Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals
in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go back to Section 4: Findings
Findings from this study supported the assumption that the work of special education paraprofessionals in inclusive education settings is influenced by policies, procedures, and relationships at multiple levels within a school system: the team, school, and district levels. Decisions and interactions at any one of these levels influence decisions and interactions at the other levels in the system. Decisions guiding allocation of paraprofessional positions, for example, influence how paraprofessionals work with students. Policy and procedures that allow time for orientation and continuous development of paraprofessionals influence how well they are prepared to support students with disabilities. Relationships established between the special education teachers and general education teachers influence the working relationship between general education teachers and the paraprofessionals who provide support in their classrooms. Relationships between the special education teachers and their principals influence the degree of knowledge, advocacy, and support for special education programs, personnel, and students.
In considering the applicability of these implications, readers are reminded of three context variables (discussed previously) that were not specific targets of study but that may have contributed to the creation of inclusive education programs considered successful. 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 who were interviewed for this study had worked previously in other schools and special education programs. Two had worked in other careers in addition to teaching. 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. Finally, four out of six special education teachers had general education degrees. Several taught general education classes prior to working in special education. One component of effective inclusive education programs is the linkage between special education supports and general education curriculum and instruction. These teachers could draw on this background in curriculum and pedagogy to support students with disabilities and to collaborate with general education teachers.
Drawing from the common and unique findings across the three school districts in this multi-site case study, implications to be considered by practicing educators – administrators and teachers—are readily apparent. Described below are seven suggested practices for employing, developing and directing a high quality paraprofessional workforce in inclusive education settings.
Paraprofessional turnover was described as being a “revolving door,” with the districts continually struggling to fill positions. The costs of paraprofessional turnover were high, affecting many aspects of inclusive education programs and all levels of the district. The need to continually repeat the recruitment and employment cycle drained valuable time and energy from special education teams, schools and districts, often negating the investment made in the systems to employ, develop, and direct paraprofessionals.
The findings related to paraprofessional turnover and its costs compel a “big picture” view of paraprofessional employment and development. Specifically, an increase in wages is necessary to reach, at a minimum, a threshold level so that paraprofessional positions are attractive alternatives to other local employment opportunities. All three districts raised their paraprofessional wages in hopes of employing and retaining quality employees. One district felt that subsequent to raising the wages the quality of the applicants improved significantly. Although the motivation for quality work performance largely stems from positive working conditions, supportive relationships, and recognition that they are making a difference for students, most interviewees acknowledged that wages must first reach a certain level so that paraprofessionals do not leave because they cannot afford to stay. As one paraprofessional commented about why most paraprofessionals leave the district, “It’s not that…they really don’t like the job…but [they need to leave] in order to make ends meet….That’s just a fact of life.”
The first step in hiring a quality employee is attracting quality applicants. Administrators in all three districts aggressively searched to locate quality applicants to fill open positions, yet often struggled with simply having a sufficient number of applications to consider. The districts used a combination of strategies to advertise and recruit paraprofessionals including ads in newspapers, Web sites, cable TV, and postings in individual schools. Most of the paraprofessionals in this study were from surrounding communities. Many had direct or indirect connections to the district prior to accepting their current position, such as volunteering, interning, or having other jobs in the district. Some learned about the positions from family or friends who were connected with the district. These findings suggest that a key strategy for recruiting paraprofessional applicants is to tap existing community and school networks such as using staff to identify potential applicants and considering volunteers as possible employees.
Even with team’s best efforts to fully explain paraprofessional roles and responsibilities, individuals have difficulty understanding and may even be fearful of what is entailed in the job. One strategy is to ask potential applicants to substitute in a program to learn about the position and to meet the staff before inviting them to apply. Two schools in the study used this strategy to identify quality employees. By asking someone to substitute and then supporting them in this role, the “fear of the unknown” about the position and the students was minimized. Substituting in the program also created a low stress situation for both the substitute and the teachers to work together prior to permanent employment. This strategy was particularly effective in the programs for students with more significant needs where positions were hard to fill.
While application screening can be done efficiently by a variety of people who are familiar with inclusive education programs, the findings from this study suggest a critical role for special educators in the paraprofessional interview process. The interview is where hiring decisions are made about who will work on the special education team under the direction of the special education teacher. Assuming a favorable review, the interview serves as initial induction and orientation to the students and team and the paraprofessional roles and responsibilities. It also is the beginning point for developing a positive relationship between the special education teacher and the paraprofessional that is central to collaborative efforts. The special educators in this study strongly preferred to be part of the interview team. While administrators could assess an applicant’s qualifications, the special educators felt that they were the most qualified to “assess the fit” of the person on the special education team. Almost universally, the teachers preferred to leave a position unfilled than hire an unqualified person. Both administrators and teachers recognized that if they did not make good hiring decisions, those hires had a much greater likelihood of turnover.
The districts and schools in the study were at various stages in clarifying their decision-making process for allocating paraprofessional positions. However, it was evident that they were considering both program factors, such as how special education programs are organized and how staff is utilized, as well as individual student factors. The purpose of merging these two perspectives was to use paraprofessional resources effectively and efficiently and to hire additional staff only when justified for enhancing program and student outcomes.
