Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Perspectives on Current Practices and Barriers to Training for Paraeducators of
Students with Autism in Inclusive SettingsEmily Sobeck, M.Ed.
Rachel Robertson, Ph.D., BCBA-D
As you get settled in please take a few minutes to answer the questions that
are placed at your seat.
OutlineAbout Me
Background/Problem
Previous Research
Method & Results of Study
Points of Interest
Implications for Administrators and Paraeducators
Future Directions
About Me
Education/Certifications
Teaching Experience
Current Position
Research Interests
Paraeducator Training
Background Many schools allocate paraeducator support to help meet the needs of students with
disabilities (Fisher & Pleasant, 2012), making the use of paraeducators a common practice (Hall et al.,
2010).
# of students with autism served under IDEA has increased >500% in the last decade. # of paraeducators to help meet those needs increased by 123% (McCulloch & Noonan, 2013)
The continuing increase in the number of students with autism who are eligible for special education services (Bolton & Mayer, 2008) and the focus, both in legislation and in school practice, on providing services to these students in inclusive settings, has dramatically redefined the role of paraeducators who provide support services to students with autism (Giangreco et al., 2001).
In the general education environment paraeducators are now providing 1-to-1 academic instruction (Hall et al., 2010), serving as primary interventionists, adapting academic materials, facilitating communication (Minondo, Meyer, & Xin, 2001), providing support for related services, and communicating with parents (Riggs & Mueller, 2001).
Redfined Role - How has paraeducator training evolved?
What does paraeducator training look like in your school?
Problem No educational requirements -many paraeducators have no formal education beyond
high school (Fisher & Pleasant, 2012).
Paraeducator training is generally unavailable, deficient, or limited in content (Hall et al.,
2010).
Most paraeducators are the least trained individuals in the school setting, yet they work with the most difficult student population (Brown et al., 1999).
The deficient amount of training and supervision provided to paraeducators has been shown to negatively affect the progress of the students they support (Giangreco et al.,1997).
While the current literature suggests that paraeducators would benefit from more training, it is less clear how such training should be delivered (Brock & Carter, 2013).
Due to a lacking body of empirical literature, it is unclear what guidance the research base provides on training paraeducators who support students with autism. Paraeducator training remains one of the least investigated and potentially most significant areas of special education (Giangreco et al., 2001).
Previous Research13 Experimental Studies on Paraeducator Training in School Setting
2- Academic (O’Keefe, Slocum, & Magnusson, 2013; Owens et al., 2004)
11- Adaptive/Behavior (Bessette & Wills, 2007, Bingham et al., 2007; Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Feldman &
Matos, 2013; Maggin et al., 2012; Malmgren et al., 2005; Martella et al., 1993; McCulloch & Noonan, 2013; Quilty, 2007; Robinson, 2011; Toelken & Miltenberger, 2012)
Isolated skills specific to the needs of the student, opposed to universal skills. Ex: FA, AAC Device, Peer Interactions, Social Stories
One study examined a PRT package (i.e., child choice, shared control, clear opportunities, and natural and contingent reinforcement, minimal communication and proximity; Robinson, 2011).
Four conducted in inclusive settings (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005, Feldman & Matos, 2013; Malmgren & Causton-Theoharis, 2005; Robinson, 2011; Toelken & Miltenberger, 2012)
Three of those include students with autism (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005, Feldman & Matos, 2013; Robinson, 2011; Toelken & Miltenberger, 2012)
Previous Research
Excluding:
early intervention
adult educational facilities
competencies
roles/responsibilities
solely the implication of need for training
Including:
school-age
public/local schools
training needs
training packages
training suggestions
roles & corresponding training needs
portion dedicated to training needs
Survey Studies on Paraeducator Training
Previous Research16 Survey Studies on Paraeducator Training
Role & training of paras who work with students with visual impairments (Conroy, 2008; Griffin-
Shirley & Matlock, 2004; Lewish & McKenzie, 2010; McKenzie & Lewis, 2008)
TN to support students in gym class (Davis et al., 2007; Lieberman & Conroy, 2013)
TN of paras who provide transition services (Morehouse & Albright, 1991)
TN of paras who provide occupational education class support (Whitaker, 2000)
Impact of a specific state-wide para training program (Kelly & Havlicek, 1982)
3- Responsibilities, retention & TN (Carter et al., 2009; Downing et al., 2000; Hilton & Gerlach, 1997)
3- Para TN (Breton, 2010; Passaro & And, 1994; Riggs, 2001)
1-Para TN specific to inclusive settings (Riggs & Mueller, 2001)
Research Questions/Objectives
1. Identify the current practices and barriers of training for paraeducators who work with students with autism in inclusive settings.
