Paraprofessionals I1

The "Sous-Chefs"of Literacy Instruction

Julie N. Causton-Theoharis

Michael F. Giangreco

Mary Beth Doyle

Patricia F. Vadasy

A primary responsibility of general andspecial educators is to teach studentshow to read. In inclusive classrooms,paraprofessionals are frequently utilizedto support literacy instruction. Para-professionals can be employed to helpimprove the reading skills of studentswith disabilities and those ivlw are con-sidered al risk. Tfiis article outlines com-monalities from the body of literaturediscussing circumstances in which para-professionals were used successfully toimprove the reading skills of students.The commonalities examined includesituations where (a) paraprofessionalswere used for supplemental rather thanprimary instruction, (b) research-basedreading approaches were used so thatparaprofessionals were not inappropri-ately asked to make pedagogical deci-sions, (c) paraprofessionals were explic-itly and extensively trained in theresearch-based reading approach, (d)paraprofessionals were explicitly trainedin behavior management, and (e) teach-ers and special educators provided para-professionals with ongoing monitoringand feedback regarding their instruc-tion. Eac/i of these commonalities isaddressed and other practical considera-tions also are shared and discussed.

The sous-chef and the executive chefwork closely together to prepare gour-met cuisine. Although an untrainedobserver might have difficulty determin-ing where one chef's role ends and theother's begins, their respective roles inthe kitchen are differentiated very clear-ly. Ultimately, the executive chefensures that all of the dishes comple-ment one another and are well-pairedthematically—and creates and preparesdelicious cuisine. The role of the sous-chef is to support the executive chef'sgoals in assigned ways. The Frenchword "sous" means literally "under."and the sous-chef works under thedirection of the executive chef. Sous-chefs are responsible for a variety ofhands-on tasks and for the productionof certain parts of the meal—workingfrom recipes that are carefully plannedby the executive chef. Sous-chefs, how-ever, are not responsible for planningthe meals, are not afforded the autono-my to adapt the recipes, and do not dothe majority of the cooking. Each ofthese responsibilities falls under thepurview of the executive chef.

How Are Paraprofessionalsand Sous-Chefs Alike?In elementary education classrooms,paraprofessionals in certain ways areanalogous to sous-chefs, working underthe direction of qualified teachers andspecial educators (the "executive chefs"of the classroom). The paraprofession-als' role is not to plan or design class-room instruction, but rather to makeimportant contributions to classroominstruction by effectively implementingimportant delegated tasks for whichthey are specifically trained. Like sous-chefs, paraprofessionals provide usefulsupports that help keep things runningefficiently and effectively.

Some teachers might have questions

about the most effective ways to

direct the work of paraprofessionals,

One critical and primary responsibil-ity of general and special educationteachers is the complex task of literacyinstruction; this is the main course of

56 • COUNCII. FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

the educational "meal." Classroomteachers and special educators areresponsible for planning, adapting, andimplementing literacy instruction-much like executive chefs in creating arestaurant's fare. Inclusive classroomsmight have paraprofessionals [i.e.,teaching assistants, instructional aides,tutors, paraeducators) to help in thisendeavor. A paraprofessional might beassigned as an assistant to the wholeclass or to help support a subset of stu-dents that have learning, personal care,or behavioral needs. Yet some teachersmight have questions about the mosteffective v̂ ays to direct the work ofparaprofessionals. General supportstrategies for effectively utilizing para-professionals have been documented inthe literature (Doyle & Lee, 2007;French, 1998; Giangreco & Doyle, 2004;Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer, 2003),The practices listed in Table 1 [adaptedfrom Giangreco & Doyle) offer concretesuggestions on how classroom teachersand special educators can effectivelysupport the work of paraprofessionals.These general practices include: wel-coming, acknowledging, orienting,planning for, and communicating withparaprofessionals. This article outlinesways in which teachers can effectivelyinvolve paraprofessionals in literacyinstruction.

