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.

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

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.