paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: a legal

Paraprofessional Services for Studentswith Disabilities: A Legal Analysis

of IssuesSusan Etscheidt

University of Northern Iowa

Concomitant with the increase in the number of para-professionals assisting students with disabilities is theemergence of legal issues pertaining to the need, selec-tion, responsibilities, preparation, and supervision ofthose paraprofessionals. The purpose of this article is toprovide a legal analysis of administrative and judicialdecisions concerning these issues and to propose guide-lines for ensuring appropriate paraprofessional involve-ment in the educational programs for students with dis-abilities.

DESCRIPTORS: paraprofessionals, Individuals withDisabilities Act (IDEA), law and policy

The provision of paraprofessional services to stu-dents with disabilities has been recognized as an essen-tial component in ensuring a free and appropriate edu-cation. Full- and part-time paraprofessionals are usedto assist students with disabilities in home- and center-based facilities, special education classrooms, and gen-eral education environments. The number of parapro-fessionals involved in the education of students withdisabilities continues to increase, a trend attributed toboth student and teacher needs (Giangreco, Edelman,Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1997). Pickett, Likins, andWallace (2003) suggested one important trend leadingto an increase in paraprofessional employment in-volved efforts to serve greater number of children withdisabilities in inclusive settings.

Several legal issues have emerged concerning theprovision of paraprofessional services. In addition todisputes regarding the need, selection, and qualifica-tions of paraprofessionals working with students withdisabilities (Katsiyannis, Hodge, & Lanford, 2000), re-cent controversies have involved the responsibilities ofparaprofessionals as well as the adequacy of parapro-fessional supervision and training. The purpose of thisarticle is to provide a legal analysis of administrativeand judicial decisions concerning these issues and topropose guidelines for ensuring appropriate parapro-fessional involvement in the educational programs forstudents with disabilities.

A Review of Recent Decisions and CaseLaw Addressing Paraprofessional Services

The LRP Education Research Library was accessedon-line to review the cases involving paraprofessionalservices between the 1997 reauthorization of Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and thecurrent 2004 reauthorization (Individuals with Disabili-ties Education Improvement Act [IDEIA]). The selec-tion of this time period permits a timely analysis ofadministrative decisions and case law with legal refer-ences or citations to only the 1997 Act. The LRP data-base includes decisions from state-level administrativedue-process hearings as well as decisions from districtcourts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court thatare published in the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-cation Law Report (IDELR) (1992–2005). The topicalindex of “aides/paraprofessionals” was searched, andthe author conducted an independent search using key-word parameters of “paraprofessionals,” “paraeduca-tors,” “aides,” “personnel,” and “nursing services.” Ad-ministrative decisions, as well as district court and cir-cuit court decisions, were included in the analysis. If adecision from a lower court was appealed, only the de-cision from the highest court was included in the analy-sis. Cases were reviewed and categorized by the authoras addressing paraprofessional need, the selection andqualifications of paraprofessionals, responsibilities ofparaprofessionals, and/or the training and supervisionof paraprofessionals. Three cases addressed more thanone area and were included in each discussion section.A total of 47 cases and rulings were analyzed. The casesare arranged chronologically.

Establishing the Need for Paraprofessional ServicesThe need for paraprofessional services is determined

in response to the question that guides the determina-tion of all special education and related services avail-able under the IDEA: Are the services necessary toprovide the individual with a free, appropriate publiceducation (FAPE)? The IDEA requires that studentswith disabilities be provided an appropriate program tomeet their unique needs [20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)]. TheSupreme Court in Hendrick Hudson District Board of

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities copyright 2005 by2005, Vol. 30, No. 2, 60–80 TASH

60

Table 1Establishing the Need for Paraprofessional Services

Case S Data Issue Decision

Lake TravisIndependent SchoolDistrict, 4 ECLPR500 (SEA TX 2003)

5-year-old Mw/PDD

P argued that S capable of fullinclusion but only withsupplemental services of 1:1“shadow” aide trained in ABAmethodologies. SD argued S didnot need shadow aide and couldreceive FAPE without one. SDproposed student spend 1⁄3 of dayin general education classroomwith 22 peers, teacher w/outtraining/experience in autism,without 1:1 aide. Another third ofday was in general education withclassroom aide, and last third “pullout” for math and language arts.

For P:S cannot reasonably benefitfrom instruction without 1:1support. SD’s assertion that Swould become dependent on aidewas not supported, and teacherwithout training/experience wasnot capable of meeting S’s needs.Classroom aide would not be ableto provide 1:1 support for S ininclusive setting.

South River Board ofEducation, 39IDELR 88 (SEA NJ2003)

8-year-old Mw/SLD

P sought provision of personal aideduring all academic andunstructured periods of day. SDhad agreed only to provide aideduring unstructured times.

For P: SD failed to presentreasonable assurance that S can beprovided with a meaningfuleducation “unless he isimmediately provided with apersonal classroom aide who issufficiently qualified and trainedto identify and handle the types ofproblems and behavioralconcerns”.

Harris County SchoolSystem, 26 IDELR193 (SEA GA 1997)

11-year-old M withADD & dyslexiaserved as SLD

P requested full-timeparaprofessional in specialeducation classroom and to help inregular education classes.

For SD: parents did not show thatIEP could only be implemented orstudent appropriately served byhiring a full-time paraprofessional

Killeen IndependentSchool District, 39IDELR 21, (SEATX 2003)

10-year-old Mw/autism/Aspergers

P requested full autism-trained aideto assist S in regular classes. SDargued that S did exceptionallywell in regular classes; well enoughthat S did not require an aide.

For SD: P did not demonstrate thatS needed a classroom aide toreceive an educational benefit foracademic, behavioral, or otherreasons.

Menlo Park CityElementary SchoolDistrict, 36 IDELR230 (SEA CA 2002)

9-year-old F w/SIDistrict

P claimed daughter needed her 1:1aide during winter and springschool breaks to preventregression. SD argued that noevidence supported the need for1:1 assistance during breaks in theschool year as the S did notexperience regression

For SD: District offer to provide 1:1aide during regular school yearand the extended school year wasappropriate. Evidence did notsupport the need for a 1:1 aideduring breaks in the academicyear.

Limestone CountyBoard of Education,31 IDELR 122 (SEAAL 1999)

7-year-old F withmultipledisabilities,including VIand PD.

P requested full-time aide toaccompany S to regular education(1⁄2 hour visits several times perweek) due to VI. Aide would helpS know what was going on. SDargued that purpose of the visitsto regular education was forsocialization, and an aide who“shadows” the S will interfere withpeer relationships. SD intended toprovide a “peer buddy” to assist the S.

For SD: Aide accompanying the childto regular education would becounterproductive for socializationpurposes.

Waterbury Board ofEducation, 37 IDELR262 (SEA CT 2002)

8-year-old Mw/ADHD

P requested that 1:1 aide be assignedto S to address behavior issuesresulting in suspensions. SDprovided an aide when theclassroom teacher deemed itnecessary. Most behavioralincidents occurred with classroomaide present.

For SD: 1:1 aide not the solution toS’s behavior problems. Aide maystigmatize S and create unnecessarydependency. S would be betterserved with an analysis of behavior“triggers” and modifications tobehavior plan.

61Paraprofessional Services for Students With Disabilities

Table 1—Continued


Pell City Board ofEducation, 38IDELR 253 (SEAAL 2003)

13-year-old Mw/MD, ADHDand conductdisorder

P contended S’s deterioratingbehavior necessitated services of1:1 aide at beginning of schoolyear. Failure to provide aidedenied FAPE and resulted inmore restrictive placements. SDinsisted behavior had beenaddressed in appropriate manner.Although more restrictive settingswere required, S’s behaviorimproved. SD was reluctant tosupply 1:1 aide as constantassistance would be restrictive.

For SD: SD decision not to provide1:1 aide at beginning of year didnot violate FAPE obligation. Smade more-than-minimal progressacademically and behaviorally. SDworked diligently to meet S’sneeds: consulted with psychiatristsand psychological counselors forBIP, rewards and positivefeedback for good behavior,transition plans, option to go tooffice when S losing control,frequent contact with S’s mother.Only when these efforts failed was1:1 aide assigned. Such progressionrequired by LRE mandate.

Molly L. v. LowerMerion SchoolDistrict, 36 IDELR182 (ED PA 2002)

8-year-old Fw/asthma, grossmotor difficulties,sensitivity tosensorystimulation

SD’s 504 plan stated a classroomaide would be available to Sthroughout school day tointervene on an as-needed basis. Pobjected to the plan, stating aidewas not “educationallyappropriate” since it would restrictS’s ability to develop coping skills.

For SD: provision of aide whointervenes on an as-needed basisserves the dual purpose ofallowing S freedom to developcoping skills while also ensuringS’s safety.

Conecuh CountySchool Board, 27IDELR 112 (ALSEA 1997)

11-year-old F withMD, OHI & SLI

IEP team decided to discontinueone-to-one aide due to S’soverdependence on aide providing1:1 attention. P believed withoutaide S would be deprived ofperson necessary to enable her toprogress. P had “prescription” foraide from rehabilitation facility.

For the SD: Self-sufficiency is focus,full time person would fosterexcessive dependence. S hadaccess to aide in special educationclass, but not regular classes(successful in one; not progressingin other). Absence of aide did notdeny FAPE.

Connally IndependentSchool District, 34IDELR 309 (SEATX 2001)

14-year-old Mw/autism and SI

IEP team proposed S’s BIP toinclude provision that S’s need forcontinuous supervision by aide beevaluated on an ongoing basisafter the first 6 weeks of school.SD goal was to provideappropriate level of independencebased on improvement in S’sbehavior. P argued that withoutcontinuous supervision from aide,S will be removed from generaleducation classes as behaviorbecomes a problem

For SD: P failed to prove that BIPwhich proposed evaluating theneed for continuous supervision byaide be evaluated on an ongoingbasis was inappropriate.

Montgomery CountyPublic Schools, 27IDELR 658 (SEAMD 1997)

12-year-old M withmultipledisabilities

P requested 1:1 aide as S’sacademics and behaviordeteriorated. SD argued S didreceive 1:1 from aides currentlyassigned to classroom. autismprogram with 5 students, oneteacher and two aides.

For P: evidence “unequivocallyshows S need the related servicesof 1:1 aide to make evenrudimentary educationalprogress.” Classroom aides do notwatch over or work with Sindividually or specifically onconsistent basis.

Watson Chapel SchoolDistrict, 34 IDELR51 (SEA AK 2000)

9-year-old M withmultipledisabilities

SD proposed S be providedone-to-one instruction for 60% ofthe instructional day, provided byeither the teacher or the aideassigned to the classroom. Pargued that S required a full-timeaide to assist in class and aroundcampus.

For P: S needs an aide as a relatedservice to benefit from his specialeducation services. However, tofoster independence, S does notneed the aide in all situations. IEPteam should determine specificexpectations for S in varioussituations and determine when touse the aide.

62 Etscheidt

Education v. Rowley (1982) defined an appropriateeducation as one that provides a child “access to spe-cialized instruction and related services which are indi-vidually designed to provide educational benefit” (p.3048). The IDEA also requires that children be edu-cated in the least restrictive environment [20 U.S.C.1412(a)(5)(A)]. Subsequent decisions clarified that ed-ucational benefit is not limited to academic gains butmay also include nonacademic profits such as improvedsocial interaction and personal esteem (e.g., Sacra-mento City Unified School District, Board of Educationv. Rachel H. by Robert Holland, 1994). The determina-tive question becomes “Are the services necessary toprovide the individual with academic or non-academicbenefit?” The benefits provided by the services must bemore than trivial or de minimus (Polk v. CentralSusquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 1988) but need notbe “optimal” or “maximum” (Rowley, 1982, p. 3046).