Five Commonalitieslor Effectively UHllzIngPamprofessionala inLiteracy instructionThere are numerous resources thataddress working with paraprofessionals[Ashbaker & Morgan, 2006; Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren. 2005; Doyle,2002; French, 1998; Giangreco & Doyle,2004; Giangreco, Edelman, & Broer,2001; Pickett & Gerlach, 2003). andthere is a smaller—but growing—bodyof literature that specifically addressesthe use of paraprofessionals for literacyinstruction. The existing materialsregarding utilizing paraprofessionals inliteracy instruction primarily focus onstudents who have learning disabilitiesor who are considered to be at risk forfailing in school. This literature docu-ments that, under specific conditions,paraprofessionals and other noncertified

Tbble 1. Oeneral Best Practices for Woricing With Poraprefesslonais

Practice Categories Methods for Incorporating This Practice

Welcoming andAcknowledgingParaprofessionals

OrientingParaprofessionals

Planning forParaprofessionals

CommunicatingWithParaprofessionals

Provide space for the belongings of the paraprofessional.

Place a plant or coffee cup on the desk of theparaprofessional at the beginning of the year.

Include the name of the paraprofessional on theclassroom door.

Introduce the paraprofessional as part of the teachingteam, not as a specific student's helper.

Share routine tasks that communicate authority(e.g., taking attendance, writing on the white hoard,doing hot lunch count).

Write specific thank-you notes periodically.

Provide a thorough school tour and introduce theparaprofessional lo important people (e.g.. officepersonnel, librarian).

Orient the paraprofessional lo the location of suppliesand the technology within the school and classroom.

Review school and classroom policies, procedures, andrules each year.

Provide access to IEPs and teach paraprofessionals howto read and interpret the documents.

Provide a daily and weekly schedule. Include whothe paraprofessional will be supporting, what theparaprofessional will be doing, and when they will bedoing it.

Include the following in daily plans:

- Goals/objectives for an activity,

- Role of the paraprofessional.

- What the paraprofessional should do.

- Support level,

- Modifications/adaptations.

Review each plan.

Teach, model, support, and provide feedback.

Clarify roles and responsibilities.

Develop shared expectations and mechanisms forcommunication (e.g., daily notebook, check-in pointat the start and end of each day, weekly meetings forplanning and communication).

Be open to the perspectives and ideas of theparaprofessional.

Use active listening skills.

individuals can be employed to help

improve the reading skills of such stu-

dents [Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel,

1994; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, &

Black, 2002; Lane, Fletcher, Carter,

Dejud, & DeLorenzo, in press; Miller,

2003; Simmons. Kame'enui, Stoolmiller,

Coyne, & Harn, 2003; Vadasy, Jenkins, &

Pool, 2000; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton,

2006a, 2006b; Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton,& Jenkins, 2002).

These studies share a few key com-monalities, including: (a) paraprofes-sionals were used for supplementalrather than primary instruction, (b)research-based reading approaches wereused so that paraprofessionals were notinappropriately asked to make pedagog-ical decisions, (c) paraprofessionals

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN- • SF.n/Ocr 2007 • 57

Top Five Ways to UtilizeParaprofessionals Effectivelyfor Literacy Instruction

1. Use paraprofessionals insupplementary roles.

2. Use research-based readingapproaches.

3. TVain paraprofessionals in thereading approach.

4. TVain paraprofessionals tomanage behavior.

5. Provide paraprofessionalswith ongoing monitoring andfeedback.

were explicitly and extensively trained inthe research-based reading approach,(d) paraprofessionals were explicitlytrained in behavior management, and(e) teachers and special educatorsprovided paraprofessionals with ongoingmonitoring and feedback regarding theirinstruction. Each of these themes is list-ed in the "Top Five Ways to Utilize Para-professionals Effectively for LiteracyInstruction" box.

Much can be learned from thesestudies; they can provide useful infor-mation on using paraprofessionals toassist with reading instruction withinthe context of inclusive classrooms.General and special educators use avariety of hteracy philosophies, strate-gies, and curricuia, and it is not theintent of the authors to recommend anyone over another. This article insteaddescribes generic literacy support strate-gies that can be utilized across philoso-phies and as part of differing instruc-tional approaches.

