precarious or purposeful? proactively building inclusive special education service ... · pdf...

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112

Precarious or Purposeful?Proactively Building Inclusive Special Education Service

Delivery on Solid Ground

Michael F. Giangreco and Jesse C. Suter

Abstract

The absence of unified and inclusive special education service delivery models represents alongstanding challenge to the education of students with the full range of disabilities ininclusive schools and classrooms. An exemplar model is offered for elementary schoolswithin a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework. To establish its practicality andcost-neutrality, the development of the exemplar model was based on personnel utilizationdata from 69 schools. After building a case for the importance of proactively developinginclusive models of special education service delivery, this article describes: (a) the types andsource of the data upon which the exemplar model is based, (b) a set of underlyingassumptions, (c) school demographic parameters upon which the exemplar model is based,(d) a comparison of 13 key variables between their actual averages in sampled schools withtheir proposed status in the exemplar model, and (e) nine conceptual and programmaticshifts designed to accompany the structural changes presented in the exemplar model. Thearticle concludes with implications for practice and future research. Overall, the exemplarmodel is offered as a starting point to spur discussion, creative problem solving, and actionplanning to explore model development suited to local contexts.

Key Words: inclusive education; multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS); paraprofessionals; servicedelivery; special educator caseloads

Imagine a house built so close to the edge of a cliffthat part of it precariously dangles over, withnothing but open space between it and the rockyshore and turbulent waters below; a strong gust ofwind might send it careening. Ropes are attachedand lots of people spend their time and energypulling against gravity in an attempt to stop thehouse from falling. If wind speeds increase or thecliff starts to erode, more people are enlisted tojoin the rope lines to keep the house from falling.It works, at least as a stopgap measure, but isincredibly inefficient, illogical, and unsustainable;it is not a place anyone would want to live.Unfortunately, this improbable house on a cliff’sedge scenario is surprisingly reminiscent of whatroutinely plays out in schools across the UnitedStates and in some other countries. Rather than

building inclusive special education service deliv-ery proactively and purposely on solid ground,schools too often build too close to the meta-phorical brink, then find themselves respondingreactively to pressures (e.g., more students withintensive support needs appropriately gainingaccess to general education classrooms) by addingsupports. Often the response is increasing thenumbers of paraprofessionals in an effort tostabilize the day-to-day functioning of schoolsand avoid unwanted consequences (e.g., studentbehavior problems, teacher concerns, parentconcerns). Too often, this reactive, add-on,approach of expanding the cadre of paraprofes-sionals is, at best, a temporary solution fraughtwith well-documented practical, ethical, andinstructional challenges (Broer, Doyle, & Giangre-

112 Inclusive Service Delivery

co, 2005; Giangreco, 2010; 2013; Giangreco,Doyle, & Suter, 2014b; Malmgren & Causton-Theoharis, 2006; Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Web-ster, Koutsoubou, & Bassett, 2010; Rutherford,2012; Webster et al., 2010). As depicted in Figure1, one of the people on the rope line ponders theobvious, ‘‘Wouldn’t it be better to build on amore solid footing?’’

Imagine if the resources currently directedtoward avoiding and stabilizing were redirected.How might schools reallocate these freed-upresources to proactively design and implementpurposeful models of inclusive service deliverythat account for the full and increasing range ofdiversity (e.g., abilities, language/culture, econom-ic and domestic challenges) presented by studentsattending our schools? Within the silo of generaleducation, adopting models of service delivery ishistorically common. Elementary schools orga-nize their classrooms, personnel, and curriculainto various configurations. Many rely on single-grade classrooms, while others offer multigradeoptions, multiyear loops where cohorts of stu-dents stay with the same teacher for more than 1year, team teaching (teachers specializing invarious curriculum areas, e.g., math/science,language arts/social studies), or other arrange-ments. These are conscious choices made byschool communities meant to facilitate predict-ability, sometimes to provide options withinschools for students and families, and presumablyto facilitate positive outcomes for students. Theservice delivery models also have correspondingpractices to support the respective models. Forexample, schools typically adhere to a target rangefor class size, attempt to maintain certain staffingratios for professional support services (e.g.,literacy specialists, school counselors), and devel-op master schedules designed to facilitate theoperation of their model (e.g., literacy blocks,grade-level team meetings).

In other words, schools have general educa-tion models of service delivery, although theymay or may not account for the full range ofstudent diversity in those schools. In many cases,these models were designed and built beforeschools encountered the wider range of studentdiversity they serve today. With the incrementalenrollment of students with increasingly intensivesupport needs, the metaphorical house continuesto be pushed ever closer to the edge of the cliffand resources spread increasingly thin. Ratherthan reconceptualizing school service delivery to

meet the needs of this expanded student diversity,some schools have made slow and minimallysufficient stabilizing changes akin to addingpeople to the rope lines in an effort to keep thehouse from falling off the cliff. This tinkeringaround the edges has worked at times, buttypically is neither sustainable nor desirable froman educational or equity perspective and mayresult in wasted resources.

Unified educational systems that support theinclusion of all students in general educationclassrooms, including those with the full range ofdisabilities, are rooted in contemporary approach-es that are focused on high-quality policies,curriculum, evidence-based instructional strate-gies, and regular use of data for decision making(Burrello, Sailor, & Kleinhammer-Tramill, 2013;Cook & Tankersly, 2013). Multi-tiered systems ofsupports (MTSS; Cusumano, Algozzine & Algo-zzine, 2014; Gamm et al., 2012) include bothacademic supports through response to interven-tion (RtI; Sailor, 2009) and behavioral supportsthrough schoolwide positive behavior interven-tions and supports (PBIS; Sugai & Horner, 2009;Sugai, Horner, Fixsen, & Blase, 2010). Withininclusive conceptualizations of multi-tiered sys-tems of service delivery, tiers are ‘‘defined in termsof intensity (time and focus) of instruction ratherthan as a place, provider, or instructional strategy’’so ‘‘theoretically any tier of instruction couldoccur in any place’’ (Batsche, 2014, p. 183). SinceMTSS approaches are subject to substantialinterpretation and varying implementation, weencourage that they be viewed and implementedin a contemporary and inclusive context to ensurethat they provide high-quality, equitable, andincreasingly inclusive opportunities and positiveoutcomes for students with the full range ofdisabilities and other nonstandard needs.

Ferri (2012) cautioned the field that RtI/MTSS approaches, if inappropriately interpretedas mechanisms to sort and separate, couldundermine inclusive educational opportunitiesand serve to maintain the status quo of traditional(segregated) special education, rather than advanc-ing the field. Similarly, others have encouraged usto question the extensive use of pull-out specialeducation approaches (Rea, McLaughlin, &Walther-Thomas, 2002) and to reject ‘‘either-or’’scenarios that suggest a student with a disabilitycan either be included in general education classesor receive appropriately individualized and sup-ported instruction, as if these options were

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112

M. F. Giangreco and J. C. Suter 113

mutually exclusive (Giangreco, Carter, Doyle, &Suter, 2010). Setting up such a false choice isunnecessary and, ultimately, hampers progress inour field. Collectively, we have long known howto pull students with disabilities out of regularclasses and provide individualized instruction. Wealso have a substantial history of placing somestudents with disabilities in regular classes withinsufficient supports and without providing qual-ity instruction. Neither of these options isdesirable. What we are less skilled at, collectively,is ensuring quality, supported, individually appro-priate, curriculum and instruction for studentswith the full range of disabilities while retainingstudent benefits (and their rights) to be educatedalongside their peers without disabilities in theclassrooms and schools they would attend if theywere not labeled disabled. Without the ongoing

presence of students with the full range ofdisabilities in the regular classroom, the impetusfor change and the opportunities to problem solveand create new solutions are less likely to occur,thus unnecessarily compromising or delaying theireducational and civil rights (Giangreco, Doyle, &Suter, 2012; 2014a). Any worthy aim of this sort isundoubtedly a messy enterprise with unexpectedchallenges, learning, and benefits along a poten-tially bumpy but, ultimately, important path.

