Support personnel in schools:

characteristics and importance

Sharon Conley
University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Jewell Gould
American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC, USA, and
Harriet Levine
University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose Despite the critical role of support personnel in education, the literature about their
supervision has been less than informative. In an effort to provide additional guidance to school
leaders seeking to improve the supervision of such personnel, the purpose of this paper is to examine
and compare three distinct groups of support personnel: school custodians/janitors, school secretaries,
and paraprofessionals in special education.
Design/methodology/approach The paper begins with two analyses. One is that of the general
importance of the role of support personnel in public schools in the USA. The other consists of a brief
argument as to why the literature about the supervision of support personnel has not been overly
informative. The paper proceeds with descriptions of three distinct support personnel groups.
Findings The examination of three support personnel groups highlights the visibility of the school
custodian/janitor, the multi-dimensional responsibilities of the school secretary, and the background of
the paraprofessional in special education.
Research limitations/implications A comparison of three distinct groups of support personnel
has implications for their training, compensation and scheduling, and work design and supervision.
Originality/value The paper content offers an information-rich and multi-faceted view of support
personnel in schools, with implications for their overall supervision and the importance of their
contribution to the organization.
Keywords Schools, Employees, Local management of schools, Work design, United States of America
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Currently referred to as support personnel is the group of employees traditionally
known as classied or non-certicated personnel. This group is composed of school
secretaries, food service workers, custodial and maintenance workers, instructional
aides, transportation workers, and central ofce administrative support staff, among
others. The group comprises close to one third of the full-time staff of US public
schools, commanding a signicant proportion of school district expenses.
This article begins with two brief analyses. One is that of the general importance of
the role of support personnel in education. The other consists of a brief argument as to
why the literature about the supervision of support personnel has not been overly
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Vivienne Collinson, Naftaly Glasman,
Cheri Scripter, and Chris Skinner in earlier versions of this manuscript.
Support
personnel in
schools
309
Received June 2009
Revised September 2009
Accepted September 2009
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 48 No. 3, 2010
pp. 309-326
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578231011041035
informative. One of the main reasons involves the need for different considerations for
different groups of employees.
The article proceeds with descriptions and examinations of three distinct support
personnel groups, each possessing unique characteristics of its own:
(1) school custodians;
(2) school secretaries; and
(3) paraprofessionals in special education.
School custodians, also known as janitors and cleaners, are charged with maintaining
school buildings and school grounds ( . Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008/2009).
Broadly dened, their responsibilities range from cleaning, to maintaining and
repairing equipment, to preparing and securing school buildings. School secretaries
perform and coordinate administrative activities for the school ofce, as well as store,
retrieve, and integrate information for reporting and dissemination ( . Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2008/2009). Paraprofessionals generally include the many employees
who provide a host of assistance to professional educators in schools. Paid
instructional aides or paraeducators in classrooms represent a fairly recent
phenomenon. This article focuses only on the largest category of US
paraprofessionals, those whose primary area of instructional responsibility is in
special education. Unlike janitors and secretaries, special education paraprofessionals
positions were created in the USA so schools could meet federal laws for educating
children with special needs. Each of three separate sections of this article includes
literature summaries of the history of each role, the specic tasks within each role, and
relationships that each role has with other roles.
The third section of the article provides a comparison of the three support personnel
groups. Particularly highlighted in this regard are the visibility of the school custodian,
the multi-dimensional responsibilities of the school secretary, and the background
of the paraprofessional in special education. The section also deals with implications of
the above for those who serve as supervisors of each of the support personnel positions
in regards to training, compensation review and work scheduling, and issues related to
the supervisory work and responsibilities themselves.
Perceived value and role of support personnel
In the context of the current accountability movement, with its emphasis on student
instruction and high-stakes testing, a primary focus of school improvement has been
placed on teachers and their professional development as a way to increase academic
performance. Although the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (US Department
of Education, 2002) mentions the training of classroom paraprofessionals, the roles of
support personnel and their contributions with regards to school functioning and
potential improvement opportunities appear to have been overlooked. Their omission
from much policy legislation and education literature might contribute to contradictory
views within school districts and from one district to another regarding the role
expectations and perceived value of such personnel. For example, one district
undergoing accountability-based reform allocated almost unlimited resources for
professional development but cut back on maintenance, food service, and secretarial
stafng to fund such development (Odden et al., 2006, p. 12). The role of support
personnel was enhanced, however, when the district utilized paraprofessionals by
JEA
48,3
310
treating and training them like teachers and giving them the same level of
professional development (Odden et al., 2006, p. 12).
Indeed, according to Webb and Norton (1999), most discussions of the management
of human resources in school systems have focused on certicated personnel who
teach, supervise, counsel, or administer (p. 454). They noted that this attention
appears justied, given that certicated personnel such as teachers constitute the
majority of people in a school system and their salaries a large proportion of the
school district budget (p. 454). Nevertheless:
. . . a very important group of employees cannot be overlooked in any consideration of the
administration of human resources [. . .] that group of employees traditionally known as
classied or noncerticated personnel, and more recently as support personnel. This group of
employees makes up 31% of the full-time staff of the public schools and is composed of such
employees as secretarial and clerical personnel, instructional and library aides, transportation
staff, food services employees, plant operation and maintenance workers, and health and
recreational staff (Webb and Norton, 1999, p. 454, emphasis added).
Such personnel are vital to the successful operation of the school district and to
promoting a healthy, safe, and productive school environment (Webb and Norton,
p. 454).
Despite their importance, limited attention has been provided to support personnel
in the educational administration literature. In particular, there appears to be a lack of a
written record regarding the complexities (e.g. tasks encountered beyond formal job
descriptions) entailed in their work and how their jobs and responsibilities may be
changing. Knowledge of these changes would be critical for others working in school
systems and especially for administrators who supervise them. Although the work of
support personnel appears critical to the day-to-day functioning of schools (Webb and
Norton, 1999), their limited presence in this literature appears an oversight that may
make their roles appear extraneous.
