Patricia H. Mueller, Ed.D.

National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals Conference

April 30, 2009

Avoiding the “Velcro Effect” Determining When a Student

Requires Paraeducator Support

Evergreen Educational Consulting LLC

Participant Outcomes for this Session

Learn about…key research findings that show 1:1

paraeducator support can have unintended detrimental effects.

effective & proven protocols designed to help IEP teams determine whether paraeducator support is necessary for a student’s success.

training activities that address the “Velcro” effect.

Beth’s Story

When my daughter, Beth, started high school, the school personnel insisted she have a full-time paraprofessional, presumably because she has Down syndrome. It was a battle I wasn’t willing to fight, so I agreed to it even though I felt it wasn’t needed.

Freshman year this arrangement worked out reasonably well. The paraprofessional was a young woman, not much older than Beth. She was skilled at giving her room and knowing when to back off.

During Beth’s sophomore year, this paraprofessional was replaced by one who was on her like Velcro®!

She was always telling Beth what to do, insisting she leave class early, and generally making a spectacle of their interactions. It wasn’t long before Beth reacted uncharacteristically.

Beth ran away from the paraprofessional, called her names, even left school and went home. Though Beth’s communication wasn’t socially desirable, her intent was clear; but no one seemed to be listening.

A month or so into the year, after this second paraprofessional quit, Beth’s team met to decide what would happen next.

When asked, Beth said she “...didn’t like being

bossed” and “... didn’t want an aide.” Her request was honored;

Beth didn’t have an individual paraprofessional for the rest of high school. The problem behaviors disappeared, and with no intermediary between her and the teachers, Beth was more academically connected.

It made me feel even more strongly that we need to involve students in determining their own [need for] supports. (Beth’s Mother)

(Giangreco et. al., 2005)

Benefits of Paraeducator Support

Paraeducators can…Do clerical tasks that free teachers to spend

more time instructing students.Engage in follow-up instruction, tutoring, or

homework help.Provide supervision in group settings.Assist students with personal care needs.Facilitate social skills, peer interactions, and

positive behavior support plans. •

(Giangreco et. al., 2005)

Reasons to be Concerned About 1:1 Supports

• The least qualified staff members are assigned to students with the most challenges.

• Paraeducator supports may have unintended or inadvertent detrimental outcomes.

• 1:1 paraeducator supports are linked to lower levels of teacher involvement.

Least Qualified with the Most Challenges

Paraeducators often provide a high level of instruction.

Paraeducators self-report having to “fend for themselves.”

Paraeducators report receiving little or no

training to perform instructional roles.

Would it be acceptable for students in general education programs to receive instruction from staff members with little or no training?

Inadvertent Detrimental Effects

Detrimental Effects Cont’d

Limited access to competent instruction (paraeducators lack necessary skills or knowledge base)

Interference with teacher engagement (teacher assumes student is already receiving individual attention)

Loss of personal control (paraeducators do for students vs. allowing student to make choices)

Loss of gender identity (e.g., a male student taken to a female bathroom because the paraeducator is female)

May provoke problem behaviors (some students express their dislike of paraeducator support by displaying inappropriate behaviors)

(Giangreco et. al., 2005)

Why Paraeducators Assume Responsibility?

Ensuring that the student is not being a “bother” to the teacher.

To meet student’s immediate academic needs.

They are perceived as the “hub” or the “expert.”

They are the face of “inclusion.” (Marks et. al.,

1999)

How to avoid the negative outcomes…

By implementing effective and proven

protocols designed to help IEP teams

determine whether paraeducator support is

necessary for a student’s success.

Paraeducator Increases: Effects at a Local Level

Lack of time & ability to provide necessary supervision

Decrease in communication between general & special educators (paraeducator = mediator)

Increased dependency on paraeducators (Ele. to MS to HS)

Paraeducator seen as a “band aid”Decrease in natural and peer supportsIncrease in parental requests for paraeducator

supportParaeducator role confusion: tutor vs. change agent

facilitating peer and adult interactionsParaeducator increase = cost increase

Planning Process Instruments (Mueller & Murphy)

Intensive Needs Checklist: provides an overview of student’s needs in relation to the classroom environment.

