Journal of Educational and Psychological ...

This article was downloaded by: [Giangreco, Michael F.] On: 2 March 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919614974] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653646

Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools: A Review of Recent Research Michael F. Giangreco a; Jesse C. Suter a; Mary Beth Doyle b a University of Vermont, b St. Michael's College, Online publication date: 02 March 2010

To cite this Article Giangreco, Michael F., Suter, Jesse C. and Doyle, Mary Beth(2010) 'Paraprofessionals in Inclusive

Schools: A Review of Recent Research', Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20: 1, 41 — 57 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10474410903535356 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474410903535356

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:41–57, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online DOI: 10.1080/10474410903535356

Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools: A Review of Recent Research MICHAEL F. GIANGRECO and JESSE C. SUTER University of Vermont

MARY BETH DOYLE

Downloaded By: [Giangreco, Michael F.] At: 19:26 2 March 2010

St. Michael’s College

Effective collaboration with paraprofessionals is an important and growing aspect of providing special education services in inclusive schools. We reviewed recent research on special education paraprofessional issues and practices in U.S. schools between 2000 and 2007. Major findings of 32 identified studies were summarized in 9 topical categories: (a) hiring and retention of paraprofessionals, (b) training, (c) roles and responsibilities, (d) respect and acknowledgment, (e) interactions of paraprofessionals with students and staff, ( f ) supervision, (g) students’ perspectives on paraprofessional supports, (h) school change, and (i) alternatives to the use paraprofessionals. Implications and future directions are offered, including those focusing on clarifying the collaborative relationships among paraprofessionals and other educational team members. Walk into almost any classroom in the United States that includes students with disabilities, especially those with low incidence disabilities (e.g., autism, intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities), and you likely will find adults in addition to the teacher. Though you may expect special educators or related services personnel to be part of such classrooms periodically during the day, the other adults you are likely to encounter are paraprofessionals. There is no doubt that paraprofessionals are an established and growing presence in U.S. schools. Federal data indicate that as of 2005 approximately 390,000 special education teacher aides (the term used in federal reporting) worked in the field of special education and that approximately 40% of states have Correspondence should be sent to Michael F. Giangreco, University of Vermont, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion, 208 Colchester Ave., Mann Hall 301A, Burlington, VT 05405-1757. E-mail: [email protected] 41


42

M. F. Giangreco, J. C. Suter, and M. B. Doyle

more special education paraprofessional full time equivalents (FTEs) than special educator FTEs (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Despite the proliferating use of paraprofessionals, the most recent review of the special education paraprofessional literature concluded that few answers exist related to questions about the effectiveness of paraprofessionals as supports for students with disabilities, in part because of the paucity of data on student outcomes (Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001). The purposes of this article are to summarize the research published since that review to facilitate collaboration among paraprofessionals and other special education team members and to offer implications for future research and practice. Though collaboration among all team members is essential for inclusive education to be successful, important issues pertaining to collaboration with paraprofessionals remain understudied and inadequately understood. By understanding the available research we hope the valuable resource present in the paraprofessional workforce may be better utilized to facilitate teamwork and support meaningful outcomes for students with disabilities in inclusive educational settings.

SELECTION CRITERIA AND LITERATURE SEARCH Rather than considering the full volume of literature regarding paraprofessionals, the scope of this article is restricted to research about U.S. special education paraprofessional issues and practices related to school-age students with disabilities in schools emphasizing inclusive practices and published in refereed journals since the last major review on this topic (Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001), that is, between January 2000 and June 2007. First, studies were identified by searching the Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index) and ERIC, using the terms paraprofessional and paraeducator. Second, we searched for research citations posted on Web sites dedicated to paraprofessional issues, such as the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals (www.nrcp.org), the PAR2 A Center at the University of Colorado at Denver (www.paracenter.org), and Project EVOLVE at the University of Vermont (www.uvm.edu/cdci/evolve). Third, we scanned the reference sections of studies we collected and other recent sources (e.g., books, articles, dissertations) to see if any additional studies could be identified.

