Sustaining Paraprofessionals to Teacher Pipelines: A 30-Year Evaluation of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) Program at Weber State University by Nathan B. Bingham A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah December 11, 2025 Sara Gailey, Ph.D. Jessie Nixon, Ph.D. Jenington (Feb 18, 2026 12:40:28 MST) Jessica Bennington, MEd TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 2 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Sara Gailey, Dr. Jessie Nixon, and Jessica Bennington. Their expertise, invaluable guidance, and encouragement throughout this process have been instrumental in shaping my research and helping me bring this project to fruition. I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Shirley Dawson for her continued help and support. Thank you for always being willing to listen and for providing the steady mentorship I needed to navigate the challenges of this program. To my colleagues in the Moyes School of Education, thank you for your friendship, shared insights, and support as I balanced my professional responsibilities with my academic goals. Your dedication to our field is a constant source of inspiration. To my children, Alivia and Quade, thank you for your patience and for being my constant motivation. Seeing your growth reminds me every day why the field of education is so vital. I hope this achievement serves as an example of what can be accomplished with hard work and persistence. Most importantly, I want to thank my wife, Misti. This degree belongs to you as much as it does to me. Thank you for your unwavering support, for picking up the slack when I was buried in research, and for being the steady foundation of our family. I could not have completed this journey without you by my side. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 3 Table of Contents Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 6 Teacher Shortages and the Role of Paraprofessionals ........................................................ 6 Challenges and Support ...................................................................................................... 8 TAPT Program Overview ................................................................................................... 9 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 11 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 11 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 12 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 12 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 13 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 13 Qualitative Analysis .............................................................................................. 13 Quantitative Analysis ............................................................................................ 14 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Themes of the Perceived Benefits..................................................................................... 14 Financial Support: Critical Access and Debt Avoidance ...................................... 15 High-Touch Mentorship and Institutional Navigation .......................................... 15 Cohort Support and Real-Time Application ......................................................... 16 Identified Limitations and Structural Barriers .................................................................. 16 Financial Ambiguity ............................................................................................. 16 Curriculum Disconnect in Presenters at Mandatory Meetings ............................. 17 Quantitative Analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 4 Longitudinal Trends (2012–2025) ........................................................................ 17 Longitudinal Participant Satisfaction (Yes/No Counts) 2019–2023 .................... 20 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Hierarchy of Needs in Teacher Preparation .......................................................... 22 The Financial Paradox .......................................................................................... 23 Financial Support as an Equity Mechanism.......................................................... 23 The Role of Proactive Mentorship ........................................................................ 24 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 24 Modernize Financial Infrastructure....................................................................... 24 Differentiate the Hidden Curriculum .................................................................... 24 Institutionalize Proactive Advising ....................................................................... 25 Systematize Data Collection for Longitudinal Tracking ...................................... 25 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26 References ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 35 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 5 Abstract This mixed-methods study evaluates the longitudinal efficacy of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) program at Weber State University, a Grow Your Own (GYO) initiative designed to transition paraprofessionals into licensed teaching roles. Spanning a 13-year period (2012–2025), the research utilized archival data from three distinct administrative phases to identify programmatic drivers of success and persistent structural barriers. Qualitative thematic analysis revealed that financial support serves as the primary critical access mechanism for nontraditional students, while high-touch mentorship and advising are the key factors ensuring candidate retention. Quantitative results demonstrate exceptional program outcomes, including a 96% graduation rate and a 95% long-term teacher retention rate after eight years, significantly outperforming state averages. Despite these successes, findings highlight financial ambiguity and a curriculum disconnect in professional development as primary areas for improvement. The study concludes with recommendations to modernize financial transparency through digital dashboards and to differentiate mandatory training to meet the needs of both novice and advanced candidates. Ultimately, the TAPT model provides a scalable blueprint for addressing teacher shortages by combining fiscal investment with robust emotional scaffolding. