Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals in
Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go back to Title Page, Table of Contents, Acknowledgements,
and Abstract
Since the early 1960s, the total number of paraprofessionals employed in the public schools has exploded from approximately 10,000 to over 500,000 FTE positions (Blalock, 1991; Pickett, 1996). It is estimated that 290,000 paraprofessionals work in special education alone (Likins, 2002). To a great extent the growth of the paraprofessional workforce has occurred with little guidance from federal or state regulations. Prior to reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, paraprofessionals were not even mentioned in federal special education legislation. IDEA (1997) now mandates that paraprofessionals must be appropriately trained and supervised to assist in the provision of services for students with disabilities. Similarly, recent reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002, referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), also clarifies qualifications and responsibilities pertaining to paraprofessionals. With the passage of these laws, states and school districts are “scrambling to assess what personnel development systems they currently have in place, and…what remains to be developed to ensure their paraprofessional workforce is well-trained, qualified, and effectively supervised” (Likins, 2002, p. 6).
The literature focused on special education paraprofessional use has grown significantly during the last decade, especially as it relates to paraprofessional roles, responsibilities, development, and support. In a recent review, however, Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, and Doyle, (2001) concluded, “Gaps in the literature exist on… topics such as acknowledging the work of paraprofessionals, guidelines for hiring and assigning them, interactions with school staff and students, and supervision” (p. 57). The present study was intended to fill some of the gaps by examining employment and development practices for paraprofessionals in inclusive education settings within three school districts. To set the context and the need for this study, existing literature regarding paraprofessionals is summarized briefly in response to pertinent questions.
“Nationwide, there is no universally accepted definition for the term paraprofessional” (Pickett, 1994, p. 7). Rather than defining the term paraprofessional, federal law lists typical duties of a paraprofessional. The large number of job titles included under the umbrella term paraprofessional mirrors the wide variety of roles assumed by these individuals. In school districts, often paraprofessionals are defined by job titles, such as teacher assistant, instructional assistant, bus aide or job coach (French, 1998; Pickett, 1994). The term paraeducator is also frequently used to describe non-licensed school personnel who assist teachers in educational programs. A useful definition of paraprofessional put forth by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services (now called the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals) is as follows:
an employee: 1) whose position is either instructional in nature or who delivers other direct and indirect services to children, youth and /or their parents; and 2) who works under the supervision of teachers or other professional personnel who have ultimate responsibility for a) the design and implementation of education and related services programs, and b) the assessment of the impact on student progress and other education outcomes (Pickett, 1994, p. 8).
Literature focused on the paraprofessional employment process is extremely limited. Strategies used in recruitment, application, screening, interviewing, and hiring and their effects on developing a paraprofessional workforce have not been researched. Blalock (1991) proposed various paraprofessional recruitment strategies (e.g., substitutes, volunteers, college students) and recommended that schools conduct team interviews as a strategy for initiating relationships. It has also been suggested that interviews serve as an important opportunity for articulating the program philosophy, communicating roles and responsibilities, and beginning to share knowledge about students with disabilities (Carroll, 2001).
Recent research indicates that paraprofessionals consider a formal orientation process to be an indicator of the value and respect that a school district places on paraprofessionals as employees (Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001). In reality, however, paraprofessionals often do not receive an orientation either to the district or to their individual positions. Ideally, there should be a formal process that introduces the paraprofessional to the district and its vision, mission, goals, policies, procedures, calendar, and emergency and safety procedures. At the school level, an orientation should include a tour of the school, introduction to staff, and explanations of routine procedures, such as how to report absences and participate in fire drills (French, 1997). A team level orientation should, at a minimum, clarify team member roles and responsibilities and provide information about student goals and objectives, behavior plans, management and health concerns, and safety (Carroll, 2001).
The ways in which paraprofessional positions are assigned affects how paraprofessionals are used to support students. Several articles have raised concerns about use of paraprofessionals to provide one-to-one support for individual students throughout an entire school day. This can result in student dependence on one adult and can limit skill generalization (Freschi, 1999; Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1997; Marks , Schrader, & Levine, 1999). Brown, Farrington, Knight, Ross, and Ziegler (1999) wrote, “It is reasonable to assign a paraprofessional to a school, a team, or a class, but only in the most extreme circumstances should one be assigned to a student” (p. 252). The specific set of responsibilities assigned to paraprofessionals varies de-pending on whether they are designated as assistants for one student or assistants to a teacher or to an entire program. Teachers may feel more limited in how they can assign and direct work when paraprofessionals are designated to support one specific student. Teachers can be more flexible and, potentially more efficient, in assigning work to support a program more broadly when paraprofessionals are designated as resources to support teachers and programs (French, 1998).
Determining the level of paraprofessional support necessary for an individual student requires considering numerous factors, including the needs of individual students, the learning environments in which they participate, and the natural supports available in those environments. Freschi (1999) proposed a decision-making flow chart to facilitate the problem-solving process. In this process, justifying the need for a paraprofessional, identifying expected student outcomes, providing paraprofessional development, and evaluating the effectiveness of the paraprofessional support are identified as key considerations. Similarly, Giangreco, Broer and Edelman (1999) developed a series of guidelines for teams to consider. These guidelines recommend identifying student needs within the educational context, utilizing existing resources within teams of special and general educators and looking organizationally to efficiently schedule paraprofessionals or reallocate resources to better support all students.
In recent years, several states and professional organizations have identified core competencies or standards for special education paraprofessionals (Pickett, Likins, & Wallace, 2003). These emphasize the knowledge and skills paraprofessionals need to be competent in their positions, such as understanding unique learners, instructional content and practice and managing student behavior. A major shift in paraprofessional roles has occurred over the last 20 years as most paraprofessional responsibilities now focus on delivery of instruction and direct services for students rather than clerical support and other routine duties (Pickett, 2002). Today paraprofessionals have a high level of responsibility supporting individual or small group learning, assisting with data collection, and implementing all aspects of individual education plans (Carroll, 2001; Pickett, 2002). There is greater agreement and clarity regarding the general categories of paraprofessional responsibilities than the appropriateness of the components of the responsibilities. This is a particularly relevant issue in inclusive education programs where paraprofessionals do not work alongside the special education teachers for much of the day and often make “on-the-spot” decisions that affect student programs (Minondo, Meyer, & Xin, 2001).
The current state of developing and directing the work of paraprofessionals is like a puzzle with many pieces missing. Historically, paraprofessional development has been largely ignored by school districts (Pickett, 1986, 1996). Schools continue to place their most complex students with their least prepared and skilled personnel (Brown et al., 1999; Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001). Insufficient attention to paraprofessional development directly affects the quality of educational programs (French & Pickett, 1997; Gaylord, Wallace, Larson, & Hewitt, 1992). As described above, core competencies for paraprofessionals have been identified and could serve as the substance around which states and schools districts create a system for developing a skilled paraprofessional workforce.
Currently, paraprofessional development often relies on off-site, large group inservices. This development model has several challenges. First, off-site training assumes transfer of learning to specific contexts of practice. Second, if paraprofessionals receive training that is not compatible with current practices in their work circumstances, confusion and even conflicts can result. Third, if paraprofessionals receive training on strategies or techniques not yet learned and used by special education teachers, they can view themselves as the defacto “expert” on that technique with the unintended consequence of blurring the lines between teacher and paraprofessional and creating supervisory issues (Marks et al., 1999). Fourth, many of the skills that paraprofessionals need to learn are heavily dependent on and most appropriately taught in their contexts of practice by the special education teacher who is directing their work (Vasa & Steckelberg, 1997). Very few studies have focused on how to effectively provide job-embedded development of this sort. Although the greatest responsibility for developing and supporting paraprofessionals in their work with students falls to special education teachers, frequently teachers are not well prepared to assume this responsibility (Hilton & Gerlach, 1997; Pickett, 1996; Salzberg & Morgan, 1995). The challenge, especially in light of recent federal legislation, is to develop seamless paraprofessional development systems that align the various levels of training (e.g., district inservices, job-embedded development, postsecondary education) (Harkness, 2003).