Table 1 describes administrative and judicial deci-sions addressing the need for paraprofessional supportfor students with disabilities. Several decisions rely onthe criterion of benefit in determining the need for para-professional services. For example, parents in LakeTravis Independent School District (2003) argued thatfull inclusion could be realized only with a 1:1 aide; theschool district countered that the teacher and classroomaide could meet the student’s needs. The hearing of-ficer ruled that the student could not reasonably benefitfrom instruction without 1:1 support. In South River

Board of Education (2003), the parents sought provi-sion of a personal aide during all academic and unstruc-tured periods of the day. The administrative law judge(ALJ) found that the school district failed to provideassurance that the student could be provided with ameaningful education without a personal classroomaide. Similar decisions were issued in Harris CountySchool System (1997) (finding that the parents failed toshow that the IEP could be implemented or the studentappropriately served only by hiring a full-time parapro-fessional) and Killeen Independent School District(2003) (finding parents did not show that the studentneeded a classroom aide to receive an educational ben-efit for academic, behavioral, or other reasons). Theparents in Menlo Park City Elementary School District(2002) requested that their daughter’s 1:1 aide be con-tinued during winter and spring school breaks to pre-vent regression. The hearing officer determined thatthe student had not evidenced regression and that shewould be able to benefit during the regular school yearand the extended school year without providing the 1:1aide during breaks. Each of these decisions addressedthe need for paraprofessional support to achieve mean-ingful educational benefit.

Non-academic benefits were also considered in deci-sions addressing the need for paraprofessional services.In several decisions, paraprofessional services wereviewed as detrimental to achieving social benefits. Forexample, in Limestone County Board of Education

Table 1—Continued


Malden Public Schools,42 IDELR 73 (SEAMA 2004)

11-year-old Fw/ADHD

P asserted SD must provide a 1:1associate because that was what Shad received in former school. SDmaintained that in previousschool, individual support was dueto fact S was only IEP studentintegrated. At new school, theclassroom aide assisted severalstudents.

For SD: 1:1 aide and classroom aidedenote two distinct jobresponsibilities. Both the IEPdocument and the actual provisionof aide services demonstrated theappropriateness of a classroomaide and not a 1:1 aide.

Jackson County Boardof Education, 38IDELR 83 (SEA AL2002)

5th-grade F w/SLD P argued that daughter is entitled toaide dedicated solely to her forsafety and FAPE. P requestedgreater care and attention inaddition to more 1:1 services. SDmaintained that “on-call” aideswere able to meet the needs ofthe S.

For SD: Decision to use shared“on-call” aides did not constitute adenial of FAPE for S. S madesignificant educational progressand gains in independence.

Elmore County Boardof Education, 37IDELR 230 (SEAAL 2002)

7-year-old Fw/CorneliaDelangeSyndrome

P argued that 1:1 aide was neededexclusively by daughter for safety.SD argued that IEP called forparaprofessional assistance asneeded and not 1:1 aide. Aidecould adequately serve both S andanother child.

For SD: S’s safety would not bethreatened if aide assisted anotherS and that S’s needs could be metby continuing and extraordinarysupervision.

Note. M � male; F � female; P � parent; SD � school district; S � student; ADD/ADHD � attention-deficit-hyperactivitydisorder; SLD/LD � specific learning disability; MD � mental disability; OHI � other health impaired; SLI/SI � speech-languageimpairment; VI � visual impairment; PDD � pervasive developmental disorder; BIP � behavior intervention plan; FAPE � free,appropriate education; ABA � applied behavior analysis; PD � physical disability.


(1999), the parent had requested a full-time aide toaccompany the student to regular education class-rooms. The school district argued that because the pur-pose of the visits to regular education was for socializa-tion, an aide would interfere with peer relationships.The school district intended to provide a “peer buddy”to assist in the regular classroom. The hearing officeragreed that an aide accompanying the child to regulareducation would be counterproductive to building so-cial interactions. Another hearing officer in WaterburyBoard of Education (2002) similarly concluded that a1:1 aide may be stigmatizing to the student and createunnecessary dependence. Because the student’s behav-ior problems occurred in the presence of a classroomaide, the hearing officer concluded that a 1:1 was “notthe solution” to behavior problems; rather, an analysisof the behavior “triggers” and modifications to his be-havior plan were advised. The parent in Pell City Boardof Education (2003) argued that the school district’sfailure to provide a 1:1 aide at the beginning of theschool year resulted in a more restrictive placementmidyear. The school district countered that the studentwas making “more-than-minimal” academic and behav-ioral progress without a 1:1 associate and that to supplya 1:1 aide constantly would be restrictive. The hearingofficer agreed that the provision of a 1:1 aide prior totrying other efforts (e.g., contact with parent, imple-menting a positive behavioral plan, options to go to theoffice to cool down) would be inconsistent with theleast restrictive environment mandate. It was the par-ent in Molly L. v. Lower Merion School District (2002)who resisted the assignment of a classroom aide, argu-ing that the aide would restrict the student’s ability todevelop coping skills. Because the aide was to provideservices on an “as-needed” basis, the district courtjudge determined the plan would ensure safety and al-low the student freedom to develop coping skills. Forthese decisions, the potential for paraprofessional sup-port to limit social benefits was a critical factor in de-termining the need for 1:1 services. School district de-cisions to discontinue or reduce paraprofessional ser-vices to facilitate student independence were alsoupheld if such decisions did not result in a denial of afree, appropriate public education (FAPE)—see Cone-cuh County School Board (1997) (finding that a full-time person would foster excessive dependence,whereas absence of an aide would not deny FAPE) andConnally Independent School District (2001) (findingthat gradual reduction of supervision by the aide wasappropriate).

Other decisions addressing the need for paraprofes-sional services were focused on whether the studentrequired a 1:1 paraprofessional or if a classroom-basedaide would enable the student to meaningfully benefitfrom the educational program. In Montgomery CountyPublic Schools (1997) the parents argued that the class-room aides were insufficient and resulted in academic

and behavioral deterioration. The ALJ determined thatthe student needed a 1:1 aide “to make even rudimen-tary educational progress” and that the classroom aidescould not work individually with the student on a con-sistent basis. The parents in Watson Chapel School Dis-trict (2000) charged that a classroom aide and teacherwould not be sufficient in meeting their son’s needs andthat a full-time aide was required. Although the hearingofficer determined that an aide was necessary for thestudent to benefit from his special education services,the student did not require the aide at all times. TheIEP team was ordered to determine specific expecta-tions for the student in various contexts and determinewhen the assistance of the aide was required. Althougha student had previously received 1:1 services and herparents asserted individualized support was necessary,a hearing officer in Malden Public Schools (2004) foundthat the services provided based on the student’s needsdemonstrated the appropriateness of a classroom aideand not a 1:1 aide. The services of a paraprofessionalcould be shared, providing that the students jointlyserved receive FAPE. A hearing officer in JacksonCounty Board of Education (2002) concluded that thedecision to use a shared “on-call” aide for a studentwith learning disabilities did not constitute a denial ofFAPE for the student, who made significant education-al progress and gains in independence. Similarly, in El-more County Board of Education (2002), the parentargued that a 1:1 aide was necessary for safety andassistance. The hearing officer concluded that the stu-dent’s needs would be met and her safety would not bethreatened if the aide assisted another student.

These decisions suggest that if a student was able tobenefit meaningfully from the educational programwithout the provision of a paraprofessional, requestsfor 1:1 support were denied. Conversely, other deci-sions held that students required such services to ben-efit educationally. If the provision of a paraprofessionalhad a negative impact on potential social benefits, re-quests for 1:1 assistance were denied, whereas the pro-vision of classroom aides on an “as-needed” basis wassupported.

Selection and Qualifications of ParaprofessionalsThe administrative decisions and case law presented

in Table 2 addressed the selection and qualifications ofparaprofessionals assigned to assist students with dis-abilities. The majority of the decisions in Table 2 wereadministrative (N � 11), with one district court deci-sion and one circuit court decision. Students involved inthe cases represented all age groups, including pre-school (N � 3), elementary school (N � 3), middleschool (N � 4). and high school (N � 3). Males andfemales were equally represented (six and seven re-spectively).

The decisions clearly conclude that the selection andretention of paraprofessionals is an administrative func-

64 Etscheidt

Table 2The Selection and Qualifications of Paraprofessionals


Freeport SchoolDistrict 145, 34IDELR 104 (SEA IL2000)

11 1⁄2-year-old Fwith OHI(nutritional andphysical needs)

P requested change in aide since therapport necessary for S tocommunicate her medical needs isnot present”. SD countered thataide is “exemplary employee” andthat personnel issues are at theSD’s discretion.

For SD: Selection and retention ofaide is administrative functionunless selection or retentiondeprives S of FAPE or poses adanger to S’s health, safety orwelfare. S’s aide did not interferewith implementation of IEP andwas not a danger to S. SD hasdiscretion to choose as long asaide is qualified and adequate.

Bangor SchoolDepartment, 36IDELR 192 (SEAME 2002)

6th-grade M w/MD P argued that change from single 1:1aide to several educationalassistants was a significant changein the IEP which denied S FAPE.P alleged they did not receivenotice of that change. SD arguedthat S would benefit from workingwith various assistants and notbecome dependent.

For SD: S would benefit fromproposed IEP with variousassistants. S’s lack of progress wasdue to factors other than a single1:1 assistant (e.g., transfer andtransition to new school). The SDdid not terminate or change theamount or frequency of supportservices, therefore no written priornotice was required.

Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District, 28IDELR 324 (SEACA 1998)

16-year-old F withcerebral palsy/PD

P charged S’s aides failed to assisther, and S would perform betteracademically if she had a differentaide (current aides talked duringclass, did not understand subjectmatter, did not take adequatenotes, not fluent in English). SDargued S was provided severalaides; no obligation to providebest possible aide.

For SD: S was performing wellacademically, so SD has noobligation to furnish “bestpossible” aide. However, S alsoneeded assistance at lunch andwith toileting, so SD ordered tohire permanent aide capable ofmeeting all S’s needs.

Gerber UnionElementary SchoolDistrict, 26 IDELR199 (SEA CA 1997)

12-year-old Mw/SED

P sought to compel the district toprovide the 1:1 services of an aidespecifically named in an interimIEP. SD argued aide was notadequate to provide the servicesthe S needed, but would provideanother trained adult with S at alltimes.

For P: The aide explicitly named onthe IEP was an integral part of theIEP and continued services werenecessary to ensure the stability ofS’s program.

Clovis Unified SchoolDistrict, 36 IDELR201 (SEA CA 2001)

4-year-old Mw/autism.

P alleged instructional assistantswere unfamiliar with concepts andterminology of the home-basedautism services (e.g., promptinghierarchy, mass trialing, randomrotation, fading of tasks,generalization). SD stated aideswere trained and continueon-the-job training on discretetrail training prompting, andfacilitating interactions by both thespecial education teacher andschool psychologist.

For SD: the instructional assistantswere adequately trained toappropriately implement S’seducational program.

Dublin Unified SchoolDistrict, 37 IDELR22 (SEA CA 2002)

14-year-old Mw/OHI(Tourette’sSyndrome andAsperger’sSyndrome)

P argued that aide must be male to“blend in better” with S’s peers.Given his socialization needs, maleaide would facilitate peerinteraction. Female aide could notaccompany S into restroom. SDargued that current aide was ableto meet S’s needs, facilitatetransitions, and support academicwork.