2. Compare/contrast the perspectives of principals, special education teachers, and paraeducators relative to current training practices and barriers.
MethodPrincipal e-mail addresses were collected through the University
of Pittsburgh’s Department of Administrative and Policy Studies Tri-State Area School Study Council and Tennessee’s Department of Education’s directory.
Building principals were asked to forward the survey links to their special education teachers and paraeducators who work with students with ASD.
The survey was anonymous and disseminated to 551 elementary school building principals via e-mail using the Qualtrics survey software.
Participants had a total of 8 weeks to complete the survey with 2 e-mail reminders sent at 4 and 7 weeks.
Results were then reviewed and analyzed. Two non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U) were used to compare the response differences between the participant groups.
Survey
Component A Race/Ethnicity % of Free/Reduced lunch Location of school # of paraeducators employed Years of experience Degrees/Certifications Teaching breakdown (reg/sp) # of students with autism Student:Para ratio
Component B Adequate training How often truing provides Who provides training Content needs focused on Training approaches Sp Ed teacher assistance Performance feedback Barriers Ways to improve Comfortable with role Job satisfaction Anything else
Participants & SettingParticipants
61 Elementary School Building Principals
13 Special Education Teachers
22 Paraeducators who work with students with autism in inclusive settings
Setting
At home and/or work
At their own leisure
Internet access
Questionnaire Results &
Survey Results
ResultsQ: Do you feel that paraeducator training is adequate?
Paraeducators n=21
Special Education n=13
Principals n=40
Yes: 57.14% No: 42.86%
Yes: 38.48% No: 61.54%
Yes: 45% No: 55%
Q: How often are paraeducators trained?
Hours per school year
Paraeducators n=21
Principals n=42
41+ 31-40 21-30 11-20 0-10
4.76% 0% 47.62%* 28.57% 19.05%*
2.38% 4.76% 11.9%* 23.81% 57.14%*
* denotes significant difference between participant groups, p < .05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks
Q: How many hours a week do you dedicate to assisting training, and/or guiding paraeducators?
Hours per week Special Education n=12
<1 1-2 3-4 5-6 6+
41.67% 41.67% 8.33% 0% 8.33%
Q: Who normally provides paraeducator training? *Select up to 2*
Trainer Paraeducators n=20 (20)
Principals n=41 (65)
Director of Sp. Education Sp Education Teachers Outside Agency Other Administrators Other
25% 5% 45% 15% 10%
38.46% 16.92% 27.69% 16.92% 0%
Q: How is paraeducator training primarily conducted? *Select up to 2*
Trainer Paraeducators n=20 (36)
Principals n=42(60)
Presentation/Lecture Online Natural Setting + Modeling Natural Setting + Per. Feedback Readings Other
50% 22.22% 13.88% 5.55% 5.55% 2.77%
55% 15% 11.66% 13.33% 5% 0%
Q: How often are you observed and provided with individual & formal performance feedback by a trained professional?
Hours per week Paraeducators n=19
5+ times per school year 3-4 times per school year 1-2 times per school year I am not provided personal feedback
15.79% 10.53% 26.32% 47.37%
Q: What type of content is focused on during training sessions? *Select up to 2*
Content Area Paraeducators n=20 (42)
Principals n=42 (79)
Building Procedures Academic Behavioral General Special Education Other
28.57% 7.14% 42.86% 16.67% 4.76%
22.78% 24.05% 31.65% 21.52% 0%
Q: What content/topic do you think would be most beneficial for paraeducator training to focus on?