These broadly conceived approaches to sup-porting the academic and social/behavioral out-comes of students (e.g., RtI, MTSS, PBIS)acknowledge the importance of school servicedelivery, and some research is beginning to emerge(McInerney, Zumeta, Gandhi, & Gersten, 2014),yet few studies or theoretically grounded concep-tualizations are available regarding the connec-

Figure 1. On the brink cartoon. Printed with permission.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


tions between key service delivery factors andimplementation of various evidenced-based ap-proaches. Additionally, studies of evidenced-basedinstructional strategies rarely report a variety ofimportant service delivery considerations (e.g.,special education caseload, ratio of special educa-tors to special education paraprofessionals) thatwould assist consumers in determining the feasi-bility of implementation under real-world condi-tions. It has been posited,

Although our national focus on research-based curriculum and instruction remainsvital, without effective service delivery con-figurations, most notably thoughtful person-nel utilization and deployment, even themost advantageous innovations in curricu-lum, instruction, and social/behavioral inter-ventions likely will not fully realize theirintended impact. (Giangreco, Suter, & Hur-ley, 2013, p. 122)

Recent research in inclusion-oriented schoolshas identified a series of service delivery variablesand practices that have an impact on equitableaccess to appropriate and quality educationalopportunities. Such variables and practices in-clude: (a) special educator caseload size andconfiguration; (b) range of grades supported byspecial educators; (c) percent of pull-out instruc-tion delivered by special educators; (d) ratio ofspecial educators to special education paraprofes-sionals; (e) extent of one-to-one paraprofessionaldeployment; (f) numbers of paraprofessionalsspecial educators supervise; (g) percent of studentinstructional time with teachers, special educators,or paraprofessionals; and (h) roles of teammembers and corresponding time spent in thoseroles (Giangreco, Broer, & Suter, 2011; Giangreco,Suter, & Hurley, 2013; Suter & Giangreco, 2009).

One of the most notable variables identifiedin this research has been termed special educatorschool density (i.e., the ratio of special educator full-time equivalents [FTE] to total school enroll-ment). This variable has been identified as highlycorrelated with: (a) the percentage of studentsidentified as disabled, (b) individual specialeducator caseload size, and (c) self-efficacy ratingsof special educators (Giangreco, Suter, & Hurley,2013). As a variable that combines a schooldemographic component (total enrollment) witha personnel availability component (special edu-cator FTE), special educator school density highlights

that special educator self-efficacy ratings can beaffected by contextual variables beyond theimmediate control of special educators. Whereas,recent special educator self-efficacy considerationsfocus primarily on perceived skills and abilities ofspecial educators over which they have some levelof control (e.g., creating a welcoming environ-ment, promoting acceptance of students, differen-tiating lessons, managing classrooms with diversestudent characteristics, utilizing different teachingstrategies; Dawson & Scott, 2014).

Most recently, in a study of 51 Vermontschools spanning 3 school years (2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013), a significant relationship(i.e., large effect size) was found between a school’sspecial educator school density ratio and specialeducator absence (r¼ 0.57, p , 0.001). In schoolswith a low special educator school density ratio (morespecial educator FTE per total enrollment) specialeducator absences tended to be lower. As thespecial educator school density ratio rose, so did thenumber of special educator absences. For example,in School A, with a lower special educator schooldensity ratio of 1:72 (one special educator FTE forevery 72 students in the school), the specialeducators were absent 10.4 days, on average, peryear. Whereas in School B, with a higher specialeducator school density ratio of 1:110, the specialeducators were absent 20.3 days per year, onaverage (Suter, Giangreco, & Bruhl, 2014). Theseinitial findings further highlight the potentialimportance of understanding how special educatorschool density may be interrelated with other aspectsof providing sound school service delivery, in thiscase by linking it to the attendance of schoolpersonnel as a vital element of ensuring consistentimplementation of instruction.

The purpose of this article is to provide anexample of an inclusive special education servicedelivery model for elementary schools, withpotential application in middle schools, basedon a sample of actual school resources in one state.By basing an exemplar model on empirical datafrom real schools, we hope to demonstrate theplausibility of the model based on cost-neutralreallocation of average available school resources.As an alternative to approaches that are currentlyin use, it is not offered as the model, but rather asan exemplar meant to serve as a starting point tospur discussion, creative problem solving, andaction planning to explore model developmentsuited to local contexts.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


In the remainder of this article we describe: (a)the types and source of the data upon which theexemplar model is based, (b) a set of underlyingassumptions in the model’s development, (c)school demographic parameters upon which theexemplar model is based, (d) a comparison of 13key variables between their actual averages insampled schools with their proposed status in theexemplar model, and (e) nine conceptual andprogrammatic shifts designed to accompany thestructural changes presented in the exemplarmodel. We conclude with implications forpractice and future research.

This article fills an important gap in theliterature by describing a practical, data-based, andconceptually grounded example of an inclusivespecial education service delivery model wherelittle information is currently available. It offers aninitial conceptualization to think about and applya wide range of school demographic, personnelutilization, and service delivery variables to bolsterthese often-neglected aspects of MTSS. In doingso, it can offer guidance to schools that arecommitted to serving the full range of studentdiversity presented in their communities. Al-though the example presented herein is based onpersonnel and demographic data from actualschools, the exemplar model itself is aspirational;it demonstrates how those schools’ resourcesmight be reimagined to support ever-wideningstudent diversity in general education classrooms.

Data Upon Which the Exemplar Model Is

Based

The data upon which the exemplar model in thisarticle is based were collected between 2006 and2013 in Vermont schools across all grade levels (K-12) using a data collection protocol known asNumbers That Count. Of the 69 school cases thatwere used to calculate the averages described inthis article, 51 cases (74%) were reported in twoearlier studies (Suter & Giangreco, 2009; Gian-greco, Suter, & Hurley, 2013). The remaining 18cases (26%) used the same data collection protocoldescribed in the aforementioned studies, but werenot included in those earlier studies (e.g., datacollected after publication submission). Based oncategories established by the National Center forEducational Statistics (2012), approximately 23%(n¼ 16) of the cases were designated as schools insmall cities, 16% (n ¼ 11) in midsized suburban

communities, and 61% (n ¼ 42) as small town orrural locales.

In all 69 cases, three types of institutionalreview board (IRB)-approved questionnaire datawere collected in each school at a single point intime. First, participating school administratorscompleted the 20-item School DemographicsQuestionnaire for their respective schools byproviding basic school characteristic data such asclass size, student enrollment, and diversityinformation (e.g., economic, language, eligibilityfor special education), as well as a variety ofpersonnel data (e.g., numbers for special educatorsand paraprofessionals). Second, on a school-by-school basis, special educators from whominformed consent had been received completed a23-item Special Educator Questionnaire, respond-ing to items about their work roles, caseloadparameters, time use, and the paraprofessionalsthey supervised. These same special educators alsocompleted a 19-item Student CharacteristicsQuestionnaire pertaining to students on theircaseloads receiving full-day, one-to-one, parapro-fessional support. This questionnaire includeditems on demographics, instructional time, andreasons for having a one-to-one paraprofessional.Within 1 month of completing data collection ateach school, investigators provided a written datasummary and conducted a 2-hour debriefingmeeting with school personnel to review theirfindings. (See Suter & Giangreco [2009] andGiangreco, Suter, & Hurley [2013] for additionalmethodological details.) As noted in these twoearlier studies, the primary limitations of thesedata, related to the purpose of the current article,are that they were collected from a conveniencesample all in Vermont schools and data providedby special educators were based on self-reportingwithout other corroborative measures. While weacknowledge that the sampled Vermont schoolsare not representative of some other schools onvarious dimensions (e.g., class size, povertyindices, percent of students who speak English asa second language), this does not detract fromopportunity to use the average sampled data tobuild an exemplar model. As suggested through-out this article, we encourage the development ofa variety models at the school level that areindividualized in ways that suit local contexts.Despite these data limitations, the averages andtheir proposed reallocations offer potentiallyvaluable guidance to schools seeking to extend

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


inclusive opportunities to more students withdisabilities in general education classes.

