Students with disabilities and paraprofessional supports: Benefits, balance, and band-aids

Focus on Exceptional Children, Mar 2002 by Giangreco, Michael F, Doyle, Mary Beth

Only two studies have reported specifically on the effects of proximity between paraprofessionals and students with disabilities. Young et al. (1997) collected observational data pertaining to the proximity between paraprofessionals and three elementary-aged students with autism in inclusive classrooms in the same school. They reported variation in the extent of proximity of paraprofessionals to these students and mixed results pertaining to the relationship between paraprofessional proximity and student behavior (e.g., ontask, in-seat, self-stimulation, inappropriate vocalizations), as well as initiation of interactions by classmates, teachers, and paraprofessionals. In this study, teacher initiations toward the students with autism were higher when the paraprofessional was more than 2 feet away from the students with autism.

The fact that student responses associated with paraprofessional proximity were varied highlights the importance of individualization when planning supports for students with disabilities. Young et al. (1997) emphasized the importance of further studying paraprofessional supports and expressed their strong concerns about certain models of inclusive education, "particularly when the inclusion is full time with a paraprofessional who has not been trained in the field and whose presence supplants a teacher's involvement" (p. 38).

Davern et al. (1997) suggest that such scenarios, in which students with disabilities are placed in general education classes without appropriately trained support personnel or the classroom teacher has minimal involvement, represent fragmented efforts that are labeled inaccurately as inclusive education. We concur.

In the other study dealing with paraprofessional proximity, Giangreco et al. (1997) reported findings based on 2 years of observational and interview data collected from 134 team members (paraprofessionals, teachers, special educators, related services providers, parents, administrators) who supported the general education placements of 11 students with multiple disabilities in 11 different schools. Based on qualitative analysis of these data, it was reported that paraprofessionals assigned to the students in this study were in close proximity to them much of the time. Sometimes that proximity was considered excessive and was associated with inadvertent detrimental effects.

The assignment of a paraprofessional presented both physical and symbolic barriers that interfered with the teachers getting directly involved with the students with disabilities who were placed in their classes. Further, excessive paraprofessional proximity was associated with creating unnecessary dependence on adults as well as interfering with competent instruction, peer relationships, gender identity, and appropriate personal control (Giangreco et al., 1997).

Shukla, Kennedy, and Cushing (1999) conducted a single-subject experimental study to explore a peer support strategy as an alternative to paraprofessional supports for three middle school students with profound disabilities in general education classes. Although this study did not address paraprofessional proximity directly, it reported favorable evidence for the use of a peer support strategy in comparison to direct assistance from paraprofessionals. Their intervention resulted in higher levels of social interaction between the students with disabilities and peers without disabilities, as well as increased social support behaviors from those peers.