PARAPROFESSIONAL RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM 2000 TO 2007 The following nine topical sections chronicle findings of 32 studies from 15 different journals (see Figure 1). Six of the topics parallel those from the past review; those topics are included here because they still represent


Paraprofessionals

43

DESCRIPTIVE Qualitative Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman (2001) IP, RR Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer (2001) RA, RR Tillery, Werts, Roark, & Harris (2003) HR Chopra & French (2004) RR, RA Chopra et al. (2004) RR, RA Werts, Harris, Tillery, & Roark (2004) RR Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco (2005) SP Malmgren & Causton-Theoharis (2006) IP Ghere & York-Barr (2007) HR Quantitative Drecktrah (2000) SD Whitaker (2000) PT French (2001) SD, RR Minondo, Meyer, & Xin (2001) RR Riggs (2001) PT Wallace, Shin, Bartholomay, & Stahl (2001) SD Giangreco, Backus, Chicoski Kelly, Sherman, & Mavropoulos (2003) PT Griffin-Shirley & Matlock (2004) PT Giangreco & Broer (2005) ALT, RR, SD Davis, Kotecki, Harvey, & Oliver (2007) PT, RR Giangreco & Broer (2007) ALT Mixed Methods (Quantitative & Qualitative) Riggs & Mueller (2001) RR, PT, RA Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman (2002a) SC Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman (2002b) HR, PT, RR Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer (2003) SC Wall, Davis, Crowley, & White (2005) PT EXPERIMENTAL Single-Subject Werts, Zigmond, & Leeper (2001) IP McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen (2002) PT Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy (2005) ALT Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren (2005) PT Malmgren, Causton-Theoharis, & Trezek (2005) PT Quilty (2007) PT Control Group Devlin (2005) PT Key codes for major topics: ALT D Alternatives to Use of Paraprofessionals; HR D Hiring and Retaining Paraprofessionals; IP D Interactions of Paraprofessionals with Students or Staff; PT D Paraprofessionals Training; RA D Respect and Acknowledgment; RR D Roles and Responsibilities; SD D Supervision and Directing the Work of Paraprofessionals; SC D School Change Pertaining to Paraprofessionals; SP D Students’ Perspectives

FIGURE 1 Research Regarding Special Education Paraprofessionals 2000–2007.

relevant categories. Three new categories were added because some data did not match the earlier categories. Nearly half of the studies reviewed (n D 15) were published in three widely circulated journals: Remedial and Special Education (n D 6), Exceptional Children (n D 5), and Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (n D 4). The remaining 17 studies

44


were published in 12 different journals. The rate of research on special education paraprofessionals has more than doubled since the last review, and the proportion of studies published in scholarly journals has increased. This suggests that paraprofessional issues are a growing area of interest and importance in the field. Among the included studies only 22% (n D 7) report some type of directly measured student outcomes on a combined total of only 26 students with disabilities, most with low incidence disabilities.


Hiring and Retaining Paraprofessionals Recent studies reiterated findings from earlier research, suggesting that it remains challenging for some schools to hire and retain a sufficient number of paraprofessionals with desired qualifications. Reasons include lack of respect, training, and administrative support as well as poorly defined job descriptions, low pay and benefits, and limited opportunities for advancement (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2002b; Tillery, Werts, Roark, & Harris, 2003). People who are attracted to paraprofessional positions reported common reasons they chose their jobs, including schedule compatibility with family circumstances, the desire to do work that contributes to their communities, and the enjoyment of working with children. Administrators reported feeling ‘‘lucky’’ when they were able to hire and retain qualified paraprofessionals. However, in some cases this was a catch22 because the likelihood of losing the most qualified paraprofessionals was higher given their access to better paying and higher status jobs both within and outside of education (Giangreco et al., 2002b; Tillery et al., 2003). Other paraprofessionals left their positions because of undesirable or stressful working conditions: ‘‘Many felt they were asked to perform duties that were unsafe, tasks for which they were untrained, or tasks beyond the reasonable expectations of the job’’ (Tillery et al., 2003, p. 125). Paraprofessionals assigned to students on a one-to-one basis were reported to experience more turnover than those assigned to classrooms or programs (Giangreco et al., 2002b). Ghere & York-Barr (2007) reported the hidden financial and educational costs associated with paraprofessional turnover, including the personnel time devoted to recruiting, screening, interviewing, orienting, and ongoing jobembedded training. Turnover can adversely affect students’ educational programs and have a disruptive effect on relationships among team members as well. These recent studies offer suggestions for hiring and retaining qualified paraprofessionals by improving working conditions and treating them as valued members of collaborative teams.

