Paraeducators in Secondary Transitional Settings Their Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training Needs
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like743 views
This document summarizes a study examining the roles, knowledge, and training needs of paraeducators working in secondary transitional settings. The study surveyed 336 paraeducators working in 34 secondary schools and 17 transitional programs. It found that paraeducators have expanded responsibilities in transitional settings but receive little formal training, relying primarily on on-the-job learning. Paraeducators reported high levels of knowledge but lacked training in key areas like assessment, technology, and IEP planning. Experience level and working with students with low-incidence disabilities predicted greater knowledge. The study highlights needs for improved training to better prepare paraeducators for their roles supporting students in transitional programs.
Paraeducators in Secondary Transitional Settings Their Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training Needs
- 1. 1Paraeducators in Secondary TransitionalSettingsTheir Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training NeedsMichelle Holbrook - Graduate Student Betty AshbakerPh.D., Educational PsychologyBrigham 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 3Literature ReviewParaeducators have expanded roles
- 4. CEC Knowledge and Skill Set – revision fall 2011
- 6. Training is directed – school setting
- 7. Little training – transitional / community employment settingsSources: utahparas.org (2010), Pickett (1999), Downing, Ryndak & Clark, (2000)
- 8. Traditional vs. Transitional?Four Major DifferencesAutonomy/adapting instructional strategies Active members of IEP teams Communicate information and provide assistance to parents Liaison between school/employer/service providers4Source: 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 knowledge5
- 10. Educators – Parents – ResearchersExpectations Quality education for children with exceptionalities Paraeducator we are entrusting/ resides in their abilities, qualifications, competencies Many are not certified or trained6Sources: Carter, O’Rourke, 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% Male7
- 12. InstrumentReplication of knowledge & task survey Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco & Pelsue, 2009 3 partsDemographicsknowledge standards job-related tasks8
- 13. Knowledge Survey9Sources: Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue (2009).
- 14. Instrument Components10Demographics Knowledge Topics Paraprofessional Tasks
- 15. Demographics Section11Years experience, gender, ethnicity, teacher certification, 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 Section1215 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 of paraeducator in IEP
- 17. Paraprofessional Task Section1319 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 ParticipationUrban 81% Suburban 100% Rural 68% Survey Packets via US mail14
- 19. Data Analysis15Descriptive 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. RESULTSQUESTIONWith Whom Do Paraprofessionals Report?16Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 23. Data Focus19Low-incidence disabilities Moderate/Severe Range 72% High-incidence disabilities Mild range 28%
- 24. RESULTSQUESTIONHow do ParaprofessionalsEvaluate TheirKnowledge?20Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 25. High Levels of Knowledge21
- 26. Low Levels of Knowledge22
- 27. RESULTSQUESTIONWhat Factors Are Associatedwith High Levelsof Knowledge?23Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 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 constant25
- 30. RESULTSQUESTIONWhat Types of TrainingHave ParaprofessionalsReceived?26Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 32. High Levels Training / On-The Job28
- 33. Low Levels Training / On-The Job29
- 34. RESULTSQUESTIONHow do ParaprofessionalsEvaluate Their NeedFor AdditionalTraining?30Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 35. Substantial Need for Training31
- 36. Least Need for Training32
- 37. RESULTSQUESTIONWhat Tasks Do ParaprofessionalsReport Performing?33Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 38. Most/Least Frequently Performed Tasks34
- 39. Tasks with Missing Data35
- 40. Task/Disability Incidence Associations36
- 41. RESULTSQUESTIONWhat Tasks Do ParaprofessionalsFeel Most PreparedTo Perform?37Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 42. Tasks Most Confident In38
- 43. Tasks Least Confident In39
- 44. RESULTSQUESTIONWhat Are ParaprofessionalAdditional TrainingNeeds?40Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
- 45. Training Needs41
- 46. Additional Training Considerations42Supervision Substantial amount of time or more 50.3% Moderate 19% Some 23.2 % None 5.7%
- 48. Discussion44 Responsibilities Knowledge Level Perception Transitional Paraeducator Training
- 49. Responsibilities45Disability 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 continued46 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 factorsSource: USOE, Pubic School Enrollment (2008-09)
- 51. Responsibilities continued47 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%)
- 52. Responsibilities continued 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%)48Was missing information related to ignorance or non-performance?
- 53. Knowledge LevelsSubstantial levels of perceived knowledge13 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%)49When formal training is lacking, adequacy of delivering supporting instructional services is in question. Are those services delivered in the community without supervision?
- 54. Knowledge LevelsKnowledge/Effect of instruction Dominant training on-the-job (69.91%) Informal training Training Teaching Supporting Meeting needs of students50Formal training should be included at the forefront for paraeducators in transitional settings.
- 55. Knowledge Levels51Low 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 enhancementSource: Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco & Pelsue (2009)
- 56. Transitional Paraeducator Training Training appearances for transitional paraeducatorsLow-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 experience52Years experience is 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. Limitations53Source: Google Images (2011).
- 58. Limitations54Survey 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!55In the classroom!In the community!
- 60. ReferencesAgosta, 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 administrator’s 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.