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 6 Sustaining Paraprofessionals to Teacher Pipelines: A 30-Year Evaluation of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) Program at Weber State University School districts have long viewed the paraprofessional role as a natural pipeline into teaching. This pipeline offers a practical solution to persistent teacher shortages, particularly in special education, bilingual/ESL, and STEM, as well as in rural or low-income schools (Irwin et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2024). While the need for trained teachers has always existed, shortages have become critical (Sutcher et al., 2019) and have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic downturn (DiNapoli, 2021). To address these regional challenges, Weber State University partnered with local school districts to develop the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) program. This study evaluates the TAPT program’s efficacy using participant data from 2012 to 2025. It aims to identify the specific components that drive candidate retention and isolate structural limitations hindering success, concluding with data-driven recommendations for program refinement. Literature Review This literature review will begin by examining the factors contributing to teacher shortages and the role of paraprofessionals in mitigating them. It will then explore the purpose, benefits, and challenges associated with programs within the Paraprofessional to Teacher Pipeline (PTP). Finally, the review will analyze the structure and mission of the TAPT program, focusing on the factors underlying its continued success in advancing paraprofessionals into teaching roles for over 30 years. Teacher Shortages and the Role of Paraprofessionals Teacher shortages remain a persistent challenge throughout the United States, disproportionately affecting under-resourced districts and high-demand subject areas (García & TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 7 Weiss, 2019). To address this, state authorities across the United States are increasingly prioritizing Grow Your Own (GYO) initiatives that target paraprofessionals as an untapped pool of talent (Garcia, 2020; Gist et al., 2019). As established staff members, paraprofessionals possess deep community ties, practical classroom experience, and a demonstrated commitment to student success. Because they often already serve in hard-to-staff schools, transitioning these individuals into full-time teaching roles offers a sustainable solution to long-term vacancy issues (Carver-Thomas, 2018b; Redding & Smith, 2016). Paraprofessional-to-Teacher Pipelines (PTPs) strategically expand the candidate pool in high-need areas by investing in community members already familiar with the work. Hiring locally boosts retention, as educators with strong local ties are more likely to remain in their positions, thereby lowering turnover (Ingersoll & Tran, 2023). This stability is crucial, as high turnover impedes improvements in school quality and disrupts student learning (Edwards & Kraft, 2024). Consequently, hiring new teachers from the paraeducator ranks mitigates hiring risks by utilizing known quantities who have already demonstrated their fit within the school culture (Edwards & Kraft, 2024; Podolsky et al., 2016). However, despite these advantages, this once-reliable pipeline has slowed due to structural barriers such as tuition costs and certification testing (Abbate-Vaughn & Paugh, 2009; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Research indicates that while PTP models can boost the local teacher supply, improve retention, and diversify the workforce, success is contingent upon participants receiving strong mentoring and financial assistance aligned with local hiring needs (Carver-Thomas, 2018a; Edwards & Kraft, 2024; Garcia, 2020). Furthermore, a high-retention pathway must be implemented alongside ongoing investments in teacher pay, positive school climates, and instructional support. These holistic measures ensure that once paraprofessionals TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 8 become teachers, they are well-prepared and encounter working conditions that encourage longterm retention (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Challenges and Support For PTP programs to succeed, they require strategic planning and robust institutional support. Schools and partner universities must establish strong infrastructure, forge clear K– 12/university partnerships, and create class schedules that accommodate the working hours of full-time staff (Garcia et al., 2025; Valenzuela, 2017). Furthermore, programs must provide dedicated advisors and secure long-term funding to ensure stability. When these structural criteria are met, PTP programs effectively meet staffing needs, extend teacher longevity, and expand the workforce while maintaining high standards for content knowledge and pedagogy (Edwards & Kraft, 2024; Irwin et al., 2024). However, possessing valuable classroom experience is often insufficient to overcome the substantial financial and structural barriers paraprofessionals face when seeking professional licensure. As working adults who frequently manage family responsibilities alongside full-time employment, these candidates represent a distinct demographic of non-traditional students with unique needs (Carver-Thomas, 2018b). In addition to navigating university coursework, they often face gatekeeping mechanisms, such as standardized licensure exams, which disproportionately screen out candidates of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds regardless of their classroom efficacy (Petchauer, 2012). Without targeted intervention, the transition to university coursework is precarious; the cumulative costs of tuition, fees, and textbooks, compounded by the significant opportunity cost of unpaid student teaching, can prove insurmountable (Gist et al., 2019; USBE, 2021b). Consequently, economic necessity often forces these candidates into part-time enrollment, a trajectory that significantly delays TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 9 degree completion and correlates with higher attrition rates (Garcia & Weiss, 2019; Podolsky et al., 2016; USBE, 2021a). To mitigate these risks, preparation models must evolve. According to Edwards and Kraft (2024), traditional teacher preparation often fails to account for the constraints of full-time school staff, with limited evening options and inflexible sequencing impeding progress. Sustainable financing through scholarships, paid residencies, and employer partnerships is therefore essential to ensure equitable access and scalability (Carver-Thomas & DarlingHammond, 2019; USBE, 2024). By aligning financial support with flexible program design, districts can remove the barriers that historically exclude capable paraprofessionals from the teaching profession. TAPT Program Overview Launched in 1995, the TAPT program was designed to mitigate these precise structural and financial barriers. Six superintendents from rural (Morgan and North Summit) and urban (Box Elder, Davis, Ogden, and Weber) school districts requested that Weber State University establish the TAPT program to create a long-term