Many schools have increased their use of paraprofessionals as a primary mechanism to include more students with various disabilities in general education classes. Although intended to be supportive, service delivery that relies extensively on paraprofessionals has resulted in a host of challenges for public schools and questionable services for students with disabilities. This article offers an in-depth description of one elementary school over a 3-year period. It chronicles the school's use of an action planning tool to pursue alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals as well as service delivery and financial changes that occurred as a result of the school's actions. The impact of the actions the school implemented and intended next steps offer authentic perspectives for schools facing similar challenges as they seek to extend inclusive schooling opportunities.
AshbakerB. Y.MorganJ. (2004). Legal issues relating to school paraprofessionals. A Legal Memorandum-Quarterly Law Topics for School Leaders: National Association of Secondary School Principals, Spring, 1–8.
2.
BroerS. M.DoyleM. B.GiangrecoM. F. (2005). Perspectives of students with intellectual disabilities about their experiences with paraprofessional supports. Exceptional Children, 71, 415–430.
3.
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.
4.
Causton-TheoharisJ. N.MalmgrenK. W. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431–444.
5.
CarterE. W.CushingL. S.ClarkN. M.KennedyC. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students' access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15–25.
6.
EtscheidtS. (2005). Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 60–80.
7.
FrenchN. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher practices. Journal of Special Education, 35, 41–53.
8.
FrenchN. K. (2003). Managing paraeducators in your school: How to hire, train, and supervise non-certified staff. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
9.
GhereG.York-BarrJ. (in press). Paraprofessional turnover and retention in inclusive programs: Hidden costs and promising practices. Remedial and Special Education.
10.
GiangrecoM. F. (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership, 61, 50–53.
11.
GiangrecoM. F. (2006). Foundational concepts and practices for educating students with severe disabilities. In SnellM. E.BrownF., Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 1–27). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education/Prentice-Hall.
12.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M. (2003). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals (Version 1.0). Burlington: University of Vermont, Center on Disability and Community Inclusion. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.uvm.edu/∼cdci/evolve/gsa.html.
13.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. 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.
14.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.EdelmanS. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences based on paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 75–86.
15.
GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.EdelmanS. W. (2002). “That was then, this is now!” Paraprofessional supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptionality, 10, 47–64.
16.
GiangrecoM. F.DoyleM. B. (2004). Directing paraprofessional work. In KennedyC. H.HornE. M., Including students with severe disabilities (pp. 185–204). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS. W.BroerS. M.DoyleM. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 485–498.
18.
GiangrecoM. F.EdelmanS. W.LuiselliT. E.MacFarlandS. Z. C. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 7–18.
19.
GiangrecoM. F.HalvorsenA.DoyleM. B.BroerS. M. (2004). Alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 17, 82–90.
20.
GuskeyT. R. (1990). Integrating innovations. Educational Leadership, 47, 11–15.
21.
HemmingssonH.BorellL.GustavssonA. (2003). Participation in school: School assistants creating opportunities and obstacles for pupils with disabilities. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 23, 88–98.
22.
JonesK. H.BenderW. N. (1993). Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7–14.
23.
KennedyM. M. (1999). Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 345–363.
24.
Linn-Mar Community School District and Grant Wood Education Agency (AEA 10), 41 IDELR 24 (SEA. IA, Feb. 27, 2004).
25.
MalmgrenK. W.Causton-TheoharisJ. N. (2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of paraprofessional proximity and other pedagogical decisions on the interactions of a student with behavioral disorders. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 301–312.
26.
ManningK. (1997). Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without prescription. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 93–115.
27.
MarksS. U.SchraderC.LevineM. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own?Exceptional Children, 65, 315–328.
28.
McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.PolychronisS.RisenT. (2002). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363–377.
29.
MinondoS.MeyerL. H.XinJ. F. (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.
30.
PetersonJ. M.HittieM. M. (2003). Inclusive teaching: Creating effective schools for all learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
31.
PickettA. L.GerlachK. (2003). Supervising paraeducators in school settings: A team approach (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
32.
PickettA. L.LikinsM.WallaceT. (2003). The employment and preparation of paraeducators. New York: National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals. Retrieved September 28, 2004, from http://www.nrcpara.org/resources/stateoftheart/index.php.
33.
RiggsC. G.MuellerP. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35, 54–62.
34.
SkarL.TammM. (2001). My assistant and I: Disabled children's and adolescents' roles and relationships to their assistants. Disability and Society, 16, 917–931.
35.
Vermont Department Education. (2005). Estimated FTE of aides employed for K-12 special education (raw data). Montpelier: Author.
36.
WallaceT.ShinJ.BartholomayT.StahlB. (2001). Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work of paraprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67, 520–533.
37.
WertsM. G.ZigmondN.LeeperD. C. (2001). Paraprofessional proximity and academic engagement: Students with disabilities in primary aged classrooms. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 424–440.
