 16, 917-931.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 236-247. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Tarry, E. & Cox, A. (2013). Professional development in international schools; issues of inclusion identified by a group of international school teaching assistants. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14, 248–254.

Trahar, S. (2013). Contextualising narrative inquiry: Developing methodological approaches for local contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). State & county Quickfacts: Augusta County, VA.. Retrieved June 7, 2015, from www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/51015.

Werts, M. G., Harris, S., Tillery, C. Y., & Roark, R. (2004). What parents tell us about paraeducators. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 232-239. doi:10.1177/07419325040250040601.

Znaniecki, F (1934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

About the Authors

Tiara Saufley Brown, Ph.D., earned an undergraduate degree in Economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. She then received her first masters in Sports Management and Physical Education at Florida State University and her second masters in Special Education at Mary Baldwin University. After serving a coordinator for the Special Olympics, a Program Director for the ARC, and a PK-12 teacher in Special Education, she went on to earn her doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on Early Childhood Education from the University of Virginia. She is currently an Associate Professor at James Madison University and has taught classes, for the last seven years, primarily in Inclusive Early Childhood Education. Her research interest include: inclusive education, working with families, and working with preservice teachers in early childhood education and special education.

Tina Stanton-Chapman, Ph.D. is a Professor in Early Childhood Education and Human Development in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services at the University of Cincinnati. Her current research interests include social communication interventions targeting children with language delays and problem behavior, the development of universally designed playgrounds, and program development for preservice teachers in early childhood special education.