As Maxwell (2004) observed, this oversight is all the more compelling because of the
critical role of these personnel in the school culture. Often, the longevity of support
personnel represent the history and cultural experience of those involved with the
school in the past and present, as well as those who will be a part of that school in the
future. Maxwell (2004) noted:
School districts, whose leaders frequently move in and out in only a short period of time,
manage to survive because the schools themselves retain some coherent culture and mission.
Individuals who work in these schools and have longevity, even though they may be in
support staff positions like custodians and secretaries, frequently are the glue that holds
these school communities together. Colleges of education tell rst-year teachers, Get to know
the school secretary and custodian everybody knows they really run the school. And
although this phrase is bantered by educators in general, the research literature does not tell
their story does not recognize their contribution (p. 5).
Support personnel have usually been treated in educational literature and policy
discussions as part of the task environment (Thompson, 1967, p. 27) of the school
organization. They are part of one sector of Dills (1958) taxonomy of this task
environment: the suppliers of materials, labor, capital, equipment, and workspace
(Thompson, 1967, pp. 27-8). As such, support personnel might be considered in policy
and administration literatures as part of the physical plant of the school as opposed to
Support
personnel in
schools
311
persons within the educational core or central instructional delivery function (i.e.
classroom teaching of students; Meyer and Rowan, 1978, p. 83). However, a question
may emerge as to whether reform goals will be furthered by treating support personnel
as part of a task environment; alternatively, future conceptions might consider these
personnel closer to the educational core delivery function in overall school operation.
As noted, school and district administrators are responsible for the supervision of
not only certicated personnel but also support personnel. In a call for the improved
supervision of teachers, Zepeda (2006) argued that a form of high stakes (p. 67)
supervision was needed in education. Focusing primarily on the supervision of
teachers, Zepedas (2006) analysis appears relevant to the supervision of school
personnel in general. In the context of reform agendas calling for increasingly highly
qualied staff, a differentiated system of teacher supervision appears necessary to
meet the needs of an increasingly complex and differentiated teaching force. For
example, when districts hire high-risk teachers (e.g. rst year and/or alternatively
certied teachers) Zepeda (2006) suggested that an emergency supervision (p. 65)
plan would help teachers gain requisite skills and knowledge. Supervision might be
differentially applied for experienced teachers and/or those at more advanced career
stages, thus creating a differentiated system of supervision (Zepeda, 2006, p. 66).
Similarly, Collinson (2008) argued for differentiated opportunities to learn and
improve for all adult members in schools. Adult members include paraprofessional,
custodial, and secretarial staff (Collinson and Cook, 2007). Schools require an
environment in which members, and thereby the organization, can continuously learn
and improve (Collinson, 2008, p. 444). These observations appear consistent with an
overall emphasis in the general organizations literature stressing a t between:
.
the design of work including level of autonomy exercised, skills and training
needed, and supervision carried out in the work context (Hackman and Oldham,
1980); and
.
the needs of individuals and groups (Bolman and Deal, 2008).
Applied to consideration of the management of support personnel, custodians,
secretaries, food service workers, transportation workers, and instructional aides
might all require different considerations in supervision. Adding to the complexity,
support personnel encompass numerous and highly varied job categories, sometimes
more than 50 in a large school district (Gould and Johnson, 2008). In an effort to provide
additional guidance to school leaders seeking to improve the supervision of such
personnel, we examine in this article the roles of three specic categories of school
support personnel:
(1) school custodians (also known as janitors or cleaners);
(2) school secretaries; and
(3) paraprofessionals in special education.
We selected these personnel owing to their visibility in the daily routines of schools;
our challenge is to surface issues related to their supervision, as well as to recognize
their importance.
JEA
48,3
312
A snapshot view of three job categories
Custodians: visibility in schools and in society
In US society, where status and prestige are ascribed to various occupations, the
occupational role is usually accorded greater importance in dening social status than
ethnicity, religion or political ideology alone (Ghidina, 1992, p. 73). The job of
custodian, also termed janitor or cleaner, is often considered a marginalized, low-status
occupation. In many workplaces, this job is performed after business hours (Hood,
1988) and sometimes outsourced to a crew specializing in cleaning and maintenance. If
the janitorial or custodial workers are present during the work day, they often do their
jobs silently, only interacting with other employees, clients, and customers out of
necessity. To do otherwise can mean crossing an invisible social and cultural line.
The lm industry has been able to cross that line. Several examples have given
custodial workers another, more personal, identity. In Million Dollar Baby (Eastwood,
2004), a former boxing coach turned gym custodian takes on a female wannabe ghter
and makes her a champion. In Maid in Manhattan (Wang, 2002), a hotel maid who
aspires to be in management crosses the line and becomes involved with a guest
running for political ofce. And in A Class of His Own (Munic, 1999), a school
custodian is aided by students and passes a high-school equivalency exam so he can
keep his job. However, these characterizations remain mostly ctional in most work
sites.
Although a job analysis is beyond the scope of this article (see Webb and Norton,
1999), it appears that the job of school custodian differs sharply from members of this
occupational category who work in other sectors. Most custodial workers appear either
hidden in the workplace as after-hours employees or silenced and instructed to have
minimal interaction with others if they work during business hours. The school
custodian, however, is a visible and relevant member of the school community, in part
because he or she is present during the school day and at all events held at the school
(Maxwell, 2004). Whereas a job description might emphasize tasks related to the
maintenance and day-to-day operation of a school site, the unwritten role of the school
custodian might include providing student behavioral support (Taylor-Greene et al.,
1997), assisting with projects (e.g. hanging student murals), assisting the health ofce
(e.g. cleaning up when students become ill), and providing care and support for
students (e.g. hanging soaked coats in the boiler room during cold spring days)
(Maxwell, 2004). It is perhaps not surprising that teachers and students generally
regard, support, and befriend the custodian as a key member of the school staff.
