What Parents Tell Us About Paraeducators

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.

HE EMPLOYMENT OF PARAEDUCATORS IN EDU-

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004, Pages 232239

tors working in public schools, preschools, early intervention

programs, private schools, and state-operated centers for children and young people with special education needs (Pickett,
1984). The Twenty-Third Annual Report to Congress (Office
of Special Education Programs and Rehabilitation Services,
2002), for the 1998 to 1999 school year, noted that there were
more than 280,000 full-time special education paraeducators
and more than 27,000 other personnel employed to provide
special education and related services in schools. This growing need for persons who support individuals and provide
classroom assistance to teachers is documented in a variety of
publications, ranging from mass media to academia
(Kantrowitz & Wingert, 2000; National Center for Education
Statistics, 1995; Office of Special Education Programs and
Rehabilitation Services, 2000).
Little research exists about parents perceptions of paraeducators work. Some research has focused on parental
assessment of help-giving practices in early intervention and
human service programs (Trivette, Dunst, Boyd, & Hamby,
1996) and parents perceptions of individual programming
teams (IPT; Hermary & Rempel, 1990). Research focusing
on the incentives for and concerns about inclusion by
school staff has revealed that time pressures and classroommanagement skills are of key concern to the effective use of
teacher/paraeducator teams (Downing, Morrison, & BeerecinRascon, 1996; Pearman, Huang, & Mellblom, 1997). Several
investigators have described paraeducators roles and responsibilities but not parent perceptions (French, 1998; Gartland,
Schloss, Smith, & Holt, 1985; Maag, Vasa, & Reid, 1998;
Werts & Wolery, 1998).
Overall, studies describing roles and responsibilities of
paraeducators have found discrepancies among paraeducator,

teacher, and administrator views. Teachers and paraeducators

tend to agree that paraeducators often provide the primary
support for students with special needs in inclusive classrooms, some being assigned to work one-on-one with a specific student under teacher direction, while others, depending
on the severity of the students needs, are available to all
classroom students. Principals, on the other hand, tend to perceive the paraeducators primary role to be one of providing
clerical support to teachers (Dover, 2001; Logan & Keefe,
1997; Wolery et al., 1996).
Parents of children with special needs, according to
IDEA, must be part of the decision-making process when
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals are established. Some research has indicated that parents are an integral part of the inclusion process (French & Chopra, 1999;
Rock, 2000), and some research has focused on parental perceptions of inclusion (Bennet, Deluca, & Bruns, 1997; Katsiyannis, Hodge, & Lanford, 2000). Numerous articles have
discussed the importance of classroom teachers working in
conjunction with parents and families, such as tips for working with teachers (French, 1999), teacher guidelines for involving parents and families (Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab,
& Bruder, 2000), and discussions of the teacher/paraeducator
relationship (Doyle, 2002; Freschi, 1999; Pickett & Gerlach,
1997). However, little information exists on how parents and
families perceive the paraeducators working with their children in elementary school settings. Evidence has shown that
paraeducator support is essential to the inclusion of students
with special needs in general education (Wolery, Werts, Caldwell, Snyder, & Lisowski, 1995), but studies to date have not
asked parents their level of knowledge about paraeducators
tasks and roles.
This study examines parent perceptions of paraeducators working in inclusive classrooms under teacher direction.
Each parent interviewed had a child with special needs included in a general education classroom. Paraeducators were
assigned to either work one-on-one with a student or work as
a general classroom assistant.