For SD: Despite his dislike for aide,S was receiving educationalbenefit. S was able to work civillywith aide and she did not create amore restrictive environment forthe S. Although assignment ofdifferent aide might be better forS, current aide was able to meetneeds and S was benefiting fromeducational program.


tion unless the appointment or retention of a parapro-fessional deprives the student of FAPE or poses a dan-ger to the student’s health, safety, or welfare. For ex-ample, in Freeport School District 145 (2000), theparent requested a change in her daughter’s aide be-cause the rapport necessary for the child to communi-

cate her medical needs was absent. The school districtcountered that personnel appointments are the dis-trict’s discretion, and that the district-selected aide was“exemplary.” The hearing officer concluded that thedistrict-selected paraprofessional did not interfere withthe implementation of the IEP and was not a danger to

Table 2—Continued


Vidor IndependentSchool District, 27IDELR 679 (SEATX 1998)

6-year-old F w/PD P sought assignment of new aidecharging the aide was notimplementing IEP. SD offered toconsider the P input, but wouldultimately select which aide wasassigned.

For SD: Aide currently assigned tothe student was appropriate, not adanger to the student and wasimplementing the student’s IEP.Selection of an aide left to thediscretion of district officialsunless the chosen aide would denythe student a FAPE.

Hingham PublicSchools, 33 IDELR292 (SEA MA 2000)

5-year-old Fw/AngelmanSyndrome, aneurologicaldisorder resultingin severe learningdifficulties andseizure disorders.

P argued that S’s IEP called for 1:1aide with professional status andexperience but assigned aide didnot have those credentials. S’sdoctor recommended that due toS’s severe learning problems, aidemust have Master’s degree andexperience to maximize learning.SD stated that proposed aide iscommitted and relates well to S,thus meeting the professionalstatus requirements. S is benefitingfrom current aide, so Master’s andexperience not necessary.

For P: Since IEP called for aide withprofessional credential, SD failedto comply and provideagreed-upon services. Although Swould not require an aide withprofessional qualifications as longas supervising teacher isexperienced, since IEP specifiedsuch credentials, the aide mustmeet those specifications.

Slama v. IndependentSchool District No.2580, 39 IDELR 3(DC MN 2003)

17-year-old F(disability notprovided)

P argued that SD’s decision toreplace P-preferred aide withdistrict-employed assistant deniedFAPE by failing to provide aideservices specified in IEP. Pcontended that the originalstatement in IEP that P hadchosen aide bound SD to continuesame aide. P asserted such changerequired notice, which was notreceived. SD

For SD: IEP required SD provide Swith aide, not the P-preferredaide. No notice required sincechoice of aide was not “substantialor significant” component of IEP.Reference in IEP of P choosingaide was reference to a collateralagreement, not an agreed-uponstipulation concerning IEPservices. SD not required to findaide with equal or better qualifiedthan P-preferred aide, only aidecapable of assisting S to provideFAPE. S did not require specificaide in order to receive FAPE

Gellerman v. CalaverasUnified SchoolDistrict, 37 IDELR125 (9th Cir. 2002)

13-year-old Mw/autism

P argued aide must be familiar withson and home program. Lovaasconsultant recommended aide befamiliar with child. SD stated thatthe aide selected met severalconsultant recommendationsincluded in IEP, including trainingin behavior analysis andcoordination of home training.SD-selected aide had 13 yearsexperience, including one yearwith child with autism.

For SD: Aide selected by SDreasonable calculated to ensure Swould receive educational benefit.Neither the IEP nor substantiverequirements of IDEA requiredthe service provider to be certifiedin AV therapy.

Brevard County SchoolBoard, 41 IDELR288 (SEA FL 2004)

4-year-old F w/HI P requested SD provide S withcertified AV (auditory-verbal)therapist. SD proposed IEP with 2hrs. per week of AV therapy byspeech-language pathologisttrained to provide AV therapy.

For SD: S would receive educationalbenefit from SD’s trainedtherapist. Neither federal nor statelaw required the service providerto be certified.

66 Etscheidt

the student. Therefore, the school district had discre-tion to assign, providing the paraprofessional was quali-fied and adequate. The Bangor School Department(2002) decision clarified that a change in paraprofes-sionals was not a change in placement requiring proce-dural safeguards of notice, but rather at the discretionof the district providing (1) the child would receiveFAPE and (2) the change was in personnel only and didnot change or terminate the amount or frequency of theparaprofessional support services. Similar conclusionswere reached in Los Angeles Unified School District(1998) (finding the student was receiving FAPE, so theschool district had no obligation to furnish the “bestpossible aide”), Clovis Unified School District (2001)(finding the paraprofessionals were adequately trainedto implement the IEP for a 4-year-old child with au-tism), Dublin Unified School District (2002) (findingthat although the student disliked his aide, he was re-ceiving FAPE and educational benefit), Vidor Indepen-dent School District (1998) (denying parents the right toselect the aide because such assignments were an ad-ministrative function of the district), and Slama v. In-dependent School District No. 2580 (2003) (finding thatthe IEP required the school district to provide an aide,not the parent-preferred aide, because the student didnot require a specific aide to receive FAPE).

A second important conclusion from the decisionswas that unless particular credentials or qualificationsare specified on the IEP, the district maintains discre-tion in the employment and assignment of paraprofes-sionals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opined thata student with autism would receive educational benefitwith the assistance of an aide selected by the schooldistrict (Gellerman v. Calaveras Unified School District,

2002). The parent argued that the aide must be familiarwith the child and his Lovaas-based home program.The school district-selected paraprofessional had re-ceived training in behavior analysis and coordinatedservices with the home program. The Ninth Circuit con-cluded that neither the IEP nor substantive require-ments of IDEA required the school district to assign anaide who had previously worked with the student. Simi-lar decisions were reached in Brevard County SchoolBoard (2004) (denying parent request for a certifiedauditory-verbal aide because neither federal or statelaw required service provider to be certified in AVtherapy), Sioux City Community School District andWestern Hills Area Education Agency (2003) (findingthat the school district followed IEP specifications con-cerning replacement of the student’s aide, though theparents chose not to participate in the replacement pro-cess), and Board of Education of the Harrison CentralSchool District (2004) (finding that the adult listed inthe IEP to assign to the student could be a special edu-cation teacher and not the personal aide requested bythe parents). Conversely, in Hingham Public Schools(2000), a child’s IEP called for a 1:1 aide with profes-sional status and experience. Although the school dis-trict argued that the student was benefiting from theservices of the district-preferred aide, the hearing of-ficer determined that the school district failed to com-ply and provide the agreed-upon services. Because theIEP specified certain credentials, the paraprofessionalassigned to the student must meet those specifications.In Gerber Union Elementary School District (1997), theschool district agreed to provide a full-time, 1:1 aide,who was specifically named on an interim IEP. Whenthe district subsequently reduced the amount of time

Table 2—Continued


Sioux City CommunitySchool District, andWestern Hills AreaEducation Agency(AEA 12), 104 LRP10804 (SEA IA2003)


P argued that changing son’s aidewas change in a material provisionof IEP requiring notice and thatIEP specified that change in aidewould be determined by IEPteam. SD argued that the decisionto transfer aide (S’s mother) toanother assignment was apersonnel decision related to thebreakdown in confidence andcommunication between theregular class teacher and the aide.

For SD (in part): Process of aidereplacement specified in IEP wasfollowed by the school district,though P’s chose not toparticipate. Notice of intent tochange aide was provided to P’sand school district has authority toselect appropriate personnel toimplement IEP.

Board of Education ofthe Harrison CentralSchool District, 41IDELR 285 (SEANY 2004)

6-year-old F w/MD, ADHD andcerebral palsy

P requested SD provide S withpersonal aide to communicate insign language to her. SD proposedIEP where special educationteacher would sign plusincorporate additional approachesto address her communicationneeds.

For SD: IEP called for “an adult” tocommunicate with the student insign language, and specialeducation teacher could fulfill thatrole. S also needed additionalcommunication opportunitiesother than signing.

Note. M � male; F � female; P � parent; SD � school district; S � student; ADD/ADHD � attention-deficit-hyperactivitydisorder; MD � mental disability; OHI � other health impaired; HI � hearing impairment; SED � serious emotional disturbance;PD � physical disability; FAPE � free, appropriate public education.


the aide spent with the student, the parent sought tocompel the district to provide full-time services of thenamed aide. The hearing officer determined that be-cause the IEP explicitly named the 1:1 aide, that personhad become an integral part of the IEP and her serviceswere necessary to ensure the stability of the student’seducational program. These decisions highlight that thediscretionary authority of a school district on personnelissues is not absolute and does not override the obliga-tion to provide the agreed-upon services specified inthe IEP.

The review of cases addressing the selection andqualifications of paraprofessionals led to two importantconclusions. First, the selection of paraprofessionals isan administrative prerogative unless the selection de-prives the student of FAPE or has an impact on thestudent’s welfare or safety. School districts are not re-quired to furnish the “best possible” aide (Los AngelesUnified School District, 1998) but rather must ensurethat the student will benefit from the educational pro-gram planned. School districts were able to defeat pa-rental assertions of inadequacy by establishing thequalifications of the supervising teacher (Board of Edu-cation of the Harrison Central School District, 2004), theefforts to train the paraprofessional (Clovis UnifiedSchool District, 2001), or the provision of FAPE in ben-efit to the student (Gellerman v. Calaveras UnifiedSchool District, 2002). Second, if particular credentialsare required, those qualifications must be specified onthe IEP. The district will maintain discretion for theassignment of paraprofessionals unless particular cre-dentials or qualifications are specified on the IEP.

Responsibilities of ParaprofessionalsTable 3 presents cases addressing the responsibilities

of paraprofessionals. Although paraprofessionals pro-vide academic and behavioral assistance to ensureFAPE (e.g., earlier cases South River Board of Educa-tion, 2003; Lake Travis Independent School District,2003; see Table 1), the legal responsibility for planning,implementing, and monitoring a student’s IEP remainswith the IEP team. Paraprofessionals may not serve asthe sole designer, deliverer, or evaluator of a student’sprogram. A recent decision from Iowa addressed thisissue. In Linn-Mar Community School District (2004),parents alleged that the district failed to provide FAPEand requested that their son be placed in an out-of-district day school. The ALJ ruled that the student’sprogram was inappropriate because the student wasisolated with his 1:1 aide the majority of the day, withlittle involvement by certified school personnel: “Byvirtue of the provision of a 1:1 aide over the three yearsin question, direct provision of special education ser-vices were diminished. The services of an associate maynot replace special education services identified in theIEP. The educational and behavioral plans require de-velopment, implementation and evaluation by a trained

professional.” The services of a paraprofessional mustbe supplemental supports. Special education and re-lated services must be planned and monitored by cer-tified professionals.

In addition to academic and behavioral assistance,paraprofessionals have also been responsible for stu-dent safety. In Manalansan v. Board of Education ofBaltimore City (2001), the parent demanded a 1:1 aidebe assigned to her son for safety reasons due to hisbalance problems. The school district argued they hadmade good-faith efforts to hire temporary contract em-ployees, who were often late or absent or left early. Thedistrict court determined that the provision of an aidefor safety was a significant, mandatory element of thestudent’s IEP and that the school district must providethe agreed-upon services to the student. In the ElmoreCounty Board of Education (2002) (see Table 1) casepresented earlier, a “split aide” would provide servicesto a 7-year-old student with Cornelia Delange syn-drome to ensure her safety. Similarly, the JacksonCounty Board of Education (2002) (see Table 1) caseheld that a shared “on-call” aide would be able to meetthe fifth-grader’s need for safety. Similar safety dutieswere required in Del Norte County Unified School Dis-trict (2000) (refusing to order a second aide to ensure astudent’s safety at school) and Mobile County Board ofEducation (2001) (finding the school district must pro-vide safe transportation through the assignment of abus aide).