pathway from paraprofessional positions to licensed teaching roles. TAPT is an evidence-based preparation pathway enabling K-12 school employees to earn full licensure for public and rural schools. The program prepares teachers in collaboration with area schools and districts, as well as the Weber State University Teacher Education Department. The TAPT program provides fiscal and academic support to help staff pursue university studies, strengthen their instructional abilities to assist teachers and work effectively with students, increase determination to complete certification and graduation requirements, and meet the ultimate goal of full teaching licensure and a teaching position in Utah schools (TAPT TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 10 Policy, 2024). While financial support is necessary for tuition, academic and emotional support are vital for retention. Participants attend mandatory monthly meetings led by program directors, which have been shown to boost graduation rates and decrease time to certification (TAPT Policy, 2024). For nearly 30 years, TAPT has helped over 300 school support staff earn their teaching licenses and prepare to work by providing financial support, academic assistance, and mentoring. The TAPT model has shown remarkable success in recruiting and retaining teacher candidates, with high completion rates and steady demand. However, little is known about the longitudinal benefits and challenges for the participants in the TAPT program. Since 2012, Weber State University has collected end-of-year evaluations, creating a longitudinal dataset regarding participant experiences and satisfaction. The literature establishes that while teacher shortages present a critical and growing challenge to educational equity (García & Weiss, 2019; Sutcher et al., 2019), paraprofessionals offer a resilient, community-centered solution to stabilizing the workforce (Carver-Thomas, 2018b; Edwards & Kraft, 2024; Gist et al., 2019). Grow your own models similar to TAPT capitalize on the diversity, local ties, and classroom experience of these staff members to fill high-need vacancies. However, the transition from support staff to licensed educator is burdened with structural, financial, and institutional barriers that traditional university preparation often fails to address. The TAPT program exemplifies a sustained, evidence-based response to these challenges, leveraging a three-decade partnership between Weber State University and local districts to provide the necessary fiscal, academic, and emotional scaffolding for teacher candidates. Despite TAPT’s demonstrated success in recruiting and graduating teachers, there TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 11 remains a need to analyze in depth the specific components that contribute to long-term retention and ongoing employment. By examining the longitudinal benefits and limitations identified by participants, this study aims to provide data-driven recommendations to further strengthen the pipeline. Purpose This mixed-methods study evaluates the longitudinal efficacy of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) program at Weber State University from 2012 to 2025. While the program has successfully graduated teachers for three decades, there is a need to empirically examine which specific program components contribute most significantly to candidate retention and which structural barriers remain. Specifically, this study aims to identify the programmatic elements that participants perceive as most beneficial to their professional development and to isolate the limitations that hinder their success. To achieve these objectives, the study is guided by the following research questions:  RQ1: What are the perceived benefits of the TAPT program according to participants from 2012 to 2025?  RQ2: What are the identified limitations and structural barriers of the TAPT program according to participants from 2012 to 2025? Methods This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design utilizing secondary data from annual TAPT evaluation questionnaires administered from 2012 to 2025. A convergent design was selected to allow for the triangulation of data, where quantitative metrics regarding program satisfaction could be compared against qualitative themes derived from open-ended participant TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 12 feedback. This approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of the program's impact than either method could offer alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Participants The study utilized archival data from all TAPT participants who completed an annual program evaluation between 2012 and 2025. The dataset comprises responses collected across three distinct administrative phases: Phase I (2012–2018, n = 149), Phase II (2019–2023, n = 162), and Phase III (2024–2025, n = 39). Because many candidates remained in the program for multiple years and completed evaluations annually, data are reported as total response rates rather than unique participant rates. This approach was selected to protect participant anonymity and to accurately capture how student needs and experiences evolved longitudinally. Data Sources The primary instrument for data collection was the annual TAPT program evaluation survey. Over the 13-year period, the instrument underwent three significant revisions to enhance the depth of participant feedback. Below is a description of the main topics of each survey iteration. A detailed comparison of the survey iterations is provided in Appendix A.  Phase I (2012–2018): The initial survey consisted of 11 items, predominantly binary ("yes/no") questions, with four open-ended prompts focused on program compliance.  Phase II (2019–2023): The survey was streamlined to nine questions with a greater emphasis on qualitative data. Key changes included converting mentoring inquiries from binary to open-ended formats to capture the nuance of participant support needs.  Phase III (2024–Present): The most recent iteration introduced a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”) for administrative questions to measure satisfaction. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 13 Data Collection Procedures Data were obtained from Weber State University’s TAPT archives with authorization from program directors. The collection process followed strict ethical guidelines. IRB Approval. The study received approval from the Weber State University Institutional Review Board (see Appendix B). Data Retrieval & Storage. Electronic data records were downloaded from secure, password-protected university servers. All records were subsequently stored in Box, the university-approved, secure, password-protected digital storage system. De-identification. All records were stripped of direct identifiers to ensure participant anonymity prior to analysis. Historical hard-copy records were digitized and organized into a unified dataset. Data Analysis Data analysis proceeded in two distinct phases: a qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses and a quantitative analysis of survey metrics. Qualitative Analysis To address the research questions regarding program benefits and limitations, the qualitative data drawn from open-ended survey responses were analyzed using Thematic Analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). This method provided a flexible yet systematic framework for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within the data. The analysis involved a recursive process consisting of four primary coding iterations. Data Familiarization. The researcher engaged in repeated readings of the qualitative responses to gain a holistic understanding of the participant feedback. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 14 Coding. Initial codes were generated to identify and label significant features of the data relevant to the research questions (e.g., "Financial Aid," "Mentoring Support," "Time Constraints"). Theme Development. These codes were subsequently collated into potential themes to capture broader patterns regarding the perceived benefits and limitations of the program. Reviewing and Defining Themes. The candidate themes were refined and reviewed with the project chair to ensure they accurately reflected the dataset, with a specific focus on distinguishing clearly between program supports (RQ1) and program barriers (RQ2). Quantitative Analysis The quantitative phase focused on descriptive statistics to evaluate program outcomes and limitations. Additionally, means and response frequencies were analyzed for Likert-scale items and binary response questions to assess the intensity of participant satisfaction regarding program administration, financial communication, and meeting relevance. Results The qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses from 2012 to 2025 yielded distinct themes regarding the efficacy of the TAPT program. To substantiate these themes, participant feedback was categorized into ten distinct codes through an iterative process of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The following section details the primary themes related to the perceived benefits (RQ1) and limitations (RQ2) of the program, integrating the specific qualitative codes that emerged from the raw data. Themes of the Perceived Benefits TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 15 Based on the coding analysis, financial support and high-touch mentorship were identified as the most significant drivers of recruitment and retention. Additionally, the cohort structure and practical application of skills emerged as vital secondary benefits. Financial Support: Critical Access and Debt Avoidance Financial support emerged as the primary driver for program entry. The data indicate that for this specific demographic, working paraprofessionals with families, tuition coverage is not merely a bonus but a critical access mechanism. For example, one participant stated, "I would not be going to college without TAPT," highlighting that grant funding removed the entry barrier. Beyond access, the funding functioned as a mechanism for debt avoidance. Participants viewed the funding as a specific relief from future liability, noting that "knowing my tuition was covered, and I was not continuing to accrue debt with federal loans, greatly reduced my anxiety". This financial safety net allowed students to focus on coursework rather than financial survival. As one respondent summarized, "financially, I wouldn't be able to do it... I have needed TAPT to provide a clear direct route to complete my degree." High-Touch Mentorship and Institutional Navigation While funding facilitated entry, mentorship appeared to be the key factor in retention. Participants described a unique style of advising that differentiated TAPT from standard university counseling. This theme was defined by three specific codes. The first code of personalized care, participants described the advising from the program director as "holding my hand through the whole experience," noting that it provided a level of personalized care that exceeded standard university interactions. The second code that emerged during analysis was imposter syndrome mitigation. This mentorship helped mitigate the doubt often felt by returning students. Participants described the director as “always available” to answer questions and TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 16 provide encouragement, effectively countering attrition risks. For example, a student noted that “I feel at ease knowing that I know someone to go to if I have a question”. Furthermore, the mentorship provided system decoding, acting as a necessary tool for understanding university requirements that might otherwise have been missed. This guidance revealed the hidden resources, making previously invisible university services accessible. As one student noted, "Even as a student before TAPT, I had no idea the programs and assistance available to me as a WSU student”. Cohort Support and Real-Time Application Finally, the analysis highlighted the value of the cohort model and professional relevance. Participants described a family-like bond within the program which prevented isolation. They emphasized the value of having peers to "call and ask questions to, work on projects with, and learn from," stating, "It's like having a family at school". Additionally, respondents reported realtime application of their learning, noting an immediate transfer of skills to their jobs. One respondent observed, "I can apply many things I learn in my courses in the classroom... [it] helps me to be a better, more aware, computer teacher”. Identified Limitations and Structural Barriers While participant feedback was predominantly positive, the analysis revealed specific structural friction points. Two primary themes regarding program limitations emerged, financial ambiguity and curriculum disconnect. Financial Ambiguity A recurring code throughout the longitudinal dataset was financial ambiguity. While the provision of funding was celebrated, the lack of transparency regarding specific account balances was a persistent source of stress. A subset of respondents commented on financial ambiguity TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 17 stating that they felt, "uninformed about their specific account standings" and “didn’t know what amount I had to use for the next semester”. Quantitative data reinforced this sentiment. Between 2012 and 2022, the survey item asking if participants were "kept informed about the balances in your personal account" consistently received the highest volume of