Use Paraprofessionals forSupplemental Support

A number of studies [Foorman, Francis,Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta,1998; Gunn et al., 2002; Lane et al., inpress; Miller, 2003; Simmons et al.,2003; Vadasy, Jenkins, & Pool, 2000;Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton, & Jenkins,2002) examined utilization of eitherparaprofessionals or other nonprofes-sional tutors in instruction that supple-mented—but did not replace—the class-room literacy program provided by theteacher or special educator. The litera-

ture on paraprofessionals in inclusiveclassrooms repeatedly notes concernsregarding circumstances where studentswith disabilities—especially those withmoderate and severe disabilities-receive al! or most of their instructionfrom paraprofessionals, rather thanfrom qualified teachers and special edu-cators (Giangreco, 2003; Giangreco,Broer, & Edelman, 1999; Marks,Schrader, & Levine, 1999). There is noevidence that this practice is effective inimproving literacy outcomes for stu-dents with disabilities. It is critical, andnow is mandated through the No GhildLeft Bebind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. No.107-110; NGLBJ, that all students haveaccess to highly qualified teachers andspecial educators for tbeir primary liter-acy instruction. Under NGLB, the defini-tion of "highly qualified" requires thatpublic elementary- and secondary-school teachers be fully state certified orpass the state teacher-licensing exami-nation and hold a professional license toteach in the state. IDEA 2004 clearlystates that paraprofessionals must betrained and supervised in order to assistin special education (IDEA

In addition to providing supplemen-tal instruction, paraprofessionals can beused in supportive instructional roles.These roles can include having parapro-fessionals answer individual questions,re-read stories, or reinforce skills, butsuch tasks do not include introducingnew material (see box "How Can Para-professionals Support (Rather ThanInstruct) During Literacy Instruction?").By assigning paraprofessionals to specif-ic instructional roles, teachers can max-imize tbeir own instructional contacttime with students. As demonstrated bythe studies listed previously, paraprofes-sionals can effectively supplement theliteracy instruction of students withreading difficulties, but they should notreplace qualified educators.

Use a Research-Based Approach

In a restaurant, executive chefs userecipes that are tried and true. To suc-ceed in the restaurant business, main-taining the quality and consistency ofthe food is essential. The same conceptis true for reading instruction; maintain-

How Can ParaprofessionalsSupport (Rather Than Instruct)During Literacy Instruction?

Answer individual questions.

Re-read stories with students.

Reinforce skills by leading a gameor activity.

Listen to students read.

Practice letter names and sounds.

Lead sound-categorization activities.

Use story sequencing.

Play dictionary games.

Perform alphabetizing and rhymingexercises.

Lead syllable-segmentation tasks.

Direct magnetic-! etterboard activites.

ing the quality and consistency of thecurriculum and instruction is essential.Paraprofessionals are most effectivelyutilized during instructional time if theyare provided with research-based read-ing approaches that have explicit andsystematic instructional guidelines. Justas sous-chefs use specific methods forfood preparations, paraprofessionalsshould follow the particular instruction-al strategies and should not be put inthe inappropriate position of makingpedagogical decisions. Further, instruc-tion in early literacy skills that is explic-it, rather than incidental, is most effec-tive for students who struggle witblearning to read (Foorman et al., 1998).This practice also enables all school per-sonnel involved in the literacy programto more readily replicate instruction in amanner tbat improves overall fidelity ofimplementation.

Paraprofessionals can be used

in supportive instructional roies.

In all of the studies that demonstratethat paraprofessionals can play a sup-portive role in hteracy instruction, theprograms examined used research-based approaches to teaching reading(Foorman et al., 1998; Gunn el al., 2002;Lane et al., in press; Miller, 2003; Sim-

58 • GouNciL FOR EXCEPTIONAL GHILDREN

mons et al., 2003; Vadasy, Jenkins, &Pool, 2000; Vadasy. Sanders, Peyton. &Jenkins, 2002).

