Paraeducators in Secondary Transitional Settings Their Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training Needs

1. 1
Paraeducators in Secondary TransitionalSettings
Their Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training Needs
Michelle Holbrook- Graduate Student
Betty AshbakerPh.D., Educational Psychology
Brigham Young University

2. "The task of the excellent (paraeducator) is to stimulate 'apparently ordinary' people to unusual effort. The tough problem is not in identifying winners: it is in making winners out of ordinary people." (K. Patricia Cross)
2
3. STANDARDSROLES
3
Literature Review

Paraeducators have expanded roles

4. CEC Knowledge and Skill Set revision fall 2011 5. State standards 6. Training is directed school setting 7. Little training transitional / community employment settings
Sources:utahparas.org (2010), Pickett (1999), Downing, Ryndak & Clark, (2000)
8. Traditional vs. Transitional?
Four Major Differences
Autonomy/adapting instructional strategies
Active members of IEP teams
Communicate information and provide assistance to parents
Liaison between school/employer/service providers
4
Source:Pickett, Faison, Formanek & Woods (1999)
9. PURPOSE
Paraeducator strengths & weaknesses concerning responsibilities in transition settings
Identify knowledge they have or may need to perform these responsibilities
How they received that knowledge
5
10. Educators Parents ResearchersExpectations
Quality education for children with exceptionalities
Paraeducator we are entrusting/ resides in their abilities, qualifications, competencies
Many are notcertified or trained
6
Sources:Carter, ORourke, Sisco & Pelsue (2009),Riggs & Mueller, (2001).
11. Participants
336 transitional paraeducators
34 secondary school/17 transitional programs
Ethnicity- 94% Caucasian, 14.4% Hispanic
Gender- 89% Female, 11% Male
7
12. Instrument
Replication of knowledge & task survey
Carter, ORourke, Sisco & Pelsue, 2009
3 parts
Demographics
knowledge standards
job-related tasks
8
13. Knowledge Survey
9
Sources:Carter, ORourke, Sisco, & Pelsue (2009).
14. Instrument Components
10
Demographics
Knowledge Topics
Paraprofessional Tasks
15. Demographics Section
11
Years experience, gender, ethnicity, teachercertification, job description
Community based/school setting
11-12 grades
Work-supported employment/community
Work-supported/sheltered workshop
Life skills ages 18-22
Transition program classroom ages 18-22
16. Knowledge Section
12
15 items
job training skill, educational terms, effects of disability
ethical, cultural biases, rights of families
abuse indicators,teaching strategies, technology,
procedural safeguards, environmental impacts,
communication, assessment, role ofparaeducator in IEP
17. Paraprofessional Task Section
13
19 Tasks
small group & one-on-one instruction, preparing materials & student transition plans
communication/parents, paperwork, meeting teachers, collecting data
health care, behavior management & plans, technology, assessments
job task & independence teaching, clerical, assist IEP planning
facilitating social relationships, personal care
18. Procedures
41 Utah School District
2 urban declined participation
8 rural stated no pertinent programs
Participation
Urban 81%
Suburban 100%
Rural 68%
Survey Packets via US mail
14
19. Data Analysis
15
Descriptive statistics
Job description
Knowledge
Job-related tasks
Analyses
Multi-regression
Years of experience & disability incidence
Predicted overall knowledge
Chi Squared
Job-related tasks
Associated with disability focus
20. RESULTS
QUESTION
With Whom Do Paraprofessionals Report?
16
Sources:Google Images:presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
21. Paraprofessional Settings
17
22. Disability Categories
18
23. Data Focus
19
Low-incidence disabilities
Moderate/Severe Range
72%
High-incidence disabilities
Mild range
28%
24. RESULTS
QUESTION
How do Paraprofessionals
Evaluate Their
Knowledge?
20
25. High Levels of Knowledge
21
26. Low Levels of Knowledge
22
27. RESULTS
QUESTION
What Factors Are Associated
with High Levels
of Knowledge?
23
28. Overall Knowledge
24
29. Predicted Knowledge
Paraprofessionals/low-incidence
Higher levels of knowledge
Holding years experience constant
Each year of experience
Adds .015 knowledge units
Working with low-incidence
Holding years of experience constant
25
30. RESULTS
QUESTION
What Types of Training
Have
Paraprofessionals
Received?
26
31. Types of Training
27
32. High Levels Training / On-The Job
28
33. Low Levels Training / On-The Job
29
34. RESULTS
QUESTION
How do Paraprofessionals
Evaluate Their Need
For Additional
Training?
30
35. Substantial Need for Training
31
36. Least Need for Training
32
37. RESULTS
QUESTION
What Tasks Do Paraprofessionals
Report Performing?
33
38. Most/Least Frequently Performed Tasks
34
39. Tasks with Missing Data
35
40. Task/Disability Incidence Associations
36
41. RESULTS
QUESTION
What Tasks Do Paraprofessionals
