Utilization of Paraprofessionals in Special Education: Challenges and Benefits

This issue of NASET’s Working with Paraprofessionals in Your School series was written by Jeanne Dagna, Ed.D.. The paper explores the benefits and challenges of utilizing paraprofessionals as support for students in both general and special education classroom settings.  Etscheidt (2005) expounded upon the concerns that, despite the wide staffing use, paraprofessionals are extremely under-trained and lack the formalized training necessary for the roles they are asked to perform.  Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle (2010) contend that the unintended negative outcomes of using paraprofessionals in the classroom often out-weigh the potential benefits.  Myriad legal cases discussed the ways in which the use of paraprofessionals can be legally challenged and shared the wide-range of concerns related to the use of paraprofessionals to support students in general and special education. Although articles vary regarding the levels of support and/or concern for utilizing this staffing method, most concur that if utilized carefully and reassessed often, these paraprofessional supports can prove beneficial.  

---

Utilization of Paraprofessionals in Special Education: Challenges and Benefits

By Jeanne Dagna, Ed.D.

Immaculata University

Abstract

This paper explores the benefits and challenges of utilizing paraprofessionals as support for students in both general and special education classroom settings.  Etscheidt (2005) expounded upon the concerns that, despite the wide staffing use, paraprofessionals are extremely under-trained and lack the formalized training necessary for the roles they are asked to perform.  Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle (2010) contend that the unintended negative outcomes of using paraprofessionals in the classroom often out-weigh the potential benefits.  Myriad legal cases discussed the ways in which the use of paraprofessionals can be legally challenged and shared the wide-range of concerns related to the use of paraprofessionals to support students in general and special education. Although articles vary regarding the levels of support and/or concern for utilizing this staffing method, most concur that if utilized carefully and reassessed often, these paraprofessional supports can prove beneficial.  

Keywords: Paraprofessionals; special education; disabilities; instructional aides; inclusive classrooms; collaboration; general education; IEPs; 504s

Historical Overview

The practice of staffing school classrooms with paraprofessionals is not a new one. The use of volunteers in education actually began back in the mid 1800’s, prior to the creation of what later became known as, “normal school.”  In the early 1940’s, as part the New Deal, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Works Projects Administration (WPA) and they attempted to utilize education paraprofessionals in order to provide employment opportunities for unskilled school dropouts who were in need of employment.  These individuals were provided training and placement in non-professional employment opportunities in areas including health, recreation, and education, according to Lombardo (1980).

One of the first actual pieces of legal legislation directly related to paraprofessionals was included in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) signed into law by President, Lyndon B. Johnson.  Included in this Act was a component of Title I that, “…allocated approximately $75 million for programs dealing with teacher-aides (paraprofessionals)” (Lombard, 1980 p. 21).  Title I determined that these paraprofessionals provide direct services to elementary and secondary level, low-income school students, as part of an antipoverty approach to education (Lombardi, 1980).

The original use of paraprofessionals in the field of education was to provide relief to special educators working in a field where terrible teacher shortages left these professionals overworked and under-supported.  The idea was to use these support personnel to complete non-instructional duties, and provide general clerical support (Lombardo,1980).  In the early 1960’s, Jenkins and associates, (as cited in Lombard, 1980) shared that the role of these paraprofessionals had changed slightly and that their jobs were no longer limited to providing supports for clerical, non-instructional work, but now included providing tutorial instruction in resource room locations.  

Historically, all of these practices preceded the actual passage of Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which was created and designed to provide for, “Free and Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE) to the nearly four million handicapped students who were not receiving a public education designed specifically for them to achieve to their individual abilities.  Prior to the passage of all of these mandates, students with significant disabilities were generally educated either at home, in segregated school settings, or oftentimes institutionalized (Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  Causton-Theoharis shared that before the passage of PL 94-142 in 1975, paraprofessionals were utilized largely because it was, “…believed that students with disabilities could not learn as much as students without disabilities and that they did not need certified teachers to support them; therefore students with disabilities were typically supported by people in paraprofessional roles” (p. 3).  In the 1980’s, parents fought for their disabled children to be educated in the general education classrooms alongside their non-disabled peers and this shift in location and program design brought about the practice we now know of as mainstreaming or inclusion (Will, 1986 as cited in Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  

As a result of these laws and parent-driven staffing requests, the role of the paraprofessional changed when children with disabilities began participating in general education classrooms alongside their non-disabled peers (Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  Subsequently, trained paraprofessionals readily became recognized members of their school-based team(s) focused on providing support to overcome the “previous injustices done to the handicapped children and youth of this nation” (Lombardo, 1980, p. 26).  

