Abstract
Paraprofessionals have increasingly served as a support service for students with disabilities. Yet, scholars have urged caution in the overuse of assigning paraprofessional supports. Furthermore, it is unclear how states provide guidance to local stakeholders in determining the best use of paraprofessionals. Thus, in this study, we conducted a state-by-state analysis of documents depicting guidance for paraprofessional supports. We identified states that offered comprehensive frameworks to support practitioners while allowing teams to maintain the autonomy to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, we also found that few states offered guidance, particularly with regard to navigating tensions between student need and potential risks. We rely on a Disability Studies framework to discuss implications for policy, practice, and future research, particularly in how states might provide robust guidance that assists schools in building an accommodating and inclusive environment rather than focusing solely on student characteristics framed as deficits.
Keywords
Students with disabilities are legally guaranteed the right to be educated “to the maximum extent appropriate . . . with children who are nondisabled” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004). As of the 2018–19 school year, more than 60% of students with disabilities spent more than 80% of their day in an inclusive setting (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Increasingly, paraprofessionals have served as a key mechanism in supporting children with disabilities in the general education classroom (Giangreco, 2013). Yet, there is little evidence to suggest that the use of paraprofessionals leads to positive student outcomes (see Giangreco, 2021), and emerging evidence indicates potential unintended negative consequences (Blatchford et al., 2012; McDermott & Cruz, 2023). Given the potential consequences of overreliance on paraprofessional supports, it is important to understand how paraprofessionals are assigned to students and under what circumstances. Currently, there is little research detailing the answers to this question (e.g., Billingsley & Bettini, 2019), including how state education departments provide guidance to school professionals in making decisions around how to utilize paraprofessionals. Researchers have argued for “the importance of considering the wider processes and contexts” within which paraprofessional supports are implemented (Webster & De Boer, 2021, p. 297). In this study, we examined how state departments of education have offered direction to districts and schools on how students should be assigned to work with paraprofessionals as a form of auxiliary support. In so doing, we illuminate how state policy might support practitioners in making decisions that have long-term consequences for students.
Paraprofessionals, also referred to as paraeducators or aides, are individuals who do not have full teacher certification yet work in the classroom in a supporting role. Paraprofessionals take on various roles in schools and may provide support to a wide variety of students, but are often assigned to work with students with disabilities (French, 2003; Pickett, 2007). Although still ambiguous, recent policy initiatives have defined the role of paraprofessionals in schools (e.g., No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2001). According to IDEA (2004), paraprofessionals are permitted to “assist in the provision of special education and related services” so long as they are “appropriately trained and supervised in accordance with State law, regulation, or written policy.” At the federal level, NCLB policy first set minimum criteria for paraprofessionals working at Title I schools, stating that paraprofessionals must have an associate’s degree, have 2 years of postsecondary education, or meet rigorous standards of mathematical and language arts skills as measured by state or local assessments (United States Department of Education, 2004).
As of 2018, there were approximately 1.4 million paraprofessionals working in the U.S. school system (Lichte & Scheef, 2022). There exists a paucity of concrete statistics on how many students placed into special education regularly work with paraprofessionals, and in what capacity; however, as of 2003, 84% of students with disabilities attended schools in which aides were working with students with disabilities (Giangreco, 2010) indicating a high likelihood that students placed in special education commonly access this service. Yet, formal guidance regarding paraprofessionals is delegated to states. IDEA (2004) specifically notes that paraprofessional services must be “consistent with any State-approved or State-recognized” policies and criteria (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)). The only avenue through which the federal government has taken a stance is through the court system. Federal courts have ruled on a number of cases (e.g., Dublin Unified School District, 2002) to determine if paraprofessionals were necessary to provide students with their legally entitled free and appropriate public education. Although these rulings provided information on when the courts have deemed paraprofessionals necessary, they do not serve as clear examples for Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to follow in determining under what circumstances students should be working with paraprofessionals. Rather, these cases serve as a way of reinforcing students’ rights to receive access to a free and appropriate public education (see Etscheidt, 2005). The lack of federal guidelines leaves this decision-making process up to state and local education agencies. Thus, we sought to answer the following research question: What guidance do states offer concerning how students should be assigned to work with paraprofessionals?