In putting forward an exemplar model ofinclusive special education service delivery, wereasoned that using averages from a set of actualinclusion-oriented schools would move beyondthe hypothetical by providing a realistic founda-tion. Furthermore, given the financial conditionswhereby many schools are being asked to reduceexpenses or minimize increases, using average datafrom actual schools allowed us to demonstratehow, by reallocating existing resources, a cost-neutral example could be designed.

Underlying Assumptions

A three-class exemplar model, depicted in Figure 2at a single grade level and in Figure 3 at the whole-school level, is based on a set of underlyingassumptions. First, the school, rather than a schooldistrict, is the unit of analysis. Important demo-graphic and service delivery data may be obscuredwhen examining district-level, rather than school-level, data. The structural features depicted in thefigures are meant to be aligned with congruenteducational practices; we do not mean to suggestthat structural changes alone are sufficient.

Second, the exemplar model is predicated onthe assumption that the school serves all, or nearlyall, of the students with disabilities who wouldtypically attend the school if they did not have adisability label. Comparing two schools of thesame size with approximately the same amountand type of personnel resources is an unfaircomparison if one school serves all availablestudents with disabilities and other special needsand the other school sends some of its studentswith disabilities who have higher supports needsor certain disability classifications (e.g., autismspectrum disorders, intellectual disability, multipledisabilities, emotional behavioral disorders) toregional special classes in other schools and/orsends students not eligible for special education,but at risk of school failure, to off-campusalternative school programs. By serving all avail-able students, the school does not have anartificially low number of students with disabilitiesor other special needs that would exist if thesestudents were sent away from the school to receiveservices. Conversely, the school does not have anartificially high and/or disproportionate numberof students with disabilities or other special needs

that occurs when schools host ‘‘special programs,’’whereby students who would not typically attendthe school do (e.g., hosting a regional program forstudents with autism spectrum disorders).

Third, model parameters are designed topromote appropriate supports in the school andclassrooms within a specified range of totalenrollments. For example, the exemplar modeldepicted in Figure 3 shows proposed resources fora total school enrollment range of 357–441.Establishing an initial base model of support ina particular school (e.g., enrollment range, numberand size of classrooms, number of specialeducators, number of paraprofessionals) willrequire locally determined individualization toaccount for local demographics (e.g., poverty,cultural/linguistic diversity). Ongoing evaluationmust be undertaken to determine the appropriate-ness and effectiveness of the initial base model.This is vital, because once established and deemedeffective, a school’s model is designed to providepredictability in personnel staffing patterns thatwould remain the same within established schooland classroom enrollment ranges. Assuming that aschool’s total enrollment stayed within a specifiedrange, there should be no need to add or subtractschool personnel when a student with a disabilityor special need is added or subtracted from theclass rolls for various reasons (e.g., disability label,declassification, moving).

In other words, there is no incentive to labelstudents as disabled because the school orclassroom does not get more resources by labelingstudents and does not lose resources if students arenot identified as eligible for special education,declassified, or leave for other reasons. Personnelwould expand and contract based on changes intotal enrollment that extended beyond plannedranges. This is especially important because somecurrent U.S. school funding models work at cross-purposes with MTSS aims. Recent research hasdocumented that, when schools reduce theirspecial education eligibility numbers by effectivelyimplementing stronger general education sup-ports, they simultaneously may lose specialeducation personnel resources because thoseresources were linked exclusively to servicesdesignated as special education, despite the factthat their student population is unchanged,merely categorized/labeled differently (Giangreco,Suter, & Hurley, 2013; Suter & Giangreco, 2009).

Fourth, in the exemplar model, generaleducation teachers are the lead professionals in

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


each classroom for all students placed with them.Therefore, they engage with and maintain educa-tional ownership for all students in their class-rooms, regardless of label (e.g., disability). As theonly licensed professionals in the classroom at alltimes, supports designed ultimately to helpstudents (e.g., special education, related services)are designed to build the capacity of and supportclassroom teachers. This necessitates special edu-cator roles that are geared toward more in-classsupport (e.g., co-teaching; creative problem solv-ing with teachers; co-developing universally de-signed, differentiated, or adapted instruction),rather than pull-out supports that historically havebeen designed for students but do little to supportteachers or build their capacity (Giangreco, Suter,& Graf, 2011).

Fifth, in the exemplar model, paraprofession-als are assigned to classrooms and are available toserve any students (with or without disabilitylabels) under the shared direction and supervisionof the teacher and special educator. They wouldrarely, if ever, be assigned to individual students ina one-to-one format. This allows teachers todeploy paraprofessionals flexibly while reducingpotential stigmatization of a subset of studentsreceiving paraprofessional supports. In developingthe exemplar model depicted in Figures 2 and 3,we included paraprofessionals because, as suggest-ed by McDonnell and Jameson (2014), despite thelegitimacy of the concerns about current parapro-fessional utilization in inclusion-oriented schools,‘‘it is likely that paraprofessionals will continue tobe an essential part of students’ educationalteams’’ (p. 102). That said, we do not mean to

Figure 2. Three-class model. SPED ¼ Special educator.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


put limits on possible service delivery configura-tions or suggest by our exemplar that paraprofes-sionals necessarily need to be part of all inclusiveclassroom or school service delivery models. Wecan envision school models built on a combina-tion of licensed professionals (e.g., teachers,special educators, related services providers) andnatural supports (e.g., peer mentoring; Carter,Sisco, Brown, Brickham, & Al-Khabbaz, 2008;Carter, Sisco, Melekoglu, & Kurkowski, 2007) thatdo not necessarily rely on paraprofessionals, orrely on them less extensively than depicted in theexemplar model.

Sixth, since the exemplar model is predicatedon special educator services being offered primar-ily in class, rather than as pull-out services, thecombined availability of special educator andparaprofessionals (with split general education/special education full-time equivalent [FTE])

means that a second adult can be in the everyclassroom approximately 80% of the time, onaverage (based on core team staffing). This alsomeans that teachers can expect to have their classby themselves for the remaining 20% of the time,depending on how paraprofessionals are sched-uled during classes such as art, music, and physicaleducation. Establishing an expectation that aclassroom teacher will function independently inhis or her own classroom for at least some portionof the school day is not necessarily a widespreadpractice in the United States in situations wherestudents with low-incidence disabilities (e.g.,intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders,multiple disabilities) are included. Althoughexplicit data are not available on this topic, thereare international precedents for the expectation ofautonomous teacher functioning given a class-room consisting of students with heterogeneous

Figure 3. Whole-school model.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


characteristics that includes students with low-incidence disabilities. A notable example is Italy,where an insegnante di sostengo (support teacher/special educator) is assigned to a class that includesa student with substantial support needs for only aportion of the day and where paraprofessionals/assistants typically are not utilized for instruction(D’Alessio, 2011; Giangreco & Doyle, 2012).

School Demographics

The model presented in Figures 2 and 3 is basedon demographic averages from the 69 Vermontschools where the Numbers That Count datacollection was conducted. Since contextual con-siderations are key to the development of anylocally tailored model, we offer a few keydemographic variables here so readers can discernhow closely or not these averages align with theirlocal demographics, thus allowing for potentialadjustments. For example, if a school hassubstantially higher percentages of English Lan-guage Learners or students living in poverty,school teams could reasonably make adjustmentsto their initial base model to account for suchcommunity characteristics.

