Wall, S., Davis, K.L., Winkler Crowley, A.L., & White, L.L. (2005). The urban paraeducator goes to college. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 183-190.
Participants included 39 paraeducators (32 women, 7 men), 90% of whom were Black or African American; 77% were high school graduates and 23% held GEDs. Two were bilingual (one in Spanish; one in American Sign Language). A majority had personal connections to the city and its schools (i.e., 72% lived in the city; 51% were born in the city; 56% graduated or received a GED from the city schools). They were all enrolled in ParaMet, a partnership between Catholic University, the Lt. Joseph P. Kennedy Instititute, and an urban public school system. The paraeducators in the ParaMet program worked in schools serving predominantly Black and African American students of low socioeconomic status.
The purpose of the ParaMet program was to provide a 9-semester hour curriculum based on the Council for Exceptional Children’s (CEC) competencies for paraeducators. A selection committee determined who would be admitted to the program based on a series of application measures (e.g., questionnaires, recommendations, standardized reading assessment, writing sample) that sought to determine participants with “solid work habits, high motivation, and academic potential” (to do college level work).
Paraeducators expressed their feelings that “they were uniquely connected to their students by virtue of their backgrounds and daily interactions” (p. 185). “Many paraeducators took pride in being able to calm or discipline their students, but others found this to be a challenge.” (p. 185). “Many paraeducators also indicated that they were frequently assigned to duties beyond those envisioned in the CEC standards and the law.” (p. 185). “None of the paraeducators reported having had any significant preparation for their jobs, nor had they received meaningful professional development opportunities after being hired.” (p. 185).
“The paraeducators identified their lack of formal training as their greatest challenge. A close second was their lack of preparation for handling behavioral or emotional issues of students. Every paraeducator expressed an interest in furthering his or her education.” (p. 186).
Most paraeducators felt less than prepared on most of the CEC knowledge standards,
“… especially on foundations of special education, instructional
planning, and instructional strategies.” (p. 186).
The authors’ “… review suggests that paraeducators are likely
to require an unusual degree of support in college-level work.” (p. 186).
They base this perspective on information such as:
“paraeducators generally earned low grades in language arts in high school
(GPA of 2.0 on a 4-point scale);
“The Nelson-Denny reading comprehension scores were mixed. Almost half of the paraeducators (44%) scored in the lowest quartile; however, 41% scored average or better.”
“The paraeducators’s writing samples revealed problems in three important facets of written expression: conventions (extensive errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, usage, grammar, or paragraphing); sentence fluency (choppy, incomplete, rambling, or awkward sentence construction); and organization (missing titles, weak introductions, no conclusions).” “Only two paraeducators (5%) scored in the proficient range…”
In an effort to discern some key learning skills for successful college-level studies, “Our survey of computer use, library research skills, and computer access identified other potential limitations to paraeducators’ success as undergraduate.” (p. 186).
“Our study confirms that urban paraeducators contribute a number of strengths to special education teams.” (p. 188).
“Our findings also identified significant gaps in paraeducators’ preparation for their responsibilities in special education classrooms.” (p. 188).
The authors suggest that “…teachers and administrators might benefit from additional training in how use paraeducators legally, effectively, and efficiently… .” (p. 188).
The authors provide a series of recommendations to assist paraeducators in being successful with college-level studies (e.g., training in academic competencies, basic computer skills, writing skills; use of high quality instructional materials; in-class coaching; availability of instructors beyond class hours; stipends to pay for child care and transportation; peer study groups; salary increases for those completing college work).
No study limitations were noted.
Summarized by: Michael Giangreco, June 2005
Last modified February 14 2008 11:23 AM