Each of the studies that involved pri-mary-age students used a research-based reading intervention that includ-ed phonological awareness and phonicsinstruction. Manning tl979) illustrateswhat can happen when paraprofession-als do not utilize research-based prac-tices. The findings of the Manning studyshowed that students did not makereading gains as a result of receivingsupport from untrained paraprofession-als who were not using a research-basedapproach. The teachers and paraprofes-sionals utilized their own daily lessonplans, selected their own materials, anddid not use a specific research-basedintervention.

Though dated, Ihe practices high-lighted in the 1979 Manning study stillare seen in some classrooms today. In ameta-analysis of the research on one-to-one instruction in reading conducted byErlbaum, Vaughn. Hughes, and Moody(2000), design of the intervention wasfound to be one of the most importantfactors contributing to student success,it therefore is important to note thatmost paraprofessionals have a limitedbackground in reading instruction andtheory. When trained to implement aresearch-based program, however, thesenonteacher instructors can provide theadditional and expUcit instruction andpractice opportunities that some stu-dents need to acquire early readingskills.

Train Paraprofessionals Explicitlyand Extensively on the ReadingApproach

The para professional and sous-chef arenot analogous when it comes to train-ing. Sous-chefs are required to haveextensive cuUnary training and experi-ence before they are assigned to workwith an executive chef, and all sous-chefs are prepared and trained in specif-ic areas of cooking. A sous-chef shouldbe trained in baking, for example.before being able to become a pastrysous-chef. Importantly, sous-chefsspend significant time and gain sub-stantial instruction in each aspect ofkitchen duties, to become comfortable

with the techniques, utensils, andequipment.

Similarly, paraprofessionals need ini-tial training in literacy interventionsthey are to use. In some cases, however,paraprofessionals receive no specifictraining for carrying out delegated liter-acy instruction tasks or other classroomresponsibilities. In a meta-analysis ofstudies examining one-on-one tutoring,the best indicators of student successwere the qualifications and training ofthe instructor (Erlbaum et al.. 2000),

In a recent study conducted by Laneet al. (in pressj that examined the effec-tiveness of a paraprofessional-led inter-vention with youngsters at risk forreading and behavioral concerns, aparaprofessional was trained to directlyteach children reading skills. The para-professional in this study was systemat-ically trained to use a supplementaryearly-reading curriculum, PhonologicalAwareness TYaining for Reading (PATR;Torgesen & Bryant, 1994J, which isdesigned to promote awareness ofword-sound structure. The training tookplace during a 2-hour session and sub-sequent 30-minute monthly meetings.The findings of this study suggest that areading intervention provided by a para-professional can lead to improvementsin the early-literacy skills of studentsconsidered at risk for reading andbehavioral concerns (Lane et al., inpress). Similarly, Vadasy et al. (2006]and Miller (2003) studied the conditionsof effective early-literacy tutoring andfound that noncertified individuals caneffectively increase reading skills whenthey are provided significant training.

In each of these studies, the parapro-fessionals were trained intensively onthe instructional techniques being used.Paraprofessionals require appropriate,initial, and ongoing training and coach-ing specific to the reading interventionsthat they are to use with students. Evenwhen paraprofessionals are trained tohelp the classroom teacher provideparts of the core classroom readinginstruction (Blachman et al.. 1994; Tor-gesen et al., 2001), the classroomteacher provides the oversight and diag-nostic decisions necessary for maximiz-ing the progress of all students.

It is advisable that training be pro-vided by qualified professionals skilledin the particular literacy method orintervention. Teachers who are trainedin a research-based literacy approachcan effectively train other school profes-sionals (Vaughn & Coleman, 2004). Ineach of the intervention studiesdescribed previously, a qualifiedteacher, university researcher, or profes-sor conducted the training. It is criticalfor paraprofessionals to receive explicittraining, and to have access to ongoingsupervision, dialogue, and coachingfrom professional educators skilled inthe approach being used.

Train Paraprofessionals Explicitlyin Behavior Management

Safety is one of the first topics coveredin a training program for sous-chefs;they learn how to keep the kitchen envi-ronment running smoothly withoutincident or injury. Sous-chefs are alsocarefully trained to respond to emergen-cies in the kitchen.

