Other
Roles, Responsibilities, and Concerns of Paraeducators: Findings From a Statewide Survey
Abstract
The purpose of this survey study was to obtain descriptive information about job situations of special education paraeducators from paraeducators across one state and determine their perceptions regarding roles, current issues identified in the literature, and other issues of concern. Of particular interest was whether perceptions varied based on (a) paraeducator assignment (one-to-one or group) or (b) time in general education settings. More than 1,800 paraeducators responded. Findings supported previous studies based on smaller samples. Problematic issues previously associated with one-to-one paraeducators in general education settings were reported as concerns by both one-to-one and group paraeducators who spent all or most of their day in self-contained settings. Discussion centers on the importance of “paraeducator voice” in efforts to address broader issues of inclusive schooling, clarification of paraeducators as instructional team members, and better understandings situated in practice of the paraeducator role as an effective intervention alternative sometimes for students with individualized education programs.
Keywords
inclusive practices, inclusion, paraprofessionals, teacher preparation Across the United States more than 412,498 “paraprofessionals” are providing support for children and youth with
disabilities in public schools settings (Data Accountability Center [DAC], 2010). Depending on the school district where these instructional staff members are employed, they are referred to as paraprofessionals, teacher aides, teacher assistants, instructional assistants, or paraeducators. Irrespective of title, these public school personnel have become critical players in the provision of educational pro- grams for students with disabilities. Paraeducators (as we refer to these instructional staff throughout this article) are a primary support for students with disabilities in K–12 set- tings (French, 2003a; Giangreco & Doyle, 2007; Pickett, Gerlach, Morgan, Likens, & Wallace, 2007). Often, they are given—particularly in the case of students who have high support needs and receive services in general education settings—responsibility for the implementation of student programs (Downing, Ryndak, & Clark, 2000; Giangreco, Edelman, Luisielli, & MacFarland, 1997). The success of students with disabilities can depend in many ways on the supports provided by paraeducators. Despite the increased significance of this role, the ways in which paraeducators are prepared, supported, and invited to participate as members of educational teams received relatively little attention in the literature until the late 1990s and early 2000s (Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010). In the past decade, studies have explored the perceived appropriateness of new roles and responsibilities as well as examined whether and what kind of supports had been provided to prepare paraeducators for these new roles (cf. Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009; Downing et al., 2000; Minondo, Meyer, & Xin, 2001). In general, researchers have found that paraeducators were trained on the job rather than prepared “in advance,” that the level of independence paraeducators exerted on the job (in at least some reports) exceeded the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), and that supervising teachers were reluctant to supervise and/or evaluate the paraeducators assigned to provide support for students in their classes or on their caseload. In the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) amendments of 1997, Congress specified as a condition for state eligibility the states have personnel standards such that paraeducators who are “appropriately trained and supervised . . . be used to assist” in the delivery of special education and related services (IDEA, 2008, Part B, Section 612 (a)15(B) iii). Recent investigations have explored the impact of the presence of a paraeducator on student interactions as well as their effectiveness in providing instructional support. In a series of studies, Giangreco and colleagues documented problems and concerns regarding adult proximity to the stu- dents whom the adults (i.e., paraeducators) are assigned to support. These researchers noted that a lack of clarity in planning led to an environment in which the paraeducators maintained excessive proximity to students that was detri- mental to peer interactions, general education teacher– student interactions, and student learning (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2001; Giangreco et al., 1997). Other investiga- tors have found that when specific training was provided to these staff, their proximal support facilitated academic or social learning (cf. Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Werts, Zigmond, & Leeper, 2001) and enhanced students’ relationships with their teacher (Robertson, Chamberlain, &
Kasari, 2003).
Although providing services through paraeducators is presumed to and has been reported by some to benefit stu- dents, especially students who receive services in general education settings (cf. Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, & Delorenzo, 2007; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006), the role of paraeducators has also been identified as problematic for the following reasons: (a) the least qualified staff are teaching students with the most complex learning characteristics and in some cases with little oversight or direction, overstepping the boundaries identified in IDEIA; (b) individual (or one-to-one) paraeducator supports are linked in some cases to lower levels of teacher involvement; and (c) current training for paraeducators is limited, and teachers are not prepared to provide ongoing training and supports. Giangreco, Suter, and Doyle (2010) suggested these issues may be symptomatic of broader, more endemic problems related to the current delivery of services to stu-
dents with disabilities.
Researchers have also turned their attention toward the topic of paraeducator job satisfaction. Given the low status of a paraeducator’s position within school districts as reflected by pay schedules and political hierarchies, experts have emphasized the need for school personnel to be forth- right and explicit in welcoming and supporting paraeduca- tors as valued members of the educational team (Doyle, 2008; French, 2003a; Pickett et al., 2007). Although turnover and retention are often alluded to as problematic issues relative to paraeducator employment, only a limited number of
recent studies have addressed this topic (Ghere & York-Barr, 2007; Giangreco et al., 2001; Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008; Tillery, Werts, Roark, & Harris, 2003). Although low salary is a significant concern, it was not the only or even most substantial concern for many paraeducators. Rather, the salient factors in paraeducator job satisfaction were respect from colleagues, acknowledgment of their opinions about students, active team membership, and the existence of a collaborative team culture within a school. Participants in these studies reported that satisfaction depended on the ways in which appreciation and acknowledgment were expressed, by whom, and whether paraeducators had opportunities to be active members of instructional teams. Rate of turnover was addressed specifically in two of these studies and varied across the schools and districts who participated. Each of these studies was small in scale, drawing participants from just one to three school systems. Tillery et al. (2003), in particular, called for further study related to the actual incidence of turnover. We were not able to locate a report more recent than a 1996 national survey conducted by Wolery et al. (1996) that reported turnover rates at either a national or state level. Pickett, Likens, and Wallace (2003) have highlighted the gap in up-to-date and reliable national and state numbers necessary for planning and supporting paraeducators with their cooperating teachers in their joint work. The criticism relative to the actual roles engaged in by paraeducators and general acknowledgment of related issues in their preparation and ongoing support as well as unreliable turnover data have not led to a reluctance to use paraeducators in special education. State and federal reports demonstrate that the number of paraeducators is growing across the United States. Since 1992, the number of paraeducators has increased 131%, whereas for the same period
the number of special education teachers has decreased (DAC, 2010).
State education agencies (SEAs) are in need of data from local districts relative to current issues and concerns in the field. Most studies thus far are limited to single districts or regional reports and represent small groups of paraeduca- tors and teachers and administrators. The purpose of this survey was to obtain descriptive information from a broad statewide audience. We targeted paraeducators working in either general education or special education settings. The survey addressed paraeducators’ perceptions about (a) their roles and responsibilities, (b) current issues identified in the literature relative to their role, and (c) any other areas of concern.
We explored the following questions:
- Given a list of 12 roles that have been noted in the literature, which of these roles are primary roles for paraeducators in this state?
- Do paraeducators view these roles as appropriate roles for paraeducators?
- What are the concerns of paraeducators?
- Do views differ based on assignment as either a “one-to-one” or “group” paraeducator?
- Do views differ based on the amount of time para- educators spent each day in general education settings?
