Empowering Paraeducators to Support Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Through Practice-Based Coaching: A Collaborative Approach

The Modern Paraeducator

Paraeducators are instructional staff members who are not certified teachers but provide student and classroom support under the direction of the licensed teacher (Bronstein et al., 2021). In their role, paraeducators are often expected to support instructional needs and manage the behavioral challenges of students with more significant support needs, such as students with EBD. With the expansion of inclusive education, schools have increasingly relied on paraeducators to provide critical academic, behavioral, and social supports for students with disabilities (Sobeck et al., 2021). Consequently, paraeducators comprise a substantial portion of school staff (Hoffman & Sable, 2006) and, in many states, outnumber certified special education teachers (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Statistics of State School Systems, 2017; Williams, 2024).

Paraeducators function as full- or part-time instructional partners who support students with disabilities by delivering evidence-based, one-on-one or small-group interventions and implementing behavior management plans (Giangreco et al., 2013; Yates et al., 2025) as well as specialized tasks such as collecting data and supporting peer interactions (Carter et al., 2009). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) allows paraprofessionals to support the delivery of special education services, provided they are adequately trained and supervised (IDEA, 2004, Sec. 300.156). Although IDEA establishes minimum standards (e.g., a high school diploma) for paraprofessional employment, the actual employment standards vary widely by state and district (Lekwa & Reddy, 2021; Spurlock et al., 2024; Wiggs et al., 2021). Similarly, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) establishes stricter benchmarks for staff in Title I settings (e.g., associate degree, competency testing), but actual hiring requirements vary (Lekwa & Reddy, 2021; Spurlock et al., 2024).

In addition to variable employment standards, there are no universal training, certification, or professional development standards for paraeducators (Spurlock et al., 2024). While IDEA acknowledges that paraeducators may provide instruction under the supervision of certified educators, the law provides no specific criteria regarding the frequency, intensity, or rigor of that supervision. This regulatory gap grants states total discretion over job preparation, leaving the execution of “appropriate supervision” open to wide interpretation (Bagawan et al., 2023; Borosh et al., 2023; Yates et al., 2025). Consistent with the IDEA and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2015) Professional Preparation Standards for Special Educators, it is the responsibility of the SET to support, direct, and supervise the paraeducator (Biggs et al., 2018). However, SETs have reported feeling unprepared to work with paraeducators for decades (Douglas et al., 2016; Giangreco et al., 2013). In interviews with 13 SETs, Douglas et al. (2016) found that most participants reported inadequate training in supervising paraeducators during their education.

Retaining Educators Through Professional Growth

The challenge of recruiting and retaining both special education teachers and paraprofessionals is well documented in the literature. Nationally, it is estimated that one-fourth of special education teachers leave the classroom annually (Mason-Williams et al., 2020). While national data on paraeducator attrition is unavailable, state-level data reveal a similarly troubling trend of high turnover. This localized research indicates that paraeducator attrition is largely driven by systemic factors, including a distinct lack of training, poorly defined job descriptions, and inadequate administrative support (Giangreco et al., 2010; Kaler & Theobald, 2026). Thus, a systemic gap exists: special education teachers struggle to supervise paraeducators, while paraeducators feel undertrained and unclear about their roles. Addressing these overlapping challenges creates a powerful opportunity to support both groups of educators simultaneously and better leverage classroom resources.

Berry et al. (2011) found that effective collaboration with paraeducators was one of the most sought-after training topics for SETs. More recently, Mason et al. (2020) conducted a qualitative study to examine paraeducators’ perspectives on their responsibilities and needs, finding that training and opportunities for SET-paraeducator collaboration are scarce. Thus, a positive collaborative relationship between the SET and the paraeducator has the potential to impact the quality of special education services students receive (Weiss & Rodgers, 2025). However, paraeducators often lack adequate access to relevant professional development (PD) and the necessary education and training to independently address their students’ instructional and behavioral needs (Giangreco et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2012).

Special education teacher–paraeducator relationships grounded in communication and collaboration are associated with positive student outcomes (Weiss & Rodgers, 2025; Yates et al., 2025), yet there is limited research focused specifically on the SET–paraeducator relationship in classrooms serving students with EBD. In fact, Bronstein et al. (2021) suggested that this professional relationship may “have important implications for the overall ecology of the classroom and specifically students with challenging behavioral needs” (p. 130). Given that paraeducators are common within programs serving students with EBD (Fisher & Pleasants, 2012) and that positive student outcomes depend on productive collaboration between a SET and a paraeducator, there is a clear and urgent need to provide the training and resources to support SETs in working with paraeducators.