Paraprofessional Training Consistent with earlier research, recent data suggest that availability and adequacy of training for paraprofessionals remains a persistent need (Davis,


Paraprofessionals

45

Kotecki, Harvey, & Oliver 2007; Giangreco et al., 2002b; Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004; Riggs, 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001; Whitaker, 2000). Though numerous new and updated paraprofessional training materials exist, fieldtest data have been reported in reference to only one set (Giangreco, Backus, Cichoski Kelly, Sherman, & Mavropoulos, 2003). Paraprofessionals in this study gained knowledge, perspectives, and skills across content areas (e.g., inclusive education, characteristics of students with disabilities). The study also validated the importance of the training content and documented that it could be effectively delivered across training formats (e.g., 3 hr per week, intensive 3 days, interactive television). In another example, the ParaMet program provided training and college credits for paraprofessionals in urban settings to capitalize on their community knowledge and connections (Wall, Davis, Crowley, & White, 2005). Ninety percent of the ParaMet trainees were African American, they were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and they had earned a high school diploma or equivalent. This study highlighted the contributions and challenges faced by these paraprofessionals, who reported that they lacked training, especially for supporting students with behavioral challenges, and who were asked to assume duties beyond their skills. The authors indicated that some paraprofessionals who had difficulty in reading comprehension and writing skills required additional support to successfully complete the college-level program. Despite these challenges, paraprofessionals reported taking pride in their work and described their unique connection to their students because of their common backgrounds. The most systematic recent research extends earlier evidence that paraprofessionals can be effectively trained to undertake a variety tasks that result in positive student outcomes. For example, they have been prepared for embedding teacher-planned instruction (McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002), facilitating social interactions (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Devlin, 2005; Malmgren, Causton-Theoharis, & Trezek, 2005), and implementing social stories (Quilty, 2007).

Paraprofessional Roles and Responsibilities Current literature reiterates earlier findings that paraprofessional responsibilities have become increasingly instructional (Riggs & Mueller, 2001). However, some disagreement continues about appropriate roles for them, especially in these key areas: (a) the extent and nature of instruction (primary vs. supplemental), (b) planning and adapting educational activities, (c) role in assessment, (d) communication and liaison with parents, and (e) clerical duties (Chopra et al., 2004; Davis et al., 2007; Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2001, 2002b; Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001; Minondo, Meyer, & Xin, 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001; Werts, Harris, Tillery, & Roark, 2004).


46


Even in circumstances where general consensus exists in the field, for example, that general and special educators are responsible to plan instruction carried out by paraprofessionals, there continues to be documentation of paraprofessionals operating with high levels of autonomy, making instructional decisions, providing the bulk of instruction to some students, and doing so without adequate professional direction (French, 2001; Giangreco, Broer et al., 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001). These mismatches between desired and actual practices reportedly occur more frequently in situations where students with low incidence disabilities are receiving one-to-one paraprofessional supports (Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Werts et al., 2004). Recent data also continue to highlight the importance of role clarity and boundaries for teachers and paraprofessionals. Examples include interactions with parents and student instruction (Chopra & French, 2004; Chopra et al., 2004; Minondo et al., 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001). Having appropriately differentiated roles ensures that students with disabilities have sufficient access to highly qualified general and special educators. Wall and colleagues (2005) contended that lack of role clarity can exacerbate problems related to limited paraprofessional training.