negative responses, 26 (8%). This suggests that while funding removes the burden of payment, the opacity of the billing process remains a significant administrative challenge. Curriculum Disconnect in Presenters at Mandatory Meetings The second limitation, curriculum disconnect, emerged from feedback regarding the presenters at mandatory monthly meetings. While the cohort model was valued for social support, the educational content occasionally failed to meet the specific developmental needs of all participants. In 2012, 10% of participants stated presenters "did not provide helpful information," a sentiment that not only recurred, but intensified in 2024, rising to 23% disagreement. This feedback indicates a one-size-fits-all approach may be ineffective for the entire pipeline, as advanced students require different professional development than new entrants. Quantitative Analysis Longitudinal Trends (2012–2025) Descriptive statistics were calculated for all closed-ended questions. Data from Phases I and II were aggregated to track longitudinal trends in binary response rates, while data from Phase III were analyzed to determine mean satisfaction levels. The analysis revealed a program with exceptionally high baseline satisfaction, punctuated by specific administrative challenges related to financial transparency. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 18 During Phase I (2012–2018), the most striking trend was the disparity between mentoring support and financial administration. In every recorded year, 100% of respondents affirmed that the TAPT administrative team provided mentoring and encouragement (see Table 1). This consistency validates the proactive advising model as a cornerstone of participant success. Conversely, the variable regarding personal account balance information showed significant volatility. Dissatisfaction peaked in 2015, with 38.5% of participants reporting they were not kept informed about their balances (see Table 1). This variance suggests a historical disconnect between the awarding of scholarships and the transparency of billing statements. Table 1 Longitudinal Participant Satisfaction (Yes/No Counts) 2012–2018 Survey Question Total, N Yes, n (%) No, n (%) Year 2012 Mentoring Provided 40 40 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 40 40 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 40 33 (83%) 7 (18%) Funding Info Provided 40 40 (100%) 0 (0%) Year 2013 Mentoring Provided 31 31 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 31 31 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 31 31 (100%) 0 (0%) Funding Info Provided 31 31 (100%) 0 (0%) Year 2014 Mentoring Provided 9 9 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 9 9 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 9 8 (89%) 1 (11%) Funding Info Provided 9 9 (100%) 0 (0%) TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 19 Year 2015 Mentoring Provided 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 13 8 (62%) 5 (38%) Funding Info Provided 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) Year 2016 Mentoring Provided 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) Funding Info Provided 7 7 (100%) 0 (0%) Year 2017 Mentoring Provided 20 20 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 20 20 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 20 15 (75%) 5 (25%) Funding Info Provided 20 20 (100%) 0 (0%) Year 2018 Mentoring Provided 29 29 (100%) 0 (0%) Info on Student Services 29 29 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 29 29 (100%) 0 (0%) Funding Info Provided 29 29 (100%) 0 (0%) N = 149 n = 131 (88%) n = 18 (12%) Totals Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The period from 2019 to 2023 (Phase II) indicates a stabilization of administrative processes, though minor discrepancies regarding account balances persisted (see Table 2). This phase also introduced data on the utility of meeting presenters. While feedback was overwhelmingly positive, a consistent minority (approximately 1–2 respondents per year) reported that the information provided was not useful. This aligns with qualitative findings regarding a potential curriculum disconnect for some students. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 20 Table 2 Longitudinal Participant Satisfaction (Yes/No Counts) 2019–2023 Survey Question Total, N Yes, n (%) No, n (%) - - Mentoring Provided Year 2019 N/A* Info on Student Services 34 34 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 34 34 (100%) 0 (0%) Funding Info Provided 34 32 (94%) 2 (6%) Year 2020 Mentoring Provided N/A* - - Info on Student Services 34 34 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 34 32 (94%) 2 (6%) Funding Info Provided 34 33 (97%) 1 (3%) Year 2021 Mentoring Provided N/A* - - Info on Student Services 32 32 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 32 30 (94%) 2 (6%) Funding Info Provided 32 31 (97%) 1 (3%) Year 2022 Mentoring Provided N/A* - - Info on Student Services 32 32 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 32 29 (91%) 3 (9%) Funding Info Provided 32 31 (97%) 1 (3%) Year 2023 Mentoring Provided N/A* - - Info on Student Services 30 30 (100%) 0 (0%) Informed on Account Balances 30 29 (97%) 1 (3%) Funding Info Provided 30 30 (100%) 0 (0%) N = 162 n = 149 (92%) n = 13 (8%) Totals TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 21 *Note: In 2019, the mentoring provided question format changed to open-ended, implying qualitative affirmation but removing binary tracking. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. The transition to a 5-point Likert scale in Phase III (2024–2025) provided deeper insight into participant sentiment. Data indicated that the financial ambiguity issue has been largely resolved, with 82% of respondents in 2024 selecting strongly agree regarding account balance information (see Table 3). However, the data regarding meeting presenters revealed the highest variance. In 2024, only 45% of participants strongly agreed that presenters were useful, while 23% selected neither or disagree. This contrast indicates that while logistical support is now strong, the content provided by presenters at mandatory meetings may not be resonating with all participants. Table 3 2024–2025 Likert Scale Results 2024 M SA SWA N SWD SD Helped understand Policies/Procedures 4.27 12 7 1 1 1 Business portions helped access info 4.45 15 4 1 2 0 Presenters provided useful info 4.14 10 7 3 2 0 Informed about account balances 4.68 18 2 1 1 0 Provided info on student services 4.50 14 6 1 1 0 2025 M SA SWA N SWD SD Helped understand Policies/Procedures 4.35 10 5 1 0 1 Business portions helped access info 4.47 12 3 1 0 1 Presenters provided useful info 4.06 8 5 2 1 1 Informed about account balances 4.76 16 0 0 0 1 Provided info on student services 4.59 13 3 0 0 1 