Several cases highlight the importance of having cer-tain school health services provided by qualified per-sons, whereas others clarified that certain health ser-vices must be provided only by licensed practical nurses(LPNs) and registered nurses (RNs) or by individualsunder the supervision of LPNs or RNs. In Skelly v.Brookfield LaGrange Park School District 95 (1997),the parent of a 4-year-old requested the school districtprovide a 1:1 aide to accompany the child to and fromschool to suction his tracheotomy tube as needed. Al-though the school district argued that such serviceswere beyond the scope of obligations, the district courtconcluded that a paraprofessional must be used to pro-vide such services. A similar decision was reached inKevin G. v. Cranston School Committee (1997). In SanFrancisco Unified School District (2002), the decisionspecified that aides under the supervision of a qualifiednurse may evaluate seizures, administer and monitormedication, and administer ventilation intervention ifneeded. In Olympia School District (2003), multipleaides were responsible for addressing a student’s healthneeds, including toileting. In a later case, the parent ofa 6-year-old with physical disabilities argued that a 1:1nurse was required to monitor him and to provide suc-tioning of oral secretion as needed (San Diego UnifiedSchool District, 2004). The school district had prepareda special education teacher and three paraprofessionalsto address the student’s needs. A hearing officer con-

68 Etscheidt

Table 3The Delegation of Responsibilities to Paraprofessionals


Linn-Mar CommunitySchool District, 41IDELR 24 (SEA IA2004)


P charged that SD failed to provideFAPE and requested S be placedin out-of-district day school. SDargued that a variety ofplacements had been attempted toaddress P’s concerns and thatcurrent placement offered FAPE.

For P: By virtue of the provision ofa 1:1 aide over the three years inquestion, direct provision ofspecial education services werediminished. The services of anassociate may not replace specialeducation services identified in theIEP. The educational andbehavioral plans requiredevelopment, implementation andevaluation by a trainedprofessional.

Manalansan v. Boardof Education ofBaltimore City, 35IDELR 122 (DCMD 2001)

7-year-old Mw/OHI (cerebralpalsy,hydrocephalus,and a seizuredisorder)

P alleged IEP provision calling for1:1 aide was not implementedfollowing involuntary schooltransfer. Temporary contractemployees hired were late, absent,and left early, placing student atrisk before and after school forinjury due to balance problems.SD maintained they showed a“good faith” effort to provideservices and had “discretion” inimplementing methodology of theIEP.

For P: The provision of an aide is asignificant element of S’s IEP andproviding aide in accordance withIEP is mandatory, notdiscretionary. While S is notentitled to a particular aide, theservices of an aide must beprovided in accordance with hisIEP. SD is bound by IDEA toprovide the agree-upon services ofthe IEP.

Del Norte CountyUnified SchoolDistrict, 33 IDELR50 (SEA CA 2000)

18-year-old S withPD (Leigh’sDisease: muscularand skeletaldeterioration)

P requested two aides be assigned tostudent since social interaction wasa strong motivator for S. Twoassistants were needed duringtransfers from bus, adjustment ofbraces and toileting. SD providedone assistant throughout the dayand five different aides had beentrained to work with S as 1:1.Second assistant not necessary andwould be a more restrictiveenvironment.

For SD: Student did not require asecond assistant to benefit fromhis instructional program andwould make the S’s environmentmore restrictive than necessary.

Mobile County Boardof Education, 34IDELR 164 (SEAAL 2001)

16-year-old Mw/MD

P alleged S suffered physical injuriesdue to inadequate protection bythe SD. S was attacked andinjuried by three S’s riding thebus. SD insisted that aide notfurnished in order to foster greaterindependence of S by having himride the bus without adultaccompanying.

For P: Concomitant to responsibilityto provide transportation topermit children to attendappropriate special educationprograms is the obligation toprovide a safe environment for S’stransported. An aide should havebeen assigned to accompany the S.

Skelly v. BrookfieldLaGrange ParkSchool District 95(ND IL 1997)

4-year-old Mw/Pelizaeus-MerzbacherLeukodystrophy

P requested SD provided 1:1 aide toaccompany S on bus to and fromschool to suction tracheotomytube as needed. SD argued suchservices beyond the scope ofobligations.

For P: Provision of aide to performany necessary suctioning oftracheotomy tube was not anexcluded medical service underthe IDEA. S required aide on bus,not LPN or RN.

Kevin G., v. CranstonSchool Committee,27 IDELR 32 (1st

Cir. 1997)

11-year-old M w/PD P requested son be placed inneighborhood school and thatfull-time aide be reassigned to thatschool. S required nursing servicesfor tracheal tube breathing. SDmaintained it had obligation toprovide FAPE in school closest tohome.

For SD: A full-time nurse wasassigned to the student’s currentschool, and reassignment was notnecessary since the district offeredthe S FAPE in thenon-neighborhood school


cluded that the student’s needs could be met by “by atrained and dedicated one-to-one qualified special edu-cation technician supervised by a full-time schoolnurse.” In Cedar Rapids Community School District v.Garret F. (1999), a representative of the State Board ofNursing ruled that the health-related services for a 17-year-old student could be delegated to nonlicensed per-sonnel, but only if a supervising licensed RN was thesame building. The school district, however, arguedthat such services were medical services and excludedas a school district’s obligation. The Supreme Courtclarified that if the health services could be provided bypersonnel other than a physician, the school districtmust assume responsibility for providing those services.

The review of administrative and court decisions con-cerning the responsibilities of paraprofessionals re-vealed that aides under the supervision of qualifiednurses may provide health-related services for studentswith disabilities. Paraprofessionals may also have re-sponsibilities including academic and behavioral assis-tance, as well as safety and student health support. Im-portantly, all duties of paraprofessionals must be underthe supervision of credentialed, qualified professionals.The following section presents cases addressing the ad-equacy of paraprofessional training and supervision.

Training and Supervision of ParaprofessionalsParaprofessionals must be adequately trained and su-

pervised in the performance of their duties. Table 4presents several decisions that addressed the adequacyof paraprofessional training to provide IEP services tostudents with autism, behavior disorders, cerebralpalsy, communication disorders, and health needs. InMoorestown Township Board of Education (2003), anALJ ruled that the district-assigned aide could meet theIEP specifications concerning training in Asperger’sand specific types of assistance to the student. A hear-ing officer in Board of Education of the City of NewYork (1998) concluded that the teacher, paraprofes-sional, related service personnel, and classmates mustreceive training on the student’s Tourette syndrome,ADHD, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. An aidefor a student with cerebral palsy had received on-the-job training from the student’s former aide, physicaltherapist, and communication specialist in Board ofEducation of the Oakridge Public Schools (2003). Thehearing officer concluded that the aide was capable ofperforming the duties set forth on the IEP. In Indepen-dent School District No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin (2001),the parent argued that a change in paraprofessionalsdeprived the student of FAPE because they were not

Table 3—Continued


San Francisco UnifiedSchool District, 5ECLPR 377 (SEACA 2002)

3 1⁄2-year-old Mw/multipledisabilities.

P requested that SD address S’shealth care needs involvingmanagement of seizures. SDargued prolonged seizures were“medical emergencies” beyond thescope of their obligations

For P: SD must provide healthservices, and aides under thesupervision of qualified nurse mayevaluate seizures, administer andmonitor medication, and administerventilation intervention if needed.

Olympia SchoolDistrict, 103 LRP38306 (SEA WA2003).

16-year-old F w/MD P asserted S not receiving adequateschool health services addressingtoileting since multiple aidesassigned. SD argued that IEP didnot call for 1:1 aide.

For SD: No evidence to support aconclusion that multiple assistantswere inappropriate in provision ofservices

San Diego UnifiedSchool District, 41IDELR 195 (SEACA 2004)

6-year-old M w/PD P argued that son was medicallyfragile child who requires constantmonitoring and frequentsuctioning of his oral secretions bya one-to-one nurse to safelyparticipate in his school program.SD contended that specialeducation teacher and 3 aidescould safely meet S needs.

For SD: S needs could be met “by atrained and dedicated one-to-onequalified special educationtechnician supervised by a full-timeschool nurse”.

Cedar RapidsCommunity SchoolDistrict v. Garret F.,29 IDELR 966 (S.Ct.1999)

17-year-old M w/PD P requested that SD provide medicalservices including catheterization,suctioning of his tracheotomytube, monitoring his ventilator,ambu-bagging, assistance withfood and drink, and positioning.SD argued these services were“medical” and not theresponsibility of the SD toprovide.

For P: SD obligated to provide healthservices as related services, sincethey could be provided bypersonnel other than a physician.

Note. M � male; F � female; P � parent; SD � school district; S � student; MD � mental disability; OHI � other healthimpaired; PD � physical disability; LPN � licensed practical nursed; RN � registered nurse.

70 Etscheidt

Table 4The Training and Supervision of Paraprofessionals


Moorestown TownshipBoard of Education,38 IDELR 139 (SEANJ 2003)

1st grade M withautism/Aspergers

P requested a 1:1 aide fully trained inautism/Asperger’s Syndrome. IEPspecified aide would be trained inAsperger’s and assist S throughoutday. SD argued that current aideassigned could provide dutiesspecified in the IEP and wasreceiving additional training inautism/Aspergers.

For SD: Aide assigned to S capable ofmeeting child’s needs. By arrangingfor additional training, the SDshowed a good faith effort to meetS’s needs.

Board of Education ofthe City of NewYork, 28 IDELR(SEA NY 1998)

8-year-old Mw/OHI,Tourette’sSyndrome, andADHD.

P contended IEP inadequate due tofailure to train S’s teacher,paraprofessional, classmates andother school personnel. SD arguedIEP as proposed was appropriate.

For P: SD must provide training forS’s teacher, paraprofessional, relatedservice providers, & classmates.Initial and “update” training to beprovided as necessary.

Board of Education ofthe Oakridge PublicSchools, 40 IDELR274 (SEA MI 2003)

9-year-old Fw/OHI(cerebral palsy)

P complained that paraprofessionalinterfered with S’s health and safetyon 4 days by leaving her unattendedfor 15 minutes, strapping S’s feet towheelchair, and lacking current firstaid training. SD maintained aidehad received on-the-job training toassist S by former aide, physicaltherapist, communication specialist

For SD: Aide capable of appropriatelyperforming duties set forth in IEPand has performed satisfactorily. Sis making educational progress. Footstrapping was ill-advised, but notabusive. Aide’s qualifications andexperience met or exceededstandards of state and district.

Independent SchoolDistrict No. 11,Anoka-Hennepin, 36IDELR 81 (SEAMN 2001)


P argued that change inparaprofessionals deprived S ofFAPE since they were not properlytrained in use of DynaVox/DynaMyte communication devices.SD maintained substitute aides wereproperly trained and supervised.

For SD: S made progress despitechange in staff. Substitute aidesreceived sufficient training toimplement IEP. SD has discretionto determine who will provideprograms of special education. Achange in aide was within theprovince of SD and not subject todiscussion by IEP team.

Southern RegionalBoard of Education,38 IDELR 110 (SEANJ 2002)

13-year-old Mw/HI

P requested a bus aide fluent inAmerican Sign Language. SDargued that aide knew enough ASLto address basic safety issuesrequired on the bus.