In performing a literature search, there appeared to be little educational research
specically on school custodians, although they were sometimes included in reports
regarding school support staff (e.g. Grifth, 2001). There were a few articles regarding
morale and identity in the school community (e.g. Ghidina, 1992). Other research has
been aimed at health and safety issues, and there are dissertations that provide
qualitative examinations of the work of school custodians (e.g. Maxwell, 2004).
However, the limited research literature in itself speaks to the attitudes about
custodians and the beliefs regarding those who perform work that has been
marginalized. Although it is generally agreed that their work is essential to the
operation of the school and to students and school personnel, the nature of their work
and its contributions to the overall functioning of the school remain largely unexplored.
Yet, as employees who interact daily with students, teachers, administrators, and
Support
personnel in
schools
313
parents while performing their jobs, school custodians help ensure that the
instructional program can take place. School support services that are provided to
students, their parents, and other school staff (e.g. teachers, school administrators)
although not directly related to student learning and performance, are crucial to
enabling student learning and performance (Grifth, 2001, p. 1630).
One of the few studies specically about the role of custodians at the school and
university levels examined the personal and perceived identity of the custodian. Social
relations are often cited as a direct source of fulllment and esteem in work [. . .] [as
well as] the context within which work denitions are created and maintained
(Ghidina, 1992, p. 82). These social relations are often cited as a reason to stay on a job
that otherwise might be mundane, demeaning, or lacking in economic incentives. The
staff, the faculty, the kids are why I decided to stay here. Another said, The students
are the only thing that keeps me going here. As far as the work itself, no (Ghidina,
1992, p. 79).
Ghidina (1992) also addressed autonomy as an important element of job satisfaction
among school custodians. The ability of custodians to affect their own schedules and
direct their own work gives school custodians a feeling of freedom and of being trusted,
benets that appear less available to custodians in non-school settings. The multiple
responsibilities at a school site foster a sense of ownership, including the special skills
one might possess. The ability to respond to emergency situations, as well as being
able to see the results of ones work enhance the feelings of value to the community
(Ghidina, 1992). These observations are consistent with Hackman and Oldhams (1980)
conceptions of critical job features such as knowledge of results and skill utilization
that are likely to enhance work satisfaction and motivation.
Further, social relations (previously discussed, Ghidina, 1992) appear closely
interwoven with the day-to-day work of the school custodian. Typically, we associate a
custodians job description with tasks related to the maintenance and upkeep of the
school. However, those responsibilities often do not account for the multiple
interactions a custodian might have and multiple tasks he/she might take on during
the course of a work day. Among them may be dealing with unexpected safety issues
resulting from broken equipment, functioning as an informal security ofcer,
supervising children raise and lower the ag, locating lost keys, or doing numerous
other jobs when someone says Call the custodian for help! (National Education
Association, n.d.).
As members of the school community, school custodians are among the role models
encountered by students on a daily basis. In some schools, their participation as staff is
an integral part of the school program. In one study, school custodians were included in
the implementation of a school-wide behavioral support plan in one middle school
(Taylor-Greene et al., 1997). Their participation involved being trained in the
fundamentals of the plan, helping with orientation of students on the opening day of
school, and ongoing participation in the implementation of the plan. In addition, a
research brief (Walker, 2006) described a school-wide silent reading at a designated
time each day involving all staff members, including the custodian.
Other research documented the impact of the day-to-day work of the school
custodian, or the custodial staff of a school, on the student learning environment. A
study conducted at the University of Houston Center for Public Policy (Branham, 2004)
examined the effects of school infrastructure on student achievement. Using 1995-1996
JEA
48,3
314
data from the Texas Performance Review and a Texas district describing 226 schools,
Branham (2004) found that schools in need of roof repair, schools with a high
percentage of temporary buildings, and schools with inadequate custodial staffs had
lower attendance rates and/or higher dropout rates and were less able to meet high
levels of student achievement.
Associated with the work of maintaining the school site are numerous health issues
for school custodians. According to one estimate, six out of 100 school custodians
experience an injury related to chemical exposure resulting in time lost each year from
work. Of these injuries, 40 percent involve eyes and 36 percent involve skin irritation or
burns. Despite many school districts employing green technologies for cleaning, a
report on workplace injury documented a risk of exposure to toxic chemical fumes in
the form of cleansers, disinfectant, pesticides, and other products (American
Federation of Teachers, n.d.). Custodians also appear at increased risk of suffering
injury as the result of heavy lifting, moving of furniture or school supplies, and/or
repetitive movement.
The school secretary: multidimensional responsibilities and computer technology
School secretaries are perhaps the most visible support employees in an educational
setting and the rst employee a visitor to the school sees. Historically, the occupations
domination by females has contributed to its characterization as marginalized
womens work (Casanova, 1991, p. 15). The imbalanced nature of womens
participation in secretarial positions generally has been attributed to a failure of the
labor force system to make adjustments in the rhythm of work to accommodate those
(primarily female) who face role conict due to family responsibilities (Casanova,
1991, p. 20). Wolcotts (1973) ethnographic study, The Man in the Principals Ofce,
observed that school secretaries attraction to the career may not be primarily
monetary but instead is often related to attractive working hours, varied duties, and
vacation periods which allow them to be home when their own school-age children are
home (p. 156).