The current reauthorization of The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004 (IDEIA, 2004).  A key piece of this reauthorization continues to be the requirement that all schools provide special education supports and services within the least restrictive educational environment (LRE) to all children with disabilities (Breton, 2010).  ESEA-1965 was later amended to become the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; Pub. L. No. 107-110) and it required strict academic rigor for all students, not just those identified with disabilities, and here is where the role of the paraprofessional changed becoming much more complex and moving from that of a clerical worker or physical caregiver to that of an educational facilitator (Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  

Historically, disabled children were segregated in rooms where educational expectations were limited to the provision of life skills and job-related training with other disabled children and the roll of the adults supporting them was one relegated to “providing personal care and keeping them occupied” (Causton-Theoharis, 2009, p. 5).  Economics have forced schools to consider alternative ways and means by which to provide all students with an education, but most specifically how best to support students with Individual Education Programs or Plans (IEP).  Breton (2010) wrote that the creation of different service delivery models occurred to meet the varied and ever-challenging prospect of supporting students with significant disabilities within the general education curriculum. Breton contended that this was where these paraprofessional(s) were best utilized.  Whether you call them paraprofessionals, para-educators, teacher aides, or instructional support staff, they all provide the same basic supports, and when properly trained and supported, these paraprofessionals deliver a more cost-effective method of supporting students with disabilities (Breton, 2010).  Breton also noted that the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 required that all personnel providing supports within special education are, “…adequately prepared and trained and, in addition, that paraprofessionals be appropriately supervised” (IDEA 20 U.S.C. 1412(a) (14) (pg. 34).  Although IDEA mandated the provision for training to ensure that all staff, including paraprofessionals, had the skills necessary to support students with disabilities, they left the specifics of meeting this mandate up to the individual states (Breton, 2010).  Additionally, Picket (1999) as cited in Breton (2010) noted that minimal guidance was ever provided to states to even define the phrase, “appropriate training and supervision,” thus training, supervision and employment requirements and qualifications for paraprofessionals differ from state to state. 

Given the mandates of both IDEA and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001), children with disabilities are having their educational needs met within the least restrictive environment (LRE) with their non-disabled peers in general education classrooms (Patterson, 2006).  Under IDEA, all services and supports must be carefully delineated in the child’s IEP, and should be “provided by individuals with the highest qualifications” (Patterson, 2006, p. 1).  

The Role of Paraprofessionals Today

Paraprofessionals currently play a huge role in the provision of special education services and supports to students with disabilities (Stockall, 2014).  There is no one definition of the role of a paraprofessional because, as Stockall explained, they can provide services ranging from assisting students in both maintaining and generalizing learned concepts and skills to helping students organize their environment, as well as to support students as they learn greater independence and self-advocacy skills, while simultaneously supporting the classroom teachers instructional teaching time.  Causton-Theoharis (2009) wrote that the role of the paraprofessional may include supporting children socially, academically, physically, and behaviorally; including social supports, such as working with students to find and select a peer or group for classroom work, or in choosing a friend to play with at recess. 