It is critical for paraprofessionals

to receive explicit training, and to

have access to ongoing supervision,

dialogue, and coaching from

professional educators skilled in

the approach being used.

Management of student behaviorcorresponds to the topic of safety in thetraining of classroom slaff. In a recentstudy, paraprofessionais reported thatthey spent one fifth of their time pro-viding behavioral supports to students(Giangreco & Broer, 2005). Yet manyparaprofessionals do not feel confidentin the type and amount of training theyreceive to address challenging behav-iors. Lane et al. (in press), suggestedthat paraprofessionals need morebehavior-management training toenable them to provide effective small-group reading instruction. TYaining inpositive behavioral techniques preparesparaprofessionals to effectively supportstudents, maximize instructional time.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • SEPT/OCT 2007 • 59

what Systems Can I Useto Communicate Witha Paraprofessional?

Establish a firm 15-minute meetingtime for each day.

Set aside a longer (45-minute to60-minute) meeting time for eachweek.

Determine a monthly meeting todiscuss progress of individualstudents.

Meet when students do not needsupports (such as during lunch,recess, or special-areas classes).

Establish a communicationnotebook to be used by theteacher and paraprofessional.

Use e-mail as a way to efficientlycheck in each day or to answerburning questions.

and make supplemental literacy instruc-tion more effective. For students havinga history of challenging behavior, para-professionals should have easy-to-fol-low written behavior plans that theycan use to ensure that students receiveconsistent feedback. Such plans shouldinclude specific ways to engage studentsand help them to stay focused on spe-cific tasks, to cue effectively, and totransition seamlessly between tasks.When teachers provide paraprofession-als with written plans, paraprofession-als clearly understand how to supportstudents, and students can spend moretime learning.

Provide ParaprofessionalsWith On-Going Feedback

In a well-run kitchen, to ensure qualityand consistency the executive chef con-tinually monitors the work of the sous-chef. Although it might be expected thatteachers do the same with regard toparaprofessionals (and some do), othersfall prey to what Giangreco coined asthe "training trap'" (Giangreco, 2003, p.51). The training trap occurs whenteachers relinquish instruction of stu-dents with disabilities to the paraprofes-sionals after paraprofessionals havereceived virtually any level of training.no matter how scant—reasoning. "Now

they are trained." Even when parapro-fessionals have some training, however,teachers must continue to make thepedagogical decisions, provide the pri-mary instruction, and monitor the para-professionals' work.

Teachers should provide paraprofes-sionals with ongoing supervision andfeedback on the implementation of theirinstruction. In a study examining thetutoring of first-grade struggling readersin phonological reading skills, Jenkins,Vadasy, Firebaugh, and Profilet (2000)highlighted the importance of a trainedteacher providing consistent feedbackand supervision to the paraprofession-als in their study as a means of ensuringappropriate instruction. They stated:

The supervisor must have thetime and knowledge not only totrain [paraprofessionals] beforethey begin, but also to provideongoing support and scaffolding.You can't just train [paraprofes-sionals] and expect them to carryon. They need help trouble shoot-ing when problems come up orwhen new lesson activities areintroduced. They need help keep-ing on track, adhering to the les-son activities, and they needencouragement, (p. 78)

Teachers often feel that there is notenough time in the day to provide theappropriate training, monitoring, andfeedback to paraprofessionals. The box"What Systems Gan I Use to Com-municate With a Paraprofessional?"includes some strategies that teachershave utilized to make time to meet withand to provide feedback to paraprofes-sionals. Although, it is not possible tomake the school day longer, some ofthese strategies can be useful ways tocommunicate more efficiently.

Other Practical ConsiderationsAll students deserve to receive their pri-mary instruction from highly qualifiedgeneral and special educators. This isespecially true for students who arestruggling to learn to read, and it isclearly outlined in both the NGLB andIDEA. Teachers and special educatorsshould avoid assigning paraprofession-als the primary instructional responsi-

bilities for students with disabilities orthose who are at risk (Giangreco. 2003).It is important to remember that certi-fied teachers are specially trained inhow to teach reading and how to man-age behavior. Some paraprofessionalsare not specifically trained in eitherarea, and those who do have sometraining typically have substantially lesstraining than qualified teachers and spe-cial educators.