Despite the potential for marginalization of general secretarial work (Glenn and
Feldberg, 1977), the school secretary is heralded as critical to the day-to-day
functioning of the school, keeping the ofce going, minimizing the disruptions of
students who have been called to the ofce, and protecting the principals time. Just as
the custodians centrality to the school makes him/her someone who others value,
people (teachers, parents, and other support personnel) recognize that secretaries
inuence the tone and function of the school in a major way (Casanova, 1991; Wolcott,
1973).
Wolcotts (1973) study of an elementary school principal noted the school secretary
was high on the list of contacts with the principal, accounting for about 4 percent of his
daily interactions compared with 4 percent for all other nonprofessional staff
combined (p. 92). (Teachers, individually, for example, accounted for an additional 16
percent of the interactions.) Wolcott (1973) commented on the secretarys key role in the
school administration, while acknowledging its subsidiary status: From a principals
point of view, the presence of a secretary [. . .] is vital, although the position is certainly
unheralded beyond the connes of each individual building (pp. 155-6). However,
within the individual building or ofcial territory of the front ofce (Wolcott, 1973,
p. 131), the school secretarys role can have a powerful inuence on the work of the
Support
personnel in
schools
315
principal. For example, Wolcotts (1973) account supported the core importance of the
secretarys role: Principal Ed Bell had difculty replacing his secretary of four years
and then showing her successor things that had just been done routinely [. . .] I knew
they were being done, but I didnt realize how much time it took (p. 157).
In an early account of school administration generally, Lawson (1953) described the
ofce work involved in the school secretarys role as key to healthy administrative
practice. The competent ofce secretary was seen as essential in handling the
innumerable duties associated with the running of the school, such as entering
proper memoranda in the ofce date book or on the daily calendar; handling
appointments; systematic checking of ofce equipment and supplies; preparation of all
routine announcements and forms; checking and distributing supplies; ling and
monitoring student records; receiving visitors and answering phone calls; answering
much of the ofces routine correspondence; and, importantly, making minor decisions
of a more or less routine nature in accordance with the established policy of the
administration (pp. 268-9).
Currently in education, policy discussions and some educational literature suggest
that the primary responsibilities of the secretary are not much altered. Meyer and
Rowan (1978) did not include clerical support in the context of educational
organizations, focusing primarily on the ritual classications of curriculum,
students, and teachers (p. 79). The school secretary, nonetheless, carries out additional
tasks that may include the school budget, accounting, preparation of nancial reports,
school inventories, checking invoices, and signing vouchers (e.g. Casanova, 1991;
Lawson, 1953). These functions may be subsumed into routine matters of school
organization; however, the key responsibility Lawson (1953) historically ascribed to
secretaries, making minor decisions of a more or less routine nature, appears to
diminish the complexity of the secretarys place in school operation.
At each school site, the nature of what might be considered to be more or less
routine in terms of the secretarys discretion will not be uniform. Decisions made under
the assumption that standard operating procedures are in place may in fact have
hidden political or resource-driven dimensions (Allison, 1971, p. 7). For example, a
concealed dimension of a new computerized system for monitoring student attendance
records might mean that increased pressure is being placed on clerical staff to follow
up with teachers to submit attendance in a timely manner. Thus, even decisions that
can appear routine may have intentional reective input from staff making those
decisions (Enomoto and Conley, 2007; Johnson and Fauske, 2000; Feldman, 2000).
Indeed, Wolcotts (1973) analysis suggested that the enactment of routine tasks and
the application of standard procedures in the school setting are not as simple as they
might appear. In Wolcotts (1973) account, for example, when the new secretary was
out sick and there was no substitute to cover the ofce during the secretarys
absence, Ed, the principal, had to spend more time near the ofce either explaining
procedures or handling them himself (p. 158). Underscoring this observation,
Casanova (1991) examined research (although scarce) that had been conducted on the
school secretary[1]. Casanovas (1991) survey-based study of 297 elementary
secretaries and qualitative analysis of six secretaries and their principals also
illustrated the added complexity of work by pointing to the numerous interactions the
secretary had with other personnel (e.g. part-time ofce assistants, nurses, counselors,
and personnel in special programs such as bilingual and special education) and the
JEA
48,3
316
multiple clientele served (e.g. students, parents, teachers, support staff, principals,
district ofcials, and the community). Because of the special relationships secretaries
may have with families, they can be expected to have knowledge about family issues
and relationships (such as divided families, parent volunteers). Among clerical workers
generally, Glenn and Feldbergs (1977) critique warning against the potential
deskilling of clerical work also pointed to its contributions:
When clerical work cannot be performed efciently, the [administrative] control structure it
services is similarly hampered. [. . .] Clerical units have been described as the arteries
through which the life blood ows. Activities such as record-keeping, scheduling, and
copying link the various internal departments of an organization and connect it to other
businesses and to the rest of the people. [. . .] These connections are essential for maintaining
control of the various departments in an organization and for coordinating their activities
(p. 62)[2].
Federal and state policies of the NCLB Act of 2001 (US Department of Education, 2002)
have held schools responsible for meeting performance standards and eliminating
achievement gaps. This development has resulted in school districts publishing annual
school report cards based upon student standardized test scores. The school and its
personnel are at the most immediate level of accountability. The school secretary and
other clerical staff would be the designated individuals who would provide data entry,
update, and monitoring. Demands for increased record keeping have been facilitated,
yet also intensied, by computer technology (Enomoto and Conley, 2007). Although
computers assist in meeting the growing burden of documentation, using computers
and new software requires new skill sets, and the computers themselves must be
networked and maintained if they are to provide proper assistance. The use of this
technology is a central US reform recommendation (see, for example, Odden et al.,
2006), having broad implications for secretarial work that might have been
accomplished in previous generations on a typewriter. Although secretaries are
acknowledged as crucial to ensuring the smooth functioning of a school, their critical
role and the need for increased skill sets are often overlooked in the literature, and there
seems to be little research on their work, responsibilities, and importance.