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

Parents and Students. Thirty-three paraeducator/

student dyads working in inclusive classrooms were observed
and interviewed. (Findings from the observations will be discussed in a subsequent article.) Interviews were scheduled
following classroom observations. Twenty-eight parents of
the 33 students observed agreed to be interviewed about their
childs paraeducator. With one exception, the parent interviewed was the childs mother. Twenty-two observed students were boys, and 6 were girls. Students ranged in age
from 4 to 12 years, and each one had a valid IEP with special
needs ranging from high to low incidences. Observed students had primarily mild to moderate difficulties with social

Each paraeducator was observed on 3 different days for

1 hour (3 hours total) while working in an inclusive classroom. Written permission for investigators to observe was
obtained from the classroom teacher, the paraeducator, and
the students parents before observations began. Investigators
focused on several areas during each observation. Data were
collected on the paraeducators instructional grouping, role
with student(s), interactions within the classroom, proximity
to the student with special needs, and type of interactions
with the student with special needs. Data were also collected
on whether the student with special needs was assigned work
similar to other students, the students engagement, and his or

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

233

TABLE 1. Childrens Demographics

Pseudonym

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.

her interactions with other students and adults in the classroom.

Following observations, data entry was completed and
individual graphs were generated. With the paraeducators
consent, individual and/or aggregate graphs were mailed to
parents, so they could preview them prior to the interview.
Parents were contacted by telephone or letter to schedule
interviews and, as appropriate, to schedule time and location.
Two parents were interviewed in person; all others were
interviewed by telephone. Each interview was audiotaped

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

with the parents knowledge and then transcribed verbatim.

During transcription, parent, student, and school names were
coded for confidentiality, along with other names and locations mentioned by the parent. Each parent, following the
interview, received a $50 stipend for his or her time and willingness to share information with us.
Once the interviews were transcribed, copies were made
and investigators independently coded each transcript for
responses and demographic details. The team discussed coding results and arrived at consensus where discrepancies

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

there was a paragraph she has a lot of trouble with

that. So she would help her with those kinds of
things, and I think that is all she did.
Three parents were critical of the paraeducator assigned
to their child. Two examples explain their issues. Garrets
mother said, I never got to know her very well. I know that
any time I did talk to her, her attitude was not professional; it
was not educational . . . I did not see her interacting with the
students. I did not see her doing any more than she absolutely
had to. Thomas mother indicated concern about her sons
dependence on another adult. She discussed the pros and cons
of continually relying on adult help. She also had serious concerns about the lack of adequate modifications made for her
son and suggested that peer tutoring might be just as effective, not only for him but for all students.
Parents were asked to list the benefits of employing
paraeducators. Two themes emerged from the responses; 61%
of the parents mentioned the extra help their children
received. Averys mother noted,
Not only does she take the time to really listen
and find out what is bothering Avery, she finds
different approaches on how to get around something . . . she finds very creative ways to where if
he is not able to do this assignment because it is
over his head, she will find ways to where he is
almost doing the same assignment at his level.
Approximately 25% of the parents believed the paraeducators presence in the classroom made inclusion possible for
their child. Carters mother stated it succinctly: He wouldnt
be able to make it without it. She then elaborated,
If the problems are put on the board, and he
doesnt have the patience to sit there or watch the
teacher, then she sits there and shows him it and
tries to explain a little more about what it is that
the teacher is wanting and helps him through it, so
he doesnt just get up and wander off and do his
own thing.
Angelas mother shared,
She [Angela] doesnt always understand all the
instructions on some things, so she does need
some one-on-one, and I think if there werent
education assistants in the classroom, shed be
totally lost because the teacher wouldnt be able
to get around to all the students.
Carls parent stated, His work would not be completed each
day if it were not for her efforts. In addition, Davids mother
commented,