Among PD models that support skill development in the educator workforce and promote student outcomes, the practice-based coaching framework (P. A. Snyder et al., 2015) provides an optimal theoretical framework for PD that improves specific teaching practices and enhances professional collaboration. Practice-based coaching (P. A. Snyder et al., 2015) involves a cyclical process of building a relationship between the coach and the coachee, identifying a shared goal and developing an action plan, conducting observations and collecting data, engaging in reflection, and providing feedback based on the observation data and reflection. This process allows the coach and the coachee to develop a sustainable working relationship to improve specific practices or skills. As such, the purpose of this article is to use the framework of practice-based coaching to provide teachers with information and resources that can be implemented immediately in the classroom to establish and maintain a positive, collaborative relationship between the special education teacher and the paraeducator.

Collaborative Partnership

To maximize the effects of coaching, the coach and coachee need to develop a shared understanding of what the coaching relationship entails and a shared vision of what the coaching process should lead to. Furthermore, fostering a collaborative partnership involves recognizing the individual’s unique experiences and skills while actively cultivating a positive relationship. This collaborative dynamic is reciprocal. Acknowledging the diverse backgrounds of paraprofessionals mobilizes unique cultural and professional assets within the classroom, enhancing the efficacy of the instructional dyad and optimizing learning outcomes for both educators and students. While a paraeducator’s path to formal training and educational qualifications may differ from that of a licensed teacher, it is critical that they are recognized as an equally valuable team member with unique skills and assets.

Often living within the school districts they serve, paraeducators leverage deep community roots to advocate effectively for families. This proximity is coupled with a close demographic alignment (i.e., race, ethnicity, and language) that classroom teachers often lack, making paraeducators a unique and critical bridge between home and school (Gist et al., 2022). Special education teachers can build rapport with paraeducators by helping them identify and leverage their unique professional strengths and skills. The paraprofessional may be highly motivated to work with students, be interested in learning new teaching practices, connect with students who struggle to build positive relationships with adults, or establish deep connections with culturally or linguistically diverse students. A good start in building this collaborative relationship is to initiate an informal conversation in which the SET’s main objectives are to learn about the paraeducator and to establish a shared goal (i.e., supporting the students). It is helpful for special education teachers to get to know the paraeducators, including their backgrounds, motivations, and career goals, while establishing a shared commitment to student success. Similarly, paraeducators can serve as a critical instructional anchor, helping special education teachers identify and mitigate unconscious biases to foster more equitable student and family engagement.

Ms. Jones decides to call Mr. Espinoza before the school year begins to introduce herself and get to know him. She develops an agenda with the big ideas she needs to address. Specifically, she aims to ensure they are aligned in their commitment to student success while also learning about Mr. Espinoza’s professional background to support his growth better and utilize his unique strengths. She writes down some questions she thinks may be helpful on her agenda as well (e.g., what experience do you have working in schools or with elementary age children? What experience do you have working with individuals with disabilities?).

Ms. Jones calls Mr. Espinoza and tells him that she has never worked with a new paraeducator before, so it may take a little time to figure things out. She shares that she would like to work as a team toward a shared goal of supporting students. To do so, she would like to identify mutual goals for them to work toward. Ms. Jones asks questions about Mr. Espinoza’s prior experiences, interests, and reasons for taking the job. She learns that he is in his mid-thirties, has lived in the community for many years, and decided to become a paraeducator because his son is starting kindergarten at Caliente Elementary School this year. Although Mr. Espinoza is familiar with the local community, he has no experience in K-12 classrooms.

Although they both agree that regular collaborative meetings are important, Mr. Espinoza shares that he needs to leave school when his contract indicates due to family obligations. They work to identify three 30-minute blocks of time during the workday when they can meet each week. Ms. Jones asks Mr. Espinoza about his experiences with mathematics, reading, and behavior with children in order to help identify some good starting points for him in the classroom. She ends the call by asking him to complete a Strengths and Needs Assessment she sends via email to better understand his level of confidence and his current priorities regarding essential classroom practices (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Strengths and needs assessment example.

Shared Goal and Action Planning

Shared Goal Setting

The results of the Strengths and Needs Assessment can inform the coaching goal. The goal should be jointly developed by the coach and coachee and focused on what the coachee would like to prioritize learning and implementing within a realistic time frame. While the goal should be individualized to meet the paraeducator’s needs and align with the classroom context, a high-quality goal should be specific in scope, written in measurable terms, and achievable within a defined time frame. However, it is important to note that goal setting will be followed by observations and feedback, which can be difficult to receive. Thus, the teacher and paraeducator should acknowledge that conflict and disagreement are inevitable and discuss a plan for navigating conflict and providing critical feedback (Urbani et al., 2024). The critical components include identifying a time and place for critical feedback, centering on what is best for the student, and focusing on how to improve.