Turnover of paraprofessionals is a huge issue in special education and yet remains largely unexplored. Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer (2001) explain that “attracting and retaining paraprofessionals who experience productive levels of job satisfaction is an important part of building the continuity of a school’s capacity to support students with disabilities within general education classrooms” (p. 486). A survey of paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators in three rural states reported that the most significant reason that paraprofessionals left their positions was a lack of opportunity for advancement (Passaro, Pickett, Latham, & Hong Bo, 1994). Additional reasons included poor wages, lack of administrative support, and lack of respect. These findings align with the work of Frith and Mims (1985) that suggests paraprofessional burnout is due to several factors including lack of career opportunities, poor salaries, and the feeling of stagnation. More recently, adequate compensation, role clarity, training, effective supervision, and ongoing support were perceived by paraprofessionals as signs of respect, appreciation and acknowledgment of their contributions to students and also were found to positively influence job satisfaction (Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001).
Special education teachers assume many and varied roles and responsibilities as they work to teach students with disabilities. They also have numerous competing demands on their time (Council for Exceptional Children, 2001). In inclusive programs, teachers simultaneously juggle four roles, including developing individual student programs, coordinating program implementation for many students, providing instruction to students, and directing the role of the paraprofessionals (York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke, & Ghere, 2002). Heavily interconnected, a change in any one role directly affects the other three roles. Directing the work of paraprofessionals is not a separate duty, but is situated within and integral to the multiple roles of special educators. Effectively directing the work of paraprofessionals involves clarification, both formally and informally, of roles and responsibilities (French & Pickett, 1997; Freschi, 1999; Pickett & Gerlach, 1997); preparation of teachers to supervise paraprofessionals (Pickett, 1990, 1997; Salzberg & Morgan, 1995; Wallace, Shin, Bartholomay, & Stahl, 2001); and a high level of communication with paraprofessionals, including regular meeting times to discuss student performance and programs (Blalock, 1991; French, 1998). Less is known about the nuances about how teachers specifically direct and support the work of paraprofessionals and how they effectively manage all the competing demands for their time on a daily basis.
Despite the increase in literature related to paraprofessionals in special education, there is much to learn. Employing, developing, and directing paraprofessionals are multi-faceted endeavors and involve every level of a school district. The specific work of paraprofessionals is affected not only by individual student needs, but also by the ways in which teachers, administrators and organizational structures and functions intersect with the work of paraprofessionals. The purpose of this study was to describe and understand the systems and strategies used within school districts and schools to employ, develop, and direct special education paraprofessionals who support students with disabilities in inclusive education programs.
An inclusive approach to educating students with disabilities is a relatively decentralized model of service provision in which the immediate proximity of licensed special educators and paraprofessionals cannot be assumed. Lack of proximity makes it especially important to understand how paraprofessionals are supported to provide high quality services to students in inclusive settings. While there is no agreed upon definition of inclusive education, McLeskey and Waldron (2000) offer characteristics that reflect commonly held views and that served as a guide in selecting the cases for this study: special education services for students with disabilities are provided primarily within the general education school and age-appropriate classroom environments, and students receive an education designed to meet their individual needs.
In designing this study, an assumption was made that effective support of paraprofessionals would involve individuals, structures, and processes throughout all levels of a school system, from the level of the direct service team, to the level of school, to the level of the school district. Further, it was assumed that what happens at one level influences what happens at the other levels. Understanding the ways in which paraprofessionals are supported from this systems perspective was intended to inform decisions about policy and practice aimed toward increasing educational quality for students with disabilities.
The overarching research question for this study was: How do school districts employ, direct, and develop their special education paraprofessional workforce? The guiding sub-questions were:
Employing, Developing, and Directing Special Education Paraprofessionals
in Inclusive Education Programs: Findings from a Multi-Site Case Study
Go to Section 3: Design and Methodology