Schools upon which the exemplar model wasbased had approximately 10% (SD ¼ 10.97) oftheir students with minority backgrounds and 6%(SD ¼ 8.77) were identified as English LanguageLearners (ELL). As a proxy measure of economicdisadvantage, 35% (SD ¼ 25.63) of the studentsenrolled in these schools were receiving free orreduced-price lunch (FRPL). Approximately 14%(SD ¼ 4.56) of students had individual educationprograms (IEPs) based on their eligibility forspecial education. When counting all studentson some type of special educational needs plan(i.e., IEP, 504 plan, educational support team/atrisk), this comprised approximately 30% (SD ¼11.11) of all enrolled students. Although thesample means align quite closely (within a fewpercentage points) with current Vermont statewidedata (National Center for Educational Statistics,2012), it should be noted that sample data spanmultiple years. While the sample data arereasonably representative of Vermont statewidedata, any such representativeness (or lack thereof)is not the most relevant factor for schoolsconsidering these data and the model exemplarpresented herein. Rather, as mentioned earlier,what is more important is for those interested in

applying the elements and concepts of this modelexemplar to discern how closely or not the sampleaverages align with their local demographics andto make potential adjustments for relevant factors.

Key Variables: Actual Averages and

Proposed Status in Three-Class Model

In this section we present 13 key variables,comparing the actual averages in the 69 schoolsupon which the model is based with the proposedstatus of these variables in the three-class exemplarmodel (see Table 1). As highlighted in theaforementioned underlying assumptions, totalenrollment is a key aspect of the model; beginningwith an average school total enrollment of 433,the three-class model (see Figure 3) is designed foruse in schools with total enrollments ranging from357 to 441 students. Within this range, personnelresources typically would not be added orsubtracted based on changes in the number ofstudents labeled as disabled. The exemplar modelcan be applied to schools of any size. If the totalschool enrollment moved beyond the specifiedrange, either above or below, it would trigger theaddition or subtraction of three classrooms andthe corresponding core personnel, namely class-room teachers, special educators, and paraprofes-sionals (as shown in Figure 2); this might requiresome reconfigured teams to cross two grade-levels.Other factors, such as multiyear enrollmentprojections will be important to inform decisionsabout whether to fully implement the model’sthree-class addition or subtraction when triggered.Yet when the model exceeds its upper limit and isthen only adjusted, for example, by the additionof one class and teacher rather than the three-classteam, the school will constantly remain at or nearthe metaphorical brink.

Within this total enrollment range (i.e., 357–441), students would be placed in 21 classrooms(three classes at seven grades, K-6), ranging in sizefrom 17 to 21 students. The model could readilybe applied to schools serving different elementaryand/or middle school grade ranges (e.g., grades K-8, K-4, or 5-8). Although this class size rangealigns closely with average class size in the schoolsupon which the model was developed, werecognize that many schools currently havesubstantially higher average class sizes. Wecontend that if schools are serious about includ-ing all students, retaining personnel, and pursuing

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


quality educational opportunities and outcomes,they will need to confront the foundational issueof class size (Finn, Gerber, & Boyd-Zaharias,2005; Finn, Pannozzo, & Achilles, 2003; Graue,Hatch, Rao, & Oen, 2007).

In the exemplar model, as close to 100% ofstudents with disabilities as possible would beincluded in general education classes at the highestfederal reporting level for 80% of the school dayor more. This would represent approximately a 15percentage-point increase from the existing averagein the schools upon which the model is based,where 84.5% (SD ¼ 14.9) of students withdisabilities are placed in general education classesat least 80% of the time. The most recentlyavailable data indicate that, nationally, 61% ofstudents receiving special education, 74% inVermont, are placed in general education classes80% of the time or more (United States Depart-ment of Education, 2013).

Inferred here is that classroom practices wouldneed to change so that they are aligned with thefull range of student diversity addressed in theexemplar model. Historically, some schools haveconsidered placement of certain students with

disabilities by asking questions such as, ‘‘Do theexisting conditions in the classroom (e.g., envi-ronment, technology, personnel capabilities, atti-tudes, practices) suit the student’s needs?’’ Byposing the question this way, it puts the onus onthe student to fit into the classroom and likelymaintains the status quo. Too often, the inferredmessage is, if the student can fit in withoutnecessitating substantial change, he or she can beincluded; whereas, if substantial change is needed,such students are more likely to be excluded. Byreframing the question to ask, ‘‘What changeswould be required in the classroom (e.g., environ-ment, technology, personnel capabilities, atti-tudes, practices) for a student with unique needsto be successfully included?,’’ more of the onus isput on the school to design a better person-environment fit and remove barriers to inclusion.When school teams act on this second type ofquestion, they challenge the status quo and extendtheir capacity. Even though the impetus forchange may have been initiated to address theneeds of students with extensive or pervasivesupport needs, such changes (e.g., universaldesign; Nelson, 2014) likely will benefit a wider

Table 1Comparison of Key Variables

Key Demographic and Service Delivery Variables

Means (SD)

n ¼ 69 Schools

Three-Class

Exemplar Model

Total School Enrollment (Number of Students) 433 (285.3) 357-441

Class Size 18.4 (2.3) 17-21

Percent of Students With Disabilities in Regular Education

Classes (� 80% of the time) 84.5% (14.9) ’ 100%

Number of Special Educator FTE 5.1 (3.1) 7

Special Educator School Density (Ratio of Special

Educator FTE to Total School Enrollment) 1:88 (29.2) � 1:63

Special Educator Caseload (Students on IEPs) 11.3 (3.2) 8.7

Grade Range Served by a Special Educator 3.7 (2.0) 1

Percent of Special Educator Out-of-Class Instruction 77% (30.1) , 20%

Number of Regular Education Paraprofessional FTE 4.6 (4.5) 5

Number of Special Education Paraprofessionals FTE 15.6 (9.5) 10

Percent of 1:1 Paraprofessionals 48% (23.6) ’ 0%

Special Service Concentration (Ratio of Special Educator

FTE to Special Education Paraprofessional FTE) 1:3.3 (1.4) 1:1.4

Percent of Special Education Instruction Provided by

Paraprofessionals 73.2% (0.1) �20%Note. FTE ¼ full-time equivalent; IEP ¼ individualized education program.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


set of students beyond those for whom theoriginal change was targeted.

In the exemplar model, the average numberof special educators in the school increases fromapproximately five to seven full-time equivalents(FTE). This addition is achieved by reallocatingresources garnered by reducing the cost-equiva-lent number of paraprofessionals in FTE; in theseschools the cost of one special education wasequivalent to approximately three paraprofes-sionals. The number of paraprofessional posi-tions needed to hire one special educationteacher FTE or other certified teacher (e.g.,literacy specialist) will vary from school to schoolbased on a variety of local factors such as payscales and benefit packages (American Federationof Teachers, 2014). In some schools with higherpay and substantial benefit packages for parapro-fessionals, it may require the reallocation of onlytwo paraprofessionals to equal the cost of oneearly career teacher, whereas in a school withlower pay and fewer benefits, it may take threeand a half paraprofessionals.

This increase in special educator FTE has aripple effect by: (a) reducing the special educatorschool density from 1:88 to a maximum of 1:63;(b) decreasing the average special educator’scaseload of students receiving special educationfrom over 11 to under 9; (c) limiting the numberof general education classrooms a special educatorsupports to three; and (d) reducing the averagegrade range covered by special educators fromnearly four to one or two, thus decreasing therange of general education curriculum contentwith which they must be familiar.