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

235

She is in the classroom to just kind of, I dont

know, I would say a mediator; if something critical happened, shes there for help. I think that she
tries to focus in on him when hes nervous or he
might not be focusing in on what is going on, and
I would have to say that [she] is a very patient
person and has a lot of patience with David,
which I think is very helpful . . . he used to throw
temper tantrums a lot, and shes there for that if he
does throw tantrums in the classroom, but those
have almost diminished.
Communication About School
More than half of the parents interviewed (61%) reported
their children referred to the paraeducator at home nearly as
often as they referred to the classroom teacher (75%). Most
parents did not elaborate on the types of comments made by
their children; however, a few did. Averys mother stated,
And this is one thing, [the paraeducator] writes
down little notes because we have a little journal
thing that Avery brings home every day, so I know
what questions to ask him about what he did in
school. [She] is good at writing in that and also
[the paraeducator] did it last year. Both the teacher
and his assistant would write in it and also in
every little section, like on speech where his
speech teacher will write. . . . So, its a variety.
Carters mother stated, Normally [the paraeducator] calls
me.
When students were assigned to one of two broad categories based on diagnosis (i.e., high-incidence and lowincidence disabilities), one important difference was found.
Parents of children with low-incidence disabilities were contacted more often by the paraeducator than by the teacher.
However, the teacher contacted parents of children with highincidence disabilities more often. Only three parents of children with low-incidence disabilities (n = 12) reported that the
teacher made contact with them when the school needed to
convey information, whereas eight parents of children with
low-incidence disabilities reported the paraeducator made
contact with them. Conversely, seven parents of children with
high-incidence disabilities (n = 16) reported teachers most
often communicated information, but only two parents
reported paraeducators conveyed information. Special education teachers had approximately equal amounts of contact
with both groups of parents.
Budgeting for Paraeducators
All parents opposed cutting the use of paraeducators.
Reubens mother stated, I think that they can cut back all
they want, but by law they have to provide help for him.

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

When asked where school budgets could be cut, half of the

parents said they did not know enough about school budgets,
they did not know what could be cut, or they did not respond.
Parents who did respond generally felt cuts could be made in
various extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, field trips).
Eds mother stated,
Not that I am against sports or anything, but why
can we put so much money and effort towards the
minute few children that have athletic ability, and
we never talk about cutting those budgets. So
dont tell me that my child is not more important
than that kid who can run a football or that kid
who can hit a baseball. Dont tell me that those
kids are more important than my child.
Improving the Practice
When asked about recommendations for improving the use of
paraeducators, parent responses focused on several different
themes, listed in Figure 1. Comments most frequently
occurred in three areas. First, parents focused on the need for
more training. For example, Reubens mother stated, As far
as a lot of assistants he has had before, I feel that a lot of
them . . . have not been trained in the area to work with a
child with special needs . . . some of the teachers arent.
Angelas mother said, I dont like to put down any of our ed.
assistants. I just know they probably dont have as much
training as our teachers do. Second, parents perceived that
communication between parents and school personnel
needed improvement. Donnys mother stated, My main
thing is, the line of communication between the professional
and the parent needs to be kept. You know, I need to know
what is going on. Third, parents expressed a need for more
paraeducators. Tobys parent stated,
I know theres a shortage of assistants, not really a
shortage, but you know, all kids dont have an
assistant that need one, and I feel like the early
years are important for them to have that assistant,
you know, for the guidance, especially in the
beginning, because once they get some age on
them, you know, everythings pretty much set,
they dont want to change. So I feel like the early
years are the most important for having somebody
there with them.

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

FIGURE 1. Number of recommendations made by parents in response to open-ended questions.

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

part of implementing instructional objectives, but they were

often not included in the IEP process.
Third, parents reported they heard about paraeducators
from their children. These children were of primary age, and
parents indicated that children discussed both teachers and
paraeducators. This result may or may not have held up if the
students were older. Analysis of the transcripts regarding who
children talked about at home showed no differences between
teachers and paraeducators. This could indicate paraeducators are perceived as teachers and should be viewed as
equal partners in the educational setting. Paraeducators must
be professionally valued as team members, and they must be
included in IEP meetings and parent conferences, not only to
become informed, but also to inform. French and Chopra
(1999) reported that parents were aware paraeducators acted
as advocates for children and as communication links with
other school personnel. Marks, Schrader, and Levine (1999)
found that conversations with parents helped paraeducators
feel like a liaison between parents and school personnel. During a working conference (McLaughlin, 1996), paraeducators
indicated the need to communicate more with other personnel involved with the students with whom they worked.
Wolery et al. (1996) reported that teachers, paraeducators, and principals considered teachers responsible for all
instruction and planning, and paraeducators, in general, did
not have responsibility for giving information to parents or

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

237

other professionals within or outside of the school. Parents

interviewed for this study were substantially more positive
about their communication with paraeducators and knowledge of paraeducator activities. Perhaps paraeducators who
agreed to be observed were more secure and confident in
their roles. Parents were provided information about the
classroom activities of their childrens paraeducator prior to
the interview. This information may have influenced their
attitudes.
Some parents raised questions about school communication patterns. When asked, Who makes contact when you
receive communication from the school? two thirds of the
parents of children with low-incidence disabilities reported
they received information from the paraeducator. The more
severe the disability, the more likely it was that communication came from the paraeducator, whereas the inverse was
true for students with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., information was conveyed more often by the classroom teacher).
This inverse effect relates to results reported by French
(2001) that more paraeducators attend IEP meetings for students with low-incidence disabilities. More research would
clarify this relationship.
Fourth, when citing recommendations for improving the
use of paraeducators, parent responses focused on training and
employing more paraeducators and on communication issues. Parents were most concerned about paraeducator training, keeping the same paraeducator longer, and the
paraeducators role in the inclusion process. Half of the parents of students with low-incidence disabilities mentioned
communication issues. Parents comments included (a) listen
to us, (b) meet and stay on same page, (c) communicate with
us more often, (d) involve us in decision making, and (e) provide training for paraeducators. These recommendations are
of little surprise and support those cited by other researchers
(French, 2001; French & Chopra, 1999; Pickett & Gerlach,
1997; Wolery et al., 1996).

Most parents in our sample reported paraeducators working

with their children were doing a good job. At the time of these
interviews, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) had
not been passed by Congress; therefore, parents could not
respond in light of current legislation. No doubt, NCLB will
impact the perceptions of all educators, including parents,
regarding the training and skills required of paraeducators.
Further study is needed to determine its impact on parent perceptions. An inverse relationship was found between the
severity of the childs disability and whether the paraeducator
or the teacher was likely to communicate with the parent.
Why this is the case is not documented or easily inferred from
these data. Further study is needed to explore the issues associated with this finding. These findings, along with the recommendations cited by parents, lead to several implications
for practice.

R E M E D I A L

A N D

S P E C I A L

1. Paraeducators are perceived by parents as

professionals, highly valued service providers,
and they should be treated as such.
2. Paraeducators should be invited to IEP
meetings, parent conferences, and other
pertinent events.
3. Training should be included as part of the
paraeducator employment requirements. State
regulations and outcomes will confirm or deny
whether this law has appropriate outcomes.
Although NCLB does not specifically apply to
special education paraeducators unless they
work in Title I schoolwide programs, it is
possible that NCLB will change the culture
of schools regarding paraeducator training.
Student achievement outcomes will help
determine the effects of the NCLB required
training.
4. Communication and collaboration are required
of paraeducators; therefore, training in these
areas is vital.
5. Paraeducators are frequently asked to instruct
students under the supervision of classroom
teachers; therefore, knowledge of instructional
methods and data collection would be of
benefit. Also, both teachers and paraeducators
knowledge of systematic data collection and
analysis could help teachers plan and make
decisions about student progress.
6. Parents perceive that schools need more
paraeducators, not fewer.

Implications for Practice

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

7. Parents do not support budget cuts impacting

services provided by paraeducators.
8. Overall, parents want school personnel to listen
and respond to their perceptions of those who
work with their children.

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,

Dept. of Language, Reading, and Exceptionalities, 124 Edwin Duncan Hall,

Box 32085, Boone, NC 28608; e-mail: wertsmg@appstate.edu
AUTHORS NOTES
1. This study was supported, in part, by a grant from the U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H324 C980178).
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement
should be inferred.
2. The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Dawn Leeper,
Deb Lawler, Michelle S. Miller, and each teacher and paraeducator. We
especially thank parents of the children observed and those parents who
agreed to be interviewed.
REFERENCES
Bennet, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice:
Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115
131.
Dover, W. F. (2001). Instructional management of paraeducators in inclusive
classrooms: The perspectives of the teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Downing, J. E., Morrison, A. P., & Beerecin-Rascon, M. A. (1996). Including elementary school students with autism and intellectual impairments
in their typical classrooms: Process and outcomes. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 24(2), 20 45.
Doyle, M. B. (2002). The paraprofessionals guide to the inclusive classroom: Working as a team. Baltimore: Brookes.
Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000).
Everyday family and community life and childrens naturally occurring
learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 151164.
French, N. K. (1998). Working together: Resource teachers and paraeducators. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 357368.
French, N. K. (1999). Paraeducators and teachers: Shifting roles. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 31, 6973.
French, N. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A survey of teacher
practices. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 4153.
French, N. K., & Chopra, R. V. (1999). Parent perspectives on the roles of
paraeducators. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 259272.
Freschi, D. F. (1999). Guidelines for working with one-on-one aides. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 42 45.
Gartland, D., Schloss, P. J., Smith, M. A., & Holt, J. (1985). Correspondence
among paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators views of the
paraprofessionals responsibilities. International Journal of Partial Hospitalization, 3, 3138.
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E., & MacFarland, S. Z. C.
(1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional assistant proximity
on students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 718.
Hermary, M. E., & Rempel, J. (1990). Parental and staff perceptions of individual programming teams: Collaboration in and beyond the conference.
Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 2532.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.
1400 (26)

Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (2000, October 2). Teachers wanted.

Newsweek, 136(14), 37 42.
Katsiyannis, A., Hodge, J., & Lanford, A. (2000). Paraeducators: Legal and
practice considerations. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 297304.
Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context,
teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 1627.
Maag, J. W., Vasa, S. F., & Reid, R. (1998). Frequency of interventions used
by paraeducators with students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Psychological Reports, 82, 11211122.
Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator experiences
in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children, 65, 315328.
McLaughlin, M. (1996). Appropriate inclusion and paraprofessionals:
Changing roles and expectations. Washington, DC: NEA.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). Projection of education statistics to 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 6301 et seq.
Office of Special Education Programs and Rehabilitation Services. (2000).
Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Office of Special Education Programs and Rehabilitation Services. (2002).
Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Pearman, E. L., Huang, A. M., & Mellblom, C. I. (1997). The inclusion of all
students: Concerns and incentives of educators. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1120.
Pickett, A. L. (1984). The paraprofessional movement: An update. Social
Policy, Winter, 40 43.
Pickett, A. L. (1997). Paraeducators in school settings: Framing the issues. In
A. L. Pickett & K. Gerlach (Eds.), Supervising paraeducators in school
settings (pp. 124). Austin: PRO-ED.
Pickett, A. L., & Gerlach, K. (1997). Supervising paraeducators in school
settings. Austin: PRO-ED.
Rock, M. L. (2000). Parents as equal partners: Balancing the scales in IEP
development. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 3036.
Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Boyd, K., & Hamby, D. W. (1996). Familyoriented program models, helpgiving practices, and parental control
appraisals. Exceptional Children, 62, 237248.
Werts, M. G., & Wolery, M. (1998, May). Division of labor between paraprofessionals and teachers. Poster session presented at the First Biannual Meeting of CRIEI, Charleston, SC.
Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., & Lisowski, L.
(1995). Experienced teachers perceptions of resources and supports for
inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 1526.
Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Snyder, E. D., Caldwell, N. K., Anthony, L.,
Heckathorn, J. K., et al. (1996). Results from a nationwide survey of
paraprofessionals, teachers, and principals. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny
Singer Research Institute, Child and Family Studies.

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

Volume 25, Number 4, July/August 2004

239