Special education paraprofessionals: requirements and certications
Instructional paraprofessionals, also referred to as paraeducators and instructional
aides, are the third category of support personnel we discuss. Estimates indicate that
about 312,000 paraprofessionals whose major area of instructional responsibility was
in special education were working in public elementary and secondary schools in
2003-2004 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). This category constitutes
the largest category of paraprofessionals. Further, the utilization of paraprofessionals
to support the education of students with disabilities appears to have increased
dramatically in the 1990s (Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 45). In the research literature, there
is a relative abundance of information on the role of these paraprofessionals as
compared to school custodians and school secretaries.
Whereas school custodians and secretaries are typically funded through a district
general fund as part of its operating costs, this is not the case with instructional aides
in special education. Most references to the employment of paraprofessionals or
instructional aides in the USA appeared after the enactment of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 and following the 1975 Education for All
Support
personnel in
schools
317
Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), currently known as the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA).
In historical perspective about paraprofessionals, an important component of the
War on Poverty, which followed the 1964 Civil Rights Act during the administration of
President Lyndon Johnson, ESEA was to make federal funding available to improve
the quality of education in school districts serving populations with a low
socio-economic base. This funding was often used to hire instructional aides to
assist teachers in the classroom. Schools often recruited neighborhood parents with a
variety of backgrounds and experiences to ll these positions. Teachers not
accustomed to having this level of assistance often utilized instructional aides as
classroom clerical workers, assigning them jobs such as grading papers, making
copies, and posting work on bulletin boards. A school might hire one aide to do all of
the copier work, and others might be assigned to playground or lunchroom
supervision. Gradually, responsibilities increased, and instructional aides became an
integral part of the classroom instructional program, providing direct service to
students as opposed to clerical support and other routine duties (Ghere and
York-Barr, 2003, p. 3).
Specic to special education, with the enactment of Public Law (PL) 94-142, the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, the primary use of
paraprofessionals was to provide for the basic needs of their students. Some questioned
the educability of children with more severe disabilities and reasoned that such work
did not require skilled staff, so paraprofessionals would sufce and be less expensive
(Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 46). As special education has evolved with each
reauthorization of this law, the role of instructional aides has been expanded. The
Regular Education Initiative of 1986, written by Madeline Will, called for an end to the
segregation of special education students in isolated classrooms and their inclusion in
general education settings. As inclusion has grown to become the standard for special
education, instructional aides have been utilized to provide increasing amounts of
support. Although some work is directly under the supervision of a special education
teacher, others are responsible for creating modications and accommodations to
implement goals stated in a students individual education plan (Ghere and York-Barr,
2003).
Persons employed as paraprofessionals represent a wide range of backgrounds and
experience. Typically, a paraprofessional must have a high-school diploma and pass a
standardized test to demonstrate competency in the basic subject areas of reading and
math. He or she might be a neighborhood parent or community member recruited by
the school[3]. Some of these paraprofessionals may have received teaching credentials
but not yet secured a teaching job. There are reasons some with teaching credentials
might not seek a full-time teaching position, such as having small children in the home
or being a recent college graduate still making decisions about the future.
Like custodians and school secretaries, paraprofessionals are visible and highly
involved members of the school. The focus of their work is usually students: in
classrooms, on playgrounds, in the lunch room, and sometimes as a supervisor before
and after school. Because many are involved in instruction, such employees might be
informally considered by teachers as the person with whom they are team teaching
(Valli et al., 2007). In special education, the paraprofessional may be the person with
JEA
48,3
318
whom a parent has the most communication. The multitude of roles of such
paraprofessionals may include:
(a) providing instruction in academic subjects, (b) teaching functional life skills, (c) teaching
vocational skills at community-based work sites, (d) collecting and managing data; (e)
supporting students who exhibit challenging behaviors, (f) facilitating interactions with peers
who do not have disabilities, (g) providing personal care (e.g., feeding, bathroom assistance),
and (h) engaging in clerical tasks (Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 53).
In addition, paraprofessionals may play roles in assisting students to avoid, or return
from, more restrictive educational settings (Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 53).
Research on paraprofessionals that is specic to special education raises questions
about the nature of these paraprofessionals work, skills, and supervision. Giangreco
et al. (2001) asked, for example, Are the roles and duties [paraprofessionals] are asked
to perform appropriate? Are they adequately trained for their roles? Are they
appropriately supervised? (p. 47). It is at times unclear whether paraprofessionals are
assisting qualied certicated personnel or, even as they work under the supervision of
certicated personnel (teachers), are functioning as primary instructors and decision
makers (p. 47). Supervision by the classroom teacher (who may regard the supervision
of the paraprofessional as an added but unrecognized role[4]) might vary according to
the assignment of the paraprofessional.
For example, a paraprofessional working in a resource class might work under the
close supervision and direction of the special educator who is present in the
classroom (Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 47). By contrast, an inclusion aide working in a
general education setting might experience less supervision (although a reduced level
of supervision may sometimes be viewed positively by the aide). The paraprofessional
might feel left to work from an intuitive level to devise ways to accommodate the
special needs of the student, make in-the-moment modications to assignments, or
facilitate social interactions. In other situations, students might have an alternative
curriculum that the paraprofessional is responsible for teaching, although still under
the supervision of a special education teacher. These observations emphasize the
complexity of aides roles and the need to consider them in research on school
management and reform.