Gerber, Finn, Achilles, and Boyd-Zaharias examined whether the pres-ence of a teacher aide in the classroomhad a noticeable impact on studentlearning. They found that "greater con-tact between aides and students had anadverse effect on performance, whilestudents benefited academically if aidesperformed more administrative tasks[than instructional tasks]" (Gerber etal., 2001, p. 137). Several other studieshave documented the unintended detri-mental effects that untrained parapro-fessionals can have on students' socialinteractions with peers and teachers'academic expectations (Broer, Doyle, &Giangreco, 2005; Causton-Theoharis &Malmgren, 2005; Giangreco, Edelman.Luiselli, & MacFarland, 1997; Malmgren& Causton-Theoharis, 2006). Thesefindings suggest that teachers shouldcarefully consider how to use and placeparaprofessionals who lack the specifictraining and preparation necessary forhandling instructional roles.

When can a paraprofessional bemost effective? Giangreco, Broer, andEdelman suggested that when identify-ing a student's support needs it is bestto ask the question: "In the best of allpossible worlds who should provide thissupport?" (Giangreco et al., 1999, p.287). In other words, is the instructionfor this particular student best providedby a paraprofessional? In hiring andassigning a paraprofessional, teachersand administrators should consider thequestions: What knowledge, skills,interests, and abilities does this personbring to this teaching team? What tasksmatch this person's strengths and inter-ests? Depending upon the answers, itmight make the most sense to eitherredeploy the paraprofessional to non-instructional roles or to supportive

60 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

What Are NoninstructionalRoles for Paraprofessionals?

Administrative tasks(e.g., copying). '

Helping students/ -,\_groups thatare workingindependently.

Researching readingmaterials in the library.

Creating a bulletin board displayingstudent writing.

Reading student journal entries.

Editing student work.

Searching online for newinstructional computer games.

Preparing instructional materials.

Monitoring/supporting computerwork.

Preparing modifications oradaptations that are planned by theteacher.

Recording student data.

instructional roles under direct teachersupervision.

For example, teachers could assignthe paraprofessional tasks that can freethe teacher to have more time toinstruct students with disabilities orothers in need of extra help. During lit-eracy instruction, the teacher couldassign the paraprofessional tasks thatallow the teacher more direct instruc-tional contact with every child in theclassroom. Teachers should make surethat paraprofessionals understand thatnoninstructional assignments are val-ued contributions to the overall class-room program. The list in the box"What Are Noninstructional Roles forParaprofessionals?" suggests supportiveroles for paraprofessionals that free theteacher for hteracy instruction.

ConclusionIn the food industry, the success or fail-ure of the restaurant falls squarely onthe shoulders of the executive chef.Similarly, in the classroom the effective-ness of literacy instruction falls square-ly on the shoulders of the teachers andspecial educators. It is important to con-

sider how paraprofessionals are beingused in your hteracy program. Considerthe following questions.

• Are paraprofessionals providing sup-plemental or primary literacyinstruction?

• Are you using a research-basedapproach to literacy instruction?

• Have the paraprofessionals in yourschool been explicitly and extensive-ly trained on the reading approach?

• Do the paraprofessionals have thebehavior management knowledgeand skills needed to support instruc-tion?

• Is a certified professional consistent-ly monitoring and coaching the para-professionals in their supplementalinstruction?

• Have you considered re-deployingparaprofessionals to noninstructionalor support roles to allow teachers tohave more instructional time withstudents?

Teachers should make sure that

paraprofessionals understand that

noninstructional assignments are

valued contributions to the overall

classroom program.

If "no" is the answer to any of thesequestions, then it might be prudent toconsider what changes could be madeto utilize paraprofessional staff moreeffectively. When they are trainedappropriately and used effectively in theclassroom, paraprofessionals can notonly can expand a school's literacylearning opportunities for strugglingstudents, but can also make the "maincourse" of literacy learning more appe-tizing and more nourishing.