Respect and Acknowledgment of Paraprofessionals Though issues of respect have been mentioned for many years, until recently virtually no data were available on this topic. Three descriptive studies now have directly addressed paraprofessional respect and acknowledgment (Chopra et al., 2004; Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001). Despite suggestions that school personnel value paraprofessionals, some paraprofessionals reported feeling neither respected nor valued as important members of the school community (Riggs & Mueller, 2001). Paraprofessionals indicated frustration related to being under, over, or improperly utilized as well as having their pay not reflect their effort and performance. In a focus group study examining the role paraprofessionals play as ‘‘connectors’’ among and between students, parents, teachers, and community service providers, participants indicated that being respected and valued members of a team was critical for them to work effectively (Chopra et al., 2004). Most reported that parents of the children they served respected them and appreciated their work. Some paraprofessionals reported feeling respected and valued by the teachers and administrators in their schools, whereas others reported just the opposite. In the sole study that focused exclusively on respect and appreciation issues, perspectives of paraprofessionals and other school personnel pointed to a connection between respect and job satisfaction (Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001). The findings offered six interrelated themes that highlighted the strong desire by paraprofessionals to feel valued including (a) nonmonetary signs of appreciation, (b) compensation, (c) being entrusted with important

Paraprofessionals

47

responsibilities (e.g., instruction), (d) noninstructional responsibilities, (e) the need to be listened to, and (f ) orientation and support. The study’s findings highlight the complexities of establishing an appropriate match between the skills of the paraprofessionals, the expectations for appropriate roles, and the importance of both instructional support and noninstructional duties.


Interactions of Paraprofessionals With Students and Staff Extending earlier research that paraprofessional proximity can interfere with peer interactions, Malmgren and Causton-Theoharis (2006) observed that paraprofessional proximity impeded the number of interactions between a student with emotional and behavioral disorders and his second-grade classmates. Contrary findings found by Werts, Zigmond, and Leeper (2001) suggested that paraprofessional proximity had a positive impact on academic engagement: the closer the paraprofessional, the more likely the students were actively or passively engaged. The authors did note a potential explanation for this phenomenon. All three study participants were accustomed to being supported and cued by paraprofessionals to be academically engaged, and so it was not surprising that when this typical support was moved away, they were less engaged—this may be evidence of cue dependence. This potential dependence on paraprofessionals was acknowledged by the authors. Giangreco, Broer, and Edelman (2001) documented that general education teachers tended to be more engaged with their students with disabilities, a critical feature necessary for meaningful inclusion, when paraprofessionals were assigned to their classrooms rather than to an individual student. Likewise, these same teachers were more likely to provide supervision and training and work collaboratively with classroom-based paraprofessionals than those assigned to individual students. Considered in combination, current research on paraprofessionals’ interactions with students and staff suggests the need to establish collaborative relationships with paraprofessionals to ensure that their interactions are consistent with overall efforts to support teachers and students.

Supervision and Directing the Work of Paraprofessionals Research during the 1990s highlighted persistent inadequacies in paraprofessional supervision. Although most special educators expect to direct the work of paraprofessionals, the majority report receiving little or no training on supervising paraprofessionals—most rely primarily on their on-the-job experiences (Drecktrah, 2000; French, 2001; Wallace, Shin, Bartholomay, & Stahl, 2001). This may explain why many teachers provide supervision that often does not align with effective practices (French, 2001; Wallace et al., 2001). For example, French documented that the majority of teachers she

48


studied reported that no one planned for the paraprofessional, and among those who did, most transmitted their plans orally. French expressed concern that paraprofessionals, who traditionally have little or no training, ‘‘may be working without direction or with hastily constructed or easily misconstrued oral directions’’ (p. 51), and she questioned the delivery of required special education services using this approach. Even when teachers have supervision skills, time may be a limiting factor. Giangreco and Broer (2005) reported that special educators in their sample devoted only 2% of their time for each paraprofessional they supervised.


Students’ Perspectives on Paraprofessional Supports Past research neglected the perspectives of students who had been assigned paraprofessional supports. One qualitative study now has been published that explicitly targeted the perceptions of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences receiving paraprofessional supports (Broer, Doyle, & Giangreco, 2005). The findings described four interrelated themes pertaining to participants’ perspectives of paraprofessionals as mother, friend, protector from bullying, and primary teacher. Each theme highlights the lack of connection between students with intellectual disabilities and general education teachers and peers. Although respondents offered a range of positive and negative views, both represent cause for concern. For example, although some consumers spoke positively about paraprofessionals having many qualities of nurturing mothers, others found paraprofessional mothering intrusive: ‘‘That’s why I didn’t have any best friends or a girlfriend in high school because I always had a mother on my back’’ (p. 421). Implications include encouraging schools to (a) consider the social validity of supports, (b) increase teacher engagement, (c) listen to students with disabilities, and (d) include students in making decisions about their own supports.

