The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine how teachers provide supervision to paraprofessionals in middle school classrooms. The numbers of paraprofessionals in school settings have continued to increase thus causing roles for both teachers and paraprofessionals to evolve. Teachers and paraprofessionals perceive the teacher's supervisory role differently (D'Aquanni, 1997; Milner, 1998; Mueller, 1997). Consequently, this descriptive case study examines how teachers provide supervision to paraprofessionals in middle school classrooms. Questions regarding the teacher's role as a supervisor are derived from Pickett's (1999) supervisory framework, which addresses five areas: planning, task delegating, role clarifying, performance monitoring, and on-the-job training and mentoring. The results of this study both supported Pickett's (1999) framework and added additional information that can enhance effective paraprofessional supervision in middle school classrooms. Results indicated that planning, formal or informal, does not exist, as it should, between teacher and paraprofessional teams in middle school classrooms. In addition, this study supported the notion that teachers are often uncomfortable delegating tasks to paraprofessionals. It also determined that roles remain unclear for both teachers and paraprofessionals. Many paraprofessionals feel they are not monitored at all by teachers, possibly due to the lack of role clarification. Finally, this study found that training for both paraprofessionals and their supervising teachers is minimal. / Ed. D.

The purpose of this study was to examine and explain the quality of teacher supervision of paraprofessionals. The researcher analyzed (a) pre-service and in-service supervisory training received by teachers who supervised paraprofessionals, (b) teacher knowledge of supervisory practices, (c) teacher supervisory practices applied to supervision, (d) teacher accountability for supervision, (e) time teachers met with paraprofessionals, and (f) other personal or situational factors that influenced the quality of teacher supervision of paraprofessionals. The methodology for the study was multiple case studies with cross-case analysis. Six administrators, six teachers in grades K-5, and six paraprofessionals from three elementary schools in districts located in Virginia were invited to participate in this study. Interview protocols were developed from information gleaned from the literature review, checked for content validity, and pilot tested before being used. Analysis was completed using the constant comparative method as outlined by Maykut and Morehouse (1994). Preparing teachers to supervise paraprofessionals is important if the expectation is paraprofessionals are to support the educational program of students. Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, teachers are required to provide adequate supervision to paraprofessionals, yet they are not prepared to provide the supervision required. The results of this study indicated (a) teachers are not prepared to supervise paraprofessionals because they lack the training to do so, (b) teachers are not knowledgeable about what constitutes good supervisory practices, (c) teachers are not held accountable for the supervision they are expected to provide, (d) administrators do not make roles and expectations for teachers who supervise paraprofessionals clear, (e) teachers and paraprofessionals are negatively influenced by the absence of a common planning period, and (f) principals, teachers, and paraprofessionals believe positive interpersonal relationships are vital to the supervisory process. Training is essential. If colleges, universities, and local school districts fail to train teachers regarding supervision of paraprofessionals, the quality of supervision provided by teachers who supervise paraprofessionals, and the services paraprofessionals provide to students will remain uncertain. / Ed. D.

Paraeducators are increasingly involved in the education of students with disabilities. In order for paraeducators to properly work with this population, they must have adequate and ongoing training. Research has shown that paraeducators do not receive appropriate training in order to work with students with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to investigate the self-perceived knowledge of paraeducators working in special education and their level of training need. The study examines paraeducators' work environment, responsibilities, knowledge based on the Utah Standards for Paraeducators and perceived training needs. Ninety-five special education paraeducators working in a large, suburban school district in the intermountain west participated in a survey. The results of this research suggest that paraeducators desire training in areas of their assigned duties. Overall, they feel confident in their abilities but are open to learning more. This study suggests that there is not enough training for paraeducators who generally work with the most at-risk population in the school.

With so many paraeducators working in special education, it is important for teachers, administrators, and researchers to know how paraeducators are being utilized, supervised, and managed in order to create the most effective programs for students with special needs. Research is needed regarding current practices in supervising paraeducators. The purposes of this study were to (a) delineate the current practices being utilized by special education teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) who supervise paraeducators that work with students with EBD in the general education classroom and (b) determine how effective the supervised paraeducators perceive those practices to be. Current practices were revealed by answering the following questions: (1) According to special education teachers and paraeducators, what procedures and practices are being utilized to supervise paraeducators who work in the general education environment with students with EBD? (2) In what ways do teachers and paraeducators see these supervision practices as being effective? (3) What is the relationship between actual supervision practices and accepted best practices? There were 60 participants in all, 30 professional teachers and 30 paraeducators. All 60 participants completed a survey; of these 60, 5 teachers and 5 paraeducators were individually interviewed Findings from the study indicate that actual supervision practices of teachers do not represent the best practices found in the literature. The study found that each of the seven executive functions of supervision (orientation, planning, scheduling, delegating, training/coaching, monitoring/feedback, and managing the workplace) need additional attention from school districts in order to maximize paraeducator effectiveness.