A paraprofessionals role also might include providing physical support in the form of supporting activities of daily living (ADL) skills to  students who need help with eating, dressing, transfers from chairs or wheelchairs, and supporting toileting needs (Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  Another role a paraprofessional might play is that of providing behavioral supports to students, both inside and outside of the special education classroom.  Causton-Theoharis found that paraprofessionals were often asked to take and maintain behavioral data on specific behavioral goals in a student’s IEP.  Sometimes this data is in the form of noting each time a specific behavior occurs or includes specific forms of interventions when a student is exhibiting an identified behavior that is under review or modification.  Another area of support provided by paraprofessionals is with technology.  Causton-Theoharis explained that these technological supports might range from helping students to access classroom computers and or actually supporting the students with the use of assistive technology (AT) in the form of some type of device to improve their ability to communicate and access their education.  As outlined in IDEA 2004, the term assistive technology refers to, “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities of children with disabilities” (20 U.S.DC.§ 1401 [a] [25]) as cited in (Causton-Theoharis, 2009, p. 89).  From providing academic, social, emotional, behavioral, and physical supports to supporting students’ specific life skill needs, such as ambulation, eating, and toileting, the job of a paraprofessional today is quite varied, extremely skill-laden, and requires the requisite training to adequately prepare these paraprofessionals for their specific roles (Breton, 2010).    

Patterson (2006) surveyed 22 paraprofessionals asking for them to talk about their jobs and needs.  All of the participants worked in K-12 schools and the majority of these paraprofessionals worked with students who had, ”low-incidence” disabilities, such as autism, Asperger’s syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, developmental disabilities, and Down syndrome (Patterson, 2006).  The participants in this study were employed in three different school districts.  Patterson found that the paraprofessionals shared that their jobs included a range of responsibilities and or expectations throughout the work day; that they were required to understand the basic tenets of behavior management strategies; that they needed a much more clearly defined job description; that they voiced wide-spread concerns surrounding the high job expectations and low monetary compensation, and finally, that they discussed the need for greater partnership and collaboration time with the teachers in whose classrooms they worked, both special educators and general educators (Patterson, 2006).  Patterson noted that these paraprofessionals spent most of their workday with their assigned students or classes, but 54% noted that they had never received any training prior to assuming the responsibilities of their specific jobs and, at best, they were expected to learn, “on the job.”  These same paraprofessionals shared that they felt that their financial compensation was very poor for the types of job expectations and responsibilities they were asked to perform (Patterson, 2006).  There were also positive responses shared by the participants. Some expressed thanks to the supervising special education teachers who were supportive of their work and success in the classroom, and, as one participant shared, “…role models who inspired him to want to continue in his role as a paraprofessional” (Patterson, 2006, n.p.).  

French and Picket (1997) as cited in Stockall (2014), found that just as paraprofessionals have not been prepared for their roles in supporting students, the majority of special education professionals have not been provided sufficient time and training to supervise these paraprofessionals.  In the end, adequate training is necessary so that these paraprofessionals who assume the roles of providing full-time support to students with disabilities are able to work more proactively and from a place of knowledge and training (Patterson, 2006).      

Training Needs for Today’s Paraprofessionals

The training needs of today’s paraprofessionals varies as much as the jobs that they perform.  Etscheidt (2005) discussed how “The training needs of the paraprofessionals differ for paraprofessionals working at different points along the grade span” (p. 346) since the needs of students typically changes, “…as well as the contexts in which they receive instruction, which may necessitate paraprofessionals assuming different roles requiring distinctive competencies” (p. 346).

Etscheidt (2005) surveyed 313 paraprofessionals regarding their job-related tasks and asked them about their perceptions of their training needs.  These paraprofessionals worked in grades K-12 and of the 313 participants, 281 were female and 30 were male. Although the participants worked in all types of classroom settings with students who had varying diagnosed disabilities, the majority of these paraprofessionals worked with students who had autism, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbance, or were deaf-blind (Etscheidt, 2005).  The top-ten roles and responsibilities these paraprofessionals shared as normal parts of their working with special education students included: “Providing one-on-one instruction; facilitating social relationships; providing instructional support; providing behavior management; completing clerical skills; teaching self-management skills, modifying or adapting materials; meeting teachers; monitoring hallways; and preparing instructional materials” (Etscheidt, 2005, p. 351).  The participants shared that they completed these tasks anywhere from 67% to 97% of the time, each day or week.  They also shared that, without training, they felt most readily prepared to do the following jobs: “monitoring hallways, study hall and lunch, or detention,” as well as completing “clerical work, like photocopying, typing, or filing, and providing one-on-one instruction” (Etscheidt, 2005, p. 352).  The job tasks which these paraprofessionals shared they didn’t feel prepared to support included, “completing disability related paperwork, assisting with speech therapy, writing lesson plans for students, assisting with physical or occupational therapy, and participating in planning for students’ IEP meetings” (Etscheidt, 2005, p. 353).  Thirty-nine percent of the paraprofessionals in this study agreed that they needed more and specific training to assist students with the use of assistive technology (Etscheidt, 2005).  

