Chopra, R. V., & French, N. K. (2004). Paraeducator relationships with parents of students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 240-251.
This qualitative interview study included 17 participants, all involved with the education of students with significant disabilities who received 1:1 paraeducator support in inclusive classrooms (at least 70% of the time), from three different program sites in a school district in Colorado. "The selected school district has a reputation of being effective in terms of its implementation of inclusion practices, paraeducator training, and parent involvement." (p. 241). These participants included 3 special education teachers, 6 paraeducators, 6 parents, and 2 district level personnel (a nurse and special educator). Each person was interviewed for approximately one hour.
Major Findings and Limitations:
Five different types of parent-paraeducator relationships were identified: (1)
close and personal friendships, (2) routine limited interactions, (3) routine
extended interactions, (4) minimal relationships, and (5) tense relationships.
The authors provide data describing each type of relationship and a subsection
describing the factors associated with each type. The findings confirmed that
parents and paraeducators communicated with each regularly and that they "believed
that close relationships were beneficial to the child" (p. 250). In the
Discussion the authors also stated: "However, these findings show that
close relationships and extensive communications were not always helpful or
beneficial; on the contrary, sometimes they negatively affected the student's
education. Close personal relationships between paraeducators and parents can
be particularly precarious when (a) they exist without the involvement and or
authorization of the person in charge of the program and (b) the paraeducators
involved are not qualified and closely supervised" (p. 250). Limitations
noted by the authors include: (1) "participant selection was limited to
a single district that is very wealthy" (p. 250); (2) there was no linguistic
diversity and negligible cultural diversity among the participants; and (3)
only one father participated.
Summarized by: Michael Giangreco, August 2004
Last modified February 14 2008 11:22 AM