Comparison of categories and implications for supervision
Webb and Norton (1999) noted that only in recent years have school districts come to
recognize that the term staff should include all employees that no section of their
human resources can be overlooked (p. 475). In this article, we have presented a
cross-section portrait of three groups of support personnel all identied as vital to
school operation. Some of the aspects of this portrayal include:
.
the visibility and special nature of custodians in schools versus custodians in
general society;
.
the multidimensional responsibilities of the school secretary whose roles have
been reshaped by computer technology over time; and
.
the special education paraprofessional who may originally have been someone
who lived near the school hired to provide custodial (basic) student care and has
transformed to become required to perform teacher tasks and have particular
educational requirements and certications.
Support
personnel in
schools
319
It has been suggested from our analysis that there is a tendency in the literature to
describe educational organizations in a particular way, focusing on the core technology
of education or classroom instruction. As referenced here, the jobs of the school
custodian and secretary have been considered part of the physical plant of the school,
and the aide is categorized as being closer to the educational core delivery function.
However, all of these groups are frequently asked to work in capacities outside the
formal set of requirements in their job descriptions. Consequently, it would appear that
questions we have raised about paraprofessionals i.e. will school districts be
required to build additional capacity to provide needed training? might apply to
school custodians and secretaries as well.
According to Webb and Norton (1999), training, experience, and skills
requirements are among those factors to be considered when determining equity,
contributory worth, and compensation in the supervision of support positions (p. 466;
also see Conley and Gould, 1997). Other factors include license requirements, number of
employees supervised, and number and range of responsibilities assigned.
Further, school districts appear to be increasing the investment they are making in
the training and development of support personnel:
More and more districts have found that the time and expense invested in development
programs for support personnel are small compared to the inefciency, ineffectiveness, and
staff turnover resulting from the lack of such programs. Research has shown that staff
development can result in improved morale, an increased sense of professionalism, and
higher levels of job satisfaction (Webb and Norton, 1999, p. 475).
In this light, perhaps the supervision of school custodians should include special
training and development programs if they work around laboratories in high schools,
e.g. specialized knowledge of directives relating to the care and disposal of hazardous
materials, the prevention of chemical spills, and mold abatement. Secretaries, on the
other hand, might require specialized training in computer technology and large
database management in order to handle employee payroll and attendance records;
conduct purchasing and scal/budget recordkeeping; and maintain and protect student
records, including student test scores, health records, and condential student
information. Secretaries might also require training in disaster plans so that they may
be prepared for extraordinary situations. Further, among paraprofessionals, a formal
process of orientation might include, at minimum, roles and responsibilities as
instructional team members and information about student goals and objectives,
behavior plans, management and health concerns, and safety (Ghere and York-Barr,
2003, p. 2; see also Giangreco et al., 2001, p. 60).
The above factors are among those serving as inputs to determining equity, worth,
and compensation (Webb and Norton, 1999). These factors are subject to periodic
review of pay-grade plans, a process whereby each position is assigned to a specic
pay grade with a predetermined number of steps within the grade (Webb and Norton,
1999, p. 467). Careful compensation review, with attention to data obtained from salary
studies as well as cost of living estimates, ensures that school district employees do not
fall behind their counterparts in other agencies and business (p. 467).
In this context, a key issue for the supervision of site-based support staff is the often
part-time nature of their work and commensurate total salary and benets. According
to a report issued by a major union of US employees working in education, many
on-site school personnel do not work a 52-week year (American Federation of Teachers,
JEA
48,3
320
2006; Caravatti, 2008). The employment of many support personnel (including food
service workers, transportation workers, and clerical staff) might be only during the
school year, which often lasts approximately 38 weeks. Corresponding implications
exist for the three groups examined here. Interestingly, the school custodian might be
of high value throughout the year because of issues like deep cleaning and heavy
maintenance, which cannot be accomplished during the school year without disrupting
instruction. The work of the school secretary and special education paraprofessional,
however, may be more closely aligned to the school-year calendar. The salaries of other
support personnel appear to conform to the school-year calendar as well (bus drivers,
food service workers, etc.)
Because compensation for support personnel may be based on a less than 52-week
work year, the nancial compensation of many support personnel might also need to
be considered in relation to the needs of a basic family budget (Giangreco et al., 2001;
Webb and Norton, 1999). A case cited by an American Federation of Teachers (2006)
report was school instructional aides (in general and special education). A single parent
working 38 weeks a year as an instructional aide generally did not earn enough to
cover the totality of a basic family budget. For example, in Visalia Tulare-Porterville in
the state of California, the annual salary was $17,918, which would be only 83 percent
of a basic family budget for two people, which is estimated at $21,590.
Such nancial considerations raise questions about whether assumptions might
exist about the demographics of people working as instructional aides or school
secretaries (e.g. women, perhaps second income) (Giangreco et al., 2001; Glenn and
Feldberg, 1977). Although some employees may be attracted to work as school support
personnel (e.g. instructional aide, secretarial, food service) because their schedules
correspond to the school calendar of their children, they might also have to seek
additional employment in the summer and evenings to make ends meet unless there is
a partner or spouse able to work as well.
Another factor related to both monetary and non-monetary issues is that school
organizations characteristically desiring to economize might rst focus on the
elimination or downsizing of support personnel. For example, school districts may
consider subcontracting custodial or janitorial work. Although subcontracting might
circumvent having to pay the wages and benets of a full-time employee, it could also
negate the school involvement effects (Collinson and Cook, 2007; Conley, 2006;
Ghidina, 1992) and long-term expertise (participating in behavioral support, previously
discussed) present in an in-house, dedicated custodial staff. That is, such a practice
might raise issues about school safety, accountability, and motivation that are rooted
in site-specic contexts.
In addition, under a conception of differentiated supervision (Zepeda, 2006), the
needs of beginning staff might be considered separately from those at middle and
advanced career stages. People in mid- and late career might seek opportunities to
revive a sense of personal identity and develop skills in mentoring others (Hall, 2002).