Paraprofessionals as Part of School Change Recently, data have begun to emerge that attempt to synthesize what is known about effective utilization of paraprofessionals in a manner that allows for self-assessment, prioritization, and action planning at the individual school level. In a pilot study with 4 schools and a more extensive follow-up study with 46 schools in 13 states, cross-stakeholder teams (e.g., teachers, special educators, administrators, parents, paraprofessionals) field-tested the planning tool, A Guide to Schoolwide Planning for Paraeducator Supports (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2002a; Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2003). The implementation of the schools’ action plans based on use of this tool served as a catalyst for change and had a positive impact on a range of outcomes for adults and students. Outcomes reported included (a) paraprofessionals knowing their jobs better, (b) improved paraprofessional morale,

Paraprofessionals

49

(c) increased awareness of paraprofessionals’ value, (d) paraprofessionals knowing students better, (e) retention of paraprofessionals, (f ) improved delivery of instruction, and (g) improved home-school collaboration. Also noted was that the implementation of the plans contributed to positive student outcomes, including improved student achievement, more inclusive opportunities, improved student behavior and safety, and increased peer interactions. These studies documented that schools with a wide range of demographic characteristics could successfully and independently use this tool to scrutinize their existing practices and enact authentic school improvement.


Alternatives to the Use of Paraprofessionals In response to earlier research documenting inadvertent detrimental effects of excessive or ill-conceived paraprofessional supports (e.g., dependence, stigmatization, interference with peer and teacher interactions), data have emerged recently regarding alternatives to such overreliance on paraprofessionals. For example, peer supports have been suggested as one effective alternative to overreliance on paraprofessionals. In a single-subject study, Carter, Cushing, Clark, and Kennedy (2005) reported that positive academic and social outcomes were enhanced when the target student with a disability was paired with two peers rather than one. Questionnaire data from 737 school personnel and parents of students with disabilities provided information that assisted schools in better understanding their use of paraprofessionals so they could make more informed decisions about pursuing potential alternatives (Giangreco & Broer, 2005). This study documented a series of concerns about existing special education service delivery, a subset of which indicated that in some cases (a) paraprofessionals spent a significant amount of time self-directed and were inappropriately making curricular or instructional decisions without professional oversight, (b) special educators spent less time engaged in instruction than paraprofessionals, (c) families were not sufficiently informed about paraprofessional issues, and (d) opportunities for collaboration among teachers and special educators were inadequate. The researchers suggested that concerns related to special education service delivery would not be addressed solely by improving paraprofessional practices. These concerns warrant potential alternatives that require changes in special and general education service delivery, capacity, and practices. In a separate study, Giangreco and Broer (2007) field-tested a 16-item screening tool to help schools to make informed decisions about whether to pursue more extensive self-assessment and planning regarding alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals. Over 80% of the schools reported concerns that paraprofessionals in their schools were viewed as the way, rather than a way, to support students with disabilities in general education classes,

50


provided academic supports in subjects where they were under- or unskilled, and spent substantial time in close proximity to students with disabilities. Over 80% of schools also reported concern that general education teachers were minimally or superficially involved with students with disabilities in their classes and that some students with disabilities were unnecessarily dependent on paraprofessionals, communicated that they found paraprofessional supports stigmatizing or unwanted, and were physically separated (with the paraprofessional) from the rest of the class. The findings suggested that these substantial concerns interfered with the delivery of high-quality inclusive schooling.


IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS As a body of evidence, recent research bolsters earlier data through replication of previous findings, adds descriptive depth and breadth to help us better understand paraprofessional issues and practices, and indicates an emerging line of single-subject inquiry suggesting that under specified conditions paraprofessionals can be effectively trained to implement teacherplanned activities that contribute to student outcomes. Together these studies offer a variety of practical actions on a variety of topics (e.g., hiring, retention, training, respect, proximity, teacher engagement, supervision) that can be enacted at the school, classroom, or individual student level to contribute to educational opportunities and outcomes for students with disabilities. Additionally, three new categories of research recently have emerged: (a) students’ perspectives on paraprofessional supports, (b) schoolwide change to support paraprofessional work, and (c) alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals. Although there is undoubtedly value in these recent studies, many key deficiencies in this body of research persist. The data still do little to help answer questions pertaining to the appropriateness, conceptual soundness, or effectiveness of paraprofessional supports for students with disabilities. Because nearly 80% of the reviewed studies were descriptive and those few that were experimental had many different dependent and independent variables, patterns in the research are not apparent. Considered in combination with the small amount of data on student outcomes, it can be concluded that the research on paraprofessionals remains insufficient to inform policy decisions with a high level of confidence. In many ways special education paraprofessionals in public schools are an enigma. Although it could be argued that their increasing numbers are an indicator of their perceived importance, as a group they may be among the most marginalized employees in schools as indicated in the studies on respect and appreciation (Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001;


Paraprofessionals

51

Riggs & Mueller, 2001). Many paraprofessionals continue to express feelings of isolation and disrespect, fueled by low compensation and the fact that too many of them continue to be asked to assume teacher duties without adequate preparation, training, direction, or supervision. Special education service models that are excessively dependent on paraprofessionals or use them in ways inconsistent with what is known about their effective utilization continue to raise serious ethical questions (Giangreco & Broer, 2005). The long-standing and troubling situation persists that, as a field, we continue to assign the least qualified personnel to students who present the most challenging learning and behavioral characteristics. Not only do such practices reduce the probability of ensuring that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate, public education (Etscheidt, 2005) but they may also be a sign that as a society, we still undervalue students with disabilities and have unnecessarily low expectations for them. Students with disabilities themselves expressed feelings of being devalued in cases where paraprofessionals impeded their opportunities to engage in learning activities, initiate social interactions, or access instruction from a general education teacher (see Broer et al., 2005). How else might we explain the double standard that continues to exist? If you are a student without a disability, highly qualified teachers deliver your education. If you are a student with a certain type of disability label (e.g., autism, emotional/behavioral disorders, intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities), the likelihood increases that you will receive a substantial part of your education from a paraprofessional who may be inadequately prepared, trained, and supervised (Broer et al., 2005; Giangreco & Broer, 2005). Such a scenario would be considered unacceptable for students without disabilities, yet we have grown to consider it acceptable for some students with disabilities, in part because these supports are offered with benevolent intentions, and they relieve pressures on teachers and special educators, many of whom feel overloaded with large and diverse classes and caseloads. In an analysis of historical and current challenges facing the U.S. special education system Hehir (2006) postulated, ‘‘The inappropriate use of paraprofessionals may reflect ableist assumptions about children with disabilities and have negative consequences for children’’ (pp. 73–74). Presumably, paraprofessionals’ deployment has an effect on student progress. However, in order to establish this as fact, further careful study of paraprofessionals is needed. We suggest that progress can be thoughtfully pursued using a three-pronged approach to (a) strengthen supports for existing paraprofessionals, (b) develop conceptually sound ways for making decisions about when paraprofessional supports are needed, and (c) explore alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals. By pursuing all three components simultaneously to scrutinize existing practices we increase the likelihood of confirming this assertion.


