Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
M A R G A R E T G E S S L E R W E R T S , S H I R L E Y H A R R I S , C H R I S T I N A Y O U N G T I L L E R Y,
AND REBECCA ROARK
ABSTRACT
his study examined parent perceptions of the paraeducators role. Observations of paraeducators and students with
disabilities were conducted in inclusive classrooms. Some paraeducators worked as general classroom assistants, while others
worked one-on-one with students with special needs. Each parent
of a child with special needs was shown graphs reflecting the percentage of time their childs paraeducator was observed in
various roles and interacting with students and adults. Parents
were interviewed about their knowledge and perceptions of the
paraeducator working in their childs classroom. Results indicated
parents were pleased with their childrens paraeducators. However, parents offered several recommendations for improving the
use of paraeducators, including the need for more training and
better communication between parents and school personnel.
Responses of parents suggest paraeducators are perceived as
teachers and should be professionally valued and present at
Individualized Education Program meetings and parent
conferences. Implications are discussed.
cational settings is rooted in the social, political, and institutional changes of the 20th century, and the paraeducators
role has evolved in relation to the changing role of teachers
and other professional practitioners (Pickett, 1997). According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
of 1997, paraeducators are defined as persons who work
directly under the supervision of licensed professionals and
who often deliver instructional and direct services to students
and their parents. As early as 1982, the National Resource
Center for Paraprofessionals, after surveying state directors
of special education, reported more than 150,000 paraeduca-
232
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
METHOD
skills, classroom behavior, intellectual functioning, and receptive and expressive communication skills. No child was
scored as profoundly impaired in any area.
All students were enrolled in public schools in North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Oregon. Demographic information about each student is shown in Table 1. Grade placement
ranged from prekindergarten to fifth grade, with third grade
being the most frequently occurring. Most observed students were assigned one-on-one paraeducators (71%), whereas
other students were assigned to a classroom staffed by a
teacher/paraeducator team (29%). Two paraeducators, assigned to more than one child, were observed more than once.
Therefore, the 28 parent interviews reported perceptions of
24 different paraeducators working with 28 different students.
Paraeducators. All paraeducators were assigned by
the school and were approved by the IEP team. The observed
paraeducators ranged in age from early 20s to late 50s, and all
but two were women. Some one-on-one paraeducators
worked in classrooms also staffed by general education
paraeducators. Several classrooms were combination classes
serving more than one grade level. One paraeducator wore a
beeper so she could be called as needed to assist with another
student. Observed paraeducators had from 1 to 28 years of
experience working in schools.
Instrument
The interview protocol consisted of 20 short-answer and
open-ended questions. Questions ranged from demographic
information about the student to perceptions of the paraeducators relationship with the student and the parents knowledge of the paraeducators role. Open-ended questions
allowed for a wide range of responses with no preconceived
response possible. The same protocol was used with each
parent. If a response indicated the parent misunderstood part
of an item, the interviewer explained the question. Parents
were encouraged to make additional comments throughout
presentation of the data as well as during the interview.
Participants
Procedure
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
233
Gender
Grade
Diagnosis
Paraeducator
Type of paraeducator
David
Reuben
Charles
Julie
Donny
M
M
M
F
M
2nd
K
3rd
1st
5th
Autism
Down syndrome
Autism
Learning disability
Learning disability,
ADHD, BED
1
1
1
1
2
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
Christina
Emily
Carl
F
F
M
Pre-K
2nd
2nd
Learning disability
Learning disability
Bipolar, RAD
3
4
5
General
General
One-on-one
Sherry
Jeremy
Garret
Toby
Ben
F
M
M
M
M
2nd
K
2nd
3rd
3rd
Learning disability
BED
Learning disability
Autism
Learning disability,
Impaired vision
6
7
8
9
10
General
General
General
One-on-one
General
Jesse
Ed
Barry
Rachael
Bret
Thomas
Ty
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
2nd
4th
4th
5th
3rd
1st
3rd
ADHD
Down syndrome
Asperger syndrome
Learning disability
Asperger syndrome
Down syndrome
Language delay,
ADHD
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
General
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
Jarod
Trevor
Michael
M
M
M
4th
3rd
4th
Learning disability
Learning disability
Learning disability,
Impaired mobility
17
18
19
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
Jimmy
Avery
Carter
Harry
Angela
M
M
M
M
F
5th
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Learning disability
Prader-Willi syndrome
Autism
Down syndrome
Learning disability,
Language delay,
Cleft palate
20
21
22
23
24
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
One-on-one
General
Note. ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; BED = behaviorally and emotionally disturbed; RAD = reactive-attachment disorder.
