This study chronicled the use of a process of planning for paraeducator supports, by teams in 46 schools, in 13 states during the 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 school years. Data reflect the utilization and outcomes of the process along with the perspectives of 331 individual team members. Findings indicated that the process assisted school teams in self-assessing their paraeducator practices, identifying priorities, and developing action plans and implementing them. Individual team members reported that the process did what it purported to do and rated it highly on consumer-oriented variables. Culminating reports documented impact on school personnel and student outcomes. Implications for schools and future use are discussed for improving paraeducator supports and educational supports for students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
BrownL.FarringtonK.ZieglerM.KnightT.RossC. (1999). Fewer paraeducators and more teachers and therapists in educational programs for students with significant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 249–252.
3.
CichoskiKellyE.BackusL.GiangrecoM. F.Sherman-TuckerP. (2000). Paraeducator entry-level training for supporting students with disabilities (Instructor and participant manuals). Stillwater, OK: National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials.
4.
DowningJ.RyndakD.ClarkD. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171–181.
5.
DoyleM. B. (2002). The paraeducators guide to the inclusive classroom: Working as a team (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
FrenchN. (2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher practices. Journal of Special Education35, 41–53.
7.
GerlachK. (2001). Let's team up! A checklist for paraeducators, teachers, and principals. Washington, DC: National Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468 320).
8.
GhereG.York-BarrJ.SommernessJ. (2002). Supporting students with disabilities in inclusive schools: A curriculum for job-embedded paraprofessional development. Minneapolis: Institute on Community Education, University of Minnesota.
9.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.EdelmanS. W. (1999). The tip of the iceberg: Determining whether paraeducator support is needed for students with disabilities in general education settings. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 280–290.
10.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.EdelmanS. W. (2002). Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports: A pilot study. Rural Special Education Quarterly21(1), 3–15.
11.
GiangrecoM. F.DoyleM. B. (2002). Students with disabilities and paraprofessional supports: Benefits, balance, and band-aids. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(7), 1–12.
12.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS. W.BroerS. M. (2000–2001). A guide to schoolwide planning for paraeducator supports. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion. Retrieved on January 20, 2003, from http://www.uvm.edu/∼cdci/parasupport/guide.html.
13.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS. W.BroerS. M. (2001). Respect, acknowledgement, and appreciation of paraeducators who support students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 485–498.
14.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS. W.BroerS. M.DoyleM. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 45–64.
15.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS.LuiselliT. E.Mac-FarlandS. Z. C. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 7–18.
16.
HenryG. (2000). Why not use?. In CaracelliV. J.PreskillH. (Eds.), New direction for evaluation: The expanding scope of evaluation use (No. 88; pp. 85–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (A publication of the American Evaluation Association).
17.
IDEA Partnerships. (December, 2001). IDEA partnerships paraprofessional initiative: Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children — ASPI-IRE.
18.
Institute on Community Integration. (1999). Strategies for paraprofessionals who support individuals with disabilities (5 module series). Minneapolis: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.
19.
JonesK. H.BenderW. N. (1993). Utilization of paraeducators in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7–14.
20.
MarksS. U.SchraderC.LevineM. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own?Exceptional Children, 65, 315–328.
21.
MorganJ.AshbakerB. Y. (2001). A teacher's guide to working with paraeducators and other classroom aides. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 450 098).
22.
MinondoS.MeyerL.XinJ. (2001). The roles and responsibilities of teaching assistants in inclusive education: What's appropriate?Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 114–119.
23.
PadillaR. V. (1999). HyperQual3 (version 1.0). [Computer software]Chandler, AZ: Author. (Address: 3327 N. Dakota, Chandler, AZ 85225; email: hyperqual@home.com).
24.
PickettA. L. (1999). Strengthening and supporting teacher/provider-paraeducator teams: Guidelines for paraeducator roles, supervision, and preparation. New York: National Resource Center for Paraeducators in Education and Related Services, Graduate Center, City University of New York.
25.
PickettA. L.GerlachK. (1997). Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
26.
RiggsC. G.MuellerP. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education35, 54–62.
27.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1999–2000). SAS system, Release 8.1. Cary, NC: Author.