52


Though strengthening supports for existing paraprofessionals is certainly desirable, and the path may seem obvious (e.g., treat them better, match their roles to their skills, train them better, supply them with teacher-developed plans, provide ongoing supervision), success is foundationally dependent on role clarification. Defining appropriate roles and skills for paraprofessionals persists as an elusive and unresolved issue in the field. We believe that expecting paraprofessionals to perform duties more appropriately assigned to teachers (e.g., instruction, adapting educational activities and curriculum, assessment, liaison with parents), even with training, is an approach fraught with hazards. It can inadvertently lead us into a ‘‘training trap’’ (Giangreco, 2003) in which professional educators relinquish instruction of students with disabilities to paraprofessionals after they have received virtually any level of training, no matter how scant, reasoning, ‘‘Now they are trained.’’ Issues of roles, training, and other supports are inextricably linked with respect and appreciation that affect retention of quality personnel and their job satisfaction. We suggest that paraprofessional roles should be restricted to supplemental, teacher-designed instruction as well as essential noninstructional roles (e.g., clerical duties, materials preparation, personal care, group supervision) that help create time and opportunities for general and special educators to collaborate with each other and spend more time directly instructing students with disabilities. Interestingly, what is absent from the research literature may be one of the most important keys to clarifying appropriate roles and corresponding training for paraprofessionals, namely, clarifying the roles of general and special educators for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Do we truly want these professionals to collaborate with each other, co-teach, and provide instruction to students with disabilities? Or will we be lured by the false economy of service delivery models where special educators manage large caseloads of students with disabilities who are instructed more by paraprofessionals? Such models have neither a conceptual nor an empirical foundation and in cases where they exist (Giangreco & Broer, 2005), special educators have reported insufficient time to train and supervise the paraprofessionals. By focusing foremost on supporting students’ need, then clarifying and aligning the roles and working conditions of general and special educators, we believe the roles, training, and supervision needs of paraprofessionals will become increasingly clear. Decision making about the need for paraprofessional supports, particularly the need for one-to-one paraprofessional supports, has received scant attention in this discussion because insufficient agreement exists about how such decisions should be made and no research considers this topic. Although alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals have emerged as an area of study, they remain at an early stage of development. Both topics need to be pursued simultaneously, along with supports for existing paraprofessionals.

Paraprofessionals

53


FUTURE RESEARCH The need for future research regarding paraprofessionals is substantial and wide ranging. Because so many paraprofessionals currently serve in the special education system, part of an appropriate research agenda is to continue studying ways to strengthen supports provided for and by existing paraprofessionals. This should continue to include historically important topics such as hiring, retention, roles, respect, orientation, training, interactions with staff and students, and supervision, with the caveat that future research should more substantially fill gaps in the field’s knowledge and understanding, as noted throughout this review. We also need more research on effective training and supervision strategies and, perhaps most important, research linked to student outcomes. Studies exploring paraprofessional roles in isolation from other team members will likely not advance practice. Thus, future examination of paraprofessional roles should include the interrelated and distinct roles of general and special educators in ways that can be defended as conceptually sound (e.g., students have sufficient access to instruction from highly qualified content-area and special education teachers). This should include exploring service delivery parameters and arrangements that provide equitable educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Future research likewise should explore decision-making models for determining the conditions under which paraprofessional supports are warranted and the impact of these decisions on student outcomes and other classroom and school variables. At present, no such research has been reported. Any such models should have a strong conceptual or theoretical rationale and account for not only school personnel perspectives but also those of parents and incorporate elements of self-determination. One relatively new area of research need is exploring alternatives to reliance on paraprofessionals. This area of study encourages the field to avoid the temptation of assuming that the best way to support students with disabilities in a general education classroom is to assign a paraprofessional. By exploring and systemically studying alternatives to overreliance or inappropriate utilization of paraprofessionals, the field will be encouraged to further consider the nature of collaborative relationships among team members. In reference to all three areas of proposed future research (i.e., supports, decision making, alternatives) we will continue to need the full complement of descriptive, correlational, evaluative, quasi-experimental, and experimental research that can be appropriately matched to the myriad pertinent research questions regarding this dimension of special education. School-initiated action research will also play a potentially important role in future progress. Schools and families do not have the luxury of waiting for research to emerge; they are compelled to explore the issues presented in this article because students with disabilities continue to enter classroom

54


doors each day. By enacting changes and conducting research in each of these areas, we are hopeful that students’ needs will be better addressed and paraprofessionals will be utilized more effectively as respected members of collaborative teams.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Partial support for the preparation of this article was provided by the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Program, under the funding category Model Demonstration Projects for Children and Youth with Disabilities, CFDA 84.324M H324M020007, awarded to the Center on Disability and Community Inclusion at the University of Vermont. The contents of this article reflect the ideas and positions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the ideas or positions of the U.S. Department of Education; therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred.

