"Be Careful What You Wish for ...": Five Reasons to Be Concerned About the Assignment of Individual Paraprofessionals


1 Building Strong School Communities “Be Careful What You Wish for ...”: Five Reasons to Be Concerned About the Assignment of Paraprofessionals Individual Michael F. Giangreco • Susan Yuan • Barbara McKenzie • Patricia Cameron • Janice Fialka You have heard the saying “Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.” It is a wise adage both school per- sonnel and families might want to keep in mind when considering whether stu- dents with disabilities who are placed in general education classes should be pro- vided with individual paraprofessional support. Virtually everyone having any connection with special education can tell you about dedicated paraprofession- als who are worth their weight in gold, so one might ask where the problem lies. In reality, the story of paraprofes- sional supports has many facets. Some parents understandably request individual paraprofessional sup- port for their child with disabilities because of their concerns or fears about how their child will be accepted, treat- ed, supported, and instructed in general education classes. Yet parents seeking by issues such as class size and ever- required admission ticket for their inclusive education through the assign- expanding requirements wonder how child’s entry into the general education ment of an individual, full-time para- they will find the time to meet the vari- classroom. A school’s request for an professional may be working at cross- ous needs of students with disabilities individual paraprofessional as a condi- purposes with themselves. Having an , Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 28-34. Copyright 2005 CEC. and special needs other than disability. tion of placement is often rooted in the adult by a student’s side for all or most concerns of classroom teachers. Even of the school day can actually interfere Meanwhile, principals often experi- highly competent and willing teachers with a student’s inclusion as a partici- ence ambivalence about hiring more may experience some anxiety when pating member of the classroom com- paraprofessionals. Although they may they are unclear about the expectations munity. want to be supportive of parent and people have of them in relation to a stu- teacher requests for paraprofessional In other situations, parents have dent with a disability placed in their supports, simultaneously they may be been told that the assignment of a full- compelled by their central administra- class. Teachers who feel stretched thin time, individual paraprofessional is the TEACHING Exceptional Children C ■ 28 OUNCIL FOR E HILDREN C XCEPTIONAL

2 may provide cultural perspectives or Beth’s Story: “I don’t want an aide!” speak the primary language of non- English-speaking students (Ashbaker, When my daughter, Beth, started high school, the school personnel insisted she 2000). Many paraprofessionals provide have a full-time paraprofessional, presumably because she has Down syndrome. It thoughtful, creative input as valued was a battle I wasn’t willing to fight, so I agreed to it even though I felt it wasn’t educational team members. needed. Freshman year this arrangement worked out reasonably well. The para- professional was a young woman, not much older than Beth. She was skilled at giv- Five Reasons to Be Concerned ing her room and knowing when to back off. About Individual During Beth’s sophomore year, this paraprofessional was replaced by one who Paraprofessional Supports was on her like Velcro®! She was always telling Beth what to do, insisting she In self-contained special education leave class early, and generally making a spectacle of their interactions. It wasn’t classes, special education teachers and long before Beth reacted uncharacteristically. She ran away from the paraprofes- paraprofessionals work together in the sional, called her names, even left school and went home. same classrooms throughout the school Though Beth’s communication wasn’t socially desirable, her intent was clear; but day. This arrangement provides natural no one seemed to be listening. A month or so into the year, after this second para- and ongoing opportunities for special professional quit, Beth’s team met to decide what would happen next. Beth said she educators to train, supervise, and men- “...didn’t like being bossed” and “... didn’t want an aide.” Her request was hon- tor paraprofessionals. With the advent ored; Beth didn’t have an individual paraprofessional for the rest of high school. of more inclusive models of delivery of The problem behaviors disappeared, and with no intermediary between her and special education services, new issues the teachers, Beth was more academically connected. It made me feel even more are emerging regarding the training, uti- strongly that we need to involve students in determining their own [need