Pinpointing the training needs of paraprofessionals is not an easy task.  Etscheidt (2005) found that paraprofessionals often provide, “educational supports to students with a broad range of needs across multiple contexts within varied instructional formats” (p. 353) and that the average paraprofessional might be supporting students who, “collectively were being served under five different disability categories” (p. 353) and noted that these, “Heterogeneous learners are likely to require a wide array of academic, social and behavioral supports” (p. 353).  The heterogeneity of these students, in addition to the wide range of “instructional delivery formats” means that the paraprofessional must possess a sufficient knowledge of these students’ needs in order to successfully fulfill their role in providing academic, social, and emotional/behavioral supports (Etscheidt, 2005).   

Etscheidt (2005) posits that the disparity of self-reported knowledge might be directly connected to the paraprofessionals years of experience, which was found to be a significant predictor of their overall knowledge, “Suggesting that paraprofessionals may be acquiring this core knowledge gradually over time as they accrue experience working with students and attain veteran status” (p. 354).  Etscheidt found that, despite the knowledge gains made over time, most paraprofessionals shared they felt they were expected to possess much of this knowledge when they began their employment and that on-the-job training was the method used most often preparing them for the jobs they were already doing.  Just as Etscheidt noted a heavy reliance on informal or individualized training approaches for paraprofessionals was, “…likely to be very idiosyncratic and characterized by quality that is highly dependent on the special educator or general educator who is assigned to provide such coaching, feedback, and supervision” (p. 354). 

Giangreco, Broer and Edelman (2005) noted that special educators readily agree that the paraprofessionals who support their students do not receive enough formalized training, with one special educator sharing that paraprofessionals are always assuming more and greater roles and, “We just sort of threw them into another job and said, ‘OK, now do it!’” (p. 59).  Ghere & York-Barr, (2007) as cited in Garwood, Van Loan, & Gessler Werts (2018) shared, “The level of cohesion regarding work-related responsibilities between special education teachers and paraprofessionals has significant implications for paraprofessionals’ views of their value and for the success of the students they serve” (p. 209).    

Legal Implications Regarding the Use of Paraprofessionals

“The use of paraprofessionals in the education of students with disabilities has not been without its controversies” (Breton, 2010, p. 36).  According to Giangreco et al., (2002), that there has been a bit of a double-standard in the fact that general education students get their education from certified educators, but students with disabilities often receive their direct instruction from paraprofessionals.  As a result, many legal concerns have arisen regarding the use of paraprofessionals in special education classrooms and with students with disabilities (Etscheidt, 2005).  Etscheidt determined that the most pressing of concerns expressed in the research regarding the legal implications of utilizing paraprofessionals in special education classrooms includes the following: utilizing the least qualified/trained personnel to support the needs of the most challenging students; the use of paraprofessionals in the implementation of specific teaching strategies or behavioral techniques for which they have received minimal education or training; utilizing paraprofessionals to support academic courses where they lack the academic qualifications or subject-area competencies to support the student; and finally, asking special education teachers or general education teachers to provide oversight and supervision when they are, at best, under trained to take on this responsibility.  Ashbaker and Morgan (2004) found that, “The responsibility of school administrators to oversee the effectiveness of teacher-paraprofessional teams delivering instruction to students is crucial” (p. 1) and that failure to fully examine the roles these educators play in the provision of education to students with disabilities, and their roles on the instructional teams, could easily put the school and district at legal risk.  Federal requirements mandate that the paraprofessionals must be working under the direct supervision of a “Highly Qualified” teacher.  Ashbaker and Morgan shared, “classroom teachers are challenged to find time to train and supervise a paraprofessional while continuing to perform their primary responsibility; instructing students effectively” (p. 3).  