RoferencosAshbaker. B. Y., & Morgan J. [2006).

Paraprofessionals in the classroom. Bos-ton: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Blachman, B. A., Ball, E., Black, R.. & Tangel,D. (1994). Kindergarten teachers developphoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms: Does it make a differ-

ence? Reading and Writing: An Inter-disciplinary Journal, 6. l - i7 .

Broer, S. M., Doyle. M. B., ft Giangreco, M. F.(2005). Perspectives of students withintellectual disabilities about their experi-ences with paraprofessional support.Exceptional Children. 7\. 415-430.

Causton-Tbeobaris, J. N., & Malmgren, K, W.(2005). Building bridges: Strategies to helpparaprofessionals promote peer interac-tions. TEACHING Exceptional Children,37(6), 18-24.

Doyle, M, B. (2002). The ParaprofessionalsGuide to the Inclusive Classroom: Workingas a Team (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.

Doyle, M. B., & Lee, P. A. (2007). Creatingpartnerships with paraprofessionals. In M.F. Giangreco & M. B Doyle (Eds.), Quick-guides to inclusion: Ideas for educationstudents with disabilities (2nd ed., pp.267-280). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Eribaum. B., Vaughn, S. Hughes, M., &Moody, S, (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading forelementary students at risk for readingfailure? A meta-analysis of tbe interven-tion research. Joumai of EducationalPsychology. 92. 605-619.

Foorman, B, R.. Francis. D..)., Fletcher, J. M.,Schatschneider, C, & Mebta. P. (1998).Tbe role of instruclion in learning to read:Preventing reading failure in al-Hsk cbil-dren. Journal of Educational Psychology.90, 37-55.

Frencb, N. K. (1998). Working together: Re-source teachers and para educators. Reme-dial and Special Education. 20. 61-73.

Gerber, S. B., Finn, J. D., Achilles, C. M., &Boyd-Zabarias, J. (2001). Teacher aidesand students' academic achievement.Educational Emluation and PolicyAnalysis. 23, 123-143.

Giangreco, M. F. (2003). Working witb para-professionals. Educational Leadership.62(2), 50-53.

Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005).Questionable utilization of paraprofes-sionals in inclusive schools: Are weaddressing symptoms or causes? Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Dis-abilities, 20. 10-26.

Giangreeo, M. R, Broer S. M., & Edelman, S.W. (1999). Tbe tip of tbe iceberg:Determining wbether paraprofessionalsupport is needed for students with dis-abiiities in general education settings.Joumai of the Association for Persons withSevere Handicaps. 24. 281 -291.

Giangreco, M. F, & Doyle, M. B. (2004).Directing paraprofessional work. In G,Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), Including stu-dents with severe disabilities (pp,185-204), Boston: Allyn & Bacon,

Giangreco, M. F, Edelman, S. W, & Broer, S.M. (2001). Respect, appreciation, andacknowledgment of paraprofessionais

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • SEPT/OCT 2007 • 61

who support students with disabilities.Exceptional Children. 67. 485-498.

Giangreco, M. K, Edelman, S. W., & Broer, S.M. (2003). School wide planning toimprove paraeducator supports. Excep-tional Children, 70, 63-79.

Giangreco, M. F, Edelman. S,. Luiselli, T. E.,& MacFarland, S. Z. C. (1997). Helping orhovering? Effects of instructional assistantproximity on students with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 64, 7-18.

Gunn. B., Smolkowski. K.. Biglan, A., &Black, C. (2002). Supplemental instructionin decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementaryschool. The Journal of Special Education,36, 69-79.

Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

Jenkins, J. R., Vadasy, P. F, Firebaugh, M.. &Profilet, C. (2000). •I\itoring first-gradestruggling readers in phonotogical readingskills. Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 15, 75-84.

Lane, K. L.. Fletcher, T., Carter, E., Dejud, &DeLorenzo. J. (in press). Paraprofessional-led phonological awareness training withyoungsters at-risk for reading and behav-ioral concerns. Remedial and Special Edu-cation.