As indicated earlier in the underlying assump-tions, in the exemplar model, special educators areworking primarily in the general educationclassroom and have a heterogeneous caseload ofstudents who are present in the classrooms wherethey are assigned; if extra support is needed (e.g.,low-incidence, literacy), it can be built into theMTSS. The increased availability of specialeducator FTE sets the stage for one specialeducator to work on each grade-level team withthree general education teachers. This four-educa-tor team would individually determine how thespecial educator’s time should be most appropri-ately distributed and scheduled in conjunctionwith the school administrators. For example, aspecial educator’s time could: (a) be dividedequally into thirds with the time periods rotatingdaily, (b) follow a block schedule where the special

educator spends half or full days in particularclassrooms, or (c) it could follow any other patternthe team determines.

In-class special educator support means shift-ing away from an average of 77% of specialeducator instructional time occurring in a pull-outformat to less than 20%, and as close to zero asappropriate. Reallocating resources to provide agreater availability of special educator FTE is ofquestionable value unless the nature of theinstructional support shifts away from pull-outtoward more capacity-building in-class models(Ferri, 2012; Jorgensen, McSheehan, & Sonnen-meier, 2009; Rea et al., 2002; Sailor, 2009;Theoharis & Causton, 2014). This model allowsfor large group, small group, and individualinstruction to occur for any student within theclassroom and does not preclude a small percent-age of pull-out instruction (i.e., , 20%) for anystudent if the team has first considered lessintrusive options and agrees that it is necessaryto meet an individual student’s educational needs.

While the average number of general educa-tion paraprofessionals in the exemplar modelwould remain virtually the same, five FTE, thenumber of special education paraprofessionalswould be reduced from approximately 16 to 10FTE. As shown in Figure 3, the combined total of15 paraprofessionals (five FTE in general educa-tion, 10 FTE in special education) would each besplit-funded, meaning every classroom-based para-professional would have both general and specialeducation funding and responsibilities. This ismeant to increase flexibility, eliminate unhelpfulhierarchies among paraprofessionals, and send theimportant message that all faculty and staff areresponsible to support all students. Additionally,the exemplar model is predicated on shifting awayfrom the extensive use of paraprofessionalsassigned one-to-one to individual students, mov-ing from the sample average of 48% of parapro-fessionals assigned one-to-one to zero, or as closeto it as possible, in the exemplar model. This notonly reduces the documented problems associatedwith the extensive use of one-to-one paraprofes-sionals (Giangreco, 2010), it provides moreopportunities and greater flexibility for teachersand special educators to deploy paraprofessionalresources in different and, hopefully, moreeffective ways.

The reallocation of resources from specialeducation paraprofessional FTE to special educa-tor FTE directly changes the special services

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


concentration, namely the ratio of special educatorsto special education paraprofessionals in FTE,from 1:3.3 to 1:1.4. There are at least twoimportant implications related to this shift in theexemplar model. First, instead of having, onaverage, each special educator supervise over threespecial education paraprofessionals, that numberwould be reduced to less than one and a half. Thisallows more time available for directing the workof the paraprofessionals. Second, when consider-ing the percent of instruction provided by specialeducation personnel (i.e., special educators, relatedservices providers, special education paraprofes-sionals), the average percent provided by specialeducation paraprofessionals would be reducedfrom approximately 73% to less than 20%. Thisis more aligned with an educationally defensiblerole of paraprofessionals providing supplemental,rather than primary, instruction that is plannedand monitored by a highly qualified teacher orspecial educator (Causton-Theoharis, Giangreco,Doyle, & Vadasy, 2007).

Even with the reduced number of parapro-fessionals, the resource reallocation depicted inthe three-class exemplar model documents asubstantial availability of personnel, albeit de-ployed differently. As shown in Figures 2 and 3,for grades 1 through 6, each grade-level teamincludes three teachers, one special educator, andone and a half paraprofessionals (with splitgeneral education/special education fundingand function). This means that each classroomwithin the team includes a 1.0 FTE classroomteacher, a 0.33 FTE special educator, and 0.50FTE of a paraprofessional.

Figure 3 depicts two important caveats. First,unlike the other grades, the availability ofparaprofessionals in the three-class kindergartenteam is doubled from one and a half in othergrades to three in kindergarten—one per class. Thereason is simple—in virtually every school we havevisited over the past several years, we have heard aconsistent refrain from early grades teachers andschool administrators that more hands are neededin kindergarten to address the developmentalneeds of all of the students. Yesil Dagli (2012)points out that kindergarten teachers face differentchallenges than other elementary grade teachers:(a) ‘‘the developmental stages of students inkindergarten are different than older students,because younger children have difficulty, forexample, taking others’ perspectives, sharing,sitting still, and following directions’’ (pp. 3122-

3123), and (b) ‘‘students in kindergarten areexperiencing the transition to formal schooling’’(p. 3123).

Second, the center of Figure 3 depicts floatingparaprofessionals. Floating paraprofessionals areassigned by school administrators to address avariety of potential needs on a temporary orsustained basis: (a) short-term intensive supportneeds for an incoming student that will be fadedto the team model of supports; (b) filling in forparaprofessional absences; (c) being available forunexpected student support (e.g., assisting insupervising or monitoring student safety during abehavioral crisis); (d) providing intermittent sup-ports previously provided by one-to-one parapro-fessionals (e.g., assisting a student with eating,toileting, dressing); or (e) other appropriate rolesfor which they are trained and supervised. Sincethese floating paraprofessionals must be capable ofseveral roles and transitions, it is recommendedthat they be the most highly skilled paraprofes-sionals in the school. Schools could decide toreallocate the three floating paraprofessionals toadd another professional to their MTSS.

Since real schools are rarely as neatly distrib-uted as shown on Figure 3, schools or grade-levelteams could decide to distribute their specialeducator and/or paraprofessional personnel re-sources unevenly to address naturally occurringpopulation bubbles, where the extent of supportneeds within a particular grade or classroom aremore intensive, or in other ways that better suittheir local context. Additionally, the examples ofpotential MTSS supports depicted at the bottomof Figures 2 and 3 (e.g., low-incidence supports,educational support team) may be school-based orcould potentially be shared across schools de-pending on the enrollment numbers. A key pointis that any and all school resources that areavailable to students without disabilities are alsoavailable to students with disabilities. For example,a literacy specialist would be available to studentswith disabilities, just as he or she would be tothose without disability labels. There are timesthat the skills and knowledge of such personnelmay more appropriately match the needs of aparticular student than the skills and knowledge ofthe special educator assigned to the team. In suchcases, it may be a general educator (e.g., classroomteacher, literacy specialist) who is building thecapacity of a special educator. This highlights thenotion that building capacity within the grade-

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


level teams and their connections to personnelwithin the MTSS should be considered reciprocal.

Floating paraprofessionals and the MTSS inthe exemplar model are, in part, designed toensure that special education teachers can bepresent predictably and consistently in the class-rooms where they are assigned. In current, morereactive, approaches, they frequently are pulledunpredictably from their regularly assigned teach-ing duties for a variety of reasons (e.g., studentbehavioral crises, to cover for absent paraprofes-sionals, to conduct evaluations pertaining toeligibility for special education). In the exemplarmodel, they follow a schedule of duties more likeclassroom teachers in terms of their predictablepresence in the classroom.

Conceptual and Programmatic Shifts

The three-class exemplar model presented in thisarticle represents at least nine conceptual andprogrammatic shifts designed to facilitate im-proved service delivery meant to improve educa-tional outcomes. First, the model is designed toreplace current reactive and, at times, unpredict-able service delivery dominated by adding-onservices (e.g., paraprofessionals) or segregatingstudents, with proactive and highly predictableservice delivery rooted in total enrollment demo-graphics and bolstered by a MTSS designed toaddress the educational needs of the full range ofstudent diversity presented in a school communi-ty. Second, contemporary leadership envisionsincreasingly unified systems where the functionsof general and special education are moreintegrated (Burrello et al., 2013), replacing currentleadership approaches where special and generalsystems are substantially separate.