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 22 Note: Scale: SA=Strongly Agree, SWA=Somewhat Agree, N=Neither, SWD=Somewhat Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree Discussion This study evaluated the longitudinal efficacy of the TAPT program at Weber State University from 2012 to 2025. By analyzing over a decade of participant feedback, the research isolated specific components driving retention among paraprofessionals and identified persistent barriers. The findings underscore a clear duality in the Grow Your Own (GYO) model, while financial support acts as the essential gatekeeper for program entry, the combination of hightouch mentorship and cohort security ensures persistence and graduation (Reid, 2008). Hierarchy of Needs in Teacher Preparation The TAPT program's sustained success is theoretically grounded in its systematic approach to addressing the hierarchy of needs for non-traditional students (Maslow, 1954). While traditional university preparation often expects students to focus immediately on academic self-actualization through rigorous coursework, the TAPT model first stabilizes the foundational deficiency needs that typically hinder paraprofessional progress. By providing consistent fiscal support and debt avoidance, the program satisfies physiological and safety needs, effectively mitigating the threat to financial survival identified by participants as a primary barrier to entry. Once these foundational needs are met, the family-like bond established through the cohort model fulfills the need for belongingness, countering the isolation often experienced by adult learners. Simultaneously, the high-touch and constant mentorship provided by program directors fosters professional esteem and mitigates the imposter syndrome common among first-generation college students. It is only after these physiological, TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 23 safety, and social requirements are satisfied that candidates are psychologically empowered to achieve the peak of the hierarchy, academic self-actualization, and successful teacher licensure. The Financial Paradox The study identifies a critical paradox: participants can be highly satisfied with the receipt of funding, yet significantly dissatisfied with the amount of information regarding it. This highlights a psychological nuance for financially precarious students, where uncertainty is nearly as detrimental as a lack of funds. The anxiety surrounding the logistics of payment, "what if the money doesn't come", can be a source of stress for students. Therefore, transparency is not merely an administrative courtesy, it is a vital retention tool. Financial Support as an Equity Mechanism Qualitative data overwhelmingly identified financial support as the primary gatekeeper for program entry. Participants consistently noted that without tuition coverage, they would not have attempted university coursework due to debt aversion. This aligns with Gist and colleagues (2019), who argue that tuition coverage in GYO programs functions as a critical equity mechanism, offsetting opportunity costs that historically bar non-traditional candidates, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, from the teaching profession. However, results suggest that financial aid alone is insufficient. While funding removed the initial entry barrier, it did not address the hidden curriculum of higher education. Participants reported relying heavily on the program to decode university requirements, such as Praxis exams and student services. This validates Petchauer’s (2012) assertion that gatekeeping mechanisms like licensure exams disproportionately screen out capable non-traditional candidates unless targeted interventions are in place. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 24 The Role of Proactive Mentorship Once admitted, participant retention was largely driven by the active involvement of the program director, a form of vertical mentorship characterized by proactive, personalized care. Participants described this support as "holding my hand through the whole experience," effectively mitigating the imposter syndrome often felt by returning adult learners. This supports Garcia and colleagues (2025), who posit that successful GYO pathways must rely on dedicated advisors providing emotional scaffolding rather than standard, transactional university counseling. Recommendations Based on the longitudinal analysis of participant data, the following recommendations aim to resolve identified administrative friction points while institutionalizing the mentorship elements driving candidate success. Modernize Financial Infrastructure Data revealed a persistent structural vulnerability regarding financial communication, with up to 38% of participants in a given year reporting they were uninformed about account balances. For paraprofessionals, this ambiguity creates unnecessary stress that undermines the program's support mission. To mitigate this, the program should modernize its administrative infrastructure by implementing a secure, real-time digital dashboard. This portal must allow participants to view remaining scholarship funds, textbook allocations, and semester expenditures on demand. Moving from manual updates to digital transparency will reduce financial anxiety and decrease the administrative burden on program staff. Differentiate the Hidden Curriculum TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 25 While the cohort model serves a vital social function, quantitative data indicated a curriculum disconnect in the relevance of presenters at monthly meetings for a minority of students. A one-size-fits-all approach to professional development risks alienating advanced candidates. The program should adopt a differentiated model when including presenters at mandatory monthly meetings. Tier 1 meetings for novice entrants should focus on system decoding (e.g., registration, testing center access, financial aid), while Tier 2 meetings for advanced candidates should focus on professional identity (e.g., classroom management, licensure exam prep, student teaching placement). This differentiation ensures content remains high-leverage for all participants. Institutionalize Proactive Advising Qualitative results attributed significant retention success to the direct intervention of the program director. However, relying on the dedication of a single leader presents a sustainability risk. To ensure pipeline longevity, the program must institutionalize this proactive advising model by explicitly codifying these responsibilities and ensuring that dedicated advisors are structurally required and funded. This aligns with Garcia et al. (2025), ensuring emotional scaffolding remains a permanent fixture of the program architecture rather than a temporary benefit dependent on specific