For SD: Aide trained by districtproficient to assist student on bus.

Silsbee IndependentSchool District, 25IDELR 1023 (SEATX 1997)

7-year-old Mw/PD

SD argued that training staff inresuscitation technique and seizurewas “medical training” not requiredunder the IDEA. P argued that suchtraining necessary to provide“related services”, and that full-timenurse must be available at all times.

For P: Staff training in resuscitationand seizure management is relatedservices to assist S in benefitingfrom special education instruction.

Stenger v. StanwoodSchool District, 30IDELR 945 (WA Ct.Appeals, 1999)

Middle-school Mw/MD and BD

Two instructional aides filed suitagainst district of injuries sustainedwhile working with S. SD arguedadequate training had beenprovided to the aides

For the aides: A triable issue asdistrict’s efforts were inadequateand constituted willful disregard.

Sioux City CommunitySchool District, andWestern Hills AreaEducation Agency(AEA 12), 104 LRP10804 (SEA IA2003)


P charged that the SD failed tomonitor and enforce the provisionsof IEP concerning regular classroomsupports. SD argued that theparaprofessional—the S’smother—was monitoring progress.

For P (in part): Paraprofessionals must“work under the supervision ofprofessional personnel who areappropriately authorized to providedirect services in the same areawhere the paraprofessional providesassistive services” and “not serve asa substitute for appropriatelyauthorized professional personnel”

Note. M � male; F � female; P � parent; SD � school district; S � student; ADD/ADHD � attention-deficit-hyperactivitydisorder; MD � mental disability; OHI � other health impaired; BD � behavioral disorder; HI � hearing impaired; PD �physical disability.


properly trained in the use of communication devices(i.e., DynaVox/DynaMyte). The school district claimedthe aides had been trained before working with thestudent. The hearing officer concluded that the para-professionals were sufficiently trained to implement theIEP and provide FAPE, documented by the student’sprogress and benefits. Without a threat to the child’sFAPE, a change in aide was within the province of theschool district and not subject to discussion or determi-nation by the IEP team: “School districts have the dis-cretion to determine who will provide students withtheir program of special education and are not requiredto seek parental input when a staffing decision is made(36 IDELR 81).” An ALJ in Southern Regional Boardof Education (2002) held that the district-provided aidehad received sufficient training in American Sign Lan-guage to accompany a student on a bus to and fromschool. In Silsbee Independent School District (1997),the school district argued that training staff in resusci-tation techniques and seizure management for a stu-dent with physical disabilities was “medical training”not required under the IDEA. A hearing officer con-cluded that such training was not medical, but rather arelated service that must be provided to the student tobenefit from his special education program. Withoutadequate training, paraprofessionals themselves maybe in danger of injury, creating additional liability toschools (Stenger v. Stanwood School District, 1999). Ineach of these cases, the sufficiency of training was thedeterminative factor.

In addition to adequate training, paraprofessionalsmust be adequately supervised. In Sioux City Commu-nity School District (2003), the parent of a 7-year-oldchild with autism served as his paraprofessional. In thatrole, she became concerned that the district was notmonitoring or enforcing the provision of his IEP con-cerning regular classroom supports. Because the stu-dent was in an inclusive classroom the entire day, theonly person consistently monitoring the program wasthe associate. The ALJ ruled that paraprofessionalsmust “work under the supervision of professional per-sonnel who are appropriately authorized to provide di-rect services in the same area where the paraprofes-sional provides assistive services” and “not serve as asubstitute for appropriately authorized professionalpersonnel (104 LRP 10804).”

These decisions show not only the diverse duties as-signed to paraprofessionals, but also the need for ad-equate training to perform those duties. Several paren-tal requests for specific or credentialed paraprofession-als were denied (Independent School District No. 11,2001; Moorestown Township Board of Education, 2003)if school districts were able to justify the sufficiency ofthe paraprofessional’s training. Trained paraprofes-sionals must also be adequately supervised by creden-tialed, qualified professionals.

DiscussionBased on the analysis of administrative and court

decisions, several policy implications may be identified.The determination of the need for paraprofessionalsupport rests with the IEP team, and the proposed rec-ommendations are addressed to those local teams. Theselection of paraprofessionals is similarly a school-district responsibility, and the discussion centers on thepotential benefits of IEP team-selected paraprofession-als, as well as the assignment of support-only roles.However, the delegation of responsibilities and thetraining and supervision of paraprofessionals are basedon local and state standards, necessitating a discussionof both local implementation issues as well as broaderpublic policy issues.

Determining the Need for Paraprofessional ServicesThe analysis of cases revealed that 1:1 paraprofes-

sional assistance was ordered if necessary for a studentto benefit meaningfully from his or her educational pro-gram. However, if the provision of a paraprofessionalhad a negative impact on potential social benefits, re-quests for 1:1 assistance were denied. Several decisionsfound that the provision of classroom aides on an “as-needed” basis was more beneficial than 1:1 continuoussupport.

The majority of cases presented in Table 1 were ad-ministrative decisions (N � 15), with only one districtcourt decision. Various types of disabilities were repre-sented in the cases, including learning disabilities, at-tention-deficit disabilities, and speech-language impair-ments. However, in the four cases substantiating theneed for a 1:1 paraprofessional, three of the studentshad severe or multiple disabilities. Although the schooldistricts argued that classroom-based aides would besufficient, the decisions substantiated the need for 1:1assistance. The hearing officers in Montgomery CountyPublic Schools (1997) and Watson Chapel School Dis-trict (2000) determined that both students with multipledisabilities required 1:1 assistance, not a classroomaide, whereas a 5-year-old with pervasive developmen-tal disabilities required a 1:1 paraprofessional in LakeTravis Independent School District (2003). Those stu-dents with multiple disabilities required 1:1 support toreceive academic and non-academic benefit.

In determining a student’s need for paraprofessionalservices, IEP teams must ask “Are the services neces-sary to provide the individual with academic or non-academic benefit?” Giangreco, Broer, and Edelman(1999) offer several criteria to guide collaborative IEPteam decision making. The team must first identify thereasons why paraprofessional supports are being con-sidered based on the student’s needs. A focus on needsrather than student characteristics will facilitate amatch between needs and the person to provide ser-vices to meet those needs. Instead of basing provisionon categories or characteristics, the team looks at a

72 Etscheidt

student’s need and determines what personnel can bestmeet those needs. IEP teams must determine the needsof the student in relation to the classroom environment,and then plan the where, when, and how of parapro-fessional support (Mueller & Murphy, 2001). Plans forincreased independence and social interaction mustalso be developed. These plans are included in theparaprofessional training discussion below.

The IEP team must also determine the nature ofparaprofessional assistance necessary to meet the stu-dent’s needs and achieve the student’s goals. The analy-sis revealed that IEP teams must discuss the intensity ofservices required. The student may require 1:1 assis-tance frequently throughout the school day, or may re-quire only intermittent support. Importantly, the natureof the assistance may affect the student’s educationalprogram. For example, close proximity of the parapro-fessional is associated with high levels of academic en-gagement by students with disabilities (Werts, Zig-mond, & Leeper, 2001). However, 1:1 assistance andthe close proximity of the paraprofessional have re-sulted in fewer teacher-initiated interactions and lessteacher engagement compared with program-basedparaprofessional delivery (Giangreco et al., 1997; Gian-greco, Broer, & Edleman, 2001; Young, Simpson,Myles, & Kamps, 1997). The IEP must specify if thestudent is to receive 1:1 assistance full time or on anas-needed basis.

The need for careful scrutiny of the assignment ofparaprofessionals has been recognized in the profes-sional literature (Freschi, 1999; Marks, Schrader, &Levine, 1999). The team should consider alternatives toparaprofessional assignment, such as natural peer,school, and classroom supports. Such consideration willminimize the potential for unintended harmful effectsof paraprofessional assignments, including interferencewith teacher and peer interactions and loss of personalcontrol (Giangreco, Edelman, Luiselli, & MacFarland,1997). The IEP team is required to discuss and considera full range of supplemental aids and services to sup-port a child’s education in the least restrictive environ-ment (Greer v. Rome City School District, 1992). Theanalysis of cases revealed a reluctance to assign 1:1paraprofessionals if other supports such as a behaviorplan (e.g., Waterbury Board of Education, 2002; PellCity Board of Education, 2003) could be successful. Ets-cheidt and Bartlett (1999) offered a four-step approachto determine supplemental aids and services, based ona discussion of several ecological dimensions. Construc-tions in the instructional (e.g., learning structures, as-sistive technology), physical (e.g., room arrangement,mobility plans), social-behavioral (e.g., peer support,class-wide approaches), and collaborative dimensions(e.g., coteaching, teacher training) may facilitate inclu-sive placements in ways other than the provision of aparaprofessional. Although the question “Does the stu-dent need a paraprofessional to assist him or her?” (p.

171) is an inquiry within the collaborative dimension,such assistance is only one of numerous supports forIEP teams to explore. By considering alternative sup-ports to address the educational needs of students withdisabilities, paraprofessional assignment may be viewedas one, not the only, option available (Giangreco, Edel-man, & Broer, 2003). A variety of supplemental aidsand services must be considered to enable students withdisabilities to be educated with nondisabled children[20 U.S.C. § 1404(29)].

Selection and Qualifications of ParaprofessionalsThe analysis of judicial and administrative decisions

suggested that if particular credentials are required forthe provision of paraprofessional services, those quali-fications must be specified on the IEP. The district willmaintain discretion for the assignment of paraprofes-sionals unless the selection would deny a child FAPE oraffect the child’s welfare.

Although the analysis of administrative decisions andcase law confirmed that the employment of personnel isan administrative function, involving teachers in the se-lection of paraprofessionals may be an important stepto improving teacher supervision of the paraprofes-sional. However, teachers have reported that often theywere not involved with the selection or hiring of para-professionals they supervised (French, 2001). Teacherinvolvement in the selection process may assist in de-fining student or classroom duties and clarifying bound-aries to guide the interaction between the paraprofes-sional and parents (Chopra & French, 2004). Both du-ties and interactions would be monitored by theteacher. Although not a legal requirement, it seems rea-sonable to invite teachers to help select the individualswith whom they will be closely working and supervis-ing.

Involving parents in the selection process may en-hance the quality of parent–professional interactionsessential for effective programs. The value of teacher–parent collaboration is well documented (e.g., Pugach& Johnson, 1995; Springate & Stegelin, 1999; Wheeler& Richey, 2005). When possible, a teacher–parent con-sensus on the selection of the paraprofessional maycontribute to highly effective paraprofessional services.

Although the analysis revealed that paraprofession-als were assigned a variety of responsibilities includingacademic (Los Angeles Unified School District, 1998),therapeutic (Brevard County School Board, 2004), andmedical (Freeport School District, 2000), a growingnumber of paraprofessionals are assigned duties forwhich they are not qualified (Millsap, Moss, & Gamse,1993). This overextension in duties for which the para-professional is not qualified may have a negative impacton the quality of the student’s program. Paraprofes-sionals reported that instruction was their primary goal,yet they, along with their administrators and supervis-ing teachers, reported a lack of academic qualifications


for those instructional roles (Giangreco, Broer, & Edel-man, 2002). The authors ask if expanding a supportservice model that is highly reliant on unqualified pro-fessionals may be “inadvertently developing or per-petuating a double standard whereby students withoutdisabilities receive instruction primarily or exclusivelyfrom certified educators, whereas some students withdisabilities receive their instruction primarily or exclu-sively from paraprofessionals” (p. 62). Paraprofession-als must be qualified to provide the agreed-upon ser-vices. As indicated in the case analysis, the school dis-trict must establish the adequacy of training efforts toensure students are benefiting from the IEP. Further,paraprofessionals may not be delegated responsibilitiesfor which they are not qualified. Often the least-qualified personnel are in the position of providing themajority of instruction and related services to studentspresenting the most complex learning challenges(Brown, Farrington, Knight, Ross, & Ziegler, 1999).Additionally, paraprofessionals must be delegated onlythose responsibilities for which they are adequatelytrained.