Specific strategies at the program level include assigning paraprofessionals to special education programs and not individual students. This allows the greatest flexibility for using paraprofessional support efficiently, but still provides the option for primary assignment to an individual student or two as the need arises. Paraprofessional assignments to consistent groups or teams of teachers increase the coherence of their work and, therefore, the quality of their contributions. As they come to know specific teachers, classrooms, grade levels or content areas, they learn how to function well in those situations and can, therefore, be of more assistance. At the student level, team level decision-making focuses attention on what the role of paraprofessional support is for each student and how the effectiveness of this support will be determined. Questions such as “Is paraprofessional support needed?” or “Are there naturally occurring supports in the classroom that could be utilized appropriately (e.g., teacher, peers, other support personnel)?” continually ground the discussion in student needs and outcomes.
It is a myth that one level or department in a school district is solely responsible for paraprofessional development or can be successful in this endeavor. While districts are responsible for employing and developing quality special education paraprofessionals to work with students, special education paraprofessional development is not the sole purview of the district-level special education department. All levels – the district, the school, and the special education team – must assume responsibility for paraprofessional development and work together to create a system that is well-focused, well-aligned, and well-communicated. Particularly evident in this study was the importance of school and team-based job-embedded development customized to prepare paraprofessionals to meet individual school and student needs.
Districts need to articulate a comprehensive set of knowledge and skills required by paraprofessionals to effectively support students with disabilities in inclusive settings as a) employees of the school district, b) employees of the school, c) members of special education teams (e.g., confidentiality, the nature of disabilities, IEPs), and d) primary support for individual students in classroom and other school settings. Determining who at which level has responsibility for developing this knowledge and skill set is key. Special educators and other site personnel should have input into what is reasonably and appropriately addressed by district, building, and team- level development efforts. A plan for addressing these development needs at each respective level should be developed, including who is involved, when the training should occur, the most effective format for the training, and the resources or materials needed. Included in the plan should be a description of how general development sessions held at the district level intersect with site and student needs. It is also essential that site administrators and special educators are aware of paraprofessional development opportunities and informed about which paraprofessionals are involved so that follow-up and ongoing support can be achieved. Finally, this multi-level development system should be monitored and evaluated to identify strengths, challenges, and outcomes. Such a system would not only go a long way towards developing paraprofessionals, but it would also serve to document how a district is complying with recent mandates to ensure a highly qualified paraprofessional workforce.
Directing the work of paraprofessionals should be viewed as an integral component of inclusive educational programs and not as an “add-on” responsibility for teachers that is divorced from student learning and student outcomes. The special educators are the instructional leaders of student programs. As instructional leaders, it is important to make implicit expectations about the role of directing the work of paraprofessionals explicit and provide teachers the support to be effective in this role. Special educators also play an important role in indirectly supporting paraprofessional work by developing and nurturing a culture of collaboration with other special education teachers, related service providers, general education teachers, and building and district administrators. The outcome is to develop and sustain an environment conducive to adults working effectively together focused on student programs and outcomes.
Teachers need to understand and be able to provide effective job-embedded paraprofessional direction and support. A job-embedded process is purposeful, proactive, and ongoing. Special education teachers in the study compiled folders on each student and provided background material on the students’ disabilities. They continually modeled, checked-in, and coached the paraprofessionals on effective student interventions in a variety of instructional contexts. Several met regularly with their paraprofessional teams to discuss student programs. They routinely clarified the degrees of freedom that paraprofessionals have to make decisions that affect student programs. Special education teams and building administrators organized school-based paraprofessional development sessions focused on job-related needs. In other words, they utilized a menu of job-embedded development strategies to prepare paraprofessionals to support the needs of students.
Administrator support is a central component of a strong and effective inclusive education program. The principal’s role in the success of the inclusive education programs cannot be understated. Principals need to be knowledgeable about special education, the programs, services, staff, and students in their building. Being inclusive, modeling expectations for inclusiveness of staff and students, and developing relationships with special education staff and students bridges the divide that often forms between special and general education services and within special education teams. Administrative participation in special education department meetings and select student conferences sends the message that special education is an important component of the school and its mission. By visibly showing ownership of special education programs, special education staff, including paraprofessionals, view themselves as an important part of the whole school with responsibilities for the whole school.
Although further removed from the program implementation level, district special education administrators play a key role in leading efforts for system-wide coherence, equity, and procedures to ensure program quality. This includes designing, implementing, and monitoring employment and support systems for special education paraprofessionals. It is important for administrators to recognize the complexities of directing the work of paraprofessionals and the time that teachers invest to fulfill these responsibilities. Policies and practices need to be implemented to support the teachers in this role. For example, recognizing that regular meetings between special education teachers and paraprofessionals are important for team communication and job-embedded staff development, policies and practices regarding flexible use of time and staff development funds would support these meetings. District special education staff need to prepare teachers to direct the work of paraprofessionals. This is especially important for new special education teachers who often have little to no education or experience to rely upon related to directing the work of paraprofessionals.
Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals
in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go to Section 6: Conclusion