The custodial staff members who participated in the behavioral support plan that
assisted teachers and students provide a good example of this (Taylor-Greene et al.,
1997). A secretary who learns new computer and data management skills provides
another. Seeking a correspondence between supervision and career stage (Zepeda,
2006) or between staff development and skill/knowledge levels (Collinson, 2008)
Support
personnel in
schools
321
appears a promising way of attending to the variety of issues existing not only in the
retention of support staff but also their recruitment.
Further, although new employees working as instructional aides might nd that
monetary and non-monetary factors meet their needs, as they approach mid-career
they might look for more stable sources of income and/or an increased sense of career
advancement (Hall, 2002). For example, a special education paraprofessional who is a
single parent might work six hours per day, 38 weeks per year. Reecting that this role
is dominated by females, she might begin working at a retail store after school hours to
supplement her income. Should years of this retail employment result in higher pay or
promotion at the retail store, she may consider resigning from her job as an aide to
work full-time elsewhere. Similarly, someone working as a school secretary might
realize that the skills she has can allow her to earn more and advance more quickly in a
law rm. In this context, schools might also add weeks of employment for such
personnel that correspond to new development opportunities. With the expanded
denition of the secretary (previously described), the summer months might be used
for additional training and/or to catch up given the increased job demands.
In addition to designing or modifying the work of support staff, supervisors might
take into account the special contributions highlighted in this article. In their
supervisory responsibilities, such supervisors might utilize work design or job
enhancement strategies (Ghidina, 1992; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Smylie and
Smart, 1990). Should a school district, for example, begin a new breakfast program for
students, there will be implications for custodians at school sites who must clean meal
rooms. In supervising such personnel, considerations might include enhancement of
the work to increase a sense of control over work scheduling such as increased
autonomy (Smylie and Smart, 1990, p. 139) (do I set up the chairs for assembly or clean
the cafeteria at a given time?).
Further, custodians might have school policy-making opportunities, including the
development of protocol for cafeteria usage, deadlines, and clean-up, and receive formal
recognition and support (Taylor-Greene et al., 1997). Paraprofessionals, too, might be
recognized for their critical role in supporting teacher instructional capacity by
receiving enhanced feedback and supervisor recognition (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).
They might have expanded opportunities to participate in faculty meetings, provide
input on instruction, and lead small group instruction. Finally, in consideration of
school secretaries support for critical administrative functions (Casanova, 1991;
Enomoto and Conley, 2007), such personnel might receive enhanced support from
supervisors in times of heightened need. For example, during grading periods, student
enrollment, and student graduation, secretaries might be granted scheduling
autonomy and resources to provide work context satisfaction (Hackman and
Oldham, 1980, p. 86). Extended work hours might be provided as well, in addition to
soliciting feedback concerning the challenges of data collection, record keeping, and
reporting.
Although this article has tended to highlight differences among the three groups of
support personnel, an important point might be made about their commonality. As
suggested, school organizations would likely benet from the custodian who identies
with the school, its teachers, administrators, and students. Similarly, the involvement
and enfranchisement of the paraprofessional by supervisors might make him or her
feel part of a community and, therefore, view the job as a career instead of a
JEA
48,3
322
stepping-stone. And, for the secretary or clerical worker looking to advance in an
increasingly evolving role as well as gain a sense of career progress, additional
opportunities for skill development cited may not only fulll advancement goals but
add to their inherent value already possessed in the school community.
A concerted approach involving different considerations in work design and
supervision might further understanding of how this signicant group of personnel,
integral to effective school and district operation, complements and continues to add to
the success of our schools. From an organizational standpoint, all school personnel can
be conceptualized as working toward goals of organizational development and
improvement (Collinson, 2008). To the degree that custodians, secretaries, and
paraprofessionals are not included in formal reform efforts and school enhancement,
this development seems contrary to the literature suggesting that school capacity (the
core attributes and practices that dene an organizations identity) is built across the
entire organization (Collinson, 2008, p. 447). In addition, qualitative research projects
examining the career lives of support personnel, their career decisions, as well as
providing detail about these positions appear worthy of further study. This article has
taken a step toward raising these issues and highlighting some gaps in the literature.
Notes
1. In making this point, Casanova (1991) cited Rimer (1984) and Hart (1985).
2. Glenn and Feldberg (1977) also noted that changes that rigidify or interfere with these
connections can result in a form of organizational paralysis that ironically makes managers
introducing such changes may be less able to manage their organizations (pp. 62-63). (In
making these points, the authors cited Giddens, 1975, and Mills, 1956.)
3. See National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals, Paraeducator state of the art: historical
perspective (1950s-1980s), available at: www.nrcpara.org/report/historical (accessed April
6, 2009).
4. The National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals, State policies, standards, and
systems, available at www.nrcpara.org/report/policies (accessed April 6, 2009) discusses
amendments to IDEA 1997 and the NCLB Act of 2001 by the US Congress including
provisions acknowledging the evolving roles of teachers and paraprofessionals as members
of instructional teams, as well as increased standards/opportunities for paraeducator
preparation, supervision, and development.
References
Allison, G.T. (1971), Essence of Decision, Little Brown, Boston, MA.
American Federation of Teachers (2006), Paraprofessionals and school-related personnel
compensation report, working paper, American Federation of Teachers Research and
Information Services Department, Washington, DC.
American Federation of Teachers (n.d.), The right to know: school custodial maintenance
workers, available at: www.aft.org/topics/health-safety/downloads/RighttoKnow_
Custodial.pdf (accessed April 6, 2009).
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (2008), Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Branham, D. (2004), The wise man builds his house upon the rock: the effects of inadequate
school infrastructure on student performance, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 85 No. 5,
pp. 1112-17.