Delegation of Responsibilities to ParaprofessionalsFor the majority of cases addressing the responsibili-

ties of paraprofessionals, the major issue concerned theprovision of school health services to students with sig-nificant medical needs. Questions centered on the para-professional assignment to assist with tracheotomy tubesuctioning (Skelly v. Brookfield LaGrange Park SchoolDistrict 95, 1997; San Diego Unified School District,2004), ventilator monitoring, Ambu-bagging, and posi-tioning assistance (Cedar Rapids Community SchoolDistrict v. Garret F., 1999), and administration andmonitoring of medication (San Francisco UnifiedSchool District, 2002).

Decisions regarding which duties are assigned toparaprofessionals must be guided by legal and ethicalconsiderations, as well as the preferences of the stu-dent, the parent, the teacher, and the paraprofessional(Ashbaker & Morgan, 1999). The responsibilities del-egated to paraprofessionals need to come from at leasttwo sources: state and local standards and the needs ofteachers and students (Hilton & Gerlach, 1997).

Many researchers have clarified that paraprofession-als should support a student’s educational program butmust not be expected to assume full or independentresponsibility for the student’s IEP (French, 1998;Giangreco & Doyle, 2002; Marks et al., 1999; Riggs &Mueller, 2001). Many professional organizations haveclarified this support-only role. For example, the Na-tional Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1999)published a position paper addressing the use of para-professionals serving students with learning disabilities.The document clarifies that the decision to delegateduties to paraprofessionals may be made only by fullyqualified professionals who have determined that the

quality of service will not be compromised. Certaintasks may be delegated to paraprofessionals, but thelegal and ethical responsibility for all services remainswith the qualified teacher or service provider. Supervi-sors who fail to provide appropriate supervision ofparaprofessionals may be in violation of their profes-sion’s code of ethics. The document lists activities thatmay not be delegated to paraprofessionals, includingassuming sole responsibility for instruction or provisionof services; serving as a substitute for the qualified pro-fessional in meetings, documents, or communications;writing or modifying instructional plans; and disclosingeducational, clinical, or confidential information unlessdesignated by the qualified professional. In reviewingother professional guidelines and research, Pickett et al.(2003) extended this list to include diagnosing learnerneeds, planning individualized/personalized programs,aligning curriculum with instructional strategies, plan-ning lessons, and assessing learning outcomes. Clearlythe planning and monitoring of instruction remains theresponsibility of the credentialed, certified professional.

Paraprofessionals are often delegated duties thatwould extend beyond the support-only role. Parapro-fessionals reported responsibility for a wide range ofduties, including behavioral support, lesson engage-ment, and adaptation or modification of curriculum(Downing, Ryndak, & Clark, 2000). The paraprofes-sionals had a high level of responsibility and indepen-dence for these duties but expressed concern regardingtheir qualifications to carry out those duties. The au-thors concluded that the practice of assigning the least-trained member of an IEP team to spend the greatestamount of time with a student was questionable. Marks,Schrader, and Levine (1999) earlier found that para-professionals assumed primary responsibility for man-aging the academic and behavioral needs of students ingeneral education settings. Paraprofessionals acceptedthis high level of responsibility to ensure that the stu-dent and general education teacher had a positive in-clusion experience. The authors suggested that havingparaprofessionals assume sole responsibility for inclu-sion was not an acceptable practice because it negatedthe importance of shared and collaborative decisionmaking. Paraprofessionals have also reported concernsabout inadequate training to support students with se-vere behavioral and physical disabilities, as well as ex-pectation to “take over” whole classrooms when teach-ers are called out (Goessling, 1998).

Teachers may relinquish instruction to paraprofes-sionals who they believe have special training to workwith students with disabilities (Giangreco, 2003). Indi-cators that professionals may have delegated too muchresponsibility to paraprofessionals include the teacherbeing less familiar with the student than the parapro-fessionals; the teacher deferring important curricular,instructional, and management decisions to the para-professional; or the teacher’s relationship with the fam-

74 Etscheidt

ily being less developed than that of the paraprofes-sional (Giangreco et al., 1999). An additional indicatoris when the absence of the paraprofessional creates acrisis because other school personnel cannot assist thestudent. The authors concluded that students with dis-abilities who are taught primarily by paraprofessionalsand who have limited access to qualified personnel maybe in danger of receive inadequate education.

Roles of paraprofessionals must be explicitly and in-dividually clarified by IEP teams to ensure congruencebetween the skills of the paraprofessional, the needs ofthe student, and the roles of all team members (Dem-chak & Morgan, 1998; Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, &Doyle, 2001; Welch, Richards, Okada, Richards, &Prescott, 1995). In delegating responsibilities to para-professionals, French (2001) recommended that teach-ers give specific information regarding the scope, goals,time frame, and monitoring plans to the paraprofes-sionals. Role clarity and shared expectations will resultin paraprofessionals feeling appreciated and respected(Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2001). Assignmentsmust ensure that paraprofessionals’ duties are appro-priate to their positions as support staff (Millsap et al.,1993). Paraprofessionals may assist in data collection,material development, or implementation of teacher-designed activities. For example, the paraprofessionalmay observe and record the occurrence of social inter-actions or class participation in general education set-tings. Observational data would be useful in evaluatingthe child’s progress toward IEP goals. The paraprofes-sional may prepare preteaching or priming materials(Koegel, Koegel, Frea, & Green-Hopkins, 2003) to in-crease the child’s participation and independence.These materials may be presented to the child by theparaprofessional, providing the teacher supervises boththe development and the delivery of the materials.However, an extension of responsibilities beyond thesupport-only role may have a negative impact on a stu-dent’s educational program and fail to meet theschool’s legal obligation to supervise the provision of aFAPE for students with disabilities [20 U.S.C. §1413(g)(3)(D)]. Of particular concern is the delegationof invasive medical and health-related procedures toparaprofessionals.

Delegation of Invasive Procedures for Students WithSpecial Health Care Needs

The obligation to provide FAPE in the least restric-tive environment requires careful planning for studentswith severe disabilities, including those with specialhealth care needs. As revealed in the analysis, parapro-fessionals are often responsible for providing healthservices, including invasive procedures (e.g., urinarycatheterization, colostomy/ileostomy care, gastrostomyfeedings). In 1992, The Denver Federation of Parapro-fessionals filed a grievance with the Denver PublicSchools concerning the delegation of invasive proce-

dures for students with special health needs. Accordingto Fordyce (1995), the paraprofessionals were ag-grieved on several grounds: lack of preparation for theinvasive duties, absence of choice to accept or reject theresponsibilities, the illegal nature of the delegation ofnursing tasks because the Colorado Nurse Practice Actcontained no provisions regarding delegation, failure tocompensate for additional work, and exposure to liabil-ity. The grievance resulted in changes to both the NursePractice Act and to policies for Denver Public Schools.The Nurse Practice Act was changed to allow nurses inchild care, school, and other settings to train, supervise,monitor, and evaluate designated procedures on sitewith students. Denver Public Schools now provide forinitial and ongoing training regarding invasive proce-dures, voluntary participation by the paraprofessional,monthly stipends depending on the number and type ofprocedures performed, and paraprofessional input toplanning and documentation of the child’s health plan.

When providing health care in schools, state medicaland nurse practice acts must be reviewed to identifydelegation regulations (Hertel, 1994). Although legis-lation may legally permit delegation to other trainedpersonnel, the nurse still retains responsibility and li-ability concerning performance of delegated duties andmust judge whether a trained, nonmedical person maysafely and competently provide those duties (Long,1994). Such delegation may include the administrationof medication. Safe delegation of duties to paraprofes-sionals is addressed by the National Association forSchool Nurses (2002). The standards call for assessmentdata and needs to be documented in the IndividualizedFamily Service Plan (IFSP) or IEP and delegation ofhealth care duties based on state criteria of the nursepractice act. However, the nurse does not delegate re-sponsibility for ongoing assessment or evaluation of thequality and effect of health intervention.

Duties delegated to paraprofessionals must besupplementary and not supplant the special educationor related services specified in the IEP. An overexten-sion or overreliance on paraprofessional support mayresult in denial of FAPE. The paraprofessional mayassist with instruction, data collection, safety, or studenthealth under the supervision of credentialed, certifiedprofessionals.

Supervision and Training of ParaprofessionalsThe analysis of administrative decisions and case law

revealed both the need to train paraprofessionals ad-equately for assigned duties and the need for thoseparaprofessionals to be supervised adequately by cre-dentialed, qualified professionals. Approximately290,000 of the 525,000 paraprofessionals currently usedin full-time positions nationwide are serving childrenand youths with disabilities (Pickett et al., 2003). Con-comitant with the increase in the number of parapro-fessionals is an increased awareness to address issues


concerning the preparation and supervision of parapro-fessionals. Recent federal legislation requires higherstandards and improved supervision for paraprofes-sionals.

Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Edu-cation Act in 2001 created the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act. Provisions in several Titles throughoutthe law address the employment criteria and supervi-sion of paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals used be-fore January 8, 2001, must have a high school diplomaor equivalent [20 U.S.C. § 1119(1)(d)] and those usedafter January 8, 2002 in Title I programs must completeat least 2 years of study at an institution of higher edu-cation, obtain an associate degree or higher before em-ployment, or meet a rigorous standard of quality dem-onstrated through a formal state or local assessment ofknowledge in reading, writing, and mathematics [20U.S.C. § 1119(1)(c)(1)]. The duties of the paraprofes-sional must be clearly specified, and “paraprofessionalsmay not provide any instructional service to studentsunless they work under the direct supervision of ateacher” [20 U.S.C. § 1119(1)(g)(3)(A)]. Teachers mustprepare the lessons, plan the instructional support ac-tivities the paraprofessional implements, and evaluatestudent performance. Likins (2003) reported that manyschool principals and district directors are concernedthat they will lose paraprofessionals due to the NCLBrequirements. Paraprofessionals cite the time and costof training, the required assessment of their knowledge,and low salary levels as primary reasons for consideringleaving their positions. Many states have developedparaprofessional standards and training programs in re-sponse to this legislation (e.g., the Iowa Model for Para-educator Development; NREL, 1999). Other traininginitiatives have focused on certain student needs (e.g.,Backus & CichoskiKelly, 2001; Kotkin, 1995; Parsons &Reid, 1999).

The Individuals with Disabilities Act was reautho-rized in 2004 and similarly addressed the preparationand supervision of paraprofessionals. Qualifications forparaprofessionals must be consistent with any state-approved or state-recognized certification, licensing,registration, or other comparable requirements that ap-ply to the professional discipline in which those person-nel are providing special education or related services[20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14(B)(i)]. The certification or li-censure for the paraprofessionals may not be waived onan emergency, temporary, or provisional basis [20U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14(B)(ii)]. Paraprofessionals may as-sist in the provision of special education or related ser-vices only if they are appropriately trained and super-vised [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14(B)(iii)]. States may im-pose additional standards or restrictions than thoseidentified in federal statutes. Administrators and teach-ers should be aware of state regulations concerning theemployment of paraprofessionals (French, 1999).