Student’s Abilities & Assistance Needs Matrix: focuses on what the student can/can’t do and the extent of assistance needed.

Plan for Paraeducator Assistance: identifies where, when and how para will provide support and encourage independence.

July/August 2001 Article

Benefits and Effects (Mueller & Murphy)

Overwhelming support from special & general educators.

Intentional focus on the student’s needs (e.g., promoting independence, enhancing peer relations).

Increased awareness of the roles of those involved with the student (general & special educators, peers, paraeducators, family members).

Explicitly shows when & where paraeducator support is necessary.

Process and instruments helped to clarify the roles & responsibilities of paraeducators.

Result was increased accountability & the budget spiral ended.

Caliso Planning Process

Data based assessment tool for initial decision-making; used by multi-disciplinary team.

Typically used with students who have mild

disabilities whose parents are requesting paraeducator support.

Process includes observations of student’s self-regulatory skills measured by attending to task.

Published product includes manual, observation instrument and a case illustration.

Anecdotal Results (Caliso)

In approximately 20 cases, teams decided either not to provide paraeducator support or a part-time paraeducator was recommended where “the data pointed to the need.”

Process has deterred hiring of full-time paraeducators in many cases, especially in with Pre-K students transitioning from Part C to Part B where parents were requesting paraeducator support.

For more information contact: John Caliso at: JCaliso@franklinlakes.k12.nj.us.

LA Unified School District (2004)

One to one assistants are called Temporary Support Assistants (TSA).

Statistics: 86,000 students with disabilities, 8,000 paraeducators, 4,000 TSAs.

Increase in TSAs was not correlated with an increase in students in general education classrooms.

Increased demand for TSAs from special educators to provide behavioral support in special classes.

Increase in demand for TSAs from schools to boost numbers, parents and general educators.

LAUSD Guidelines for Determining TSA

IEP team completes a “Supplementary Services Review for TSA” form.

Form includes decision-making flowcharts for Health, Behavior and Academic Concerns.

If the need for TSA support is documented using the flowcharts, the team develops goals to increase independence.

The IEP includes criteria to judge the effectiveness of continuing the TSA at the end of 3 months.

Emphasis is on the level of support needed vs. the needs of the teachers or parents.

LAUSD Guidelines (2008)

No longer called TSAs, now is called AA (Adult Assistance).

“ ‘Adult Assistance’ is not an assistant/trainee position assigned to a student.”

Support provided in behavior & health. Flow charts are no longer used.

FBA is completed for student needing behavioral support. Analysis of school’s resources may be conducted by LRE Specialist.

School nurse provides student level of performance for health

care support.

Schools maintain matrix of all AAs & assignments.

Activities to Encourage Independence

Levels of Support

Transitional: Support is only needed on a temporary basis.

Low: Support is always available, but not needed on a regular basis.

Medium: Support is necessary on a regular basis.

High: Support is absolutely necessary for the student to learn and must be provided consistently.

Norman Kunc

Credo for Support

Key References & Resources

Caliso, J. Personal Communication (3/23/09).

Giangreco, M. F., Yuan, S., McKenzie, B., Cameron, P., & Fialka, J. (2005). “Be careful what you wish for….”: Five reasons to be concerned about the assignment of individual paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37 (5), 28-34.

Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings: Helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children, 65, 315–328.

 Mueller, P.H. & Murphy, F.V. (2001). Determining when a student requires paraeducator support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, (6 ), 22-27.

Weintraub, F. & Jacque-Anton, D. (2004, April. ). Determining Temporary Support Assistance. Paper presented at the annual Council for Exceptional Children Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Contact Information

To Access the Power Point:

www.eecvt.com: NRCP Presentation 2009

Patricia H. Mueller, Ed.D. Evergreen Educational Consulting,

LLC 16 Bradley Bow Rd.

Jericho, VT 05465

eec@gmavt.net (802) 434-5607