Slightly more than two million teachers will be needed for the nation's classrooms within the next decade. Consequently, some states have begun to look to their ready supply of paraeducators, also known as teacher assistants, as a pipeline for supplying qualified teachers. These paraeducators who make the career change to teachers are more likely to remain in hard-to-supply geographic areas and to increase the diversity of the teaching force. This study explored the lived experiences of five minority women who successfully negotiated the transition process to become professional teachers. Phenomenological interviewing, within the hermeneutic phenomenology tradition, was the methodology used for data collection. To understand how these paraeducators attained their aspiration, testimonies of their experiences were developed from a series of extended interviews and presented as reconstructed narratives. The transcribed narratives identified common themes that were linked with research on personal and professional development of minority women seeking to make a career change. The discussion of these narratives revealed transitional paths shaped by pain tempered by perseverance and goal-setting. The five women's working to achieve their goal, encased in a common time frame, began with an experience that propelled them on their journey. Four common elements emerged as beneficial in supporting attainment of their professional goals: (a) leadership support; (b) financial support; (c) family support; and (d) personal power. / Ed. D.

No description available.

Using the states' paraprofessional requirements, this study explored the effects of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) on the paraprofessionals' ability to assist in instruction as seen through the perceptions of paraprofessional and teacher teams. The literature review discloses data regarding the implementation of NCLB paraprofessional requirements into the accountability plans of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Tables synthesize the assessments used by states to meet NCLB paraprofessional requirements. The Council for Exceptional Children performance-based standards for paraeducators provides the framework for the development of two survey instruments, which measured the perceptions of paraprofessionals and cooperating teachers on the training, knowledge, and skills utilized during instruction. Two survey instruments were developed to gain insight into the perceptions of paraprofessional and supervising teacher teams. The perceptions of the teams were compared to those among the paraprofessionals themselves. There were significant statistical differences between both the teams and the paraprofessionals with two or more years of higher education or those with a high school diploma or equivalency. The differences between the paraprofessionals and the teachers suggested that supervising teachers perceived both groups of paraprofessionals were lacking in training, knowledge, and skills. Paraprofessionals with higher education perceived a similar lack in their own abilities. However, paraprofessionals with high school diplomas perceived their ability as greater than that perceived by the teachers.

The authors queried 336 paraeducators working in 34 high schools or special programs offering transitional services for adult students with disabilities. The survey included (a) the contexts in which they support students with disabilities, (b) their knowledge about core competencies in educating these students, (c) the job-related tasks they perform most frequently, (d) their perceived ability to perform these tasks effectively, and (e) their need for further training across these knowledge and task areas. The study replicated a study conducted by Carter, O'Rourke, Sisco, and Pelsue (2009) surveying paraeducators working in K-12 settings. The authors found that paraeducators worked with a broad range of disabilities in multiple types of transitional school or program settings, with moderate supervision using varied types of teaching strategies, and they received most of their training on the job. Although most paraeducators reported having adequate training across knowledge standards, the quality of training received was reported as informal. Reported tasks performed most frequently were nontransition related. Preparing for transition and IEP plans were less frequently performed and trained for; while tasks less pertinent to students in transitional settings were more frequently performed and prepared for such as one-to-one instruction. Supervision under a certified teacher was reported to be moderately occurring (less than 50% of the time). Future research and development of standards for transitional paraeducators working with adults with disabilities is recommended. Identification of needed specific skills should be coupled with more formal training.

Researchers question the growing use of paraeducators in public school special education classrooms, complaining that the professionals with the least education are being asked to assist the students requiring the most intervention (Blalock, 1991; Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 1999). How well are paraprofessional educators prepared to use best practices for behavior management in special education settings? The eight special education paraprofessionals surveyed in this study demonstrated varying levels of knowledge regarding how to respond to the aggressive behaviors often displayed by students with emotional disturbance (ED). Paraeducators who reported receiving the most district- or teacher-led training (4 to 16+ hours) recommended interventions that were the most closely aligned with the positive, proactive approaches supported in literature about best practices. Age of paraeducator and years of formal education showed no relationship with ability to suggest appropriate interventions. However, respondents overall were more likely to recommend appropriate interventions for students displaying physical aggression than for students displaying verbal aggression or noncompliance involving both physical and verbal aggression. These findings confirm the importance of paraeducator training specific to the needs and behaviors of students with ED.

Previous research has found paraeducators do not receive adequate training (Giangreco,Broer, & Edelman, 2002), and are often infrequently evaluated –yearly or less often (Mueller, 2002; Morgan, Ashbaker, & Young, 2001). Little is known about principals' practices relative to paraeducator training, and evaluation. To investigate these topics, a survey was distributed to principals that worked in a large suburban/rural school district in the western United States. Fifty-eight participants completed surveys at a district principals meeting. The results of the study indicated a large majority of principals (78.95% for Title 1 paraeducators, 86.21% for special education paraeducators, and 75.86 for others) hired the paraeducators in their school and most principals (88.89% for Title 1 paraeducators, 86.21% for special education paraeducators, and 60.34% for other paraeducators) were aware of district policies regarding the hiring and/or employment of paraeducators. In contrast, the majority of principals were not aware of individual school policies pertaining to paraeducator hiring and employment. The majority of principals did not indicate that they were responsible for rating paraeducator performance. Furthermore, the majority of principals did not perform paraeducator observations, hold evaluative conferences, or link the results of paraeducator evaluation to professional development.