REFERENCES 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, 415–430. 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. Causton-Theoharis, J. N., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). Increasing interactions between students with severe disabilities and their peers via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431–444. Chopra, R. V., & French, N. K. (2004). Paraeducator relationships with parents of students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 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. Davis, R. W., Kotecki, J. E., Harvey, M. W., & Oliver, A. (2007). Responsibilities and training needs of paraprofessionals in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 70–83. Devlin, P. (2005). Effect of continuous improvement training on student interaction and engagement. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 47–59. Drecktrah, M. E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ preparation to work with paraeducators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 157–164.


Paraprofessionals

55

Etscheidt, S. (2005). Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 60–80. French, N. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher practices. Journal of Special Education 35, 41–53. Ghere, G., & York-Barr, J. (2007). Paraprofessional turnover and retention in inclusive programs: Hidden costs and promising practices. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 21–32. Giangreco, M. F. (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 50–53. Giangreco, M. F., Backus, L., Cichoski Kelly, E., Sherman, P., & Mavropoulos, Y. (2003). Paraeducator training materials to facilitate inclusive education: Initial field-test data. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(1), 17–27. 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., & Broer, S. M. (2007). School-based screening to determine overreliance on paraprofessionals. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 149–158. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences based on paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 75– 86. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2002a). Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports: A pilot study. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 21(1), 3–15. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2002b). ‘‘That was then, this is now!’’ Paraprofessional supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptionality, 10, 47–64. 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. (2003). Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports. Exceptional Children, 70, 63–79. 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, 45–63. Griffin-Shirley, N., & Matlock, D. (2004). Paraprofessionals speak out: A survey. RE:View: Rehabilitation and Education in Blindness and Visual Impairments, 36, 127–136. Hehir, T. (2006). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Malmgren, K. W., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N. (2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of paraprofessional proximity and other pedagogical decisions on the interactions of a student with behavior disorders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 301–312.


56


Malmgren, K. W., Causton-Theoharis, J. N., & Trezek, B. J. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with behavioral disorders via paraprofessional training. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 95–106. McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363–377. Minondo, S., Meyer, L. H., & Xin, J. F. (2001). The role and responsibilities of teaching assistants in inclusive education: What’s appropriate? Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 114–119. Quilty, K. M. (2007). Teaching paraprofessionals how to write and implement social stories for students with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 182–189. Riggs, C. G. (2001). Ask the paraprofessionals: What are your training needs? Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(3), 78–83. Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35, 54–62. Tillery, C. Y., Werts, M. G., Roark, R., & Harris, S. (2003). Perceptions of paraeducators on job retention. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 118– 127. U. S. Department of Education. (2005). Personnel employed (FTE) to provide special, education and related services to children and students ages 3-21 under IDEA, Part B, by personnel type, certification status and state: Fall 2005 [Data file]. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.ideadata.org Wall, S., Davis, K. L. W., Crowley, A. L., & White, L. L. (2005). The urban paraprofessional goes to college. Remedial and Special Education 26, 183–190. Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & Stahl, B. (2001). Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67, 520–533. Werts, M. G., Harris, S., Tillery, C. Y., & Roark, R. (2004). What parents tell us about paraeducators. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 232–239. Werts, M. G., Zigmond, N., & Leeper, D. C. (2001). Paraprofessional proximity and academic engagement: Students with disabilities in primary aged classrooms. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 424–440. Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Training needs of paraprofessionals in occupational education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 23(2), 173–185.

Michael F. Giangreco, PhD, is professor in the Department of Education and the Center on Disability & Community Inclusion in the College of Education and Social Services at the University of Vermont. His work focuses on various aspects of inclusive education for students with developmental disabilities such as school-based service delivery, curriculum adaptation, and paraprofessional issues. Jesse C. Suter, PhD, is a research assistant professor in the Department of Education and the Center on Disability & Community Inclusion in the College of Education and Social Services

Paraprofessionals

57

at the University of Vermont. His professional interests include the research, development, and evaluation of community and school-based programs for preventing and responding to emotional and behavioral challenges, especially the wraparound process and positive behavioral supports. Mary Beth Doyle, PhD, is department chair and associate professor of Education at Saint Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont. Her primary areas of interest are teacher preparation, creating inclusive educational opportunities for students with moderate and severe disabilities, curriculum adaptations, and paraprofessional development.


Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript.