Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go back to Section 3: Design and Methodology

Section 4
Findings

Analysis of data across all three cases resulted in six clusters of findings. The findings are descriptive and include both common and unique experiences, strategies, and reflections across the cases. Described first are findings about the work of special education paraprofessionals and about the work of special education teachers related to directing the work of paraprofessionals. Next, ways in which paraprofessionals were supported to develop the knowledge and skills to work with students with disabilities are presented, including a section that focuses on the essential role of collaborative relationships. Finally, recruitment and employment processes are described and issues related to turnover of paraprofessionals are highlighted.

Two context variables appear particularly relevant to the programs designated as being successful inclusive education programs. First, four of the six schools in the case studies opened as inclusive schools. It is reasonable to assume that an intentionally inclusive school design and staffing would be significant variables in the creation of successful inclusive education programs for students with disabilities. Second, five of the six special education teachers and the lead special education teachers who were interviewed for this study had worked previously in other schools and special education programs. Evident during the interviews and the analysis of data was the influence of these past experiences in shaping their current inclusive programs. Sometimes the past experiences were positive and the teachers brought with them practices that previously had been successful. Other times the past experiences served as examples of what not to do. Regardless, the contrast of experiences in different contexts served as a point of reflection for improvement in practice. Given the tendency of teachers to stay in one school, program, and even classroom for their entire careers, it seemed worthy of note that almost all these teachers had practiced elsewhere and used the learning in those previous places for productive ends in their present situations.

The Work of Special Education Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Education Programs

The special education teachers and administrators described an effective paraprofessional as someone who understands the differences between the teachers’ and paraprofessionals’ roles, accepts the educational philosophy of the program, and works with the teachers to educate students with disabilities. Further, such a paraprofessional was described as non-confrontational, a good communicator, confident in his or her decisions, energized by the work, and exhibiting an “overall sense of calm” in a typically hectic, inclusive environment. Paraprofessionals in this study described an effective paraprofessional as someone who is able to build relationships with students and who understands when to provide or reduce student assistance. A paraprofessional was viewed as demonstrating appropriate decision-making, anticipating what might happen next, and responding well in a crisis. Together these descriptions portray someone with a high degree of savvy and skill to work with both students and adults in a variety of ever-changing environments.

The first set of findings presented in this section describes approaches used by the school districts to allocate paraprofessional support to schools, programs, and students. The second set of findings presents specific roles and responsibilities required of paraprofessionals to address the needs of individual students with disabilities in inclusive education settings.

Approaches to Allocating Paraprofessional Support

Discussions about how to allocate and utilize paraprofessional resources efficiently and effectively were evident at all levels within the three school districts. District and school personnel juggled many considerations to determine the size of the paraprofessional workforce, the number of paraprofessionals allocated to buildings and special education programs, and the ways in which paraprofessionals were utilized within the special education programs. District, school, and team level practices for allocating paraprofessionals are described below.

“Program” Versus “One-to-One” Paraprofessionals

All six schools within the three case districts were moving away from utilizing “one-to-one” paraprofessionals to relying more on “program” paraprofessionals. A “one-to-one” paraprofessional was described as being assigned to work with one student for the whole school day. In contrast, “program” paraprofessionals were assigned to special education programs with the special education teachers deciding how to best use paraprofessional time and talent to support multiple students.

One of the school districts, Forest, shifted from one-to-one to program paraprofessionals about a decade ago. This involved a formal change in district policy. In the other two districts, the shift has been occurring more informally. The Forest School District formally eliminated its one-to-one paraprofessional job classification and only hired program paraprofessionals for two major reasons. First, numerous personnel issues had arisen as a result of having both classifications of paraprofessionals. For example, some paraprofessionals classified as one-to-one refused to work with students other than the one to whom they were specifically assigned. In addition, one-to-one paraprofessionals sometimes were not paid when “their” student was absent. Second, there were concerns about the negative effects on students with disabilities who were assigned one-to-one paraprofessionals. Some students became dependent on a single adult and did not learn to generalize performance when in the presence of other adults. Such dependencies also had the potential to separate students with disabilities from their peers given the constant presence of an adult.

While not a formal policy in the Waterview and Prairie school districts, all of the teachers in the study primarily used their paraprofessionals as program paraprofessionals. They prepared them to support several students in various learning environments. The teachers did this to enhance student outcomes by creating less dependence on one paraprofessional and to manage their programs more flexibly and efficiently by preparing several paraprofessionals to work with a variety of students. This also assisted in providing coverage for students when staff were absent. In the programs for students with moderate to severe disabilities, there were instances in which one paraprofessional was primarily assigned to support one student, but this was clearly not the norm.

Using program paraprofessionals rather than one-to-one paraprofessionals directly influenced paraprofessionals’ specific responsibilities, schedules, and development needs. Special education teachers’ responsibilities were affected also. Teachers and paraprofessionals recognized that sup-porting multiple students was challenging because the paraprofessionals must be prepared to work with several students, schedules were more complicated, and communication challenges occurred more frequently. The majority of the paraprofessionals stated that they enjoyed the diversity in working with a variety of students. A few did not like being involved with multiple students and environments because they often felt rushed and fragmented.

Using Staffing Ratios to Allocate Paraprofessional Positions

One district utilized a ratio system to distribute funding for paraprofessional positions. A second district was moving in this direction. A ratio system allocates paraprofessionals based on the number of special education teachers working in a building and on the severity of the students being served by the program. In the Forest School District, each cross-categorical teacher in their full-service programs was allocated six hours per day of paraprofessional time. They were given a high degree of discretion in how to utilize their time allotment in order to best meet students’ needs. For example, Timberland Elementary previously had hired several part-time paraprofessionals to provide more student support during high need times of the day. As the student population changed, they moved to employing full-time paraprofessional positions to extend coverage across the whole school day.

The Forest and Prairie school districts also had specific processes for schools to use in justifying additional paraprofessional time. The process analyzed how the current building paraprofessional allotment was being used, paraprofessional responsibilities during the school day, student needs, and identification of gaps in student support. Principals were involved in the justification processes and district level special education coordinators were available to assist the special education teams throughout the process. Principals spoke about the need for district special education administrators to understand the demands of inclusive programs and for these programs to be fully staffed in order to achieve the intended student outcomes. One special education director emphasized the importance principal involvement:

I want to be careful with our resources. I want to make sure that…the need is there [and that] we attach the resource to that need. That’s why I ask the principals to do that justification and that rationale. And maybe it isn’t as easy as it should be for them because they have to really work with their teams and they have to think about it….[T]hey have to put it together and…really think about [the additional hire] because it impacts everything. Every little thing impacts everything else in the system.

Aligning Special Education Staff with Grade Levels and Content Areas

The three schools with cross-categorical, special education service delivery models aligned their special education teachers with particular grades (in elementary and secondary schools) or content area (in secondary schools) classes. The special education teachers supported all of the students with special needs who were enrolled in those grade level or content area classes. The ways special education teachers were aligned with general education programs influenced how paraprofessionals were utilized. For example, Horizon Junior High School was organized as a middle school and the special education teachers and paraprofessionals were assigned to individual houses. At Timberland Elementary School, the special education teachers were assigned to one primary and one intermediate grade. Since the paraprofessionals worked primarily with one special education teacher, their schedules were also concentrated in those grade levels. At Woodlawn High School, the special education teachers co-taught in the general education classes two periods a day, while the paraprofessionals were assigned to work primarily in the special education support classes with the special education teachers. The support classes were aligned with the general education classes to provide extra support for students.

Clustering Students in General Education Classrooms

The ways in which students were assigned to classrooms also influenced how staff resources could be used to support students and the schedules of paraprofessionals. Specifically the practice of clustering students with disabilities in a few classrooms within one grade level, as opposed to spreading these students out evenly across many classrooms, was a major factor in scheduling and in the intensity of support provided. An elementary special education teacher was ecstatic over the possibility that in the next school year she would be able to cluster several students in one classroom rather than having them spread across four different classes in the same grade. Commenting on what this meant for both her and the paraprofessionals, she said:

That means that I’ll be able to go into the classroom to work on reading. I will be able to be more than just “those kids” teacher…I’ll be able to do some early intervention with some of the other kids who might be struggling in the room. I won’t have to split the para time up so far, so the room will be covered over a greater period of the day with some help of one sort or another. I’ll have one teacher to plan with…I’ll just be more efficient.

Assigning Paraprofessional Support for Specific Students

In an attempt to inject more critical thought into requests for additional paraprofessional time, the Waterview School District implemented a process for determining individual student needs for paraprofessional support. The process required direct service teams to consider the needs of the student, the types of learning environments in which students were involved, the natural supports (e.g., peers, teachers) and the additional supports (e.g., other special education paraprofessionals) already available in those environments before requesting additional paraprofessional support. The lead teacher spoke about the rationale behind developing this process:

It’s [meant to] force teams to really articulate…what is it that they want this para to do? ….What specifically are the needs of the kids?…It also asks a couple of other hard questions like, how many adults are already in the room? Who else in the building might be able to provide support at this time? So it hopefully will do some forcing of looking at…alternatives other than adding a full-time support person. And it asks for… documentation and data which might slow a few people down because they’re going to need to get it….[T]oo often people look at a para being the first line of intervention…We need to look at interventions other than a para before we look at a para.

Specific Paraprofessional Roles and Responsibilities Based on Individual Student Needs

The responsibilities of paraprofessionals in the inclusive programs were based primarily on the learning and support needs of individual students. Many paraprofessionals described their overarching responsibility as increasing student independence. Six specific categories of paraprofessional responsibility emerged from the data. Four of the six categories focused directly on supporting students with disabilities, including fostering the development of academic skills, communication skills, social integration, functional skills, and student-specific care and management needs (e.g., health needs, assisting with adaptive equipment). A fifth category emerged to recognize the role that paraprofessionals have as a communication link between the special education teachers and other school personnel, and, in some cases, the families. The sixth category captured paraprofessional responsibilities involved in providing general school and program support, such as assisting with clerical tasks and material development or providing occasional assistance to students who do not have disabilities. Table 3 presents a summary of the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessional responsibilities in inclusive education settings that emerged from this study.

In reviewing the summary in Table 3, a high degree of overlap is evident between the responsibilities of the paraprofessionals who supported students with moderate to severe disabilities (e.g., cognitive, physical) and those who supported students with mild to moderate disabilities (e.g., LD, EBD, cognitive disabilities). There were, however, also noticeable differences. Paraprofessionals working in the programs for students with moderate to severe disabilities had additional responsibilities, particularly in the areas of functional skill development and supporting unique individual student needs, for example, assisting with medical needs and implementing exercise programs. Whereas, paraprofessionals working in programs for students with mild to moderate disabilities also assisted students with homework.

The Work of Special Educators in Supporting Paraprofessionals

All of the special education teachers in the study viewed themselves as responsible for the students with disabilities and their educational programs across the whole school day, regardless of the severity of the students’ disabilities or the location in which students received instruction. Capturing this view, one teacher said, “If it’s a student on my caseload then I’m the responsible person – bottom line.” They spoke about the need to be continually aware of both the “big picture” within their school and program as well as the “small details” for implementing effective programs. Further, special educators recognized that their role in directing the work of paraprofessionals was a critical element in the successful inclusive programs and student outcomes. Directing the work of paraprofessionals required special educators to function as instructional leaders, managers, and staff developers. The larger the paraprofessional team and the more decentralized the inclusive model, the greater the complexity of this work. Programs that supported students with more significant needs had fewer students per special education teacher but more paraprofessionals per special education teacher. Findings related to the work of special education teachers and the special education building coordinators in directing the work of paraprofessionals are presented below. Also described are areas of overlap between the special educator and paraprofessional responsibilities that became evident in the data analysis process.