During their first in-person meeting, Ms. Jones begins by asking Mr. Espinoza how he would like to contribute to the classroom and what he views as his strengths. Mr. Espinoza shares that he isn’t sure what he wants to do long-term, but he thought working as a paraeducator would help him decide whether he wanted to be a teacher. Although Mr. Espinoza says he has little knowledge or experience in special education, he has previously shared his interest and experience with reading. They decide that a good starting point for Mr. Espinoza is to support progress monitoring through repeated readings and oral reading fluency assessments. The majority of Ms. Jones’ students receive reading support, and Mr. Espinoza has experience reading to children. This leverages his experience reading with children, while his proficiency with numbers and spreadsheets supports data collection.

The majority of Ms. Jones’ students also receive behavior support. She recognizes that Mr. Espinoza lacks experience with students with EBD and will need support with effective classroom management. They decide that the Daily Report Card (DRC) will be a good intervention for him to implement with a few students. This will allow him to develop and foster relationships with students, establish his authority in the classroom, and provide opportunities for students to communicate in their preferred language (i.e., English or Spanish). Additionally, implementing DRC will provide Mr. Espinoza with repeated opportunities to practice his communication with students, provide them with feedback, and increase his data-collection skills. The next day, Ms. Jones and Mr. Espinoza create shared goals for reading progress monitoring and DRC (see Figures 2 and 3), while agreeing that feedback should occur 1-1 during their planned meeting times.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Shared goals and action plan example for supporting academic skills.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Shared goals and action plan example for behavior management.

Focused Observation

The core of practice-based coaching is the implementation of evidence-based practices. To enhance implementation, it is important to collect observation data. It is critical to keep the observation very focused and directly aligned with the goal and action plan. Therefore, to plan for a focused observation, the coach and coachee should identify when and where the observation will be conducted, how data will be collected, and whether any coaching strategies will be used during observation sessions (e.g., visual or verbal reminders, immediate feedback).

After they have written their goals, they practice the routines together. Ms. Jones will model reading progress monitoring and Daily Report Card procedures with students. Then Ms. Jones will observe Mr. Espinoza’s first couple of sessions with each practice until he feels comfortable doing it independently. Ms. Jones will collect fidelity data weekly, with additional observations conducted as necessary.

Reflection and Feedback

In this final component of the coaching cycle, the coach and coachee engage in a conversation to reflect on their actions and progress toward the goal during an agreed-upon time and setting. The coach provides supportive and constructive feedback to the coachee, and they both revisit the goal and action plan to determine whether to continue working toward the current goal or develop a new one.

Both the coach and the coachee should engage in reflection: the coachee reflects on their own implementation of specific practices aligned with their goal, while the coach reflects on the implementation of coaching. The coach may facilitate the reflection by asking open-ended questions (e.g., What do you think about . . . ? How do you feel . . . ? What did you notice . . . ?), using active listening skills (e.g., nodding, making eye contact, taking notes), acknowledging and expanding on the coachee’s reflection, and prompting for broader or more specific reflection.

When providing feedback, it is important to offer both supportive and constructive feedback, ensuring it is informed by data gathered through focused observations. Supportive feedback affirms the coachee’s skill development and helps them maintain progress; constructive feedback allows the coachee to identify a missed opportunity and learn potential ways to improve (see Figures 4 and 5). However, providing feedback and promoting critical self-reflection are difficult skills that take time and intentional practice to build. Although beyond the scope of this manuscript, readers may wish to consult Urbani et al. (2024) and Stockall (2014) for additional guidance related to difficult conversations. For general guidance, it’s important to refer back to prior conversations about conflict and disagreement, as well as to preference feedback sessions, with a reminder of the shared intent: that both individuals are interested in what is best for the student. If there is a concern, it is best to name it explicitly and state why, rather than talking around it. When providing critical feedback, one effective strategy is to use “I” statements rather than “You” statements and to actively listen to the individual receiving feedback. For example, stating, “I noticed the timer was not set,” rather than “You forgot to set the timer,” follow up with active listening to understand the individual’s perspective on the concern.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Observation form example for reading instruction.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Observation form example for daily report card.

As Mr. Espinoza and Ms. Jones approach the end of the first quarter of the school year, they review their goals and progress. Mr. Espinoza has been progress monitoring with fidelity. He has established strengths in data collection and organization and continues to build skills in data interpretation. He has made significant progress with pacing and providing feedback during repeated readings. Several students have shown growth in their reading, and Mr. Espinoza has developed strong relationships with several students, especially those with whom he implements DRC. Mr. Espinoza states that he is ready to take on more responsibilities in the classroom. They look at their students’ assessment data and note that progress has been made in reading, but the math data does not indicate similar growth. As a result, Ms. Jones and Mr. Espinoza agree to establish a new goal and action plan focused on math support.