"Be Careful What You Wish for - Five Reasons to Be Concerned About the Assignment of IndividualParaprofessionals
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Building Strong School Communities
“Be Careful What You Wish for ...”:
Five Reasons to Be Concerned About the
Assignment of Individual Paraprofessionals
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-
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 28-34. Copyright 2005 CEC.
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
required admission ticket for their by issues such as class size and ever-
inclusive education through the assign-
child’s entry into the general education expanding requirements wonder how
ment of an individual, full-time para-
classroom. A school’s request for an they will find the time to meet the vari-
professional may be working at cross-
individual paraprofessional as a condi- ous needs of students with disabilities
purposes with themselves. Having an
tion of placement is often rooted in the and special needs other than disability.
adult by a student’s side for all or most
of the school day can actually interfere concerns of classroom teachers. Even Meanwhile, principals often experi-
with a student’s inclusion as a partici- highly competent and willing teachers ence ambivalence about hiring more
pating member of the classroom com- may experience some anxiety when paraprofessionals. Although they may
munity. they are unclear about the expectations want to be supportive of parent and
In other situations, parents have people have of them in relation to a stu- teacher requests for paraprofessional
been told that the assignment of a full- dent with a disability placed in their supports, simultaneously they may be
time, individual paraprofessional is the class. Teachers who feel stretched thin compelled by their central administra-
28 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
may provide cultural perspectives or
Beth’s Story: “I don’t want an aide!”
speak the primary language of non-
When my daughter, Beth, started high school, the school personnel insisted she English-speaking students (Ashbaker,
have a full-time paraprofessional, presumably because she has Down syndrome. It 2000). Many paraprofessionals provide
was a battle I wasn’t willing to fight, so I agreed to it even though I felt it wasn’t thoughtful, creative input as valued
needed. Freshman year this arrangement worked out reasonably well. The para- educational team members.
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
leave class early, and generally making a spectacle of their interactions. It wasn’t In self-contained special education
long before Beth reacted uncharacteristically. She ran away from the paraprofes- classes, special education teachers and
sional, called her names, even left school and went home. paraprofessionals work together in the
Though Beth’s communication wasn’t socially desirable, her intent was clear; but same classrooms throughout the school
no one seemed to be listening. A month or so into the year, after this second para- day. This arrangement provides natural
professional quit, Beth’s team met to decide what would happen next. Beth said she and ongoing opportunities for special
“...didn’t like being bossed” and “... didn’t want an aide.” Her request was hon- educators to train, supervise, and men-
ored; Beth didn’t have an individual paraprofessional for the rest of high school. tor paraprofessionals. With the advent
The problem behaviors disappeared, and with no intermediary between her and of more inclusive models of delivery of
the teachers, Beth was more academically connected. It made me feel even more special education services, new issues
strongly that we need to involve students in determining their own [need for] sup- are emerging regarding the training, uti-
ports. lization, and supervision of paraprofes-
sionals, in part because special educa-
tors and paraprofessionals often spend
much of their day in locations separated
Potential Benefits of from one another. Listed below are five
tion or school board to closely scruti-
Paraprofessional Supports reasons, based on recent research
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. parents often appreciate the availability assignment of individual paraprofes-
This article attempts to illuminate of a second adult to provide an extra set sionals.
paraprofessional issues by pursuing of helping hands, eyes, and ears in the
three primary purposes. First, we briefly classroom (Daniels & McBride, 2001;
summarize the potential benefits of pro- French & Chopra, 1999. Under the direc- Parents seeking inclusive
viding paraprofessional supports. tion of qualified professionals, trained education through the
Second, we discuss five research-based paraprofessionals can serve a variety of
valued roles: assignment of an
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-
dents. paraprofessional may be
sionals and illustrate them with three • Engaging in follow-up instruction,
real-life vignettes (see Beth’s Story,
working at cross-purposes
tutoring, or homework help.