In the exemplar model, the roles of teachers,special educators, and paraprofessionals are allchanged to varying extents. Third, instead offunctioning primarily as case managers whooversee paraprofessionals, special educators arekey classroom-based team members who codirectand supervise the work of a smaller set ofclassroom-based paraprofessionals collaborativelywith their general education teacher teammates.Fourth, the model shifts schools away from apredominantly pull-out approach to specializedinstruction toward predominantly in-class sup-ports. Fifth, instead of thinly spreading specialeducator availability across many classrooms and

multiple grades, the number and grade range ofclassrooms supported by a special educator isreduced. Sixth, a corollary of these shifts is a moveaway from isolated student support by specialeducators for relatively short periods of time (e.g.,three times a week for 30 minutes), towardbuilding capacity to implement specially and/oruniversally designed instruction so that thebenefits can be embedded throughout the schoolday by teachers and other team members.

Seventh, combined, these changes mean ashift toward a greater percentage of instructioncoming from highly qualified teachers and specialeducators, with proportionally less coming fromparaprofessionals. This represents a foundationalequity issue by ensuring that students withdisabilities have at least the same level of accessto instruction from highly qualified teachers andspecial educators as is available to studentswithout disabilities. Eight, this is further support-ed by a shift away from a one-to-one assignment ofparaprofessionals to individual students towardunified (general and special education) assignmentof paraprofessionals to grade-level teams. Ninth, inthe exemplar model classroom, all three types ofcore personnel (i.e., teachers, special educators,paraprofessionals) are available to support anystudent, regardless of student label or characteris-tics. By doing so, high expectations are encouragedand students with disabilities get more access tothe substantial curricular and instructional skills ofgeneral education teachers. In addition to sup-porting students with disabilities, special educatorscan provide additional supports to students at riskof school failure and potentially prevent theirentry into the special education system. One ofthe hallmarks of the exemplar model is thatengaging in such preventative efforts would notadversely impact the availability of special educa-tion services in the school. Assuming that schoolsadhere to the underlying assumptions outlinedearlier in this article, special educator and/orparaprofessional staffing would not be added orreduced based on labeling more or fewer studentsas disabled, thus allowing for predictable educa-tional and financial planning.

Conclusions and Implications for Practice

and Future Research

As stated at the outset, the three-class exemplarmodel presented in this article is not offered as the

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


model to be replicated exactly as described, butrather as a starting point to encourage thedevelopment of a variety of proactively developedmodels that suit local needs and contexts. Forexample, we have explored a variation (see Figure4) where the core team staffing consists of fourgeneral education teachers, one special educator,and two paraprofessionals. In the four-classvariation, special educator school density wouldincrease to 1:80, which could be appropriate insome schools, particularly those with well-estab-lished systems of support. Although conclusivedata are not currently available, we are hesitant toencourage the development of models that spreadcore special educators beyond the four-classvariation based on earlier research in both special

and general education (Giangreco, Suter, &Hurley, 2013; Ouchi, 2009).

Since the exemplar model presented in thisarticle is offered for consideration primarily inelementary schools, future models will need toconceptualize inclusive special education servicedelivery in secondary schools. This poses uniquechallenges given the current structures and prac-tices of many high schools (e.g., students encoun-ter several teachers specializing in specificcurricular content). A significant question remainsunanswered regarding how to best allocate specialeducation personnel resources in high schoolssince pros and cons exist in many commonconfigurations. To what extent should specialeducation personnel cross grades, subjects, andintensity of student support needs? Some of what

Figure 4. Four-class model.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


can be learned at elementary and middle schoolscan hopefully be generalized in high schools, yethigh schools still present unique issues requiringreconceptualization in the secondary context.Adjustments will also need to be pursued inschools that are not based on serving students in aparticular geographic area (e.g., neighborhood,town) but are, for example, magnet or charterschools. In these cases, issues such as retainingnatural proportions of students with and withoutdisabilities (or other nonstandard needs) will beimportant so that a school can avoid becomingthe ‘‘inclusion school’’ with a disproportionatelyhigh percentage of students with disabilities and orother special needs. Mixed-methods and qualita-tive case research on various types of schools (e.g.,grade levels, student/community demographics)can provide insights into the process, barriers, andimpact of shifts in service delivery.

As an intermediate step, researchers areencouraged to include many of the service deliveryvariables listed in this article in future interventionstudies at all grade levels. For example, indescribing relevant setting characteristics, research-ers could include the 13 key variables describedearlier (e.g., special educator school density,special services concentration, special educatorcaseload size) or other relevant service deliveryvariables (e.g., caseload description by intensity ofstudent support needs). These and potentiallyother demographic and personnel utilization data(Giangreco et al., 2013; Suter & Giangreco, 2009)would allow consumers to make more informeddeterminations about the potential replicability ofproposed interventions and judge how closelysuch variables align with the practices beingpursued in locally developing inclusive servicedelivery models. For example, does the interven-tion rely primarily on pull-out instruction or is itamenable to being embedded in classroominstruction that could build teacher capacity? Asschools consider various evidence-based or prom-ising practices, they may want to heed the adviceof Guskey (1990), who reminded us that whenschools are considering multiple initiatives, asvirtually all are, they would be wise to ensure thatinnovations are not inadvertently working at crosspurposes. For example, one intervention may haveevidence of effectiveness in terms of academicachievement, but simultaneously distance studentsfrom the benefits of the general educationclassroom (e.g., teachers, peers) and do little tobuild capacity within the classroom. Rather,

schools are encouraged to deliberately select andintegrate innovations that are compatible withestablished underlying assumptions, within anoverarching framework and service delivery plan;are compatible with each other; and preferablyoperate synergistically.

A vital, albeit more challenging, corollary isfor federal, state, and local funding systems toalign with and support educational innovationsand flexibility while maintaining accountability.An all-too-often heard refrain in schools is thatthey would like to pursue an innovation, but feelconstrained by financial rules or regulations. Insome cases, the financial tail is wagging theprogrammatic dog, rather than the educationcommunity envisioning desirable educationalapproaches and then developing financial practic-es that support or incentivize desired practices andinnovation. Any adjustments to financial practicesshould encourage the flexibility that allowsschools to keep pace with an ever-changingeducational landscape and be nimble enough topursue innovative approaches, so long as theymaintain appropriate educational integrity andaccountability. Similarly, special education licen-sure standards in some states are still built ondisability categories or intensity levels that weredeveloped decades ago to align with earlier modelsof special education service delivery based onrelatively homogeneous student grouping inpredominantly special education classes. In stateswhere such special educator licensure remnantsstill exist, steps to align them with more contem-porary practices are essential. At the individualstudent level, the specific language of how specialeducation services are described in the IEP needsto evolve in ways that align with more inclusiveservice delivery options while still ensuring thatstudents’ needs are met. This will require collab-oration with students’ families and potentiallyfederal and state guidance.

As models of service delivery evolve tobecome increasingly inclusive and address anever-widening scope of student diversity, so toomust college and university personnel preparationprograms keep pace for teachers, special educators,and administrators. Teachers must be prepared toplay key roles in educating students with a widerange of learning characteristics and challenges aspart of teams within multi-tiered systems ofsupport. Foundational to the use of strategies(e.g., differentiated instruction, universal designfor learning) is an expectation of ownership for

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


educating all students. No longer can we simplyprepare special educators to implement evidence-based interventions, potentially in isolated, pull-out settings, and homogeneous groupings. Rather,they must be prepared to work collaborativelywith teachers, paraprofessionals, and related ser-vices providers within the context of generaleducation classes and curriculum. In part, thismeans shifting away from an exclusive focus onsupporting targeted students toward also support-ing the teacher and classroom community withinwhich those targeted students are learning. Simi-larly, school administrators (e.g., principals, super-intendents) will require changes in theirpreparation to ensure that ongoing school im-provement efforts account for all students from aunified perspective, rather than the historical silosof general and special education that remain alltoo common today.