for] sup- lization, and supervision of paraprofes- ports. sionals, in part because special educa- tors and paraprofessionals often spend much of their day in locations separated from one another. Listed below are five Potential Benefits of tion or school board to closely scruti- reasons, based on recent research Paraprofessional Supports nize services, given the dramatic regarding paraprofessionals in inclusive The benefits of paraprofessional support increase in the numbers of special edu- schools, that professionals and parents have long been considered common cation paraprofessionals and associated alike should be concerned about the sense. Busy teachers and concerned costs. assignment of individual paraprofes- parents often appreciate the availability sionals. This article attempts to illuminate of a second adult to provide an extra set paraprofessional issues by pursuing of helping hands, eyes, and ears in the three primary purposes. First, we briefly classroom (Daniels & McBride, 2001; Parents seeking inclusive French & Chopra, 1999. Under the direc- summarize the potential benefits of pro- tion of qualified professionals, trained viding paraprofessional supports. education through the paraprofessionals can serve a variety of Second, we discuss five research-based assignment of an valued roles: reasons why school personnel and par- • Doing clerical tasks that free teachers individual, full-time ents should be concerned about the to spend more time instructing stu- assignment of individual paraprofes- paraprofessional may be dents. sionals and illustrate them with three • Engaging in follow-up instruction, working at cross-purposes real-life vignettes (see Beth’s Story, tutoring, or homework help. with themselves. Erin’s Story, Micah’s Story). Third, we • Providing supervision in group set- offer a set of considerations for educa- tings (e.g., cafeteria, playground, bus boarding). tional teams as they attempt to link • Assisting students with personal care paraprofessional research with effective Reason 1: The least qualified staff needs (e.g., bathroom use, eating, practice. We hope this article spurs con- members are teaching students dressing). structive dialogue between parents and with the most complex learning • Facilitating social skills, peer interac- school personnel about the carefully characteristics. tions, and positive behavior support crafted utilization of paraprofessionals, No strong conceptual basis can be cited plans. as well as about alternatives designed to for assigning the least qualified staff, For decades special educators have reduce overreliance on individual para- namely, paraprofessionals, to provide relied on paraprofessionals to help them the bulk of instruction for students with professionals as a primary mechanism teach their students with disabilities. the most complex learning characteris- for supporting students with disabilities Since paraprofessionals often live in the tics, nor does a research base suggest communities where they work, they in general education classes. 29 ■ ■ M TEACHING E /J XCEPTIONAL C HILDREN UNE 2005 AY

3 Table 1. Inadvertent Detrimental Effects of Excessive or Unnecessary Paraprofessional Proximity Category of Effect Description Separation from Classmates Student with a disability and paraprofessional are seated together in the back or side of the room, physically separated from the class. Unnecessary Dependence Student with a disability is hesitant to participate without paraprofessional direction, prompting, or cueing. Interference with Peer Interactions Paraprofessional can create physical or symbolic barriers that interfere with interactions between a student with disabilities and classmates. Insular Relationships Student with a disability and paraprofessional do most everything together, to the exclusion of others (i.e., teachers and peers). Feeling Stigmatized Student with a disability expresses embarrassment/discomfort about having a paraprofes- sional; makes him or her stand out in negative w ays. Paraprofessionals are not necessarily skilled in providing competent instruction; some do the Limited Access to Competent Instruction work for the students they support. Teachers tend to be less involved when a student with a disability has a paraprofessional Interference with Teacher Engagement because individual attention is already available. Loss of Personal Control Paraprofessionals do so much for the students with disabilities that they do not exercise choices that are typical for other students. Loss of Gender Identity Student with a disability is treated as the gender of the paraprofessional (e.g., male student taken into the female bathroom). May Provoke Problem Behaviors Some students with disabilities express their dislike of paraprofessional support by display- ing inappropriate behaviors. intentions, recent studies have linked sional proximity with inadvertent detri- that students with