Erin’s Story, Micah’s Story). Third, we • Providing supervision in group set- with themselves.
offer a set of considerations for educa- tings (e.g., cafeteria, playground, bus
tional teams as they attempt to link boarding).
paraprofessional research with effective • Assisting students with personal care
needs (e.g., bathroom use, eating, Reason 1: The least qualified staff
practice. We hope this article spurs con-
dressing). members are teaching students
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- relied on paraprofessionals to help them namely, paraprofessionals, to provide
professionals as a primary mechanism teach their students with disabilities. the bulk of instruction for students with
for supporting students with disabilities Since paraprofessionals often live in the the most complex learning characteris-
in general education classes. communities where they work, they tics, nor does a research base suggest
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2005 ■ 29Table 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 ways.
Limited Access to Competent Paraprofessionals are not necessarily skilled in providing competent instruction; some do the
Instruction work for the students they support.
Interference with Teacher Teachers tend to be less involved when a student with a disability has a paraprofessional
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.
that students with disabilities learn intentions, recent studies have linked sional proximity with inadvertent detri-
more or better with paraprofessional excessive or unnecessary paraprofes- mental effects, such as unnecessary
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.
Reason 2: Paraprofessional sup- Almost immediately, the teachers commented that Erin was interacting more with
ports are linked with inadvertent her classmates and taking responsibility for her own learning; they were surprised
detrimental effects. at how much she could do. This year Erin has her best grades ever and loves
Although paraprofessional supports are being a “cool senior”!
undoubtedly offered with benevolent
30 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENdependence and interference with peer
Micah’s Story: The Power of Peers
interactions (see Table 1; Giangreco,
Broer & Edelman, 2001; Giangreco et al., Over the years, our son Micah has benefited from the support of several talented
1997; Hemmingsson, Borell, & paraprofessionals. Yet as he moved through school, we felt ambivalent. We knew
Gustavsson, 2003; Skar & Tamm, 2001). Micah needed some extra help in the classroom, but we also knew the more he
Even studies that have reported positive was surrounded by adults, even well-meaning ones, the harder it would be for
aspects of close proximity (Werts, peers to connect with him. Adults encircled him and often, though unintentionally,
Zigmond, & Leeper, 2001) or mixed data became a wall separating him from his peers—a wall most teenagers would not
on the effects of proximity (Young, easily climb over.
Simpson, Myles, & Kamps, 1997) have We were fortunate to learn about a program where peers without disabilities
raised concerns about whether students received credit to serve as mentors to support some of the learning needs of their
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
The least qualified staff helping him focus on a particular teacher’s lectures. She blurted out, “You know
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
students with the most as if he’s paying attention.” Laughter filled the air. Beth blushed and quickly apol-
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
characteristics. him than genuine inhabitants of the teen world—his peers? Working together
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
Reason 3: Individual paraprofes- way Micah said his name in front of the class. Oliver, Micah’s peer tutor, leapt out
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,
The attitude of a classroom teacher somewhat to his own surprise, just how much Micah’s friendship meant to him.
toward, and level of involvement with, Equally as important was the impact that Oliver’s actions had on others. Afterward,
his or her students who have disabilities several students began approaching Micah in more engaging ways. Oliver nur-
is arguably one of the single most cru- tured these interactions and demonstrated how to keep a dialogue going with
cial variables affecting the success of Micah beyond “Hey, what’s up?” Oliver was truly a link between Micah and his
inclusive placements. An observational other classmates.
study of three primary grade children
with autism in inclusive classrooms
reported teacher initiations with those Reason 4: Teachers, parents, and
students were more frequent when their students may not be getting what 2002). In French’s (2001) study of 321
individually assigned paraprofessionals they deserve and expect. special educators, 81% of them reported
were not in close proximity to them that they do not plan for their parapro-
(Young et al., 1997). Are classroom teachers, parents, and fessionals; among the 19% that did so,
Understandably, busy teachers tend students getting what they deserve and the planning was primarily through oral
to work with other students when they expect? Do they have access to parapro- instruction rather than written plans.