While there remains a substantial and primaryonus on education professionals to take lead rolesin improving inclusion-oriented practices, thereare also important roles for students with disabil-ities, their parents, and other advocates that canfacilitate advancement. By becoming aware ofcontemporary, evidence-based practices that arecompatible with inclusive education (Agran,Brown, Hughes, Quirk, & Ryndak, 2014; Burrelloet al., 2013; Jorgensen et al., 2009), advocacy canshift away from the types of requests that todaymay be common, but ultimately may impedestudents’ opportunities and progress. For example,given what is known about the inadvertentdetrimental effects of assigning a one-to-oneparaprofessional to an individual student (Gian-greco, 2009; Giangreco, Yuan, McKenzie, Camer-on, & Fialka, 2005), advocacy may be shifted awayfrom such requests toward some combination ofalternatives that build classroom-based capacityand natural supports (Giangreco, Halvorsen,Doyle, & Broer, 2004; Giangreco et al., 2011).

Similarly, despite documented limitations ofisolated approaches to the delivery of relatedservices such as those offered by occupationaltherapists, physical therapists, and speech-languagepathologists (Giangreco, 1995; Giangreco, Edel-man, & Dennis, 1991), many families, advocates,and service providers continue to pursue a ‘‘more isbetter’’ approach (Giangreco, 2001) when makingdecisions about related services, that while benev-olently intended, may be misguided because itconfuses the quantity of services with their value.Too often such approaches are neither education-

ally necessary nor relevant (Giangreco, 2001); resultin less time in the classroom and, therefore, fewerinstructional opportunities in the general educa-tion curriculum with a highly qualified teacher;and are disruptive to a student’s opportunities tobe an integral member of the classroom commu-nity. Such approaches can be replaced by teamdecision making about related services and inte-grated therapy models (Giangreco, 1996; Giangre-co, Edelman, Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1996; 1998)designed to ensure that related services are botheducationally relevant and necessary.

In both examples presented here, pertainingto potential changes in paraprofessional andrelated services support, we are not suggestingthat such services are unnecessary or shouldnecessarily be reduced; rather, we are encouragingexploration of ways such supports can be offereddifferently, in ways that are compatible with morefully inclusive educational opportunities. If donewell, such shifts are designed to improve theconsistency, integrity, and quality of supports.These and other potential shifts in practice cansometimes feel risky, which is why such decisionsshould be: (a) made collaboratively by theeducational team which includes the family, (b)rooted in a set of shared values that the teamrefines over time, and (c) subject to ongoing datacollection to evaluate whether the team’s actionhave been effective. Such effectiveness goesbeyond whether a student learned somethingnew to include whether or not this learning orsupports have had a positive impact on valued lifeoutcomes (e.g., health, relationships, self-determi-nation, inclusive participation in and out ofschool; Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 2011).

By presenting an exemplar of inclusive specialeducation service delivery, we aim to highlight theneed for the development of logical, conceptually,and theoretically grounded models to replacedecades of add-on approaches that have beendeployed in the absence of unified models. Todate, only a small amount of implementation dataexist regarding the impact of selected elements ofthe exemplar model (e.g., Giangreco, Smith, &Pinckney, 2006; Giangreco et al., 2011); to thebest of our knowledge, the literature has notreported on schools that have implemented thefull gamut of variables described herein. There-fore, comprehensive models of inclusive specialeducation service delivery remain partially imple-mented and largely aspirational. Future research toexplore the impact of unified models and their key

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


elements will require identifying school leaderswith the vision, skills, organizational acumen, andpolitical will to implement and evaluate locallydetermined models of inclusive service delivery.By elevating the urgency with which we pursueinclusive special education service delivery, it setsthe stage for school personnel to implementevidence-based and promising instructional andsocial/behavioral interventions in more efficientand impactful ways. Hopefully, attention to theseservice delivery issues will help more schools shiftaway from reactive and precarious approaches toproactive and purposeful models.

References

Agran, M., Brown, F., Hughes, C., Quirk, C., &Ryndak, D. (2014). Equity and full participationfor individuals with severe disabilities. Baltimore,MD: Paul H. Brookes.

American Federation of Teachers. (2014). Yourcareer as an education paraprofessional. Wash-ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/issues/teaching/paracert/career.cfm#Salary

Batsche, G. (2014). Multi-tiered systems ofsupports for inclusive schools. In J. McLeskey,N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools (pp.183–196). New York, NY: Routledge.

Broer, S. M., Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. F.(2005). Perspectives of students with intellec-tual disabilities about their experiences withparaprofessional support. Exceptional Children,71, 415–430.

Burrello, L. C., Sailor, W., & Kleinhammer-Tramill (2013). Unifying educational systems:Leadership and policy perspectives. New York,NY: Routledge.

Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Brown, L., Brickham,D., & Al-Khabbaz, Z. A. (2008). Peer interac-tions and academic engagement of youth withdevelopmental disabilities in inclusive middleand high school classrooms. American Journalon Mental Retardation, 113, 479–494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/2008.113:479-494

Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Melekoglu, M. A., &Kurkowski, C. (2007). Peer supports as analternative to individually assigned parapro-fessional in inclusive high school classrooms.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 32, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.32.4.213

Causton-Theoharis, J., Giangreco, M. F., Doyle,M. B., & Vadasy, P. F. (2007). Paraprofession-als: The ‘‘sous chefs’’ of literacy instruction.Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 57–62.

Cook, B. G., & Tankersley, M. (Eds.). (2013).Research-based practices in special education.Boston, MA: Pearson.

Cusumano, D. L., Algozzine, K., & Algozzine, B.(2014). Multi-tiered systems of support foreffective inclusion in elementary schools. InJ. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, &B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of effectiveinclusive schools (pp. 197–209). New York,NY: Routledge.

Dawson, H., & Scott, L. (2014). Teaching studentswith disabilities efficacy scale: developmentand validation. Inclusion, 1, 181–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-1.3.181

D’Alessio, S. (2011). Inclusive education in Italy: Acritical analysis of the policy of integrazione scolas-tica. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Ferri, B. (2012). Undermining inclusion? A criticalreading of response to intervention (RTI).International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16,863–880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.538862

Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., & Boyd-Zaharias, J.(2005). Small classes in the early grades,academic achievement, and graduating fromhigh school. Journal of Educational Psychology,97, 214–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.214

Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M.(2003). The ‘‘why’s’’ of class size: Studentbehavior in small classes. Review of EducationalResearch, 73, 321–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543073003321

Gamm, S., Elliot, J., Halbert, J. W., Price-Baugh,R., Hall, R., Walston, D., . . . Casserly, M.(2012). Common core state standards and diverseurban students: Using multi-tiered systems ofsupport. Retrieved from http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/77–Achievement Task Force–RTI WhitePaper-Final.pdf

Giangreco, M. F. (1995). Related services decision-making: A foundational component of effec-tive education for students with disabilities.Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


15(2), 47–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/J006v15n02_04

Giangreco, M. F. (1996). Vermont interdependentservices team approach: A guide to coordinatingeducational support services. Baltimore, MD:Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F. (2001). Guidelines for makingdecisions about I.E.P. services. Montpelier, VT:Vermont Department of Education. Re-trieved from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/guidelines_iep_decisions.pdf