personnel. Systematize Data Collection for Longitudinal Tracking The analysis noted limitations due to shifting survey metrics over the 13-year period. To accurately measure long-term impact, data collection must be standardized. The program should establish a standardized, annual exit survey and a post-graduation employment tracker. Maintaining consistent Likert-scale questions regarding financial transparency and meeting utility will allow for accurate year-over-year comparisons. Additionally, tracking graduates into TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 26 their first five years of teaching will provide critical data on retention after the pipeline, validating the long-term return on investment for partner districts. Limitations of the Study Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the data collection instrument underwent three significant revisions between 2012 and 2025 to improve granularity. Consequently, longitudinal comparisons for certain variables are limited, as question formats shifted from binary "yes/no" responses to open-ended and Likert-scale formats. Second, the data represent a form of survivorship bias. The evaluation surveys were completed by active participants who were successfully retained in the program. The perspectives of individuals who dropped out of TAPT prior to completing the end-of-year evaluations are underrepresented, potentially skewing the satisfaction metrics positively. Finally, because the survey responses were de-identified to protect participant anonymity, it was not possible to correlate specific feedback with student demographic data. This limits the study’s ability to analyze whether specific subgroups experienced the program’s benefits or barriers differently. Conclusion This 30-year evaluation of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching (TAPT) program highlights the critical role of specialized pipelines in addressing modern teacher shortages. The data demonstrate that while paraprofessionals possess the classroom experience and community ties necessary to become effective educators, they face distinct structural and financial barriers that traditional university pathways often fail to address. The findings offer a clear blueprint for Grow Your Own (GYO) initiatives: financial support acts as the necessary mechanism for access, but high-touch, vertical mentorship ensures retention. By alleviating the burden of debt and providing proactive emotional scaffolding, TAPT has successfully converted hundreds of TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION support staff into licensed teachers. However, as the program moves into its fourth decade, modernizing its financial infrastructure and differentiating professional development will be essential to sustaining this success. Ultimately, the TAPT model confirms that by combining fiscal investment with human connection, school districts can look within their own ranks to solve the teacher shortage crisis. 27 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 28 References Abbate-Vaughn, J., & Paugh, P. C. (2009). The paraprofessional-to-teacher pipeline: Barriers and accomplishments. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), 16-29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887836 Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of educational research, 89(5), 697-744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Carver-Thomas, D. (2018a, April 19). Diversifying the teaching profession through highretention pathways. Research Brief. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/diversifying-teaching-profession-brief Carver-Thomas, D. (2018b). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/diversifying-teaching-profession-report Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-turnover-report Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 29 DiNapoli, T.P. (2021, May 13). New York’s economy and finances in the COVID-19 ERA. Office of the New York State Comptroller. https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/new-yorkseconomy-and-finances-covid-19-era-may-13-2021 Edwards, D. S., & Kraft, M. A. (2024). Grow your own: An umbrella term for very different localized teacher pipeline programs. Educational Researcher, 54(6), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251333404 Garcia, A. (2020). Grow your own teachers: A 50-state scan of policies and programs. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/grow-your-own-teachers/ Garcia, A., Carl, B., Gist, C. D., Edwards, D. S., Motamedi, J. G., Seelig, J., & Ahram, R. (2025, April 10). Research agenda: Grow your own teachers. Education Policy. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/briefs/research-agenda-grow-your-ownteachers/ García, E., & Weiss, E. (2019, March 26). The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than we thought: The first report in" the perfect storm in the teacher labor market" series. Economic policy institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-teacher-shortage-isreal-large-and-growing-and-worse-than-we-thought-the-first-report-in-the-perfect-stormin-the-teacher-labor-market-series/ Gist, C. D., Bianco, M., & Lynn, M. (2019). Examining Grow Your Own programs across the teacher development continuum: Mining research on teachers of color and nontraditional educator pipelines. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118787504 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 30 Ingersoll, R. M., & Tran, H. (2023). Teacher shortages and turnover in rural schools in the US: An organizational analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(2), 396–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231159914 Irwin, V., Wang, K., Jung, J., Kessler, E., Tezil, T., Alhassani, S., Filbey, A., Dilig, R., & Bullock Mann, F. (2024). Report on the Condition of Education 2024 (NCES 2024-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2024/2024144.pdf Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row. Petchauer, E. (2012). Teacher licensure exams and Black teacher candidates: Toward new theory and promising practice. Journal of Negro Education, 81(3), 252-267. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.81.3.0252 Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the teacher shortage: How to attract and retain excellent educators. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/solving-teacher-shortage Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 10861125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216653206 Reid, E. S. (2008). Mentoring peer mentors: Mentor education and support in the composition program. Composition Studies, 36(2), 51-79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43501741 Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education policy analysis archives, 27(35). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3696 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 31 Tan, T. S., Arellano, I., & Patrick, S. K. (2024). State teacher shortages 2024 update: Teaching positions left vacant or filled by teachers without full certification. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/state-teacher-shortages-vacancyresource-tool-2024 TAPT Policy. (2024). Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching policy. Revised Feb 2023. Weber State University. Ogden, UT. TAPT Year-end Report. (2024) Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching year-end report. Weber State University. Ogden, UT. Utah State Board of Education. (2021a). Grow your own teacher and school counselor pipeline program (Legislative Brief, H.B. 381). Utah State Legislature. https://le.utah.gov/~2021/bills/hbillenr/HB0381.pdf Utah State Board of Education. (2021b). Public education summary: 2021 general session. https://schools.utah.gov/policy/policy/utahlegislativesession/publiceducationsummary/20 21PublicEducationSummary.pdf Utah State Board of Education. (2024). Superintendent’s annual report: 2024. https://schools.utah.gov/superintendentannualreport/superintendentannualreport/2024Ann ualReport.pdf Valenzuela, A. (2017). Grow your own educator programs: A review of the literature with an emphasis on equity-based approaches. Intercultural Development Research Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582731 TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 32 Appendix A Program Evaluation Questions Survey Phase I (2012 through 2018) The initial survey consisted of eleven items, predominantly binary ("yes/no") questions, with four open-ended prompts focused on program compliance and basic satisfaction. 1. Have the monthly meetings helped you understand the TAPT program Policies and Procedures? 2. Have this year’s monthly meeting presenters provided useful information that you’ve used in working with students? 3. Have the business portions of this year’s monthly meetings helped you to access/retrieve university information? 4. Has the TAPT administrative team kept you informed about program funding? 5. Has the TAPT administrative team kept you informed about the balances in your personal account? 6. Does the TAPT administrative team provide information regarding Weber State University student services (i.e. tutoring, testing center, advisement. Etc.)? 7. Does the TAPT administrative team provide mentoring and encouragement throughout the program? 8. Explain how the TAPT program has influenced your college experience. 9. Explain how the TAPT program helped prepare you to be a teacher. 10. Explain how the TAPT program influenced your family. 11. Explain how the TAPT program has influenced your work in the schools. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 33 Survey Phase II (2019 through 2023) The survey was streamlined to nine questions with a greater emphasis on qualitative data. Key changes included converting mentoring inquiries from binary to open-ended formats to capture the nuance of participant support needs. 1. Have the monthly meetings helped you understand the TAPT Program Policies and Procedures? 2. Have the business portions of this year’s monthly meetings helped you to access/retrieve university information? 3. Have this year’s monthly meeting presenters provided useful information that you’ve used in working with students? 4. Has the TAPT administrative team kept you informed about the balances in your personal account? 5. Does the TAPT administrative team provide information regarding Weber State University student services (i.e. tutoring, testing center, advisement, etc.)? 6. How does the TAPT administrative team provide mentoring and encouragement throughout the program? 7. Explain how the TAPT program has influenced your college experience. 8. Explain how the TAPT program helped prepare you to be a teacher. 9. Explain how the TAPT program influenced your family and your work in the schools. TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 34 Survey Phase III (2024 through 2025) The most recent iteration introduced a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”) for administrative questions to measure satisfaction intensity. It also expanded qualitative opportunities by soliciting a one-word program summary and general suggestions. 1. The monthly meetings helped me understand the TAPT Program Policies and procedures. 2. The business portions of the monthly meetings helped me to access/retrieve university information. 3. The monthly meeting presenters provided useful information that I've used when working with students. 4. The TAPT administrative team kept me informed about the balances in my account. 5. The TAPT administrative team provides information regarding Weber State University student services (i.e., tutoring, testing center, advisement, etc.). 6. How does the TAPT administrative team provide mentoring and encouragement throughout the program? 7. Explain how the TAPT program has influenced your college experience. 8. Explain how the TAPT program helped prepare you to be a teacher? 9. Explain how the TAPT program influenced your family and work in the schools? 10. If you could sum up the TAPT Program in one word, what would that one word be? 11. Do you have any other thoughts, comments, or suggestions you would like to share about the TAPT program? TAPT PROGRAM EVALUATION 35 Appendix B IRB Approval Letter November 19, 2025 Sara Gailey, Jessie Nixon, Nathan Bingham College of Social Sciences & Education Re: Exempt - Initial - IRB-AY25-26-102 - Sustaining Teacher Pipelines: A 30-Year Evaluation of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching Program at Weber State University Dear Dr. Gailey: The Weber State University Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for the study "Sustaining Teacher Pipelines: A 30-Year Evaluation of the Teacher Assistant Pathway to Teaching Program at Weber State University." Decision: Approved Approval: November 19, 2025 Expiration: November 18, 2026 Selected Category: Category 4. Secondary research for which consent is not required: Secondary research uses of identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, if at least one of the following criteria is met: (ii) Information, which may include information about biospecimens, is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects; You may proceed once you have permission from the IRB of the Education Agency in which you are conducting your study. You have one year to complete the study. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. If you have any questions please contact your review committee chair. Sincerely, Wei Qiu, Ph.D. Chair, Moyes School of Education IRB Sub-Committee Weber State University Institutional Review Board