A Disability Studies Framing
The proliferation of paraprofessional support in schools suggests a belief that an increase in the number of individuals working to support students will lead to better outcomes for students (Webster & De Boer, 2019). However, a critical analysis of the current way that paraprofessional services are used, coupled with an analysis of present literature, indicates the potential for unintended consequences of overreliance on paraprofessional support (e.g., stigmatizing experiences, overdependence, or further exclusion from peers; McDermott & Cruz, 2023; Sharma & Salend, 2016; Webster et al., 2010). Disability Studies, like other forms of critical inquiry, centers disability as a socially constructed phenomenon, rather than viewing it as a fixed and natural state (see Cruz et al., 2023; Goodley, 2013). Furthermore, Disability Studies challenges researchers to shift the focus from disability at the individual level to view how systems sort, label, disable, and disenfranchise communities (Connor, 2019; Cruz & Firestone, 2021; Reid & Knight, 2006; Skrtic et al., 2021). From this framework, decisions about paraprofessionals should be viewed from a lens of how to best support the environment in which the child learns rather than creating further physical and social isolation from peers (Giangreco, 2021).
The field of Disability Studies problematizes how special education services are currently provided (Connor, 2019). Baglieri et al. (2011) argue that current schooling revolves around the “myth of the normal child,” (p. 2129) and is designed around supporting “average children” (p. 2141) by creating instructional services that appeal to the normative idea of what children are expected to accomplish. As such, students who deviate from this norm are marginalized, necessitating stigmatizing support mechanisms (e.g., special education services) to correct these deficiencies within the child. Yet, true inclusion requires understanding each student as a unique learner, dynamically situated across intersecting diversity spectra (Cruz et al., 2023). Thus, Baglieri et al. posit that this educational approach should be adjusted toward an educational philosophy that embraces the diversity of all learners. From this lens, provision of paraprofessional support may be viewed as a stigmatizing experience that normalizes deficit approaches for some students, positioning them as needing an adult to facilitate “normal” participation.
Current special education policies, which are built around medical and legal frameworks, seek to prescriptively accommodate student differences without critically interrogating the mechanisms by which services are provided (see Göransson & Nilholm, 2014; McDermott & Cruz, 2023; Voulgarides, 2018). Baglieri et al. argue that these services seek to “cure” disabilities, rather than viewing disabilities as part of human diversity. The social model of disability, on the contrary, frames disability as a natural part of the human experience (Longmore, 2003; McDermott & Varenne, 1995). Although disabled people may have particular impairments that require accommodations and support, it is societal ableism that is disabling to individuals (Danforth & Rhodes, 1997; Shakespeare, 2016). Special education services, then, should be designed to provide students with disabilities with the tools necessary to work toward what Freire (1993) described as the process of humanization. Through this process, learners are able to move away from a system that oppresses and instead become emancipated and able to learn and grow in a way that allows them to be “fully human” (p. 55). In this study, we build on research indicating that assigning an adult to support one child through provision of social cueing or separate instruction has a stigmatizing effect in which the child is “othered” and unintentionally segregated from peers, even when these supports happen within the general education classroom (Sharma & Salend, 2016; Webster et al., 2010). We argue that states might provide guidance to stakeholders who engenders an emancipatory approach when assigning paraprofessionals.
Providing students with special education supports that are limiting, yet do not provide ample benefits is problematic, and although providing paraprofessional support to students would seem an optimal way of supporting students with high levels of social and academic need, current evidence suggests otherwise. Research has connected paraprofessional support with students’ reduced opportunities for age-appropriate social interaction. Malmgren and Causton-Theoharis (2006) conducted an ethnographic study of a second-grade boy’s social interaction when working with a paraprofessional. The authors found a significant decrease in the student’s interactions with classmates when the paraprofessional was present as compared to when the paraprofessional was not present. This finding suggests a decrease in socialization and peer-to-peer interaction resulting from paraprofessional interventions. Webster et al.’s (2021) work in the United Kingdom indicated that paraprofessionals often felt inclined to provide potentially unnecessary supports to children in order to demonstrate their own usefulness, highlighting potential reasons for decreased peer social interaction in students. The well-intentioned desire of paraprofessionals to be helpful in their role may, in fact, serve to undermine the academic and social independence of the students to whom they are assigned.
