Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Paraprofessional utilization has steadily risen in an effort to meet the needs of students with disabilities in inclusion-oriented classrooms. To date, no widely accepted processes exist to assist schools in determining when the use of paraprofessional staff is warranted. Many schools have attempted to fill this void by developing local processes designed to justify paraprofessional assignment. This article describes how justification approaches to paraprofessional decision making operate from a reactive posture, include inherently problematic criteria, and perpetuate socially constructed myths that certain students need one-to-one paraprofessionals. An alternative framework for making decisions is offered through a series of school/district- and classroom/team-level concepts and corresponding actions that can be pursued in developing proactive processes and practices tailored to local contexts.

Keywords

paraprofessionals inclusive practices reform service delivery decision making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Causton-Theoharis

Giangreco

M. F.

Doyle

M. B.

Vadasy

P. F.

(2007). Paraprofessionals: The “sous chefs” of literacy instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 57–62.

Davern

Sapon-Shevin

D’Aquanni

Fisher

Larson

Black

Minondo

(1997). Drawing distinctions between coherent and fragmented efforts at building inclusive schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 30(3), 31–39. doi:10.1080/1066568970300306

Doyle

M. B.

(2008). The paraprofessional guide to the inclusive classroom: Working as a team (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1–15.

Etscheidt

(2005). Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 60–80.

Feldman

Denti

(2004). High access instruction: Practical strategies increase active learning in diverse classrooms. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(7), 1–12.

French

N. K.

(2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher practices. Journal of Special Education, 35, 41–53. doi:10.1177/002246690103500105

Ghere

York-Barr

(2007). Paraprofessional turnover and retention in inclusive programs: Hidden costs and promising practices. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 21–32. doi:10.1177/07419325070280010301

Giangreco

M. F.

(1996). Vermont interdependent services team approach: A guide to coordinating educational support services. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. (Supplement of updated forms and directions available at http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/rsrp/rsrpvista.html)

10.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2010). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 48, 1–13. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.1

11.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2011). Educating students with severe disabilities: Foundational concepts and practices. In Snell

M. E.

Brown

(Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed., pp. 1–30). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Prentice Hall.

12.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

(2003). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals. Burlington: University of Vermont, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/evolve/gsa.html

13.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

(2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10–26. doi:10.1177/10883576050200010201

14.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

Edelman

S. W.

(1999). The tip of the iceberg: Determining whether paraprofessional support is needed for students with disabilities in general education settings. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 281–291.

15.

Giangreco

M. F.

Broer

S. M.

Suter

J. C.

(2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 22–38. doi:10.1177/0741932509355951

16.

Giangreco

M. F.

Edelman

Luiselli

T. E.

MacFarland

S. Z.

(1996). Support service decision-making for students with multiple service needs: Evaluation data. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 21, 135–144.

17.

Giangreco

M. F.

Edelman

S. W.

Luiselli

T. E.

MacFarland

S. Z.

(1998). Reaching consensus about educationally necessary support services: A qualitative evaluation of VISTA. Special Services in the Schools, 13, 1–32. doi:10.1300/J008v13n01_01

18.

Giangreco

M. F.

Edelman

Nelson

Young

M. R.

Kiefer-O’Donnell

(1999). Improving support service decision-making: Consumer feedback regarding updates to VISTA. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 463–473. doi:10.1080/103491299100443

19.

Giangreco

M. F.

Halvorsen

A. T.

Doyle

M. B.

Broer

S. M.

(2004). Alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 17, 82–90.

20.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

Doyle

M. B.

(2010). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 41–57. doi:10.1080/10474410903535356

21.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

Graf

(2011). Roles of team members supporting students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In Giangreco

M. F.

Cloninger

C. J.

Iverson

V. S.

(Eds.), Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children: A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 197–204). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

22.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.

23.

Jorgensen

C. M.

McSheehan

Sonnenmeier

(2009). The beyond access model: Promoting membership, participation, and learning for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

24.

Malmgren

K. W.

Causton-Theoharis

J. N.

(2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of paraprofessional proximity and other pedagogical decisions on the interactions of a student with behavior disorders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 301–312. doi:10.1080/02568540609594569

25.

Mueller

P. H.

Murphy

F. V.

(2001). Determining when a student requires paraeducator support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(6), 22–27.

26.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 §§ 6301 et seq.

27.

Ouchi

W. G.

(2009). The secret of TSL (total student load): The revolutionary discovery that raises school performance. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

28.

Rea

P. J.

McLaughlin

V. L.

Walther-Thomas

(2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–223.

29.

Riggs

C. G.

Mueller

P. H.

(2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35, 54–62. doi:10.1177/002246690103500106

30.

Rebhorn

Smith

(2008, April). LRE decision making (Module 15). In Building the legacy: IDEA 2004 training curriculum. Washington, DC: National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nichcy.org/Laws/IDEA/Pages/BuildingTheLegacy.aspx

31.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Blatchford

Webster

Koutsoubou

Bassett

(2010). Enhancing learning? A comparison of teacher and teaching assistant interactions with pupils. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09243453.2010.512800

32.

Stainback

(1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.

33.

Suter

J. C.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of Special Education, 43, 81–93. doi:10.1177/0022466907313353

34.

Udvari-Solner

Kluth

(2007). Joyful learning: Active and collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

35.

Wallace

Shin

Bartholomay

Stahl

(2001). Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67, 520–533.

36.

Webster

Blatchford

Bassett

Brown

Martin

Russell

(2010). Double standards and first principles: Framing teaching assistant support for pupils with special educational needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 319–336. doi:10.1080/08856257.2010.513538

37.

WestEd (n.d.). Least Restrictive Environment Resources Project. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/pj/204

38.

Wright’s Law (n.d.). Questions and answers about the least restrictive environment requirements of the IDEA. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.osers.memo.idea.htm

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB

Constructively Responding to Requests for Paraprofessionals

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material