know the student with a disability fessionals who are appropriately This study also reported that teachers
already has individual attention. Recent trained, supervised, and operating who typically were not trained in super-
research has documented that the under the direction of a qualified special vision of adults were reluctant to super-
assignment of an individual paraprofes- educator or teacher? Too often the vise paraprofessionals. This finding was
sional to a student with a disability answer is “No.” Data indicate that too extended in a more recent study on the
often co-occurs with lower levels of many paraprofessionals are inadequate- competence of teachers to direct the
teacher engagement, whereas the use of ly trained and supervised (Downing et work of paraprofessionals (Wallace,
a classroom paraprofessional, under the al., 2000; French, 1998; Riggs & Mueller, Shin, Bartholomay, & Stahl, 2001).
direction of the teacher, more often co- 2001). Some are unskilled or under- Although participants agreed that the
occurs with higher levels of teacher skilled in the academic subjects in extensive set of supervisory abilities
engagement (Giangreco, Broer, & which they are asked to support stu- presented in the study were important,
Edelman, 2001). dents (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, “the competencies were not observed as
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2005 ■ 31curricular 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-
practices. geous because it relieves certain pres- ing, support, and supervision of para-
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-
a recent study (Giangreco & Broer, in sibility for student learning may actual- 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
sionals (50%). These same individual mary burden of success” (p. 318) for 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.
because many special education teach- Recent studies have linked 1. Extend the conversation in your
ers who are responsible for supervising excessive or unnecessary school community about the support
paraprofessionals have less than opti- of students with disabilities in gener-
paraprofessional proximity al education. Ask teachers what they
mal working conditions (e.g., large
caseloads, extensive paperwork, several
with inadvertent need to shift from primarily hosting
students with disabilities to being
paraprofessionals to supervise across detrimental effects. engaged teachers of those students.
multiple classrooms and grade levels). Ask special educators what they
32 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENneed to better support students in school personnel or on an individual sional educators to support students
general education classrooms (e.g., basis, one family at a time. When a with disabilities) in ways that benefit
narrowing the range of grades sup- family has requested individual para- a wider range of students with and
ported, attention to caseload issues, professional support, be direct in without disabilities (Giangreco,
assistance with paperwork). Ask asking parents why they believe this Halvorsen, Doyle, & Broer, 2004).
both constituencies who should be level of support is needed. Their One way to accomplish this outcome
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-
meetings, through teacher study room instruction will be too difficult
paraprofessionals make too
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
2. Scrutinize current roles and practices may not address that concern. A
important actions and
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.
analyze the tasks they engage in, (b) Sharing written information with is using a schoolwide planning tool
determine whether their respective parents about the pros and cons of that guides school teams to examine
training and/or skills match the paraprofessional supports can be their own status in regard to para-
tasks, and (c) make a plan for helpful, as can working with them as professional issues, self-assess on a
addressing any discrepancies full team members in an effort to set of schoolwide practices, and
between their skills and the tasks. In reach consensus on the array of select individualized priorities for
some instances this scrutiny may options for supporting their child’s action (Giangreco & Broer, 2003).
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.,
have disabilities? attitudes, teaching formats, student References
3. Collaborate with families by seeking groupings, resource distribution) in Ashbaker, B. (2000). Bilingual paraeducators:
What we can learn from Rosa. NASSP
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:
can be accomplished through group 5. Consider alternatives to paraprofes- Redefining roles and responsibilities.
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 EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2005 ■ 33Remedial and Special Education, 21, 171- appropriate? Journal of the Association for cies of the authors; therefore, no official
181. Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 114- endorsement should be inferred.
French, N. K. (1998). Working together: 119.
Resource teachers and paraeducators. Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 37,
Remedial and Special Education, 19, 357- Employment and utilization of paraeduca- No. 5, pp. 28-34.
