Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Paraeducators in Secondary Transitional Settings  Their Knowledge, Responsibilities & Training Needs
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

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

913
views

Published on

Presentation from the 2011 National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals Conference by Michelle Holbrook and Betty Ashbaker.

Presentation from the 2011 National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals Conference by Michelle Holbrook and Betty Ashbaker.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
913
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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 not certified or trained
    6
    Sources: 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% Male
    7
  • 12. Instrument
    Replication of knowledge & task survey
    Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco & Pelsue, 2009
    3 parts
    Demographics
    knowledge standards
    job-related tasks
    8
  • 13. Knowledge Survey
    9
    Sources: Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue (2009).
  • 14. Instrument Components
    10
    Demographics
    Knowledge Topics
    Paraprofessional Tasks
  • 15. Demographics Section
    11
    Years 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 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 of paraeducator 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
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 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
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 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
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 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
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 35. Substantial Need for Training
    31
  • 36. Least Need for Training
    32
  • 37. RESULTS
    QUESTION
    What Tasks Do Paraprofessionals
    Report Performing?
    33
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 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
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 42. Tasks Most Confident In
    38
  • 43. Tasks Least Confident In
    39
  • 44. RESULTS
    QUESTION
    What Are Paraprofessional
    Additional Training
    Needs?
    40
    Sources: Google Images: presentationpictures.wordpress.com (2011)
  • 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)
  • 51. Responsibilities continued
    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%)
  • 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%)
    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?
  • 54. Knowledge Levels
    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.
  • 55. Knowledge Levels
    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, O’Rourke, Sisco & Pelsue (2009)
  • 56. Transitional Paraeducator Training
    Training appearances for transitional paraeducators
    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 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. 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 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.