The inadequacy of training for paraprofessionals is

self-evident. Interviews with paraprofessionals workingin inclusive settings indicated that they spent the ma-jority of their time providing direct instruction to stu-dents, yet they lack adequate training for the specificresponsibilities of their jobs (Riggs & Mueller, 2001).Paraprofessionals have identified the highest perceivedneed for training to include knowledge of specific dis-abilities, behavior management, communication, learn-ing styles, and issues in inclusion (Riggs, 2001). Para-professionals working in early intervention and earlychildhood special education identified additional areasof child development, family involvement, and best ser-vice delivery practices as training needs (Killoran,Templeman, Peters, & Udell, 2001). On-the-job train-ing for paraprofessionals is the norm in most states(Carroll, 2001).

Given the concern that the assignment of a parapro-fessional can have a negative impact on social interac-tions and result in adult dependency (Giangreco, Broer,& Edelman, 1999), paraprofessional training should in-clude strategies to facilitate social interaction withteachers and peers. For example, peer expectancies(DiSalvo & Oswald, 2002) have increased the socialinteractions of students with autism. Paraprofessionalscould be trained to prepare typically developing peersfor interactions with a student with autism. Paraprofes-sionals could be trained in implementing other strate-gies to increase social interaction, including prompting,social stories, and self-monitoring (McConnell, 2002).Importantly, the teacher would need to supervise thedevelopment, implementation, and evaluation of theseinterventions.

The training needs of paraprofessionals will expandas rapidly as innovations in education. For example, theuse of assistive technology continues to increase(Zabala et al., 2000), and paraprofessionals will needspecific training in using voice synthesizers, touch-sensitive keyboards, and other assistive technology de-vices (Wadsworth & Knight, 1996). The IDEA requiresIEP teams to consider whether the child requires assis-tive technology devices and services [20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B)(v)] and includes training and technicalassistance for technology devices [20 U.S.C. § 1402(2)].Also, child-specific training will be needed to ensurethat individualized health procedure administrations(e.g., colostomy/ileostomy care) are addressed (Lehr &Greene, 2002). Although parents are often the “expert”sole trainers of school personnel, medical personnel“competent in training others” should also be involvedin initial and ongoing training and monitoring (Lehr &Greene, 2002).

As clearly shown in the analysis of cases, paraprofes-sionals must be supervised in their delegated responsi-bilities. Instructional services to students may be pro-vided by paraprofessionals only under the direct super-vision of fully qualified teachers, because the legal andethical responsibility for student instruction remains

76 Etscheidt

with qualified teachers (NREL, 1999). Surveyed teach-ers were able to identify several competencies requiredfor adequately supervising paraprofessionals, includingplanning and scheduling, communication, instructionalsupport, modeling for paraprofessionals, and manage-ment of paraprofessionals (Wallace, Shin, Bartholo-may, & Stahl, 2001). However, these teachers were notobserved as often showing these competencies. French(2001) surveyed teacher supervision practices andfound that the majority of teachers interviewed did notplan for the paraprofessional, and those who did plantransmitted their plans orally. Student goals and thepurpose of activities were not included in plans, norwere specifications for how paraprofessionals were todocument student progress. The author concluded thatthe lack of a written plan, specification of goals, ordocumentation of student performance would hinderthe teacher in ensuring the academic welfare of stu-dents. Special education teachers reported that theyhad no pre-service or in-service preparation for super-vising with paraprofessionals (Drecktrah, 2000). Thereported reluctance of teachers to supervise parapro-fessionals (French, 1998) may be due to the inadequacyof their supervision training.

Guidelines for working with paraprofessionals em-phasize the importance of teacher-planned and teacher-supervised activities, including “teacher-planned in-struction under direct supervision of such persons” and“implementing behavior management plans developedby the teacher” (Center on Disability and CommunityInclusion, 2004). Yet many paraprofessionals provideextensive services to students but fail to document stu-dent progress or have limited interaction with theteacher. As the ALJ in Sioux City Community SchoolDistrict and Western Hills Area Education Agency(2003) concluded, the paraprofessional may be “in-volved in data collection; (however) the responsibilityto monitor the implementation of the IEP falls first tothe special education teacher and ultimately to (theschool district and state agency)” (104 LRP 10804).

Potential Liability for Both Teacherand Paraprofessional

When paraprofessionals are assigned supervision, apotential for tort liability for injury exists. Cases of pu-pil injury have traditionally held both teacher andteacher aide to a greater “standard of care” than isnormally required in other personal relationships (Al-exander & Alexander, 2001). Importantly, a teacher orprincipal is not liable for the negligent acts of a properlyappointed and qualified paraprofessional. However, if ateacher or principal assigned duties “for which the aideis not qualified” or that extend beyond the scope ofemployment, the supervisor may be liable for negligentacts by the aide (Alexander & Alexander, 2001, p. 575,italics added). All members of a student’s IEP team, aswell as paraprofessionals assisting in the delivery of ser-

vices, must be aware of safety issues, potential prob-lems, and required supervisory issues (Yell, 2002). Forexample, the teacher in Allen v. Crawford (1993) wasnot liable for negligence when her aide struck a studentin the bathroom because it was determined that theteacher exercised ordinary care and there was no evi-dence that increased supervision could have preventedthe injury. Similarly, in Tomlinson v. Board of Educa-tion of the City of Elmira (1992), parents alleged neg-ligent supervision by having only one classroom aidemonitor two different classes, resulting in injury to astudent. The Supreme Court of New York held thatthere was no convincing evidence that the defendantswere negligent or acted improperly, and that the lack ofsupervision was not the proximate cause of the injuries.

Although the literature is filled with statements sug-gesting that paraprofessionals work under the directionand supervision of qualified professionals, self-reportdata suggest that paraprofessionals operate indepen-dently and autonomously, isolated from direction andsupervision. As the analysis of administrative and courtdecisions indicated, adequate training and supervisionof paraprofessionals will ensure compliance with boththe procedural and substantive requirements of theIDEIA. Provisions concerning personnel [20 U.S.C. §1413(a)(3)] and FAPE [20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)] out-line those specific requirements. Although the IDEIAand NCLB mandate supervision and training for para-professionals, IEP teams must develop child-specificplans for initial and ongoing training as well as plans forparaprofessional supervision. Such plans will enhancethe quality of services to students while reducing thepotential for litigation and liability.

Summary and Recommendations

IEP teams must decide whether paraprofessional ser-vices are necessary for a student to meaningfully ben-efit from the special education program designed. Ifparticular credentials for a paraprofessional are re-quired, those qualifications must be specified on theIEP. The nature of the services (e.g., 1:1 or as-needed)must also be stated.

If the IEP determines that paraprofessional supportis necessary to ensure FAPE, the selection of a quali-fied paraprofessional should be a collaborative decisionof the team, if possible. Although selection of personnelis an administrative function, soliciting teacher and par-ent input may enhance the quality of student servicesand the supervision of the paraprofessional. As appro-priate, students may be included in IEP team decisionsregarding paraprofessional support to explore the per-spectives of students as well as the role of self-determination in program decisions (Giangreco, Edel-man, Broer, & Doyle, 2001).

Once assigned, the IEP team must plan for child-specific training for delegated duties. The duties of the


paraprofessional must be clearly described and moni-tored. Including paraprofessionals in IEP meetingsmight assist in clarifying duties and address parents’requests for better communication with those associ-ates (French & Chopra, 1999; Werts, Harris, Tillery, &Roark, 2004). Appropriate duties might involve theimplementation of team-planned instruction, the col-lection of data to assess team-determined goals, or in-terventions for student safety or health care. The re-sponsibility for progress monitoring of special educa-tion or related services remains with the IEP team.Teachers must delegate support-only duties and super-vise the paraprofessionals to ensure that expected stu-dent outcomes are attained. Documentation of satisfac-tory academic and social outcomes of students assistedby paraprofessionals has not been demonstrated (Gian-greco & Doyle, 2002; Jones & Bender, 1993; Salzberg &Morgan, 1995). One of the few investigations examin-ing student outcomes concluded that paraprofessionalswere not as effective as teachers and did not improvestudent performance (Gerber, Finn, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001). Increased attention to the progressmonitoring requirements of the IDEA [20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(viii)] would provide essential studentoutcome data and facilitate adequate supervision ofparaprofessionals.

Many students with disabilities will need the servicesof paraprofessionals to receive FAPE. However, in de-termining the need for paraprofessional assistance, IEPteams must explore a variety of supplemental aids andservices other than the provision of a paraprofessionalto meet a student’s needs and facilitate inclusion. Toooften, the assignment of a paraprofessional is the onlyoption offered: “mandating a paraprofessional andnothing else” (Board of Education of the City of NewYork, 1998). Often IEP teams are “inheriting recom-mendations for paraprofessional supports from sendingschools” (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2002, p. 56)without a renewed discussion about the current needsof the student. In addition to concerns regarding theinterference effects of paraprofessional support, failureto explore other options may circumvent the need toidentify systemic changes that will support the inclusionof students with disabilities. The assignment of para-professionals may inhibit, prevent, or excuse changeefforts (Brown et al., 1999). The delegation of duties forwhich paraprofessionals are not qualified may be anartifact of a resistance to construct classrooms capableof meeting the diverse needs of all children.

References

Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2001). American PublicSchool Law (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ThomsonLearning.

Allen v. Crawford. 20 IDELR 1115 (Ga. Ct. Appeals, 1993).Ashbaker, B., & Morgan, J. (1999). The “S” in ASCD: Teach-

ers supervising paraeducators for professional development.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development (San Francis-co, March 1999). Retrieved Jan. 17, 2005 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Backus, L., & CichoskiKelly, E. (2001). Supporting studentswith challenging behaviors: A paraeducator curriculum.Vermont University Center on Disability and CommunityInclusion. Retrieved Jan. 11, 2005, at http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Bangor School Department, 36 IDELR 192 (SEA ME 2002).Board of Education of the City of New York. 28 IDELR (SEA

NY 1998).Board of Education of the Harrison Central School District, 41

IDELR 285 (SEA NY 2004).Board of Education of the Oakridge Public Schools, 40

IDELR 274 (SEA MI 2003).Brevard County School Board, 41 IDELR 288 (SEA FL 2004).Brown, L., Farrington, K., Knight, T., Ross, C., & Ziegler, M.

(1999). Fewer paraprofessionals and more teachers andtherapists in educational programs for students with signifi-cant disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons withSevere Disabilities, 24(4), 249–252.

Carroll, D. (2001). Considering paraeducator training, roles,and responsibilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2),60–64.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 29IDELR 966 (S. Ct. 1999).

Center on Disability and Community Inclusion. (2004). Para-educator support of students with disabilities in general edu-cation classrooms. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://wum.edu/.

Chopra, R. V., & French, N. K. (2004). Paraeducator relation-ships with parents of students with significant disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 240–251.

Clovis United School District, 36 IDELR 201 (SEA CA 2001).Conecuh County School board, 27 IDELR 112 (SEA AL

1997).Connally Independent School District, 34 IDELR 309 (SEA

TX 2001).Del Norte County Unified School District, 33 IDELR 50

(SEA CA 2000).Demchak, M. A., & Morgan, C. R. (1998). Effective collabo-

ration between professionals and paraprofessionals. RuralSpecial Education Quarterly, 17(2), 10–15.

DiSalvo, C. A., & Oswald, D. P. (2002). Peer-mediated inter-ventions to increase the social interactions of children withautism: Consideration of peer expectancies. Focus on Au-tism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(4), 1989–2007. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from: http://infotrac.galegroup.com/

Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraedu-cators in inclusive classrooms: Their own perceptions. Re-medial and Special Education, 21(3), 171–181.