Feel Most Prepared
To Perform?
37
42. Tasks Most Confident In
38
43. Tasks Least Confident In
39
44. RESULTS
QUESTION
What Are Paraprofessional
Additional Training
Needs?
40
45. Training Needs
41
46. Additional Training Considerations
42
Supervision
Substantial amount of time or more 50.3%
Moderate 19%
Some 23.2 %
None 5.7%
47. Discussion
43
Source:muslimah.femagination.com
48. Discussion
44
Responsibilities
Knowledge Level Perception
Transitional Paraeducator Training
49. Responsibilities
45
Disability Focus/broad range
Mean 7.9
12 disabilities
Settings
Transitional classroom/community training (34%)
Transitional classroom (23%)
Location
34 schools
17 transitional centers/programs
50. Responsibilities continued
46
Urban
Population 2008-09/81,017 to 5,960
Transitional programs 6/9 (2 non-participants)
Suburban
Population 2008-09/65,014 to 3,502
Transitional program 5/8 (100% participation)
Rural
Population 2008-09/13,406 to 988
Transitional programs 4/24 ( 8 no paraeducators)
Services and educational opportunity effected by geographic factors
Source:USOE,Pubic School Enrollment (2008-09)
47
Tasks performed
One-on-instruction, behavior management, independence skills, social relationship over 90% daily or weekly
Non transition related
Bottom of the list preparation IEP (8.1%) factor - annually)
Transition related tasks
Not participating in/low levels of confidence
IEP planning, informal assessment, communication with parents
Directly involved with student involved in transition
Minimal to no supervision (47.9%)
Missing Data
Over 20% (N=336)
Over 67 respondents did not answer these questions
Missing data tasks/task performed %
Planning IEP (8.1%)
Parent communication (22.9%)
Preparing transition plan (40.2%)
Completing job or disability related paper work (46.4%)
48
Was missing information related to ignorance or non-performance?
53. Knowledge Levels
Substantial levels of perceived knowledge
13 of 14 knowledge levels were above the mean (confident)
Training on-the-job (69.91%)
Split classroom/community (44%)
Lack of supervision in community setting?
Moderate no supervision (47.9%)
49
When formal training is lacking, adequacy of delivering supporting instructional services is in question. Are those services delivered in the community without supervision?
Knowledge/Effect of instruction
Dominant training on-the-job (69.91%)
Informal training
Training
Teaching
Supporting
Meeting needs of students
50
Formal training should be included at the forefront for paraeducators in transitional settings.
51
Low Levels of Knowledge/student services
IEP, technology, assessment, rights of families and students
Congruent with Carter study
Technology
%
Training influenced
Financially, hourly pay, irrelevancy, little job enhancement
Source:Carter, ORourke, Sisco & Pelsue (2009)
56. Transitional Paraeducator Training
Training appearances for transitionalparaeducators
Low-incidence disabilities (72%)
Low-incidence/more knowledgeable
Not certified nor formally trained
Formal training being replaced by on-the-job training
Knowledge predicted by years experience
52
Years experienceis a predictor of knowledge.Extensive specific task driven training should factor into knowledge. Formal training should be provided for transitional paraeducators.
Source:Riggs & Muellar (2001)
57. Limitations
53
Source:Google Images (2011).
58. Limitations
54
Survey mailed no verbal contact
Survey relied on national
knowledge standards
State standards established
Survey administered
Transitional paraeducators
Results should only be
interpreted for that group
59. Paraeducators Rock!
55
In the classroom!
In the community!
60. References
Agosta, J., Brown, L., & Melda, K., (1993).Job coaching in supported employment: Present condition and emerging directions. Salem, OR:Human Services Research Institute.
Ashbaker, B.Y. & Minney, R.B. (2007). Planning your paraprofessionals path:an administrators legal compliance and training guide. Horsham, PA:LRP.
Carter, E., O'Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344-359.
Etscheidt, S. (2005).Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities:a legal analysis of issues.Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,30(2), 60-80.
Morgan, R., Merrill, Z., Ames, N., Feng, J., Looslie, T.S., & Salzberg, C.L. (1996).ASSET Advancing Skills of Specialists in Employment Training. Logan, UT:TRI-SPED, University of Utah.
Pickett, A. L., Faison, K., Formanek, J., Woods, J., (1999). A core curriculum & training program to prepare paraeducators to work in transitional services and supported employment programs (2nd ed.). New York, New York City University of New York, NY Center for Advanced Study in Education.
Riggs, C. G., & Mueller, P. H. (2001). Employment and utilization of paraeducators in inclusive settings. Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 54-62.
Utah State Office of Education (2009).Utah paraeducator handbook.Salt Lake City, UT: USOE.