Paraeducator Evaluation

Abstract
For decades, paraeducators have been contributing to special education by participating fully with general education teachers in the co-creation of inclusive classrooms. Paraeducators and other paraprofessionals working in education specialize in assistive services that improve the quality, standards, and outcomes of special education. Assistance with instructional design and content helps general education teachers become more adept in making adaptations and accommodations for students with special needs. The use of paraeducators in inclusive classrooms is strongly recommended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, the role of the paraeducator is not always clearly defined, leading to workplace conflict. The relationship between paraeducators and general educators may sometimes be strained due to the lack of role clarity and corresponding lack of coherent standards for becoming a paraprofessional in special education. An observation of a paraeducator working with sixth graders provides a case study insight into the roles and functions of a paraprofessional. The observation took place in one school room day, using a clinical supervision model and format for observation and conference notes. An evaluation reveals points of contention and areas in which administrative improvements could be made to improve the overall effectiveness of paraeducation in general. Reflections include recommendations for standardized observation forms for observing and evaluating paraprofessionals.
Pre-Conference Notes
The paraeducator is a thirty-nine year old female who has a background in special education and social work. The observation took place over the course of one school day at a middle school,, in a sixth grade classroom. The paraeducator was asked to participate in an interview as well as being observed during instructional practice, and agreed to the observation and participation in research. Although the paraeducator works with students with different disabilities, including physical, developmental, behavioral, intellectual, and learning disabilities, this particular classroom has only three students with official diagnoses. Out of twenty-eight students in the sixth grade classroom, one has a motor functions disability and is highly functioning in other areas including the social and academic arenas. Another has a developmental disability and the third has dyslexia.
Field notes were taken during the observation. The points of interest included how the paraeducator worked with the general education teacher before, during, and after the class. Formal observations of the interactions between general education teacher and the paraeducator were supplemented by interviews with the paraeducator and substantiated by independent scholarly research.
Another point of interest during the observation of the inclusive classroom was how the paraeducator worked with the students, especially the three students with special needs. Of note included whether the paraprofessional offered unique adaptations and accommodations for each of the students, classroom design, and conflicts with instructional strategies or pedagogical methods. Similarly, the observations took into account reactions from the other students in the classroom.
Observation Notes
The observation began ten minutes before the start of class, at 7:20AM. According to both the general education teacher and the paraeducator, the two prefer to converse prior to class at least twice per week. During this ten minute period, the paraeducator provides specific updates and information gleaned from in-class observations, making recommendations to the teacher about modifications to instructional material, classroom design, pedagogical strategies, or assessment methods.
The students filled into the classroom starting around 7:28AM, and two students arrived after the bell. The paraeducator alternates between standing, sitting, and walking around the classroom from the start. The students sit in assigned seats. The student with motor dysfunction sits in the front row of the classroom near the door to facilitate mobility. The student with dyslexia and the student with developmental disabilities sit in the back row near to where the paraeducator sits, allowing the paraeducator to provide assistance at key points during the lesson. The lesson taking place today encompassed American history and literature. After lunch, a science and math teacher entered the room to provide additional instructional content, but the students remained in their assigned seats. The paraeducator did not consult with the science and math teacher.
During the lesson, the paraeducator did not interrupt or stop the general education teacher. The only time the paraeducator worked with the student with motor function disabilities was when the student was struggling with his iPad, which was specially programmed with educational software to help him take notes and respond to questions using assistive technology. When the student with developmental disabilities occasionally became excited, the paraeducator sat with her for several minutes and helped her to focus. The student with developmental disabilities is good-natured and laughs a lot, and is friendly with the other students but can be disruptive because she gets distracted.
The student with dyslexia becomes frustrated at certain points, when the lesson is moving too fast for her and when she struggles with an in-class assignment. Otherwise, the paraeducator simply observes. When the student with dyslexia needs accommodations, the paraeducator helps and on three occasions consults with the general education teacher about appropriate lesson adaptations or accommodations. At the end of class, there was no further communication between the general education teacher and the paraeducator.
Post Conference Notes
Observations and interviews with the paraeducator revealed that the person integrates well into the general education classroom, creating an integrated classroom that remains unobtrusive in its design and process. The general education teacher is in charge of lesson planning and delivery, and there were no incidents in which the paraeducator spoke to the entire classroom. The students in the classroom were already used to the paraeducator’s presence. The special education students did not look to the paraeducator in the same way that they did the teacher. Rather, the students would only look to the paraeducator for support when they were struggling. The paraeducator was more likely to provide the accommodations independently than to wait until the students asked for her assistance.
The most striking aspect of the observation of the paraeducator was the minimal interaction between her and the general education teacher. With only one day of observations, it makes sense that there would be little context for their professional relationship. However, it seemed as if the paraeducator and the general education teacher did not systematically collaborate on instructional strategy and design. When asked about how they collaborate, the paraeducator and the general education teacher mentioned that once per week they meet for about thirty minutes to discuss specific issues. The paraeducator does not meet regularly with the school principal but does meet about once per month with the special education director and the school counselor, respectively.
Reflection
Evaluating paraeducators requires more than just one day’s worth of observations and assessments. A paraeducator does not necessarily have specified qualifications or background. The field remains both nescent and nebulous, allowing for considerable leeway in the role and function of the paraprofessional. However, paraprofessionals come equipped with their own set of strengths and areas of interest and specialization. The paraeducator observed for this research was one with a background in social work and special education, who had helped families adapt to special needs in the family. Through working with families in a social work and human services capacity, the paraeducator recognized the pressing need for more effective inclusive classrooms and therefore transferred her skills to the realm of special education as a paraprofessional.
Lack of formal training and minimal supervision seem to be common perceptions of the paraprofessional and the role the paraprofessional plays in the general education classroom (Breton, 2010). With a lack of formal training, a paraprofessional can come from any number of backgrounds and this presents a problem in terms of lack of standards or core competencies in their role. This observation could have been an anomaly in terms of the level of competency and abilities demonstrated by the paraeducator. Generally, a paraeducator might lack the skills or knowledge of developmental psychology or special education to provide the most effective interventions. Paraeducators do, however, serve in an assistive role by definition (Douglas, Chapin & Nolan, 2015). Therefore, expertise is less important than interpersonal communications skills and the ability to anticipate student needs in the classroom or with academics in general (Lane, Carter & Sisco, 2012).
Paraeducators need a strong degree of independence and self-determination in order to effectively serve students with special needs given the tremendous diversity of special needs and classroom environments. This observation in fact highlights the strengths of an independent working environment for the paraprofessional. Research shows that paraprofessionals in special education value multiple dimensions of self-determination in their work above all else (Lane, Carter & Sisco, 2012). The primary dimensions of self-determination cited as being important to the paraeducator include the ability to make choices independently, problem solving, goal setting with students, advocacy, and leadership (Lane, Carter & Sisco, 2012). Dimensions of self-determination should therefore become one of the cornerstones of standardized evaluation forms and procedures for assessing the role and efficacy of paraeducators.
As peripheral as paraprofessionals can be, this observation demonstrates that they are provided with a strong enough degree of self-determination as to operate almost totally separate from the general education teacher. While a separation between teacher and paraeducator can reduce disruptions in the classroom, it also detracts from the goals of integrated classrooms, and fails to provide the long-term, goal-driven assistance that general educators need. General educators may also want to learn more about how they can provide adaptations and accommodations to students without having to depend on the paraeducator. Actually, overreliance on paraprofessionals has become a major problem in educational settings in which the teacher and the special education director lack vision or the ability to collaborate on long-term strategies (Giangreco, Broer & Suter, 2011). The paraeducator should of course help students, but this observation and subsequent research shows that paraeducators could also be thrust into a leadership role in which they consult with teachers and administrators to provide insight into students with special needs. Teambuilding also emerges as a critical issue for paraeducators, who do operate on the fringes as opposed to being fully integrated into classroom decision-making and special education pedagogy.
The multiple roles they serve in make paraeducators paradoxically both specialists and generalists. They specialize in helping maintain the principles of IDEA, providing assistance to general education teachers, and helping students with special needs reap the benefits of their individualized education plans (IEPs). They directly and indirectly aid in classroom management. Yet they lack formal controls, have few institutional supports, and area rarely respected as leaders in special education, individuals with the experience and understanding of special needs to inform classroom design, curricula, instructional methods, and pedagogy. Their lack of formal controls is not accidental at all, but based on the definition of their position as being assistants who lack specialized or advanced training in special education to make those types of directorial decisions.
Budgets may prevent hiring special education teachers to serve alongside generalists in co-teaching classrooms. Also, teachers will eventually need paraeducators to provide the informal and sporadic support they need. Only paraeducators serve in multiple intersecting and interrelated roles: “teaching, adapting materials, facilitating interactions with peers, and implementing behavioral interventions,” (Downing, Ryndak & Clark, 2000, p. 171). Paraeducators and the teachers they help do not foresee the need to eliminate the position in favor of more highly trained and more highly valued special education instructors. Using paraeducators retains the strong position of the teacher in the classroom and prevents conflicts between two specialists. However, the paraeducator lacks the type of role clarity and respect that would enable some in this position to develop professionally or emerge as leaders in special education.




References
Breton, W. (2010). Special education paraprofessionals. International Journal of Special Education 25(1): 34-45.
Douglas, S.N., Chapin, S.E. & Nolan, J.F. (2015). Special education teachers’ expereinces supporting and supervising paraeducators. Teacher Education and Special Education 39(1): 60-74.
Downing, J.E., Ryndak, D.L. & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education 21(3): 171-181.
Giangreco, M.F., Broer, S.M. & Suter, J.C. (2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals. Remedial and Special Education 32(1): 22-38.
Lane, K.L., Carter, E.W. & Sisco, L. (2012). Paraprofessional involvement in self-determination instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children 78(2): 237-251.