Drecktrah, M. E. (2000). Preservice teachers’ preparation towork with paraeducators. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 23(2), 157–164.

Dublin Unified School District, 37 IDELR 22 (SEA CA 2002).Elmore County Board of Education, 37 IDELR 230 (SEA AL

2002).Etscheidt, S. K., & Bartlett, L. (1999). The IDEA amend-

ments: A four-step approach for determining supplemen-tary aids and services. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 163–174.

Fordyce, R. (1995). Delegation: A paraprofessional perspec-tive. In M. J. Krajicek and G. D. Steinke (Eds.), The Na-tional Conference on Developing Policy and Practice toImplement IDEA Related to Invasive Procedures for Chil-dren With Special Health Care Needs, Denver, August 6–7,1994. Retrieved May 9, 2005, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Freeport School District 145, 34 IDELR 104 ISEA IL 2000).French, N. K. (1998). Working together: Resource teachers

78 Etscheidt

and paraeducators. Remedial and Special Education, 19(6),357–368.

French, N. K. (1999). Paraeducators and teachers: Shiftingroles. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(2), 69–73.

French, N. K. (2001). Supervising paraprofessionals: A surveyof teacher practices. Journal of Special Education, 35(1),41–53.

French, N. K., & Chopra, R. V. (1999). Parent perspectives onthe roles of paraprofessionals. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Disabilities, 24(4), 259–272.

Freschi, d. F. (1999). Guidelines for working with one-to-oneaides. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(4), 42–45.

Gellerman v. Calaveras Unified School District, 37 IDELR125 (9th Cir. 2002).

Gerber, S. B., Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J.(2001). Teacher aides and students’ academic achievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 123–143.

Gerber Union Elementary School District, 26 IDELR 199(SEA CA 1997).

Giangreco, M. F. (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Ed-ucational Leadership, 61(2), 50–53.

Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (1999). Thetip of the iceberg: Determining whether paraprofessionalsupport is needed for students with disabilities in generaleducation settings. Journal of the Association for Personswith Severe Disabilities, 24(4), 281–291.

Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001).Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differ-ences between paraprofessional service delivery models.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabili-ties, 26(2), 75–86.

Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2002).“That was then, this is now!” Paraprofessional supports forstudents with disabilities in general education classrooms.Exceptionality, 10(1), 47–64.

Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2002). Students with dis-abilities and paraprofessional supports: Benefits, balance,and band-aids. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(7), 1–12.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., & Broer, S. M. (2001).Respect, appreciation, and acknowledgment of paraprofes-sionals who support students with disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 67(4), 485–498.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., & Broer, S. M. (2003).Schoolwide planning to improve paraeducator supports. Ex-ceptional Children, 70(1), 63–79.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. M., & Doyle, M.B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabili-ties: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children,68(1), 45–63.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Luisellli, T. E., & MacFarland,S. (1997). Helping or hovering? Effects of instructional as-sistant proximity on students with disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 64(1), 7–18.

Goessling, D. P. (1998). The invisible elves of the inclusiveschool: Paraprofessionals. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association(San Diego, April 13–17, 1998). Retrieved January 17, 2005,from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Greer v. Rome City School District, 967 F.2d 470 (11th Cir.1992).

Harris County School System, 26 IDELR 193 (SEA GA 1997).Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. (1982). Row-

ley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed., 2d, 690.Hertel, V. (1994). School health services. Presentation at the

National Conference on Developing Policy and Practice toImplement IDEA Related to Invasive Procedures for Chil-dren with Special Health Care Needs. Retrieved January 17,2005, from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Hilton, A., & Gerlach, K. (1997). Employment, preparation,

and management of paraeducators: Challenges to appropri-ate services for students with developmental disabilities.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel-opmental Disabilities, 32(2), 71–76.

Hingham Public Schools, 33 IDELR 292 (SEA MA 2000).Independent School District No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin, 36

IDELR 81 (SEA MN 2001).Jackson County Board of Education, 38 IDELR 83 (SEA AL

2002).Jones, K. H., & Bender, W. N. (1993). Utilization of parapro-

fessionals in special education: A review of the literature.Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 7–14.

Katsiyannis, A., Hodge, J., & Lanford, A. (2000). Paraeduca-tors: Legal and practice considerations. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 21(5), 297–304.

Kevin G v. Cranston School Committee, 27 IDELR 32 (1stCir. 1997).

Killeen Independent School District. 39 IDELR 21, (SEA TX2003).

Killoran, J., Templeman, T. P., Peters, J., & Udell, T. (2001).Identifying paraprofessional competencies for early inter-vention and early childhood special education. Teaching Ex-ceptional Children, 34(1), 68–73.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Frea, W., & Green-Hopkins, I.(2003). Priming as a method of coordinating educationalservices for students with autism. Language, Speech, andHearing Services in the Schools, 34(3), 228–235. RetrievedMay 10, 2005, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.

Kotkin, R. A. (1995). The Irvine paraprofessional program:Using paraprofessionals in serving students with ADHD.Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(4), 235–240.

Lake Travis Independent School District, 4 ECLPR 500 (SEATX 2003).

Lehr, D. H., & Greene, J. (2002). Educating students withcomplex health care needs in public schools: The interac-tions of health care, education, and the law. Journal ofHealth Care Law and Policy, 5, 68–85. Retrieved January 17,2005, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Likins, M. (2003). NCLB implications for paraprofessionals.Principal Leadership, 3(5), 10–13.

Limestone County Board of Education, 31 IDELR 122 (SEAAL 1999).

Linn-Mar Community School District, 41 IDELR 24 (SEA IA2004).

Long, J. (1994). Basic civics review: Branches of governmentand their respective functions. Presentation at the NationalConference on Developing Policy and Practice to Imple-ment IDEA Related to Invasive Procedures for ChildrenWith Special Health Care Needs. Retrieved January 17,2005, from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/.

Los Angeles Unified School District, 28 IDELR 324 (SEA CA1998).

Malden Public Schools, 42 IDELR 73 (SEA MA 2004).Manalansan v. Board of Education of Baltimore City, 35

IDELR 122 (DC MD 2001).Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator

experiences in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or hold-ing their own? Exceptional Children, 65(3), 315–328.

Menlo Park City Elementary School District, 36 IDELR 230(SEA CA 2002).

McConnell, S. R. (2002). Interventions to facilitate social in-teraction for young children with autism: Review of avail-able research and recommendations for educational inter-vention and future research. Journal of Autism and Devel-opmental Disorders, 32(5), 351–372. Retrieved May 5, 2005,from http://www.springerlink.com.

Millsap, M., Moss, M., & Gamse, B. (1993). The Chapter 1implementation study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.


Mobile County Board of Education, 34 IDELR 164 (SEA AL2001).

Molly L. v. Lower Merion School District, 36 IDELR 182 (EDPA 2002).

Montgomery County Public Schools, 27 IDELR 658 (SEAMD 1997).

Moorestown Township Board of Education, 38 IDELR 139(SEA NJ 2003).

Mueller, P. H., & Murphy, F. V. (2001). Determining when astudent requires paraeducator support. Teaching Excep-tional Children, 33(6), 22–27.

National Association for School Nurses (NASN). (2002).School health nursing services role in health care. RetrievedJanuary 27, 2005, from http://www.nasn.org/.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1999).Learning disabilities: Use of paraprofessionals. A reportfrom the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabili-ties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(1), 23–30.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NREL). (1999).Designing state and local policies for the professional devel-opment of instructional paraeducators. Portland, OR:NREL.

Olympia School District, 103 LRP 38306(SEA WA 2003).Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1999). Training basic teaching

skills to paraeducators of students with severe disabilities.Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(4), 48–54.

Pell City Board of Education, 38 IDELR 253 (SEA AL 2003).Pickett, A. L., Likins, M., & Wallace, T. (2003). The employ-

ment and preparation of paraeducators: The state of the art,2003. The National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals.Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://www.nrcpara.org/.

Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 441IDELR 130 (3rd Cir, 1988).

Pugach, M. C., & Johnson, L. J. (1995). Collaborative practi-tioners, collaborative schools. Denver, CO: Love PublishingCo.

Riggs, C. G. (2001). Ask the paraprofessionals: What are yourtraining needs? Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(3), 78–83.

Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). Employment and utili-zation of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Spe-cial Education, 35(1), 54–62.

Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Educationv. Rachel H. by Robert Holland, 20 IDELR 812 (9th Cir.1994)].

Salzberg, C. L., & Morgan, J. (1995). Preparing teachers towork with paraeducators. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 18(1), 49–55.

San Diego Unified School District, 41 IDELR 195 (SEA CA2004).

San Francisco Unified School District, 5 ECLPR 377 (SEACA 2002).

Silsbee Independent School District, 25 IDELR 1023 (SEATX 1997).

Sioux City Community School District, and Western HillsArea Education Agency (AEA 12), 104 LRP 10804 (SEAIA 2003).

Skelly v. Brookfield LaGrange Park School District 95 (ND IL1997).

Slama v. Independent School District No. 2580, 39 IDELR 3(DC MN 2003).

Southern Regional Board of Education, 38 IDELR 110 (SEANJ 2002).

South River Board of Education, 39 IDELR 88 (SEA NJ2003).

Springate, K. W., & Stegelin, D. A. (1999). Building schooland community partnerships through parent involvement.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Stenger v. Stanwood School District, 30 IDELR 945 (WA Ct.Appeals, 1999)

Tomlinson v. Board of Education of the City of Elmira, 583N.Y.S.2d 664 (S. Ct. NY 1992).

Vidor Independent School District, 27 IDELR 679 (SEA TX1998).

Wadsworth, D. E., & Knight, D. (1996). Paraprofessionals:The bridge to successful full inclusion. Intervention inSchool and Clinic, 31(3), 166–171.

Wallace, T., Shin, J., Bartholomay, T., & Stahl, B. J. (2001).Knowledge and skills for teachers supervising the work ofparaprofessionals. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 520–533.

Waterbury Board of Education, 37 IDELR 262 (SEA CT2002).

Watson Chapel School District, 34 IDELR 51 (SEA AK2000).

Welch, M., Richards, G., Okada, T., Richards, J., & Prescott,S. (1995). A consultation and paraprofessional pull-in sys-tem of service delivery: A report on student outcomes andteacher satisfaction. Remedial and Special Education, 16(1),16–28.

Werts, M. G., Harris, S., Tillery, C. Y., & Roark, R. (2004).What parents tell us about paraeducators. Remedial andSpecial Education, 25(4), 232–239.

Werts, M., Zigmond, N., & Leeper, D. (2001). Paraprofes-sional proximity and academic engagement: Students withdisabilities in primary-aged classrooms. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabili-ties, 36(4), 424–440.

Wheeler, J. J., & Richey, D. (2005). Behavior management:Principles and practices of positive behavior supports. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Yell, M. (2002). Teacher liability for student injury and mis-conduct. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice.Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://cecp.air.org/.

Young, B., Simpson, R., Myles, B. S., & Kamps, D. M. (1997).An examination of paraprofessional involvement in sup-porting students with autism. Focus on Autism & Other De-velopmental Disabilities, 12(1), 31–38.

Zabala, J., Blunt, M., Carl, D., et al. (2000). Quality indicatorsfor assistive technology services in school settings. Journalof Special Education Technology, 15(4), 25–36.

Received: February 1, 2005Final Acceptance: June 7, 2005Editor in Charge: Lynn Kern Koegel

80 Etscheidt

paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: a legal

Documents