The Role of the Special Education Teacher

Special educators were the primary support for paraprofessionals in inclusive education programs. Specific responsibilities of special education teachers in directing the work of paraprofessionals clustered into five categories: a) hiring and orienting new paraprofessionals, b) managing schedules, c) directing the implementation of student programs, d) providing ongoing paraprofessional development, and e) communicating regularly with the many individuals involved in the education of their students with disabilities. Table 4 presents a summary of the special education teachers’ responsibilities that emerged within each category. Because of the significance and the extensive amount of information obtained from the interviews pertaining to the responsibilities of special educators in the areas of hiring and orienting paraprofessionals, developing paraprofessionals, and establishing collaborative relationships, findings in these areas are described more fully in subsequent sections of this monograph.

While all of the teachers assumed responsibilities within each category, the teachers who taught students with moderate to severe disabilities needed to prepare and monitor the paraprofessionals’ work in more areas because of the wider variety of student needs. Few differences emerged between the responsibilities of directing the work of paraprofessionals of the elementary and secondary special education teachers. Specific conditions at the secondary level, however, such as larger buildings, larger student enrollment, changing classes, changing semesters, and larger special education departments increased the complexity of implementing all aspects of the special education programs, including directing the work of paraprofessionals.

It is significant to note that despite the extensive management and organizational skills required of special education teachers in supporting and directing paraprofessionals, they had received little or no training to prepare them for this role. The youngest teacher, who had been out of school for only a few years, recalled that she had one class session in one college course that focused on paraprofessionals. None of the districts provided professional development for teachers that addressed directing the work of paraprofessionals. In one district, an administrator indicated that their teachers had not voiced a need in this regard. In another district the need for teacher development focused on directing the work of paraprofessionals had been identified as a major need for early-career teachers.

Most of these special educators were highly experienced teachers who had worked in several schools and sometimes in more than one district and in more than one career. Through their life experiences they learned what worked and what did not work to effectively supervise other adults. These teachers also clearly recognized their legal and ethical roles and responsibilities and used these beliefs to shape how they managed the complexities of their programs. In addition, two secondary schools had highly experienced special education building coordinators (the role of the building coordinators is described more fully in the next section). These coordinators provided leadership to the younger teachers about how to direct the work of paraprofessionals. Many district administrators and coordinators individually worked with teachers to support them in the role of managing programs, other adults, and specifically paraprofessionals. Support in this regard was felt to be particularly important because both administrators and teachers shared many examples of teacher-paraprofessional relationships that had gone awry, shattering the confidence of new teachers.

The Role of the Special Education Building Coordinator

Some responsibilities related to directing the work of paraprofessionals in two of the three secondary schools were shared between special education teachers and special education building coordinators. In these schools, there were either full-time or half-time special education building coordinators. The coordinators were considered lead teachers, not administrators. Their formal responsibilities included coordinating all special education services within the building, monitoring due process requirements, and being the liaison between the building’s special education department and the district’s special education administration. They were also involved in managing some aspects of the school’s paraprofessional workforce, such as coordinating hiring paraprofessionals, assigning paraprofessionals to teams, assisting with schedules, and intervening when there were management concerns such as failing to follow directions or schedules. A high level of collaboration between the special education building coordinator and the special education teachers was evident in both schools. The result, especially at one high school, was that the special education teachers were able to focus more of their attention on instructing students and on working directly with paraprofessionals related to student instruction, rather than on management, coordination, and personnel issues.