Given that paraprofessionals—although a potential resource in providing students with educational access—may lead to higher levels of stigmatization and exclusion, it is important to understand the mechanisms in place to support practitioners in determining whether paraprofessionals are an appropriate support for each individual child. However, there is currently a gap in the literature surrounding how these decisions are made, at both policy and practitioner levels. At the individual level, schools are often tasked with determining their own procedures for paraprofessionals (Giangreco et al., 2012), a process that may lead to overreliance or misuse. Giangreco (2021) compared this ubiquitous use of paraprofessionals as an application of Maslow’s hammer—the same solution is consistently applied regardless of the problem. Schools that subscribe to a philosophy where paraprofessionals “are a primary, sometimes nearly exclusive, tool to educationally and socially include students with disabilities” (p. 281) create an ableist environment. From a Disability Studies framework, the focus must shift away from addressing individual students’ deficits by assigning extra adult support, and toward assigning paraprofessionals to specific classrooms. Research indicates that in this model, general education teachers are more likely to provide the students with instruction rather than delegating that responsibility to the student’s paraprofessional (Giangreco, 2021). This system addresses the built classroom environment wherein paraprofessionals are able to provide inclusive supports that allow students with disabilities to receive services without the disenfranchisement inherent in one-to-one service models.
Evidence-Based Guidance
Several researchers have created protocols and guidance that may improve determinations about whether a paraprofessional is the appropriate intervention for a particular student and best practices for considering unintended consequences. For example, Giangreco et al. (2011) designed a tool to determine the extent to which schools might overly rely on paraprofessionals. The tool empowers schools to address potential overreliance through screening of current policies, becoming knowledgeable about alternatives to paraprofessionals, and engaging in ongoing self-assessment of current school practices. Similarly, Freschi (1999) proposed that IEP teams evaluate other options, state specific goals for the paraprofessional’s assignment, and acknowledge that the paraprofessional should be a temporary service. Mueller and Murphy (2001) described a model that uses a checklist to determine student eligibility for paraprofessional services, including questions around student safety, instructional needs, and functional needs.
These tools may assist schools looking to question and improve current practices around inclusion for all students. Furthermore, these tools can be used as guiding documents in shifting how IEP teams and school communities view paraprofessional services. However, this guidance is unlikely to impact schools without being issued to local education agencies through official policy avenues (e.g., state guidance). Giangreco et al. (1999) indicated the difficulty in specifically designing systems by which schools determine the need for paraprofessional supports, as list creation frequently relies on specific student characteristics or diagnostic statuses. This may lead schools to a deficit-oriented focus rather than acknowledging potential school factors that may be changed to better accommodate an inclusive environment. Therefore, Giangreco et al. suggested guidelines that focus on investigating school capacities and ways that schools can change, rather than focusing exclusively on checklists that describe student deficiencies. The current literature demonstrates the lack of clear guidance on the topic, the challenges in allowing schools the flexibility to make decisions appropriate for true inclusion, and promising practices that states might project to stakeholders.
Method
In this study, we used a systematic qualitative document analysis technique (Bowen, 2009; Cardno, 2021). Document analysis enabled us to identify common direction offered between states and to identify emergent themes in state policies and guidance (e.g., Hogue & Taylor, 2020). This process requires a robust procedure including clear selection criteria, data analysis, code development, coder training, and interrater reliability assessment (Bowen, 2009; Yanovitzky & Weber, 2020) in order to uncover frequent and common elements in identified documents, as well as absent or infrequent expected elements of policy guidance and procedure (Boynton Hauerwas et al., 2013). This method’s exact procedures vary from study to study and are driven largely by the research questions and goals of individual studies (Yanovitzky & Weber, 2020). Therefore, in this section, we describe the analytic process by which we searched, analyzed, coded, and ultimately interpreted relevant documents.
