Paraprofessional Turnover and Retention in Inclusive Programs

Abstract

In recent years, education policies have focused on raising the standards for paraprofessional qualifications, supervision, and development. Given the increasingly problematic rates of paraprofessional turnover, focusing on the retention of effective paraprofessionals is of equal importance. In an effort to understand the reasons for and costs of turnover and to identify strategies that increase the likelihood of retention, 53 district and school employees from six schools in three school districts were interviewed. The findings indicated that the costs of turnover are felt at every level within a school district: central office, school, team, and student. Also suggested were strategies for increasing retention, including ensuring a threshold wage, focusing on job matching early in the employment process, providing ongoing support and direction, and developing a team culture in which paraprofessionals feel valued.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Concerns of Paraeducators

“…Given the low status of a paraeducator's position within school districts as reflected by pay schedules and political hierarchies, experts have emphasized the need for school personnel to be forthright and explicit in welcoming and supporting paraeducators as valued members of the educational team (Doyle, 2008;French, 2003a;Pickett et al, 2007). Although turnover and retention are often alluded to as problematic issues relative to paraeducator employment, only a limited number of recent studies have addressed this topic (Ghere & York-Barr, 2007;Giangreco et al, 2001;Hughes & Valle-Riestra, 2008;Tillery, Werts, Roark, & Harris, 2003). Although low salary is a significant concern, it was not the only or even most substantial concern for many paraeducators.…”

Inclusive education reform in Queensland: implications for policy and practice

“…But teachers also struggle with the presence of another adult in the classroom (French, 2001;Ghere & York-Barr, 2007;Gunter et al, 2005;Howes, 2003), and are confused about how to utilise teacher aides to support learning (Giangreco & Broer, 2005;Hunt, Soto, Maier, & Doering, 2003).…”

“…As well, the resulting decisions about the appropriate types and levels of support and who will provide that support will pre-determine the type of professional development that is made available and in what form it will be provided, without adequately addressing the needs of support practitioners such as teacher aides, for planning and reviewing processes with other members of the students' support networks, and job-embedded learning experiences (Ghere & York-Barr, 2007;Groom, 2006). Research has shown that not including teachers and teacher aides in decisions about how practices will be reformed to be more inclusive leads to feelings of imposition and resentment on the part of practitioners, and therefore negative attitudes towards professional development designed to inform these changes Edwards & Nicoll, 2006;Forlin, 2006;Ghere & York-Barr, 2007;Howard & Ford, 2007;Timmons, 2006).…”

One-to-One Paraprofessionals for Students With Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: Is Conventional Wisdom Wrong?

“…Administrators may grant requests for one-to-one paraprofessionals in an effort to be supportive, because they lack alternatives, or because it is perceived as cost effective. Yet, recent research has indicated that, although paraprofessionals are paid substantially less than professional staff, there are a variety of hidden costs (Ghere & York-Barr, 2007). What remains in question is whether assigning a one-to-one paraprofessional is an appropriate support in response team members' concerns.…”