An analysis of court cases found that the provision of 1:1 paraprofessional support was required if it was found to be necessary for a student to “benefit meaningfully from his or her educational program” (Etscheidt, 2005, p. 72).  However, Etscheidt reported that if the provision of a paraprofessional had a potentially negative impact on a students’ social benefit, then requests for 1:1 supports were denied.  Other legal decisions determined that the provision of classroom-based paraprofessional supports available on an “as-needed” basis could prove to be more beneficial than the provision of a continuous, 1:1 support (Etscheidt, 2005).

Court cases where the staffing of paraprofessionals has been challenged illustrate the myriad reasons that these cases can readily end up as legal challenges. Ashbaker and Morgan (2004) shared the 1992 story of a family in Michigan who filed a due process complaint citing that the district reassigned the paraprofessional who had been supporting their child with another paraprofessional the parent believed to be less qualified.  The parents cited that the child and paraprofessional had not developed the right type of bond, noting their belief that the change of aide had adversely impacted their child.  The Hearing Officer (HO) did acknowledge that there was a bond between the student and the former aide, but found that the new aide was ‘duly qualified,’ and required the district to provide counseling supports to the student to better deal with the change of paraprofessional staffing (Ludington Area Schools, 1992, as cited in Ashbaker & Morgan, 2004).  

Research quantifying the effectiveness of paraprofessionals and academic outcomes for students with disabilities is almost non-existent.  Giangreco, Suter and Doyle (2010) stated,

We continue to assign the least qualified personnel to teach students who present the most challenging learning and behavioral characteristics.  Not only do such practices reduce the probability of insuring that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education, but this practice continues to indicate that we, as a society, still undervalue students with disabilities and have unnecessarily low expectations for them. (n.p.)

Giangreco et al., (2012), reported that students voiced that they felt that paraprofessionals got in the way of their opportunities to connect during learning activities, social opportunities, and with their overall ability to access their education in the general education classroom.  Research indicates that students with disabilities working one-on-one with a paraprofessional often exhibit more challenging behaviors and are often seen as less-engaged academically and socially than their disabled peers who do not receive one-to-one support (Causton-Theoharis, 2009).  Giangreco et al. also found that an unintended outcome of employing paraprofessionals in general education classrooms was that the general education teacher routinely engaged less directly with the identified students because of the presence of the paraprofessional assigned to support that student.  

Myriad court cases delineate the ways in which the use of paraprofessionals can be challenged in Due Process cases.  Etscheidt (2005) presented multiple examples of Due Process cases, nationwide, that challenged a school districts ability to meet the provision of  FAPE to students with disabilities.  As far back as 1982, the case of Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley defined an appropriate education as one that provides, “Access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit” (p. 63).  Court decisions which followed Rowley found that educational benefit is not necessarily limited to academic gains, but can also include non-academic areas, such as improved social interaction and self-esteem (Etscheidt, 2005).  Both the case of Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 (1988) and Rowley, (1982) determined that the services provided must be, “more than trivial or de minimus” but do not need to be, “optimal or maximum” (Etscheidt, 2005, p. 63).   

In Lake Travis Independent School District, 4 ECLPR 500 (SEA TX 2003), the parents argued that their five year old child who was diagnosed with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) was capable of full-time academic inclusion with the services of a 1:1 paraprofessional who had been trained in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) methodologies.  The School District proposed a plan where the student would be spending 1/3 of their day in different levels of programming, in and out of general education, without a 1:1 aide, but with the provision of a classroom aide, to provide general support.  The Hearing Officer (HO) found for the parent finding that this student would not “reasonably benefit from instruction without a 1:1 support” (p. 61), despite the districts assertion that the student would become dependent upon the aide (Etscheidt, 2005).  

In the case of Harris County School System, 26 IDELR 193 (SEA GA 1997), the parents of an eleven year old student diagnosed as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) with ADD and dyslexia requested a full-time paraprofessional in both his special education and general education classes.  The HO found for the school district since the parents did not show that the IEP could only be implemented through the hiring and provision of a full-time paraprofessional (Etscheidt, 2005).  

In the case of Molly L. v. Lower Merion School District, 36 IDELR 182 (ED PA 2002), the parents of an 8 year old girl with asthma, gross motor difficulties, and a sensitivity to sensory stimulation believed that the school districts 504 plan stated that an aide would be available throughout the school day in support and intervene on an as-needed basis was not providing enough support and they wanted a 1:1 for their daughter. Parents objected to the supports on an as-needed basis citing that this provision was not “educationally appropriate” since it would “restrict their daughters ability to develop coping skills” (p. 62).  The HO found for the district stating, “the provision of the aide who intervenes on an as-needed basis serves the dual purpose of allowing the student freedom to develop coping skills while also ensuring the student’s safety” (p. 62). 

Etscheidt (2005) expounded upon the case of the Freeport School District 145 (2000) where the parents requested a change of aide believing the new aide lacked the connection necessary for their daughter to clearly communicate her medical needs.  The District held that personnel decisions/appointments were at the district’s discretion and that their choice of aide was “exemplary.”  The HO found that the district’s choice of paraprofessional did not interfere with, ‘the implementation of the IEP and was not a danger to the student, therefore the school district had discretion to assign, providing the paraprofessional was qualified and adequate” (p. 67).  Ultimately, after many cases, hearing officers were finding that although the IEP required school districts to provide a paraprofessional to support a student, it didn’t require a specific aide in order for the student to receive FAPE, and the paraprofessional was not required to be the parent-preferred paraprofessional (Etscheidt, 2005).  Giangreco et al. (2010) held that a student’s perspective must be taken into consideration, especially when the students are older.  They reported that although many paraprofessionals have the “qualities of nurturing mothers,” some teenagers found this level of constant mothering extremely intrusive, with one young man sharing, “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. 44).  

Oftentimes IEP teams inherit recommendations for paraprofessional supports and services through an IEP brought from another school or district. Although many students with disabilities receive related supports and services in order for them to receive FAPE, in the Board of Education of the City of New York, 1998, as cited in Etscheidt (2005), “IEP teams must explore a variety of supplemental aids and services other than the provision of a paraprofessional to meet the student’s needs and facilitate inclusion” (p. 78).  Etscheidt opined that, “Duties delegated to paraprofessionals must be supplementary and not supplant the special education or related services specified in the IEP.  An overextension or over reliance on paraprofessional support may result in denial of FAPE” (p. 75). 

Although, as Etscheidt (2005) explained, the literature is replete with research supporting that paraprofessionals must work closely under the direction and supervision of qualified professionals, paraprofessional self-reports clearly indicated that this is not the case and they are functioning independently and autonomously, oftentimes in almost total isolation of the direction and supervision they should be receiving.  Etscheidt (2005) wrote, “As the analysis of administrative and court decisions indicated, adequate training and supervision of paraprofessionals will ensure compliance with both the procedural and substantive requirements of the IDEIA” (p. 77). 

Can Paraprofessional Staffing be Counterproductive?   

Giangreco, Yuan, McKenzie, Cameron and Fialka (2005) noted that parents are oftentimes the driving force behind the consideration of assigning a paraprofessional to support their child in an inclusive setting, but, 

Parents seeking inclusive education through the assignment of an individual, full-time paraprofessional may be working at cross-purposes with themselves, since having an adult by a student’s side for all or most of the day can actually interfere with the student’s inclusion as a participating member of the classroom community. (p. 28)