disabilities learn more or better with paraprofessional mental effects, such as unnecessary excessive or unnecessary paraprofes- support (Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, & Doyle, 2001). Recent research indicates that not only are special education paraprofessionals playing a prominent Erin’s Story: Coming Full Circle role instructing students with disabili- Erin began kindergarten fully included without an aide. By the end of first grade, ties, they are engaging in roles for the school decided to provide part-time paraprofessional support, which contin- which they are questionably prepared ued through grade school. As if the transition to middle school wasn’t traumatic (French, 1998; Minondo, Meyer & Xin, enough, the new teachers decided the best way to support Erin was to place her 2001; Riggs & Mueller, 2001). In some in a class for students with developmental disabilities. Though Erin stayed in the cases, individual paraprofessionals are general education class, to appease the teachers, a full-time aide was assigned. left to fend for themselves, functioning Again, this wasn’t an IEP team decision based on Erin’s needs; it was school pol- as the primary teachers for students itics. After receiving reasonably unobtrusive support in sixth grade, seventh was with disabilities and making the majori- a different story. The new aide had the attitude that she could teach better than ty of day-to-day instructional and cur- any general or special educator. Ironically, it was this aide’s success in alienating ricular decisions (Downing, Ryndak & the teachers that opened the door to discussions about using less paraprofession- Clark, 2000; Giangreco, Edelman, al support, in just three classes. That was Erin’s best year in middle school; final- Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1997; Marks, ly we were going in the right direction! Schrader & Levine, 1999). Having para- High school arrived, and again the school wanted Erin to have a full-time aide professionals assume such high levels of attend general education classes with her. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, responsibility presents a double stan- they hired the “best aide ever!” All of us depended on her, as it turned out, a bit dard that likely would be considered too much. When the “best aide ever” left, as they often do, our [over]dependence unacceptable if it was applied to stu- on her became all too clear. Finally we began to explore natural and alternative dents without disabilities. supports that reduced the need for paraprofessional time in several classes. Almost immediately, the teachers commented that Erin was interacting more with Reason 2: Paraprofessional sup- her classmates and taking responsibility for her own learning; they were surprised ports are linked with inadvertent detrimental effects. at how much she could do. This year Erin has her best grades ever and loves being a “cool senior”! Although paraprofessional supports are undoubtedly offered with benevolent 30 ■ C C OUNCIL FOR E HILDREN XCEPTIONAL

4 dependence and interference with peer Micah’s Story: The Power of Peers interactions (see Table 1; Giangreco, Over the years, our son Micah has benefited from the support of several talented Broer & Edelman, 2001; Giangreco et al., paraprofessionals. Yet as he moved through school, we felt ambivalent. We knew 1997; Hemmingsson, Borell, & Micah needed some extra help in the classroom, but we also knew the more he Gustavsson, 2003; Skar & Tamm, 2001). was surrounded by adults, even well-meaning ones, the harder it would be for Even studies that have reported positive peers to connect with him. Adults encircled him and often, though unintentionally, aspects of close proximity (Werts, became a wall separating him from his peers—a wall most teenagers would not Zigmond, & Leeper, 2001) or mixed data easily climb over. on the effects of proximity (Young, We were fortunate to learn about a program where peers without disabilities Simpson, Myles, & Kamps, 1997) have received credit to serve as mentors to support some of the learning needs of their raised concerns about whether students classmates with disabilities. Under the direction of a special educator, a skilled are unnecessarily dependent on individ- paraprofessional provided coaching to peer mentors. This coaching allowed the ual paraprofessionals. paraprofessional to step back, which resulted in several of Micah’s classmates mov- ing closer and interacting with him in new and unexpected ways. During a team meeting, Beth, one of Micah’s peers, mentioned she sometimes had a hard time helping him focus on a particular teacher’s lectures. She blurted out, “You know The least qualified staff what! Sometimes this teacher can be boring—a lot of us have a hard time paying members are teaching attention in her class. The real difference is that Micah doesn’t know how to act as if he’s paying