234
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
occurred. Each transcript was entered into a computer database, and entries were analyzed according to (a) recurring
themes, (b) students in prekindergarten through second grade,
(c) students in third through fifth grades, (d) students with
high-incidence disabilities, and (e) students with low-incidence
disabilities. Students were assigned to high- or low-incidence
disability categories based on their reported diagnoses.
RESULTS
Descriptions of Paraeducators by Parents
Parents reported a number of reasons for the paraeducators
presence in the classroom. A majority of parents (68%) reported the paraeducator was present to provide academic help.
However, 25% of the parents reported paraeducators were
there to keep the child focused, and 21% of the parents reported paraeducators were there because of behavioral issues.
Most parents described their childs paraeducator positively
(75%). Averys mother stated, I would describe her as one of
the best people that I could have involved with my son.
Jimmys parent said, You know, she has gone out of her way
to find material that is interesting for Jimmy, and she has been
more than patient with him when he has his bad days.
However, a small number of parents reported negative
aspects related to school services. Jarods mother said, I
wish . . . someone would help me with my child, taking him
into another reading group, but no one listens to me up
there. . . . All I want for my son to do this year is to learn to
read. Angelas mother stated, Sometimes I think the teacher
assistant should be working with the kids that are ahead or
that dont have as many problems and that the teachers are the
ones that are supposed to be the most experienced in working
with the kids with more problems.
Five parents (18%) indicated they did not know their
childs paraeducator well enough to describe his or her work.
For example, Bens parent stated,
I dont really know much of him because, like I
said, I just never really had much contact with
him, and Ben . . . always said he was cool and
fun, you know, like at parties and things . . . but as
far as being in the classroom with homework and
things like that, there wasnt much.
Jeremys parent stated, Well, I never met her. Rachaels
mother elaborated on this theme:
Well, I never met the woman, but I know that she
was supposed to keep . . . Rachael right beside her
in the class, and when Rachaels attention would
drift off, she was supposed to refocus her and
make sure that she was paying attention . . . if
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
235
236
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
DISCUSSION
In examining parent perceptions of paraeducators working in
inclusive classrooms under teacher direction, parents were
interviewed, and several conclusions were evident. First,
most parents reported positive perceptions of the paraeducators working and interacting with their children. All parents
made positive comments about paraeducators, both their childrens paraeducators and paraeducators in general. This reinforces results reported by French and Chopra (1999) that
parents spoke fondly of the paraeducators working with their
children.
Second, parents stated three key reasons for the paraeducators presence in the classroom: providing academic help,
keeping the child focused, and assisting with behavior problems. Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, and MacFarland (1997)
indicated the instructional assistant was often responsible for
the activities of and planning for children with special needs.
IDEA stated that paraeducators should only work under the
direction of a licensed professional and that they are not to
make decisions or plan instruction. Most parents (71%)
reported that paraeducators were present in the classroom to
provide academic assistance (e.g., helping with work, organizing the childs work, keeping the child focused, helping
alleviate frustration). Many parents reported that paraeducators had knowledge of their childrens daily activities and
their difficulties with assignments. Therefore, paraeducators
should be consulted when teachers are planning and preparing for individualized instruction. This information supports
the argument that paraeducators need to read IEPs, attend IEP
meetings and parent conferences, and be included as critical
members of service delivery teams. French and Chopra (1999)
reported that parents felt paraeducators were an important
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
237
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
238
Overall, consensus existed in many areas. Parents perceived paraeducators as an important part of their childrens
education.
E D U C A T I O N
MARGARET GESSLER WERTS, PhD is an assistant professor at Appalachian State University and is the director of Observations and Activities of
Paraprofessionals in Inclusion Classrooms, a research project funded by the
U.S. Department of Education. Her research interests include classroom
staffing and instructional strategies. SHIRLEY HARRIS, MS, is a research
associate at Appalachian State University, and her interests include classroom staffing and preschool literacy. CHRISTINA YOUNG TILLERY,
MS, is a research associate at Appalachian State University, and her interests
include classroom staffing and patterns of behavior among multicultural and
minority students. REBECCA ROARK, MEd, is a former research associate whose interests include students in higher education and appropriate programming. Address: Margaret Gessler Werts, Appalachian State University,
R E M E D I A L
A N D
S P E C I A L
E D U C A T I O N
239