Giangreco et al. (2005) reported cases where students were assigned paraprofessionals, as determined by their needs, related services, and goals in their IEP, and the student themselves spoke against having that level of support.  “Beth” was a high school student with Down syndrome who entered high school with one-to-one paraprofessional support.  This support worked well during her freshman year, but that specific paraprofessional was well-skilled at reading when to step-in and when to back-off, so this arrangement worked well for both of them.  Giangreco et al. explained that during her sophomore year “Beth’s” paraprofessional staffing changed and the new staff member stuck to her too closely, didn’t give her enough space to be a typical high school student, and, according to “Beth,” “was always telling her what to do, insisting that she leave class early and generally making a spectacle of their interactions” (p. 29).  ”Beth” reacted uncharacteristically and started having behavioral outbursts, including running away from school to escape her paraprofessional (Giangreco et al. 2005).  As Giangreco et al. shared, although Beth’s communication was not socially or behaviorally appropriate, her “intent and frustration” were obvious and with support Beth was finally able to tell everyone that she didn’t want an aide, anymore.  The IEP team was concerned about removing this level of support, but honored her wishes and Beth ended up more academically active in her classes, since she no longer had an “intermediary between her and her teachers” (p. 29) and successfully finished high school without further need for that intensive level of support.

Giangreco et al. (2005) discussed the positives of staffing with paraprofessionals, given the provision that they are being utilized appropriately and receive both the necessary training and supervision.  Giangreco et al. noted that paraprofessionals can be very helpful supporting clerical needs allowing teachers more time to engage in direct instruction, complete follow-up instruction, provide homework help, provide supervision during less structured activities, facilitate social skills experiences with peers and provide and assist with personal care needs.  Ashbaker (2000), as cited in Giangreco et al. (2005),    noted that most often, paraprofessionals live in the communities in which they are employed and they can help provide “cultural perspectives or speak the primary language of non-English speaking students” (p. 29).

Another issue related to successful staffing using paraprofessionals includes research supporting that some paraprofessionals are not themselves academically capable of supporting  the curricular subjects their student study and that this has become more of a significant issue in subjects, such as foreign language, math and science (Giangreco et al. 2005).  ”Academic mismatches were illustrated further by situations where a student in need of support in Spanish class being assigned a paraprofessional who did not speak Spanish, or paraprofessionals assigned to students in math class who “…don’t do algebra” (Giangreco, et al., 2002, pg. 61).   Giangreco et al. (2005) shared that one general education high school teacher noted, “Since the paraeducators go to classes with the kids, we assume that they are able to grasp the content of the class and then review it with the student,” (p. 61) which might not be a valid conclusion or outcome when providing direct staffing supports for academically-included students.    

Where Does This Leave Us?

“Collaboration between a paraprofessional and a teacher promotes effective communication; proactively minimizes conflict; and builds rapport, trust, respect, and a professional relationship” (Gerzel-Short, Conderman & DeSpain, 2018, p. 153).  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (as cited in Gerzel-Short et al., 2018), approximately 1.3 million paraprofessionals were employed in public schools throughout the US in 2016, with more than 400,000 of those 1.3 million specifically hired to support special education programs and students. 

Patterson (2006) determined that the following must be taken into consideration when hiring, assigning, and supporting paraprofessionals in schools: School districts must clearly determine their job responsibilities, as well as the job descriptions of these paraprofessionals, and these paraprofessionals must begin to get the training and supervision necessary to maximize their hiring benefits.  Patterson also noted that professional development must be geared to their job responsibilities and include things such as research-based behavior management strategies, as well as academic/organizational strategies.  Patterson contends that financial compensation needs to better align with the skills and jobs required of these paraprofessionals to lessen staff turnover and there needs to be much more organized collaborative time for these paraprofessionals to work with the general education teachers in whose classrooms they provide the support.  As Patterson wrote, “Policy makers and educational team members must ask if best practice is being demonstrated when paraprofessionals who are unqualified or untrained are asked to assume full-time responsibilities for supporting students who may require more specialized care and instruction” (n. p.).  

Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco and Pelsue (2009) and Patterson (2006) contend that the low salaries and limited opportunities for advancement in the profession directly impact the high turnover staffing rates of paraprofessionals.  They also believe that improved training practices coupled with more clearly identified and supported job descriptions have shown to have positive implications for job retention, as well as improving the overall job satisfaction among paraprofessionals. 

Giangreco, Doyle and Suter (2012) cautioned schools and IEP teams to carefully consider the needs of the student and the role(s) of the paraprofessionals when it comes to staffing classrooms and individual students.  

While acknowledging a real concern exists, we should not simply ask for a justification of the request in an effort to approve or disapprove it- that would be asking the wrong question.  Rather, teams need to ensure there is a clear and accurate understanding of the issues and engage in processes designed to select solutions that match the need. (Giangreco et al., 2012, p. 364)

As schools and IEP teams staff classes and support students, it is integral that they fully understand the staffing request since the last thing any educational professional wants to do is to mask the underlying issues which, in turn delays attending to what needs to be addressed (Giangreco et al., 2012).  

Bryan Johnson, assistant director for Certified Recruitment with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) oversees their STEP UP and Teach program; a LAUSD program designed to provide financial support and mentoring supports to paraprofessional staff who want to further their educations and become full-time teachers, especially in the tough to fill positions, such as special education (Jacobson, 2017).  Johnson shared with Jacobson statistics related to the STEP UP and Teach program noting that in their first year, 150 paraprofessionals enrolled in the program, which provided $4800 in the form of tuition reimbursement to paraprofessionals for support in furthering their education.  In 2017, Jacobson noted that the STEP UP and Teach program had 260 candidates enrolled and that over 100 new teachers have graduated from the program and now have their own classrooms in the District. 

As educational standards change based on sound research and the demands of a complex world, the delivery of educational services to students with diverse demographics, experiences, and ability levels and therefore the preparation of personnel who provide these services must change as well. (King-Berry & Boone, 2012, p. 169) 

Paraprofessionals are both valuable and essential members of the school community and when well utilized, their services and supports offer many benefits to teachers, students and parents (Goe and Matlach, 2014).  After all, as stated by Gertzel-Short et al. (2018), taking purposeful actions to collaborate, train, coach, and support paraprofessionals allows everyone to work together to assist students in reaching their academic, social and behavioral goals.  In the end, Breton (2010) concluded, “…these efforts will justify the financial commitment by improving the quality and efficacy of special education paraprofessionals which will unquestionably improve the educational programming for all students with disabilities” (p. 44).   

References

Ashbaker, B. Y., & Morgan, J. (2004). Legal issues relating to school paraprofessionals. Retrieved from www.nassp.org

Breton, W. (2010). Special education paraprofessionals: perceptions of preservice preparation, supervision and ongoing developmental training. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 34-45.

Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009, November/December). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344-359. dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324399

Causton-Theoharis, J. (2009). The paraprofessional’s handbook for effective support in inclusive classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Etscheidt, S. (2005). Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: a legal analysis of issues. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 60-80.

Garwood, J. D., Van Loan, C. L., & Gessler Werts, M. (2018). Mindset of paraprofessionals serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(4), 206-211. dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451217712958

Gertzel-Short, L., Conderman, G., & DeSpain, S. (2018). Supporting paraprofessionals: tips for enhanced collaboration. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 152-157. dx.doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2018.1515542

Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2002). That was then, this is now! Paraprofessional supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptionality, 10(1), 47-64.

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. (2012). Constructively responding to requests for paraprofessionals: we keep asking the wrong questions. Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 362-373. dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932511413472

Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Doyle, M. B. (2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: a review of recent research. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 41-57. Retrieved from library.immaculata.edu/login

Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). “Be careful what you wish for…”: five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(5), 28-34. Retrieved from danceofpartnership.com

Goe, L., & Match, L. (2014). Supercharging student success: policy levers for helping paraprofessionals have a positive influence in the classroom. Policy snapshot. Retrieved from www.gtlcenter.org

Jacobson, L. (2017). Districts tap paraprofessionals to meet demand for special ed teachers. Retrieved from www.educationdive.com

King-Berry, A., & Boone, R. (2010, Fall 2012). When the music changes… Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(3), 169-182.

Lombardo, Ed.D., V. C. (1980). Paraprofessionals in Special Education (1 ed.). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Patterson, K. B. (2006, May). Roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals: in their own words. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2(1). Retrieved from escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol12/iss5/art1

Stockall, N. S. (2014, July/August). When an aide really becomes an aid: providing professional development for special education paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 197-205.