Giangreco, M. F. (2009). Critical issues brief:Concerns about the proliferation of one-to-oneparaprofessionals. Arlington, VA: Council forExceptional Children, Division on Autismand Developmental Disabilities. Retrievedfrom http://fi les .eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543012.pdf

Giangreco, M. F. (2010). One-to-one paraprofes-sionals for students with disabilities in inclu-sive classrooms: Is conventional wisdomwrong? Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities,48, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.1.1

Giangreco, M. F. (2013). Teacher assistant sup-ports in inclusive schools: Research, practicesand alternatives. Australasian Journal of SpecialEducation, 37(2), 93–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1

Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Suter, J. C.(2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives tooverreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-test-ing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedialand Special Education, 32, 22–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355951

Giangreco, M. F., Carter, E. W., Doyle, M. B., &Suter, J. C. (2010). Supporting students withdisabilities in inclusive classrooms: Personneland peers. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confrontingobstacles to inclusion: International responses todeveloping inclusive schools (pp. 247–263).Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S.(2011). Choosing outcomes and accommodationsfor children (COACH): A guide to educationalplanning for students with disabilities (3rd edi-tion). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F., & Doyle, M. B. (2012).Integrazione scolastica in Italy: A compila-tion of English-language resources. Interna-tional Journal of Whole Schooling, 8(1), 63–105.Retrieved from http://www.wholeschooling.

n e t / J ou r n a l _o f _Who l e _ S c hoo l i n g /IJWSIndex.html

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C.(2012). Demographic and personnel servicedelivery data: Implications for includingstudents with disabilities in Italian schools.Life Span and Disability: An InterdisciplinaryJournal (Ciclo Evolutivo e Disabilita), 15(1), 97–123. Retrieved from http://www.lifespan.it/client/abstract/ENG253_6 GIANGRECO.pdf

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C.(2014a). Italian and American progress towardinclusive education: Common concerns andfuture directions. Life Span and Disability: AnInterdisciplinary Journal (Ciclo Evolutivo e Dis-abilita), 17(1), 119–136. Retrieved fromhttp://www.lifespan.it/client/abstract/ENG283_6 Giangreco.pdf

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C.(2014b). Teacher assistants in inclusive class-rooms. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbookof special education (2nd ed., pp. 691–702).London, England: Sage.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., & Dennis, R.(1991). Common professional practices thatinterfere with the integrated delivery ofrelated services. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 12, 16–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193259101200205

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S., Luiselli, T. E., &MacFarland, S. Z. (1996). Support servicedecision-making for students with multipleservice needs: Evaluation data. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps,21, 135–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154079699602100304

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Luiselli, T. E.,& MacFarland, S. Z. (1998). Reaching con-sensus about educationally necessary supportservices: A qualitative evaluation of VISTA.Special Services in the Schools, 13(1/2), 1–32.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J008v13n01_01

Giangreco, M. F., Halvorsen, A. T., Doyle, M. B.,& Broer, S. M. (2004). Alternatives tooverreliance on paraprofessionals in inclusiveschools. Journal of Special Education Leadership,17, 82–90.

Giangreco, M. F., Smith, C. S., & Pinckney, E.(2006). Addressing the paraprofessional di-lemma in an inclusive school: A programdescription. Research and Practice for Personswith Severe Disabilities, 31, 215–229.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Graf, V. (2011).Roles of team members supporting studentswith disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In M.F. Giangreco, C. J. Cloninger & V. S. Iverson,Choosing outcomes and accommodations forchildren: A guide to educational planning forstudents with disabilities (3rd. ed., pp. 197–204).Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M.(2013). Revisiting personnel utilization ininclusion-oriented schools. Journal of SpecialEducation, 47, 121–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015

Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B.,Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). ‘‘Be carefulwhat you wish for. . .’’: Five reasons to beconcerned about the assignment of individualparaprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Chil-dren, 37(5), 28–34.

Graue, E., Hatch, K., Rao, K., & Oen, D. (2007).The wisdom of class size reduction. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 44, 670–700.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306755

Guskey, T. R. (1990). Integrating innovations.Educational Leadership, 47(5), 11–15.

Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenme-ier, R. (2009). The beyond access model: Promot-ing membership, participation, and learning forstudents with disabilities in the general educationclassroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Malmgren, K. W., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N.(2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of parapro-fessional proximity and other pedagogicaldecisions on the interactions of a studentwith behavior disorders. Journal of Research inChildhood Education, 20, 301–312. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02568540609594569

McDonnell, J., & Jameson, J. M. (2014). What arethe roles of paraprofessionals in inclusiveschools? In J. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F.Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook ofeffective inclusive schools (pp. 94–106). NewYork, NY: Routledge.

McInerney, M., Zumeta, R. O., Gandhi, A. G., &Gersten, R. (2014). Building and sustainingcomplex systems: Addressing common chal-lenges to implementing intensive intervention.Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 54–63.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012).Common core of data: Public school data 2011-2012, 2012–2013 school years [Data file].Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/

Nelson, L. L. (2014). Design and deliver: Planningand teaching using universal design for learning.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Ouchi, W. G. (2009). The secret of TSL (total studentload): The revolutionary discovery that raises schoolperformance. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for studentswith learning disabilities in inclusive andpullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68,203–223.

Rubie-Davies, C. M., Blatchford, P., Webster, R.,Koutsoubou, M., & Bassett, P. (2010). En-hancing learning? A comparison of teacherand teaching assistant interactions with pupils.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21,429–449. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/09243453.2010.512800

Rutherford, G. (2012). In, out or somewhere inbetween: Disabled students’ and teacher aides’experiences of school. International Journal ofInclusive Education, 16, 757–774. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13603116.2010.50988

Sailor, W. (2009). Making RtI work. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behav-ior supports: Integration of multi-tiered sys-tems approaches. Exceptionality: A SpecialEducation Journal, 17, 223–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Fixsen, D., & Blase, K.(2010). Developing systems-level capacity forRtI implementation: Current efforts andfuture directions. In T. Glover & S. Vaughn(Eds.), The promise of response to intervention:Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 286–309). New York, NY: Guilford.

Suter, J. C., & Giangreco, M. F. (2009). Numbersthat count: Exploring special education andparaprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. Journal of Special Education,43, 81–93. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0022466907313353

Suter, J. C., Giangreco, M. F., & Bruhl, S. (2014).Special education personnel absences in inclusion-oriented schools: Implications for building effectiveservice delivery models. Burlington, VT: Univer-sity of Vermont. Manuscript being preparedfor publication review.

Theoharis, G., & Causton, J. (2014). Leadinginclusive reform for students with disabilities:

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


A school- and systemwide approach. TheoryInto Practice, 53(2), 82–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.885808

Yesil Dagli, U. (2012). America’s public schoolkindergarten teachers’ job turnover and asso-ciated factors. Educational Sciences: Theory &Practice - Special Issue, 12(4), 3121–3134.

United States Department of Education. (2013).2012 IDEA Part B child count and educationalenvironments [Data File]. Retrieved fromhttps://explore.data.gov/Education/2012-IDEA-Part-B-Child-Count-and-Educational-Envir/5t72-4535

Webster, R., P. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P.,Brown, P., Martin, C., & Russell, A.(2010). Double standards and first princi-ples: Framing teaching assistant support forpupils with special educational needs, Euro-pean Journal of Special Needs Education, 25,

319–336. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/08856257.2010.513538

Received 6/20/2014, accepted 10/22/2014.

Authors:

Michael F. Giangreco and Jesse C. Suter,

University of Vermont.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Michael F. Giangreco, University ofVermont, Department of Education, Center onDisability & Community Inclusion, 208Colchester Ave., Mann Hall 301A, Burlington,VT 05405-1757, USA (e-mail: [email protected]).

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 112–131 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.112


precarious or purposeful? proactively building inclusive special education service ... · pdf...

Documents