Hours per week Special Education n=12
Building Procedures Academic Behavioral General Special Education
0% 8.33% 83.33% 8.33%
* denotes significant difference between participant groups, p < .05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks
Q: What barriers prevent your district from implementing more effective training with paraeducators. *List up to 3*
Barrier Para’s n=30
Sp. Ed n=19
Princ. n=95
Time Money Lack of Trainers/Quality Training Lack of Respect/Priority/Commun. Varying Disabilities/Student Needs Paraeducators Understaffed Contracts/Policies/Mandates Turnover Rate Varying Levels of Experience Schedule Conflicts Location/Space Lack of Substitutes for Para’s
30% 20% 3.33%* 16.66%* 3.33% 10%* 0% 0% 3.33% 3.33% 6.66% 3.33%
42.11% 15.79% 31.58%* 5.26% 5.26% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
30.52% 28.42% 16.84% 3.15%* 6.31% 1.05%* 5.26% 1.05% 0% 3.15% 0% 1.05%
* denotes significant difference between participant groups, p < .05 according to Mann Whitney U, test of mean ranks
Q: What ways do you think paraeducator training can be improved in your building? *List up to 3*
Improvement Para’s n=31
Sp. Ed n=17
Princ. n=67
Increase Frequency of Trainings More Team Meeting/Trainings More Detailed & Focused Areas Respect Para/Priority/ Comm. More Options for Training More Agency & Guest Speakers Contractual Changes More Funding or Grant Money Designated Time for Training Increase Pay for Para’s
12.90% 12.90% 22.58% 22.58%* 16.12% 3.22% 0% 0%* 9.68% 0%
41.18% 11.76% 5.88% 5.88% 5.88% 5.88% 5.88% 0% 0% 5.88%
17.91% 8.96% 10.45% 1.50%* 11.95% 5.98% 8.96% 14.93%* 11.95% 1.50%
Q: How comfortable are you with the responsibilities you hold as a paraeducator in relation to the amount of training you have received?
Level of Comfort Paraeducators n=20
Not Comfortable (overwhelmed)
Somewhat Comfortable (underprepared)
Comfortable (moderately prepared)
Mostly Comfortable (prepared)
Very Comfortable (very prepared)
0% 20% 25% 30% 25%
Q: How would you rate your overall job satisfaction as a paraeducator who supports students with autism in inclusive settings?
Job Satisfaction Paraeducators n=20
Love every aspect Love my job but is very difficult Neutral feelings
Do not like more aspects
Do not like the job
35% 50% 15% 0% 0%
Points of Interest
Inadequate amount of training
On average, more than half of all participants reported training as being inadequate.
Half of paraeducators and the majority of principals reported that paraeducators receive <20 hours of training per school year.
PA School Code requires that paraeducators complete a minimum of 20 hours of training per school year (Pennsylvania School Code, 2008).
Points of Interest
Confusion on “who” is responsible for providing training
17% of principals reported that special education teachers provide paraeducator training, yet only 5% of paraeducators report that special education teachers provide assistance.
The majority of special education teachers reported they provide assistance & training to paraeducators <2 hours a week.
More time in inclusive settings = less time under direct supervision of special education teacher.
Just under half of paraeducators reported that training is most often provided by an outside agency representative, whereas 38% of principals report that training typically provided by the director of special education.
Points of InterestIneffective method of training
Teacher training literature suggests that didactic training alone is not effective enough to maintain newly acquired skills (Hans & Weiss, 2005; Riley-Tillman & Eckert, 2001), yet 50% of para’s and 55% of principals report presentation as the primary method of training.
Paraeducator training is most often conducted through single-event workshops (i.e., school in-service days; Brock & Carter, 2013), which have shown to be minimally effective on paraeducator behavior (Barnes, Dunning, & Rehfeldt, 2011).
43% of paraeducator’s and 32% of principals report that training most often focuses on behavioral support, while 83% of special education teachers report the need for para training to focus on behavioral support.