Defining the Policy Space
Different types of government documents include different degrees of guidance. Some may include higher-level references for the purposes of stating political commitment and budgetary support, while others may include more prescriptive references to guide actual practice within a given state (Bardach & Patashnik, 2019). We considered any state-published document that included information related to policy plans (i.e., why stakeholders might follow specific practices), policy strategies (i.e., what is required of stakeholders), and guidelines (i.e., how to implement strategies) related to paraprofessional use (Bahadur, 2014). The overarching aim of this review was to identify explicit guidance of paraprofessional allocation (e.g., specific concepts, practices, approaches, regulations, mentions) that focus attention on how IEP teams might consider the most inclusive ways to administer this support service while also considering potential unintended consequences. The framework for this review was descriptive, as the primary objective of this research was to uncover the type of guidance states provided to stakeholders.
Analytic Sample
Search and Scope
Given the goal of this study was to understand the guidance provided at a state level, we developed a systematic process to examine state department of education websites as a means of collecting documents for analysis. From January to April of 2022, the study’s first author conducted the initial document collection procedure, the first step of which included visiting each state department of education’s public-facing websites and then navigating to each state’s special education tab, which was available for all states and the District of Columbia. On each website, the first author then identified links that provided insight into guidance on who should be working with paraprofessionals and how they should be assigned to students. We also used the internal search bar on web pages for each state to conduct specific searches for the terms “paraprofessional,” “paraeducator,” or “aide” to uncover any specific links that we may have missed. These keywords were chosen due to their common use in previous studies reviewing topics surrounding paraprofessionals (Giangreco et al., 2010; Lekwa & Reddy, 2021). We found 75 documents for 36 states through this process.
The next step included emailing each state’s publicly available special education department contact information. This allowed us to uncover documents that were unavailable on public facing websites but may have been provided directly to staff members. We made up to three e-mail attempts to special education personnel or individuals who were listed as contacts for website-related questions. We received confirmation emails from eight states and the District of Columbia, and we added two additional documents—one for Hawaii and one for Kansas—to our sample through this process. This resulted in an initial sample of 75 documents. Although all 50 states plus the District of Columbia were included in the initial search, there were 11 states and the District of Columbia for which no documentation existed. Links to each found document were tracked in an Excel file, grouped by state.
Inclusion Criteria
We selected tabs and documents widely, coding each document for inclusion if they indicated (a) a relationship to staff allocation, (b) the IEP decision-making processes, or (c) other related paraprofessional topics. In order to determine whether the document contained relevant information, the first author conducted a word search within each article to find the words “paraprofessional,” “paraeducator,” or “aide.” The first author read all documents containing these keywords to determine whether they provided information indicative of which students should be working with paraprofessionals and how IEP teams and other stakeholders should consider allocating this service. If the answer was “yes,” we included the document in the analytic sample. As our study aims were descriptive and exploratory, we included a wide array of documents describing special education regulations, state education code, guidance for special education procedures, handbooks, and memorandums. We excluded documents focused exclusively on human resources (e.g., paraprofessional hiring requirements or pay scale) as they did not provide information to practitioners regarding application of paraprofessional support services to students. After applying this inclusion criteria, we analyzed a final sample of 75 documents, with an average of 1.47 documents per state.
Analytic Procedure
We used a two-phase document coding process (Bowen, 2009) to analyze each state’s policy and guidance documents to develop codes and themes. In the first phase, we used keywords to find relevant information and to group documents into categories based on emergent themes. Using Miles et al.’s (2020) approach to qualitative analysis, the study’s first and second authors each independently performed an initial open-coding round, in which we identified emergent features describing the essence of the phenomenon of interest (i.e., guidance provided to stakeholders). This entailed organizing documents descriptively and making comparisons throughout the process. We then grouped codes into axial categories and used these to perform a subsequent round of focused, second-order coding (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2016).
In the second phase, we conducted a discrete coding procedure using a priori codes generated from the emergent themes. The a priori codes we used derived from axial categories, including (a) a lack of guidance, (b) specific checklist, (c) open-ended guidance, (d) specific medical needs, (e) early intervention, (f) student–teacher ratio, (g) English learner supports, (h) specific disability examples, (i) risk of overdependence, (j) guiding paraprofessionals to support all students, and (k) encouraging the development of plans to “fade off” paraprofessional services. To verify accuracy and consistency during the second phase, the study’s first author provided each member of the authorship team with a codebook including a definition of each code. All authors met to discuss and refine the codebook, and then the study’s first and second authors independently coded a random set of 13 documents representing 12 states. The authorship team then met to compare codes, sharpen coding definitions, and discuss codes for which we disagreed or with unclear coding results until reaching consensus. We reached an initial interrater coding agreement of 89.3% (Cohen’s
Results
Direct Guidance
Our research question aimed to determine the larger scope of guidance that states offered to stakeholders. States often presented guidance in the form of checklists or criteria that provided practitioners with clear information on which students should be working with paraprofessionals. Six states (California, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) provided practitioner guidance in determining who should work with paraprofessionals through comprehensive frameworks, often in the form of a tool or checklist. For example, the Kansas State Department of Education (2018) provided a manual on their website entitled Considerations for the Effective Use of Paraprofessionals in Schools. This manual not only included information on the role of paraprofessionals but also provided a tool created by Mueller and Murphy (2001) to help schools in determining whether a paraprofessional is an appropriate intervention. This tool provided school personnel guiding questions relating to a child’s physical, social, and academic needs. California’s website included a link to Kansas’ manual and additionally indicated paraprofessional intervention in early childhood settings to reduce the future risk of special education (California Department of Education, 2022).
Massachusetts provided guidance in the form of a Technical Assistance Advisory (Mittnacht, 2015) memorandum. Written by the state director of special education, this document—addressed to “administrators of Special Education, parents, and other interested parties”—directly addressed the state’s concerns around misuse of paraprofessionals and the importance of finding the most inclusive aid for students possible. Practitioners were encouraged to engage in a three-step process involving (a) considering the full context of general education, (b) evaluating student goals, and (c) determining the appropriate level of participation in general education. The document included links to templates for practitioners to conduct a Student Needs Analysis and a Student School Day Analysis to further assist in making inclusive decisions (Mittnacht, 2015).
Pennsylvania provided a list on their website including guidance on how to determine when students should be provided with a one-to-one paraprofessional. This guidance was particularly focused on asking IEP teams to consider whether this service is the most appropriate, given each student’s overall needs. Using these guidelines, IEP teams are prompted to consider (a) reports from adult stakeholders containing “information relevant to the student’s academic, social, emotional, and/or behavioral needs,” (b) previous student academic progress without a one-to-one aid, (c) previous mental health referrals, (d) the student’s disciplinary record, and (e) any student behavior that “resulted in exclusion from the classroom” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2015). This guidance indicated the importance of providing IEP teams with autonomy in decision-making along with a clear set of circumstances to consider when evaluating student need.
New York and New Jersey had codified legal policies around paraprofessional allocation. For example, New Jersey’s administrative code provided a list of potential reasons students may be provided with a paraprofessional. The guidance stated that these items may include (a) prompting, cueing, and redirecting student participation; (b) reinforcing of personal, social behavioral, and academic learning goals; (c) organizing and managing materials and activities; and (d) implementation of teacher-designed follow-up and practice activities (New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:14, 2006). This guidance provided a clear checklist that practitioners may use to evaluate student needs. Furthermore, the focus on activities and environment provided a shift away from student-deficit orientations and toward a more expansive understanding of student support. Nevertheless, this checklist could apply to a wide variety of circumstances and did not provide information on risks or unintended consequences.
The New York checklist mandated that all IEP teams evaluate a list of concerns prior to assigning a one-to-one aide. According to the New York Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Section 200.4(d)(3), IEP teams must consider (a) the management needs of the student that would require a significant degree of individualized attention, (b) the skills and goals the student would need to achieve that will reduce or eliminate the need for the one-to-one aide, (c) the specific support that the one-to-one aide would provide (d) other supports, accommodations and/or services that could support the student to meet these needs (e.g., environmental accommodations, assistive technology), (e) the extent or circumstances the student would need the assistance of a one-to-one aide (e.g., daily transitions), (f) staff ratios in the setting where the student will attend school, (g) the extent to which assignment of a one-to-one aide might enable the student to be educated with nondisabled students, (h) any harmful effect on the student or on quality of services that might result from the assignment of a one-to-one aide, and (i) the training and support provided to the one-to-one aide to help them understand the student’s disability-related needs and effective strategies (Legal Information Institute, 2021).
Although this robust policy required practitioners to consider a variety of concerns around paraprofessionals, this was only applicable when assigning students to work with one-to-one paraprofessionals. This checklist did not reflect considerations for deciding allocation of paraprofessionals in small group settings or inclusive classrooms. Yet, New York was one of several states that provided school personnel with warnings of overdependence or other potential negative effects. For example, the New York statewide coordinator for special education issued a field advisory stating that teachers should be aware of “the potential negative impact of assignment of a one-to-one aide for the student (e.g., self-image, isolation and/or development of assistance)” (DeLorenzo, 2012, p. 3).
Indirect Guidance
In contrast to the aforementioned state-provided comprehensive frameworks, indirect guidance was less specific. For this study, we defined indirect guidance as any written information that provided practitioners with situations in which paraprofessionals may be allocated without providing a clear evaluative process. We sorted states providing indirect guidance into nine different emergent categories: open-ended widely applicable language (k = 18 states), medical needs (k = 7 states), early intervention services (Illinois, Nevada, Utah), student–teacher ratios (k = 12 states), English learner supports (k = 4 states), specific disability examples (k = 20 states), risk of overdependence (k = 10 states), statements indicating that paraprofessionals should work with all students (k = 7 states), and statements about “fading off” of paraprofessional services (k = 9 states). Each of these forms of guidance provided useful information, but fell short of providing specific criteria.
Open-ended widely applicable language was a common form of indirect guidance. For example, Georgia provided a list of disability categories that may qualify students to work with a paraprofessional; however, this was the same list of categories that qualify students for any special education services (Georgia Department of Education, 2021). As such, this list did not provide clear insight into which students with disabilities should be working with paraprofessionals, and how they might be allocated. Similarly, Nevada affirmed that any student could work with paraprofessionals, subject to IEP team agreement (Nevada Department of Health and Human Services Aging and Disability Services Division, 2013). This guidance placed the practitioner in the central decision-making role without providing additional insight for best practices or common concerns.
Several states put in place clear guidelines that paraprofessionals were able to work with all students. For example, in a memo addressing myths and facts about paraprofessionals the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary Education (2021) clarified that “classrooms are frequently staffed with a paraprofessional who provides supports or occasional assistance to all the general education and/or special education students in the room.” In addition, some states clarified that paraprofessionals may provide support for English learners or other specific groups, while other states provided information on appropriate caseload and class sizes that should result in the assignment of a paraprofessional. Each of these forms of guidance provided some degree of direction on how students should be assigned to paraprofessionals; however, they did not necessarily provide any clear diagnostic tools other than a reliance on practitioner knowledge.
Twenty states provided some type of example to demonstrate who could work with paraprofessionals. For example, one manual published by the Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Services (2010), stated “Paraprofessionals are essential to the learning process for students with [autism spectrum disorder] ASD,” without additional information about the exact role that paraprofessionals should take in working with students with autism, the potential for negative consequences, or methods of fading off of paraprofessional supports. Another manual, produced by the Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center, linked to the North Carolina Department of Education, provided an example demonstrating a circumstance in which a paraprofessional taught vocabulary words to students with moderate intellectual disabilities in a general education setting (Browder et al., 2014). Although both of these examples demonstrated types of disability categories that may benefit from paraprofessional services, they did not provide a comprehensive framework and provided practitioners with little usable information in determining paraprofessional deployment.
Six states provided provisions for students to receive paraprofessional support for established medical needs. For example, Kentucky provided the following guidance for student transportation services: “Some medical conditions may necessitate that the district provide a trained aide or nurse to ride on the school bus with the student to provide the required medical assistance” (Kentucky Department of Education, 2019). This guidance did establish the need for a documented medical concern but left open to interpretation what medical concerns may entail. One difference between this and previous guidance, however, is that medical professionals were expected to be trained in regard to specific diagnostic criteria that would require various levels of treatment and support.
Thirteen states (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia did not provide any guidance that could support practitioners in making decisions about paraprofessionals. Some of these states did mention paraprofessionals on their websites; however, this information focused on qualifications for human resource purposes, training policies for paraprofessionals, or other information that, although important, did not provide insight into how paraprofessionals should be assigned to students.
Discussion
Realizing inclusion for all students requires dismantling educational structures that justify exclusion and perpetuate constructions of difference based on notions of ability (Cruz et al., 2023; Kozleski, 2020). Given the potential for paraprofessional support to perpetuate these constructions, application of this service must be done with guidance and caution. Thus, it is important to understand state provision of guidance that can support practitioners in making decisions about ways to maximize inclusion and educational benefit when assigning paraprofessionals as a support service. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia provided no guidance on who should be working with paraprofessionals, while 31 states provided indirect and varied guidance. Few states encouraged stakeholders to consider negative effects or plans to fade off the service. This suggests that a large and diverse number of states throughout the country should clarify their current policies.
Given the extent to which ablism permeates society, and the extent to which special education functions from legal and medical frameworks that center student deficits (McDermott & Cruz, 2023; Sleeter, 2010), it is important to interrogate current practices and consider a wide range of solutions to diverse students’ needs. Although states must continue to provide substantial leeway for practitioners to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, practitioners must be provided evidence-based guidance in how best to determine the need for services. As Giangreco et al. (1999) noted, checklists can be problematic when consistently considering paraprofessionals as a prescriptive solution to specific student characteristics or diagnoses. Therefore, models such as that of New Jersey provide specific guidance to IEP teams that could be used to further marginalize students through the application of a restrictive service that may not be necessary.
Comprehensive frameworks such as those provided by Kansas, California, New York, and Pennsylvania are most closely aligned with our Disability Studies lens and suggest a model for other states to follow, as these states included space to consider both need for supports and potential risks, as well as a long-term plan for ongoing services. New York’s model emphasized evaluating additional services and creating plans to exit the student from paraprofessional services creates a basis from which the school might build an accommodating and inclusive environment, rather than focusing solely on student characteristics. These models, as Kansas explicitly stated, draw from the limited available research prioritizing both long-term student outcomes while maintaining the autonomy of the IEP team. The variance in how information was disseminated demonstrates a variety of ways by which states can communicate the importance of thoughtful and deliberate paraprofessional assignment to LEAs. The issuance of guidance such as this may provide the appropriate balance of awareness without overly prescriptive solutions based on generalizations or ableist assumptions.
Limitations
Though we conducted a thorough and replicable document analysis, this study has limitations. First, we identified relevant state documentation on paraprofessional guidance. However, there may be documents that we missed. This study relied on department of education websites, which may not include more direct forms of communication that were not made available at the public level. Several states without public guidance did not respond to our email requests (k = 7), and there may have been documents provided internally that we were unable to include. This may have biased our results. Nevertheless, we prioritized documents that provided exemplars, and no document search is exhaustive. We believe that we synthesized a sufficient body of documentation to support the implications provided in our discussion. An additional limitation is that we relied on state-level data. It is likely that additional guidance exists at the local education agency level that may provide further insight into the decision-making processes made in paraprofessional allocations. Finally, the scope of this study did not allow insight into the effectiveness of these policies, or how the actual deployment of paraprofessionals varied by state, given provided guidance. Future research on the effectiveness of these guiding documents,—particularly those that provided comprehensive frameworks to stakeholders—is warranted.
Conclusion and Future Directions
As mentioned, the research field on policy guidance around paraprofessionals is severely limited. Future studies must focus on gaining additional insights through a study of guidance provided at the local and school levels. Researchers might build on our analysis by examining how practitioners make these decisions at the school level. Moreover, at time of publication, we are aware of no published studies exploring the demographics of students assigned to work with paraprofessionals, leaving unanswered questions of whether disproportionality by race, disability, or gender exists. Researchers should continue to explore the long-term consequences of paraprofessional supports, rather than simply accepting the idea that more adults in the classroom is inherently better for student learning. Meanwhile, state policymakers must transmit critical information to stakeholders related to paraprofessional assignment. While the long-term consequences of paraprofessionals remain uncovered, it is clear that the use of paraprofessionals should be conducted in a manner that maximizes student inclusion and autonomy. The purpose of this study was to shed additional light on the process by which paraprofessional allocation decisions are being made through an understanding of the state-level policies that guide decisions. It is our hope that policymakers and practitioners at all levels will continue to interrogate the practices by which paraprofessionals are assigned in order to provide students with an inclusive and equitable education.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
