Paraprofessionals: A Dynamic Staffing Model

Abstract

Your campus already has one of the most important resources for creating an optimal environment-its students. Admissions offices expend many resources recruiting top notch students, and retention offices look for ways to keep them. One important way to attract and retain students is by providing opportunities for the students to become engaged in meaningful work. Students as a work force have been important to most campuses for many years, historically working as typists, filers, gophers, painters, etc. However, given the opportunity, students would choose a setting that would foster more growth through diverse duties and increased responsibility. Winston and Ender (1988) found &dquo;statistically significant differences among programs using paraprofessionals because (a) they are less costly staff, (b) they are more effective than professionals, (c) the program aids in the paraprofessional's personal development, and (d) the program enables the college to provide more services to more stu-dents&dquo; (p. 467). These results, reporting the effectiveness of a paraprofessional program, are supported by many authors (Arnold et al.

The Paraprofessional Alternative

“…In this model, undergraduate paraprofessionals are seen as uniquely contributing to: (1) the Career Center environment; (2) the delivery of career services ; (3) their own personal and career development; and (4) the quantity and quality of programs that can feasibly be offered by the University of Missouri Career Center (McDaniels, Carter, Heinzen, Candrl, and Wieberg, 1994).…”

The effects of ethnic similarity on tutor–tutee interactions

“…The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 provided for the development of local community intervention programs and clearly encouraged participation in the development, services, and administration of these programs by members of the groups to be served. These paraprofessionals provide a valuable source of people power in economically stressed intervention programs by demanding and receiving less pay, and by performing more menial and technical tasks formerly burdening professionals (Barrow & Hetherington, 1981;Christensen & Jacobson, 1994;Gartner, 1971;Kelly & Nolan, 1980;McDaniels, Carter, Heinzen, & Candrl, 1994). More important, however, is the argument that indigenous paraprofessionals may be more effective in recruitment and intervention.…”