Malmgren, K. W., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N.[2006). Boy in the bubble: Effects of para-professional proximity and other pedagog-ical decisions on the interactions of a stu-dent with behavior disorders. Journal ofResearch in Childhood Education, 20,301-312.

Manning. D. (1979). The reading and mathachievement of remedial middle schoolstudents taught by teachers versus para-professionals. Reading Improvement,16[\), 35-42.

Marks, S. U.. Schrader, C . & Levine, M.(1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclu-sive settings; helping, hovering, or hold-ing their own? Exceptional Children. 65.315-328.

Miller, S. D. (2003). Partners-in-reading:Using classroom assistants to providetutorial assistance to struggling first-gradereaders. Journal of Education for StudentsPlaced at Risk, 8, 333-349.

Pickett, A. L., & Gerlach, K. (2003). Super-vising paraeducators in school settings: Ateam approach (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Simmons, D. C , Kame'enui, E. J., Stool-miller, M., Coyne, M. D.. & Harn. B.(2003). Accelerating growth and maintain-ing proficiency: A two-year interventionstudy of kindergarten and first-grade chil-dren at risk for reading difficulties. In B. R.Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediat-ing reading difficulties: Bringing science toscale (pp. 197-228). Timonium, MD: YorkPress,

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander. A. W, Wagner. R.K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway,T, & Rose. E. (2001). Intensive remedialinstruction for children with severe read-ing difficulties: Immediate and long-termoutcomes from two instructionalapproaches. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 34, 33-59.

Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1994).Phonological Awareness TYaining forReading [PATRl. Austin, TX: PRO-Ed.

Vadasy, P. F, Jenkins, J. R.. & Pool, K.(2000). Effects of tutoring in phonologicaland early reading skills on students at riskfor reading disabilities. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 33, 579-590.

Vadasy, P. F, Sanders, E. A., Peyton. J. A., &Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timing and intensi-ty of tutoring: A closer look at the condi-tions for effective early literacy tutoring.Learning Disabilities: Research andPractice, 17.227-241.

Vadasy. P. F, Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A.(2006a). Code-oriented instruction forkindergarten students at risk for readingdifficulties: A randomized field trial withparaeducator implementers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 98, 508-528.

Vadasy, P. F, Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A.(2006b). Paraeducator-supplemented in-struction in structural analysis with textreading practice for second and thirdgraders at risk for reading problems.Remedial and Special Education, 27,227-241.

Vaughn. S., & Coleman. M. (2004) The roleof mentoring in promoting use ofresearch-based practices in reading. Reme-dial and Special Education, 25, 25-38.

Julie N. Causton-Theoharis (CEC NYFederation), Assistant Professor. Departmentof Teaching and Learning, School of Educa-tion, Syracuse University. Neiu York. MichaelF. Giangreco (CEC VT Federation), Professor,Department of Education, University ofVermont, Burlington. Mary Beth Doyle (CECVT Federation), Associate Professor. Depart-ment of Education. St. Michael's College, Col-chester. Vermont. Patricia F. Vadasy (CECWA Federation), Senior Research Associate.Washington Research Institute. Seattle.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contri-butions of Melissa Price from the New YorkHigher Education Center for Systems Changefor providing the analogy of paraprofessionalas sous-chef

Address correspondence to Julie N. Causton-Theoharis, Department of Teaching andLearning. School of Education, SyracuseUniversity, 150 Huntington Hall, Syracuse,NY 13244 (e-mail: jcauston@syr.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children. Vol. 40.No. I. pp. 56-62.

Copyright 2007 CEC.

To order call1-800-224-6830

or visit us online atwww.cec.sped.org

TAMFanTECHNOLOGY SUPPORTS

FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Technology supports can help

children with disobilities not

only to porticipote, but olso to

do so independently.

Technology solutions con moke

it eoiser for children to move,

communicate, and use

materials to porticipote. The

TAM Fan is a proctical tool for

families, teachers, service

providers, and other caregivers

to use when considering

technology items

for young children.

2006

Price: $8.95

Item #S5766

Council forExceptionalChildren

The voice and vision of special education

62 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN