Paraprofessionals play an essential role for many children with disabilities under IDEA. Personally, my son has had a great paraprofessional for many years. She has had just the right balance of being supportive and backing off. She has been an advocate for him and a team player (in the non-negative sense) with the other school personnel. In a word she has been a crucial and wonderful part of my son’s education.
However, the question is to what extent do schools overuse paraprofessionals as a quick and inexpensive "fix" instead of providing a certified teacher to teach students. This question is addressed in a set of guidelines and worksheets from the University of Vermont’s Center on Disability and Community Inclusion as part of Project Evolve.
Even before turning to the specifics of the guidelines and worksheets the directions were nothing less than revolutionary. It recommends a process called "collaborative teamwork" (the name alone is deliciously refreshing). The term is defined as rotating roles where each member of the group gets to serve a different function including recorder, facilitator, time keeper. If such rules were applied to IEP meetings parents would have real ownership of their child’s IEP; if they had a real role other than simply to sign in and smile on cue. The directions also recommend using brainstorming, overheads and chart paper hanging from the wall to generate ideas. Perhaps the most radical idea is that "teams need to be self critical." It is rare that school teams have shown any capacity for self criticism–students and parents are the recipients of criticism for sure. While these directions are not aimed at IEP meetings they certainly would be useful if applied in that setting.
The premise of Project Evolve is summed up as follows:
"The rationale for pursuing alternatives, rather than merely strengthening existing paraprofessional supports (particularly those that are instructional), is grounded in the belief that students with disabilities need and deserve access to qualified teachers, special educators, and related services providers within the context of general education classes and other integrated environments."
The guidelines are not in any way seeking to abolish paraprofessionals, a position that I would strongly oppose. Instead, the guidelines seek to provide a rationale and analytical framework for providing students with more "face time" with certified staff and redefining the role of paraprofessionals. Nevertheless, I am well aware that for many students even having a paraprofessional
would be a step up from their current situation, but that does make the
alternative of overreliance on paraprofessionals a desirable outcome.
For me the crux of this document is the screening process which asks the key question "you know there is a problem when…" It list 16 criteria to evaluate whether a particular school is over-reliant on paraprofessionals. Among the factors are that paraprofessionals are making instructional decisions with little if any input from the teachers or other certified staff, the paraprofessional or the teacher are not familiar with the IEP [an all too common no-no], the paraprofessional knows more about the student than the teacher. In many ways, these criteria serve as a template for the effectiveness and health of inclusion in general. Put another way, if a student is included only to the extent that the paraprofessional and the student are a self contained island within a sea of general educators and curriculum, that is not real meaningful inclusion, nor is that in accord with IDEA.
The document no only defines the problem it also suggests solutions. Parents should use this document and others at Project Evolve to consider the effectiveness of their child’s education.