Overlap in the Responsibilities of Special Education Teachers and Paraprofessionals

Overlap and ambiguity in the functioning of special education teachers and paraprofessionals became evident in reviewing the data. Because inclusive education programs are largely decentralized models of service provision, special education teachers cannot be working directly with paraprofessionals at all times. This meant that paraprofessionals sometimes made autonomous and “on-the-spot” decisions throughout the school day. This created concerns about paraprofessionals assuming greater responsibility for instructional decisions than might be appropriate.

District administrators clearly articulated the differences that they saw between the paraprofessionals’ and special education teachers’ responsibilities. One special education director shared:

I really feel it’s important that [the paraprofessionals] are not put into the position where their expected role is that of an independent decision-maker.…They are going to make ongoing decisions on a moment-to-moment basis, but they should not be required to make educational based decisions that are going to modify programs, modify instruction, modify behavior [interventions] beyond what they have been trained to do….Their role should be fairly narrow and focused and [their] responsibilities should [be] relatively narrow and focused.

Others commented on the realities of overlap and ambiguity in responsibilities at the level of practice working directly with students. A secondary special education teacher commented on the mixed messages that paraprofessionals receive about their responsibilities: “I think we expect paraprofessionals to be teachers all the time.” The special education teachers, especially the more experienced teachers, were cognizant of the potential for confusion and conflict between the teachers’ and the paraprofessionals’ roles. All of the teachers had personal experiences in which paraprofessionals made decisions that rested outside the scope of paraprofessional responsibilities. Examples included making changes in testing adaptations for individual students and removing students from classes rather than implementing prescribed interventions that were to occur within general education classes.

If the paraprofessionals’ behaviors were the tip of the iceberg open to public view, then what the special education teachers and building coordinators did to provide ongoing direction and clarification about the boundaries for paraprofessionals was the part of the iceberg hidden from view. Most of the teachers used three strategies to clarify the domains of professional, as opposed to paraprofessional, authority. First, they communicated regularly with general education teachers and also spent time in general education classrooms. As an elementary teacher said, “That’s what I think the key is for inclusion, be visible, be there…If you are not there, it’s not going to work.” The special educators checked-in with the general education classroom teachers and paraprofessionals to answer questions, model ways of doing activities, offer feedback, provide student materials, and share guidelines for using the materials. They routinely provided modified materials for the students to use in general education classrooms, especially for students with moderate to severe disabilities. In short, they assumed full responsibility for instruction even though they could not always be physically present in the instructional settings of all students. In doing so, they reduced the number of situations in which paraprofessionals needed to make instructional decisions on their own.

Second, the special education teachers quickly addressed concerns when paraprofessionals overstepped their authority and made decisions that were either educationally unsound for students or that threatened the trust between the special education teacher and the general education teachers. Positive relationships and respect between special education and general education teachers were known to be one of the cornerstones of successful inclusive education programs. When these relationships were jeopardized, the quality of the entire inclusive education program was at risk. A secondary special education teacher cited an example where she needed to directly and immediately intervene with a paraprofessional regarding a testing situation. A general education teacher had approached the special education teacher and asked whether a student had taken a test independently or whether the paraprofessional had provided extra assistance. The special education teacher explained:

We have to really address it. If somebody brings it up to us, we need to address it….[If we didn’t then] the trust would be absolutely gone and we can’t afford that because things are working well. If you lose that trust and communication, then the whole program… [is] just not there. It’s gone because teachers talk…

Third, several special education teachers embedded “guidelines for decision-making” into their daily directions to the paraprofessionals. They specified the degrees of freedom that the paraprofessionals could exercise in varying from a proposed activity or instructional protocol. For example, when an assignment intended for a student to complete in a general education class was given to a paraprofessional, the special educator shared how the student might respond to the assignment, how the paraprofessional should react depending on the response of the student, and the kind of feedback the special educator would need from the paraprofessional in order to refine the assignment or future assignments for the student. Job-embedded coaching, such as this, was a significant strategy in successfully directing the work of paraprofessionals and is addressed more fully in the next section.