368. tors in inclusive settings. Journal of
Copyright 2005 CEC.
French, N. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofes- Special Education 35, 54-62.
sionals: A survey of teacher practices. Skar, L., & Tamm, M. (2001). My assistant
Journal of Special Education, 35, 41-53. 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- assistants. Disability and Society, 16, 917-
sionals. Journal of the Association for 931.
Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 259- Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., &
272. Stahl, B. (2001). Knowledge and skills for
Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2003). teachers supervising the work of parapro- Placement
Guidelines for selecting alternatives to fessionals. Exceptional Children, 67, 520- Information
overreliance on paraprofessionals. 533.
Retrieved February 11, 2005, from Werts, M. G., Zigmond, N., & Leeper, D. C. Rates: $12.00 per line
University of Vermont, Center on (2001). Paraprofessional proximity and $72.00 minimum
Disability and Community Inclusion Web academic engagement: Students with dis- Issues/Deadlines:
site: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/ abilities in primary aged classrooms.
evolve/gsa.html Education and Training in Mental Sept/Oct July 16, 04
Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (in press) Retardation and Developmental Nov/Dec Sept 6, 04
Questionable utilization of paraprofes- Disabilities, 36, 424-440. March/April Jan 7, 05
sionals in inclusive schools: Are we Young, B., Simpson, R., Myles, B. S., &
addressing symptoms or root causes? Kamps, D. M. (1997). An examination of
May/June Mar 3, 05
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental paraprofessional involvement in support- July/Aug April 29, 05
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
W. (2001). Teacher engagement with stu- 12(1), 31-38, 48.
1110 North Glebe Road
dents with disabilities: Differences
between paraprofessional service delivery Michael F. Giangreco (CEC VT Federation), Suite 300
models. Journal of the Association for Research Professor; and Susan Yuan, Arlington, VA 22201-5704
Persons With Severe Handicaps, 26, 75-86. Research Assistant Professor, University of
TEL: 703/264-9454
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. Vermont, Burlington. Barbara McKenzie
(CEC VT Federation), President, OHIO FAX: 703/264-1637
W. (2002). “That was then, this is now!”
Paraprofessional supports for students S.A.F.E. (Schools Are For Everyone),
with disabilities in general education Westerville. Patricia Cameron (CEC Chapter
classrooms. Exceptionality, 10(1), 47-64. #143), Educational Specialist, Early Learning
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. Services, Massachusetts Department of
M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Education, Malden. Janice Fialka (CEC
Paraprofessional support of students with Chapter #1), Special Projects Trainer, CCRE- Ad Index
disabilities: Literature from the past SA–Early On® Training and Technical
decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 45-63. Assistance (Part C of IDEA), DeWitt, AGS, p 27
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Luiselli, T. E., Michigan.
Captioned Media Program, p 48
& MacFarland, S. Z. C. (1997). Helping or
hovering? Effects of instructional assistant Address correspondence to Michael F. Council for Exceptional Children,
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
Exceptional Children, 64, 7-18. 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: mgiangre@uvm.edu).
B., & Broer, S. M. (2004). Alternatives to
overreliance on paraprofessionals in inclu-
Hunter College, p 66
Note: In loving memory of the vibrant life of
sive schools. Journal of Special Education Melmark, p 27
Erin McKenzie: August 9, 1984 to August 24,
Leadership, 17, 82-90. 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-
assistants creating opportunities and Riverside Publishing, p 67
cle was provided by the United States
obstacles for pupils with disabilities. Department of Education, Office of Special SRA/McGraw Hill, cover 3
Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, Education Programs, under the funding cate- St. John University, p 40
23(3), 88-98. gory Model Demonstration Projects for Seattle University, p 63
Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. Children and Youth with Disabilities, CFDA
(1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclu- 84.324M (H324M020007), awarded to the The Summit School, p 55
sive settings: Helping, hovering, or hold- Center on Disability and Community University of Nebraska, p 55
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 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRENYou can also read