Support
personnel in
schools
323
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008/2009), Occupational Outlook Handbook, available at: www.bls.
gov/OCO/ (accessed August 19, 2009).
Caravatti, M.L. (2008), Examining the national data on educational support staff, paper
presented at the American Educational Finance Association (AEFA), Denver, CO, April.
Casanova, U. (1991), Elementary School Secretaries: The Women in the Principals Ofce, Corwin,
Newbury Park, CA.
Collinson, V. (2008), Leading by learning: new directions in the 21st century, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 443-60.
Collinson, V. and Cook, T.F. (2007), Organizational Learning: Improving Learning, Teaching, and
Leading in School Systems, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Conley, S. (2006), Involvement, in organizations, in English, F. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Educational Leadership and Administration, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 526-7.
Conley, S. and Gould, J. (1997), Knowledge- and skill-based pay through a collective bargaining
lens, Educational Policy, Vol. 11, pp. 403-25.
Dill, W.R. (1958), Environment as an inuence on managerial autonomy, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. II, pp. 409-43.
Eastwood, C. (2004), Million-dollar Baby (motion picture), Warner Bros, Burbank, CA.
Enomoto, E.K. and Conley, S. (2007), Harnessing technology for school accountability: a case
study of implementing a management information system, Planning and Changing,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 164-80.
Feldman, M.S. (2000), Organizational routines as a source of continuous change, Organizational
Science, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 611-29.
Ghere, G. and York-Barr, J. (2003), Employing, developing and directing special education
paraprofessionals in inclusive education programs: ndings from a multi-site study,
available at: http://ici.umn.edu/products/spedpara/titlepage.html (accessed April 6, 2009).
Ghidina, M.J. (1992), Social relations and the denition of work: identity management in a low
status occupation, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Giangreco, M.F., Edelman, S.W., Broer, S.M. and Doyle, M.B. (2001), Paraprofessional support of
students with disabilities: literature from the past decade, Exceptional Children, Vol. 68
No. 1, pp. 45-63.
Giddens, A. (1975), The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Glenn, N.E. and Feldberg, R.L. (1977), Degraded and deskilled: the proletarianization of clerical
work, Social Problems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 52-64.
Gould, J. and Johnson, N. (2008), The value of an hour of my labor: wages and benets for core
service workers, paper presented at American Educational Finance Association (AEFA),
Denver, CO, April.
Grifth, J. (2001), Do satised employees satisfy customers? Services staff morale and
satisfaction among public school administrators, students and parents, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1627-58.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hall, D. (2002), Careers in and out of Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hart, J. (1985), The secondary school secretary some hidden and some developmental aspects
of the secretarys role, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 131-9.
Hood, J.C. (1988), From night to day: timing and the management of custodial work, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 96-116.
JEA
48,3
324
Johnson, B.L. Jr and Fauske, J.R. (2000), Principals and the political economy of environmental
enactment, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 159-85.
Lawson, D.E. (1953), School Administration: Procedures and Policies, Odyssey, New York, NY.
Maxwell, G.M. (2004), Transcending invisibility through the power of story: an analysis of the
life journey of Mr John, a rural school custodian, as told by his granddaughter,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1978), The structure of educational organizations, in Meyer, M.W.
and Associates (Ed.), Environments and Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 78-109.
Mills, C.W. (1956), White Collar, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Munic, R. (Director) (1999), In a Class of His Own (motion picture), Showtime Entertainment,
New York, NY.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007), Issue brief: description and employment criteria
of instructional professionals, working paper, June, Institute of Education Sciences, US
Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M.T. and Fermanich, M. (2006), An evidence-based
approach to school nance adequacy in Washington, available at: www.
washingtonlearns.wa.gov (accessed April 6, 2009).
Rimer, A. (1984), Elementary school secretary: informal decision maker, Educational Horizons,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 16-18.
Smylie, M.A. and Smart, J.C. (1990), Teacher support for career enhancement initiatives:
program characteristics and effects on work, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 139-55.
Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., Swartz, J., Horner, R.H.,
Sugai, G. and Hall, S. (1997), School-wide behavioral support: starting the year off right,
Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 99-112.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
US Department of Education (2002), No Child Left Behind, US Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Valli, L., Croninger, R.G. and Walters, K. (2007), Who (else) is the teacher? Cautionary notes on
teacher accountability systems, American Journal of Education, Vol. 113, pp. 635-61.
Walker, K. (2006), Research brief: sustained silent reading; the principals partnership of the
Union Pacic Foundation, available at: www.principalspartnership.com/ssr.pdf (accessed
April 9, 2009).
Wang, W. (Director) (2002), Maid in Manhattan, Columbia Pictures, Culver City, CA (motion
picture).
Webb, L.C. and Norton, M.S. (1999), Human Resources Administration: Personnel Issues and
Needs in Education, Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Wolcott, H.F. (1973), The Man in the Principals Ofce: An Ethnography, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, New York, NY.
Zepeda, S.J. (2006), High stakes supervision: we must do more, International Journal of
Leadership in Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Support
personnel in
schools
325
Further reading
American Federation of Teachers (2009), It takes a team: a prole of support staff in American
public education, available at: www.aft.org/pubs-reports/psrp/team2002.pdf (accessed
April 6, 2009).
Giangreco, M.F., Broer, S.M. and Edelman, S.W. (1999), The tip of the iceberg: determining
whether paraprofessional support is needed for students with disabilities in general
educational settings, The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 281-91.
Lopata, H.A., Miller, C.A. and Barnewolt, D. (1984), City Women: Work, Jobs, Occupations,
Careers, Praeger, New York, NY.
National Education Association (2008), Custodians: building a quality workforce, available at
www.nea.org/esphome (accessed January 27, 2008).
Corresponding author
Sharon Conley can be contacted at: [email protected]
JEA
48,3
326
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints