Presented at ISEC 2000

Self-Management for Staff Development - Professional and Paraprofessional

Jill Morgan, Ph.D.

This section of the symposium described a self-management procedure for teachers and paraeducators (otherwise known in the United States (US) as classroom assistants or aides, and in the United Kingdom (UK) as Learning Support Assistants), to enhance their effectiveness as an instructional team. First we describe the general situation in the US which led to the development of this procedure, and then briefly describe how the process can be used in an inclusive classroom setting.

It is estimated that there are more than 900,000 paraeducators in the US (Moskowitz & Warwick, 1996), working in both regular and special education settings. Although paraeducators were originally hired to assist special educators, they are increasingly to be found supporting the integration of individual students into regular education classrooms. A similar situation exists in the UK (see Farrell, Balshaw & Polat, 1999). These developments have led to a situation where many teachers must now supervise adults as well as children in the classroom - a role for which they have typically not been prepared by their pre-service training (Salzberg & Morgan, 1995, Morgan & Ashbaker, 2000). In addition, the roles which are now being assigned to paraeducators are increasingly technical, and directly related to the instructional process, rather than being of a clerical or housekeeping nature, but training for paraeducators to perform these instructional roles may not be readily available. Recent legislation in the US requires that paraprofessionals be "appropriately trained and supervised" (IDEA, 1997) before being allowed to assist in providing services to students with disabilities. The self-management procedure which we describe here is designed to compensate for the lack of training for both teachers and paraeducators, as well as meeting the critical need for job-specific training for paraeducators, and increased awareness of instructional effectiveness on the part of both teachers and paraeducators.

The self-management Procedure

In the absence of external training opportunities provided for the paraeducator at school district or State level, it typically falls to the teacher to provide training and formative feedback. To a large extent, the teacher is the most logical and useful provider, as s/he can tailor training to the paraeducator's classroom assignment. However, the overwhelming concerns for classroom teachers who find themselves in this situation are:

• how to find the time to train a paraeducator in classroom duties while continuing to provide effective instruction to students - planning time is a rare commodity among paraeducators, especially at elementary level, and even less often allocated to teacher and paraeducator together; and
• how to deliver training in such a way that the paraeducator can be immediately productive, and then continue to increase her skills and therefore the extent of her usefulness. Para-educators in the US are often hired for the first day of school, so that teachers may not have a clear idea of the paraeducator's skills and can therefore initially assign only the most basic tasks, even though the need for support is immediate and often complex.

This self-management procedure is simple and can be used by teachers during the course of the teaching day to assess paraeducators' knowledge and skills and provide ongoing training and professional development. The procedure was developed in conjunction with teachers and paraeducators, and has been extensively field-tested with those working in both special and regular education, and with students of all ages. (Space does not permit detailed description of these validation procedures, but further details can be obtained from the authors.) These are the steps of the self-management procedure:

1. The teacher assigns a task to the paraeducator, and informally observes how well the paraeducator carries out the assignment
2. Having informally ascertained the paraeducator's skill level, the teacher has the paraeducator observe as she (the teacher) performs the same task, providing a role model of good practice; the teacher also has the paraeducator record specific details of what she observes, to draw her attention to critical elements of the task, e.g., if the teacher has observed that the paraeducator did not involve all students when working with a group, the teacher would work with a group of students and have the paraeducator record the number of times she calls on each one. The information can be recorded on a plain sheet of paper, or a simple proforma. If the papers are dated and kept in a binder, a record of progress develops which serves as a reminder of the principles of effective practice that the paraeducator should be using.
3. Soon after the observation, teacher and paraeducator meet to discuss the information recorded. The teacher can re-emphasize the importance of the highlighted practice for the paraeducator, and discuss the benefits of it. This should be a two-way discussion rather than a lecture.
4. The paraeducator is again given the same assignment and this time the teacher observes, recording the same information that the paraeducator recorded for the teacher. Later, they discuss the information recorded, and the paraeducator should be allowed to draw her own conclusions and set her own goals for improvement. Taking the above example of involving all students, if the recording sheet shows that only 2 of 6 students were asked to respond during 10 minutes of observation, the paraeducator will be able to draw her own conclusions about whether she is calling on all students and what she can aim for to show improvement. The teacher does not need to pronounce judgment on the paraeducator's work, any more than the paraeducator has pronounced judgment on the teacher's work merely by observing it and engaging in subsequent discussion.

The underlying principles of this procedure are the same as those in daily use by the teacher as she provides instruction to students: first s/he assesses a student's knowledge and skills in a specific area of the curriculum by observation and discussion, and by providing assignments which require those skills; having ascertained the current skill level, s/he provides instruction to the student - giving information and modeling skills as the student observes; then s/he gives the student multiple opportunities to practice in meaningful ways, and monitors progress so that further support or teaching can be provided as needed; and lastly, an effective teacher will also make the student aware of his/her own skills and learning, as well as the processes by which those skills can be increased. Note that the teacher provides guidance and instruction to the para-educator in three ways: first by having the paraeducator observe as she provides a role model, secondly by having the paraeducator record what she sees, and thirdly by engaging in a discussion of what was seen and recorded. Also, as the teacher is being observed s/he is most likely to do 'perform' well - such is human nature, but there are no disadvantages - the paraeducator and the students benefit from a particularly good example of effective practice. S/he also provides a model of professionalism and of the need to constantly question one's own practice and make necessary improvements.

We discussed earlier the basic tenets of self-management. These include:

• increased awareness is needed before improvement can be considered
• self-evaluation is a critical facet of the process
• a mediated process is most effective
• frequent and specific feedback should be given
• there should always be a teaching component

The procedure we have described for teachers and paraeducators to examine and increase their instructional effectiveness meets all of the above criteria. Paraeducators (and teachers) become more aware of what they currently do in the classroom as they conduct observations for each other; the evaluation of performance is a self-evaluation, supported by the colleague; feedback is to be specific and is given as regularly as the team chooses to observe and discuss their work; and the teacher can provide instruction to the paraeducator in effective instructional practices as they discuss their observations (although a paraeducator may also be able to draw on her experience to contribute to a discussion of 'what works'). Each element is critical: even if the paraeducator becomes aware (through talking to colleagues or watching professionals) of the need for improvement, it is difficult for her to initiate and sustain change without guidance and support; a teacher may give feedback but it can be construed as criticism if there is no context for it, and no example provided by the teacher of both taking and giving feedback in order to improve.

The question of how to find the time for these observations and discussions remains, and is one that teachers and paraeducators must resolve for themselves. This is a worthwhile investment, however, and once the procedure is established it does not require large blocks of time. Ten minutes of observation provide ample information, and the ensuing discussion should take 20 minutes at most. In summary, for this procedure to be most effective: the focus of each observation must be very specific and focused; observations should occur regularly so that the targeted practice is not forgotten, but should allow time for 'practice' opportunities between observations; and observations should continue with the same focus until improvements are evident, but if improvements are immediately obvious, then a new focus can be chosen for observation.

As a child I would visit my grandmother's house on the weekend, and she would often serve a cucumber salad - slices of cucumber in vinegar with a little seasoning. I was always fascinated by the thin-ness of those cucumber slices - they were transparent - compared with the solid slices served at home. And somehow they tasted better and were much more palatable. It has occurred to me since, that effective instruction is much like my grandmother's cucumber: it should be sliced so thinly as to be transparent or obvious to the 'consumer' (in this case, the student), in which case it will also be much more palatable. As teachers and paraeducators work together to improve their practice, each slice of learning should be that finely cut, so that each minute step towards improvement is palatable, easily digested and professionally satisfying. We recommend the self-management procedure described here to facilitate that professional development process.

Note: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Betty Ashbaker of Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah, USA) to the development of the self-management procedure described here for teachers and paraeducators.

References

Farrell, P., Balshaw, M., & Polat, F. (1999). The management, role and training of Learning Support Assistants. Manchester, UK: Center for Educational Needs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (1997), PL.105-17. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)-(d) 34 C. R. F. 300.506-300.513.

Morgan, J., & Ashbaker, B.Y. (2000). Teacher training in relation to working withand supervising learning support assistants: A survey of institutes of higher education in the UK. British Education Index: Education-line (On-line database).

Moskowitz, R. & Warwick, D. (1996). The job outlook in brief. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring.

Salzberg, C. L. & Morgan, J. (1995). Preparing teachers to work with paraeducators. Teacher Education and Special Education 18 (1), 49-55

Index