Focus of most training is on behavior, yet the actions of the paraeducators in the classroom indicate the need for behavioral support training, current training approaches may not be effectively be preparing paraeducators.
Points of InterestIneffective method of training (cont’d)
Performance feedback is an evidence-based practice (Cornelius & Nagro, 2014) that involves a brief meeting between a consultant and a consultee following the consultant observing the consultee in the natural environment (Fallon et al., 2014).
During such meetings, teacher implementation data, student performance, and graphic displays of data are shared. Many studies have shown positive effects with performance feedback with teachers through individual meetings (Codding et al., 2008; Rodriguez, Loman, & Horner, 2009) and small groups (Duhon et al., 2009; Pellecchia et al., 2011).
Performance feedback has been found to be an effective strategy for training teachers (Duchaine et al., 2012; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), yet only 6% of paraeducator’s and 13% of principal’s report it being used to train paraeducators.
Almost half of paraeducators reported NEVER being provided with any type of individual performance feedback.
Points of InterestMaking paraeducators a priority
All participant groups reported the need for increased training opportunities.
17% of paraeducators reported a lack of respect/communication as a barrier, whereas only 3% of principals identified it as a barrier.
23% of paraeducators suggested a need for respect/communication, whereas only 6% of special education teachers and 2% of principals noted this as an area of need.
Several paraeducators reported that training is usually repetitive in nature and 32% of special education teachers and 17% of principals reported training is usually of low quality
A quarter of predicators also reported the need for more focused areas of training. Trainings are not always applicable to their role as a paraeducator.
“Provide “training in the areas [paraeducators] work, for example, [do not provide] copier training when you don’t copy.” Missing the importance of paraeducators and the intended objective of training.
Administrators may unknowingly be sending an unintended & unappreciative message.
Implications for Administrators
Time needs to be allocated for focused, quality paraeducator training.
Clarifying who is responsible for training may help ensure training is given. Help to remove the assumption that someone else is doing it.
Less reliance on didactic instruction.
Performance feedback may hold promise as an effective way to train paraeducators.
Identifying specific behavior management skills to focus on during training may help keep sessions focused and not repetitive.
Communicating with paraeducators may serve to both provide insight on specific areas that require training/support and increase the level of respect.
Implications for Paraeducators
You should be provided with a minimum of 20 hours of training per school year per PA School Code.
Training should be specific to the position of a special education paraeducator, not clerical. Ex: survey response
Identifying specific areas in which training is needed can be helpful to administrators.
If training is not being offered, is not helpful, or is repetitive in nature, make sure to inform administrators.
Keeping a running log of the types of trainings you receive and the effectiveness can be helpful.
Implications for Research
Examine the training needs of paraeducators in inclusive settings.
Investigate possible training packages/programs aside from didactic instruction that are feasible within the school structure. Ex: performance feedback, collaborative discussions
Look at training programs that have the possibility of being self-sustaining.
Examine possible training programs that support paraeducators as valuable team members.
Need to look to have some consistency and standardization across schools, within states, and/or across states.
Limitations
Anonymous/not lining up individual responses and/or individuals from the same school.
Differences among mandates/training requirements between PA and TN.
Paraeducators and special education teachers were not directly sent the survey - reduced # of participants, unable to calculate response rate.
Some questions were posed differently among participant groups.
Next Steps…Strengths-based training program that uses performance feedback and small group discussions.
Simple Interactions (Dr. Junlei Li and Dr. Tom Akiva)- training model for staff at after school programs servicing youth.
Target 1-3 evidenced-based antecedent strategies that have been found to be effective for students with autism. One condition evaluating the effects of didactic instruction alone.
Research questions:
Will a strength-based training program increase paraeducators’ use of evidence-based antecedent strategies with children with autism in inclusive settings?
Can participants effectively take over and sustain the training program, and an increased use of antecedent strategies, without researcher support?
Collaborative discussion, specific skills, performance feedback, focus on paraeducator strengths to foster the use of targeted strategies and emphasis on time.