attention.” Laughter filled the air. Beth blushed and quickly apol- students with the most ogized for revealing something negative about this well-liked teacher. The next step complex learning for Micah was practicing “paying attention” behaviors,and who better to teach him than genuine inhabitants of the teen world—his peers? Working together characteristics. strengthened the new bonds they were developing. It also gave the teachers some food for thought. A real turning point was the day an insensitive substitute teacher mimicked the way Micah said his name in front of the class. Oliver, Micah’s peer tutor, leapt out Reason 3: Individual paraprofes- sional supports are linked with of his seat, rushed to the teacher’s desk, and demanded that he stop! This call for lower levels of teacher involve- respect was much more powerful coming spontaneously from a friend than it would ment. have been coming as feedback from an adult. This incident helped Oliver realize, somewhat to his own surprise, just how much Micah’s friendship meant to him. The attitude of a classroom teacher Equally as important was the impact that Oliver’s actions had on others. Afterward, toward, and level of involvement with, several students began approaching Micah in more engaging ways. Oliver nur- his or her students who have disabilities tured these interactions and demonstrated how to keep a dialogue going with is arguably one of the single most cru- Micah beyond “Hey, what’s up?” Oliver was truly a link between Micah and his cial variables affecting the success of other classmates. inclusive placements. An observational study of three primary grade children with autism in inclusive classrooms reported teacher initiations with those Reason 4: Teachers, parents, and 2002). In French’s (2001) study of 321 students were more frequent when their students may not be getting what they deserve and expect. special educators, 81% of them reported individually assigned paraprofessionals that they do not plan for their parapro- were not in close proximity to them fessionals; among the 19% that did so, (Young et al., 1997). Are classroom teachers, parents, and the planning was primarily through oral Understandably, busy teachers tend students getting what they deserve and instruction rather than written plans. to work with other students when they expect? Do they have access to parapro- This study also reported that teachers know the student with a disability fessionals who are appropriately who typically were not trained in super- already has individual attention. Recent trained, supervised, and operating vision of adults were reluctant to super- research has documented that the under the direction of a qualified special vise paraprofessionals. This finding was assignment of an individual paraprofes- educator or teacher? Too often the extended in a more recent study on the sional to a student with a disability answer is “No.” Data indicate that too competence of teachers to direct the often co-occurs with lower levels of many paraprofessionals are inadequate- work of paraprofessionals (Wallace, teacher engagement, whereas the use of ly trained and supervised (Downing et Shin, Bartholomay, & Stahl, 2001). a classroom paraprofessional, under the al., 2000; French, 1998; Riggs & Mueller, Although participants agreed that the direction of the teacher, more often co- 2001). Some are unskilled or under- extensive set of supervisory abilities occurs with higher levels of teacher skilled in the academic subjects in presented in the study were important, engagement (Giangreco, Broer, & which they are asked to support stu- “the competencies were not observed as Edelman, 2001). dents (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, TEACHING E ■ 31 M ■ XCEPTIONAL C HILDREN /J UNE 2005 AY

5 curricular modifications, sometimes “on-the-spot” with little or no support from teachers; and (d) sensed being solely responsible for inclusion of the students with disabilities. Will more teachers have opportunities to shift their roles from gracious host to engaged teacher if paraprofessionals continue to function as primary instructors? Will schools be as motivated to address the capacity of classroom teachers to differ- entiate instruction for mixed-ability groups if paraprofessionals continue to make many day-to-day curricular deci- sions? Will the working conditions of teachers and special educators be addressed soon enough or sufficiently if the pressure on them is kept just below the boiling point by shifting more responsibilities to paraprofessionals? Too often the ways we currently use paraprofessionals make too easy the tendency to delay important actions and changes that could benefit students with disabilities as well as their peers without disabilities. Reason 5. Providing paraprofes- frequently as their perceived impor- sional supports may delay atten- Considerations for Educational tance” (p. 520) because of lack of pre- tion to needed changes in schools. Teams service preparation or professional Although shifting more responsibilities As schools continue their positive and development of teachers on supervisory to paraprofessionals may seem advanta- appropriate efforts to improve the train- geous because it relieves certain pres- ing, support, and supervision of para- practices. sures on teachers and special educators, professionals, we think it would be a Although the expectation that stu- in and of itself, this relief should not be mistake to believe that such changes dents with individual paraprofessional confused with effective education for alone will address the fundamental con- support would receive more intensive students. Having paraprofessionals cerns that have led to their burgeoning instruction than peers may seem logical, assume ever-increasing levels of respon- and sometimes inappropriate utiliza- sibility for student learning may actual- a recent study (Giangreco & Broer, in tion. Additionally, we think that to sim- ly delay attention to needed changes in ply change from advocating for more press) presents contrary findings. In this general and special education. paraprofessionals to advocating for study individual paraprofessionals The findings of Marks et al. (1999) fewer of them would be a mistake. reported spending less time in instruc- highlight these concerns by indicating Rather, we need a shift to advocate for tion (37%) than did group paraprofes- that paraprofessionals (a) bore the “pri- exploring different supports that focus mary burden of success” (p. 318) for sionals (50%). These same individual on strengthening collaboration between included students with disabilities; (b) general and special education, building paraprofessionals reported spending felt part of their role was not being a capacity in general education, and plac- 24% of their time self-directed, without “bother” to teachers; (c) provided daily ing more reliance on natural supports. professional guidance. In part, this Listed below are five initial ideas for study suggests that this situation exists educational teams to consider. Recent studies have linked because many special education teach- 1. Extend the conversation in your school community about the support ers who are responsible for supervising excessive or unnecessary of students with disabilities in gener- paraprofessionals have less than opti- paraprofessional proximity al education. Ask teachers what they mal working conditions (e.g., large need to shift from primarily hosting with inadvertent caseloads, extensive paperwork, several students with disabilities to being detrimental effects. paraprofessionals to supervise across engaged teachers of those students. Ask special educators what they multiple classrooms and grade levels). ■ 32 C C XCEPTIONAL E OUNCIL FOR HILDREN

6 need to better support students in school personnel or on an individual sional educators to support students with disabilities) in ways that benefit general education classrooms (e.g., basis, one family at a time. When a a wider range of students with and narrowing the range of grades sup- family has requested individual para- without disabilities (Giangreco, ported, attention to caseload issues, professional support, be direct in Halvorsen, Doyle, & Broer, 2004). assistance with paperwork). Ask asking parents why they believe this One way to accomplish this outcome both constituencies who should be level of support is needed. Their supervising paraprofessionals and responses will allow the school to how. This conversation can occur tailor supports in an effort to meet a informally among colleagues or more student’s needs. For example, if a The ways we currently use formally at faculty or community parent is concerned that the class- paraprofessionals make too meetings, through teacher study room instruction will be too difficult groups, or by establishing a cross- for their child to comprehend, then easy the tendency to delay constituent schoolwide task force. merely assigning a paraprofessional important actions and 2. Scrutinize current roles and practices may not address that concern. A of paraprofessionals, and consider forum for parental input will give the changes that could benefit whether they are truly appropriate. teacher and special educator an students with disabilities. This examination can be accom- opportunity to explain how they plished by having teachers, special intend to collaborate on curricular educators, and paraprofessionals (a) and instructional accommodations. is using a schoolwide planning tool analyze the tasks they engage in, (b) Sharing written information with that guides school teams to examine determine whether their respective parents about the pros and cons of their own status in regard to para- training and/or skills match the paraprofessional supports can be professional issues, self-assess on a tasks, and (c) make a plan for helpful, as can working with them as set of schoolwide practices, and addressing any discrepancies full team members in an effort to select individualized priorities for between their skills and the tasks. In reach consensus on the array of action (Giangreco & Broer, 2003). some instances this scrutiny may options for supporting their child’s result in additional training for any education in the general education Final Thoughts of the team members or may lead to classroom. a shifting of responsibilities. In con- 4. Explore ways to involve students Collectively, the five aforementioned sidering any shifts in responsibilities, with disabilities in contributing to, actions are meant to affirm the expecta- teams are encouraged to limit the uti- and making decisions about, their tion that all students deserve access to lization of paraprofessional supports own supports. In instances in which highly qualified teachers and that col- to only those specific situations in students have limited language laboration among professionals and which, after exhausting more natural skills, the involved adults and peers families is essential. The stories of Beth, possibilities, it makes the most need to pay close attention to what- Erin, and Micah serve as additional sense. For example, if providing ever forms of communication the reminders of the importance of (a) lis- homework support or being accom- students use in an effort to under- tening to our students’ verbal and non- panied between classes can be stand their meaning. We should not verbal communication, (b) providing appropriately accomplished with assume certain students need para- opportunities for self-determination, (c) peer supports, it should not be dele- professional supports merely encouraging normalized experiences, gated to a paraprofessional. because of their looks or labels; this and (d) exploring natural supports (e.g., Individualization and accounting for assumption presumes that the need peers). Working together, school per- unpredictable events will require for paraprofessional support is sonnel and families hold the keys to ongoing teamwork. In reference to embedded in the characteristics of finding the individualized balance existing practices, ask the following the student. A more appropriate between judiciously determined para- question to help identify double approach might be to first consider professional supports and emerging standards: Would the practice be modifying the characteristics of the alternatives. acceptable if the students did not school, classroom, and staff (e.g., References have disabilities? attitudes, teaching formats, student Ashbaker, B. (2000). Bilingual paraeducators: 3. Collaborate with families by seeking groupings, resource distribution) in NASSP What we can learn from Rosa. to understand their concerns that an effort to build a stronger class- Bulletin, 84 (612), 53-56. lead to their requests for paraprofes- room community for all types of stu- Daniels, V. I. & McBride, A. (2001). sional supports. This collaboration dents. Paraeducators as critical team members: Redefining roles and responsibilities. can be accomplished through group 5. Consider alternatives to paraprofes- NASSP Bulletin, 85 (623), 66-74. meetings at which parents are invit- sional supports (e.g., peer supports, Downing, J., Ryndak, D., & Clark, D. (2000). ed to participate in conversations resource reallocation, building Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. about paraprofessional issues with capacity, and ownership of profes- TEACHING E ■ M 33 ■ XCEPTIONAL UNE /J AY HILDREN C 2005

7 Remedial and Special Education, 21, appropriate? Journal of the Association for 171- cies of the authors; therefore, no official 181. Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 114- endorsement should be inferred. 119. French, N. K. (1998). Working together: Vol. 37, TEACHING Exceptional Children, Resource teachers and paraeducators. Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). No. 5, pp. 28-34. 357- Remedial and Special Education, 19, Employment and utilization of paraeduca- 368. Journal of tors in inclusive settings. Copyright 2005 CEC. 54-62. French, N. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofes- Special Education 35, sionals: A survey of teacher practices. Skar, L., & Tamm, M. (2001). My assistant 41-53. Journal of Special Education, 35, and I: Disabled children’s and adoles- French, N. K., & Chopra, R. (1999). Parent cents’ roles and relationships to their perspectives on the roles of paraprofes- 917- Disability and Society, 16, assistants. Journal of the Association for sionals. 931. 259- Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & 272. Stahl, B. (2001). Knowledge and skills for Placement teachers supervising the work of parapro- Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2003). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to 520- Exceptional Children, 67, fessionals. Information 533. overreliance on paraprofessionals. Rates: $12.00 per line Retrieved February 11, 2005, from Werts, M. G., Zigmond, N., & Leeper, D. C. $72.00 minimum University of Vermont, Center on (2001). Paraprofessional proximity and academic engagement: Students with dis- Disability and Community Inclusion Web Issues/Deadlines: abilities in primary aged classrooms. site: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/ July 16, 04 Sept/Oct Education and Training in Mental evolve/gsa.html Sept 6, 04 Nov/Dec Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (in press) Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, Questionable utilization of paraprofes- 424-440. March/April Jan 7, 05 sionals in inclusive schools: Are we Young, B., Simpson, R., Myles, B. S., & May/June Mar 3, 05 Kamps, D. M. (1997). An examination of addressing symptoms or root causes? July/Aug April 29, 05 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental paraprofessional involvement in support- Disabilities. ing students with autism. Focus on Autism For more information contact: Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. and Other Developmental Disabilities, CEC Advertising (1), 31-38, 48. 12 W. (2001). Teacher engagement with stu- 1110 North Glebe Road dents with disabilities: Differences Suite 300 (CEC VT Federation) , Michael F. Giangreco between paraprofessional service delivery Arlington, VA 22201-5704 Research Professor; and Susan Yuan , Journal of the Association for models. Research Assistant Professor, University of Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 75-86. TEL: 703/264-9454 . Barbara McKenzie Vermont, Burlington Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. FAX: 703/264-1637 President, OHIO , (CEC VT Federation) W. (2002). “That was then, this is now!” S.A.F.E. (Schools Are For Everyone), Paraprofessional supports for students Patricia Cameron Westerville. (CEC Chapter with disabilities in general education #143), Educational Specialist, Early Learning (1), 47-64. Exceptionality, 10 classrooms. Services, Massachusetts Department of Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. (CEC Education, Malden. Janice Fialka M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Chapter #1), Special Projects Trainer, CCRE- Paraprofessional support of students with Ad Index Early On SA– ® Training and Technical disabilities: Literature from the past Assistance (Part C of IDEA), DeWitt, Exceptional Children, 68, decade. 45-63. AGS, p 27 Michigan. Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Luiselli, T. E., Captioned Media Program, p 48 & MacFarland, S. Z. C. (1997). Helping or Address correspondence to Michael F. Council for Exceptional Children, hovering? Effects of instructional assistant Giangreco, University of Vermont, Center on pp. 7, 19, 34, 35, 41, 49, 62, 68 proximity on students with disabilities. Disability and Community Inclusion, 208 7-18. Exceptional Children, 64, Crisis Intervention Institute, cover 4 Colchester Ave,, 301A Mann Hall, Burlington, Giangreco, M. F., Halvorsen, A., Doyle, M. Curriculum Associates, p 1 VT 05405 (e-mail: [email protected]). B., & Broer, S. M. (2004). Alternatives to Hunter College, p 66 overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclu- Note: In loving memory of the vibrant life of Melmark, p 27 Journal of Special Education sive schools. Erin McKenzie: August 9, 1984 to August 24, 82-90. Leadership, 17, Penn State University, p 4 2004. Hemmingsson, H., Borell, L., & Gustavsson, Riverside Publishing, cover 2 A. (2003). Participation in school: School Partial support for the preparation of this arti- Riverside Publishing, p 67 assistants creating opportunities and cle was provided by the United States SRA/McGraw Hill, cover 3 obstacles for pupils with disabilities. Department of Education, Office of Special Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, Education Programs, under the funding cate- St. John University, p 40 (3), 88-98. 23 gory Model Demonstration Projects for Seattle University, p 63 Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. Children and Youth with Disabilities, CFDA The Summit School, p 55 (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclu- 84.324M (H324M020007), awarded to the sive settings: Helping, hovering, or hold- University of Nebraska, p 55 Center on Disability and Community ing their own? Exceptional Children, 65, Inclusion at the University of Vermont. The University of Northern Colorado, 315-328. contents of this paper reflect the ideas and p 19 Minondo, S., Meyer, L., & Xin, J. (2001). The positions of the authors and do not necessar- roles and responsibilities of teaching assis- ily reflect the ideas or positions of the U.S. tants in inclusive education: What’s Department of Education or any of the agen- 34 ■ C C OUNCIL FOR E XCEPTIONAL HILDREN

Related documents