The purpose of this article is to present a single case study about a newly graduated speech-language pathologist working in a small, urban school district and her experiences with a series of speech-language assistants having various levels of qualification and personality types. The case illustrates how levels of professional supervision skills, pre-service paraprofessional training, professional/paraprofessional role distinctions, hiring practices, pay, and working conditions interact and impact on the successful use of speech-language paraprofessionals working in education settings. Evidence gathered in the case support the contention that pre-service preparation for speech-language pathologists to function in supervisory roles is an important factor in ensuring the appropriate use of speech-language paraprofessionals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1970). Guidelines on the role, training, and supervision of the communication aide. ASHA, 12(2), 78–80.
2.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1981). Guidelines for the employment and utilization of supportive personnel. ASHA, 23(3), 165–169.
3.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1995, April). Draft guidelines for the training, credentialing, use and supervision of speech-language pathology assistants.
4.
Coufal, K. L., Steckelberg, A. L., & Vasa, S. F. (1990, Fall). Paraprofessionals in speech-language programs: A report from the middle states on trends in training and utilization. Rocky Mountain Journal of Communication Disorders.
5.
Coufal, K. L., Steckelberg, A. L., & Vasa, S. F. (1991). Current trends in training and utilization of paraprofessionals in speech-language programs: A report of an eleven state survey. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, pp. 51–59.
6.
Courson, F. H. & Heward, W. L. (1988). Increasing active student response through the effective use of paraprofessionals. The Pointer, 33(1), 27–31.
7.
Emery, M. J. (1991). Building team pride: Teachers and paraprofessionals working together.Workbook available through the University of Missouri, Special Education Dissemination Center, Columbia, MO.
8.
Fimian, M. J. (1988). Teacher stress inventory.Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co. Inc.
9.
French, N. K. (1991). Elementary Teachers' Perceptions of Stressful Events and Stress Related Teaching PracticesPerceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 203–210.
10.
French, N. K. (1993). Are community college training programs for paraeducators feasible?Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17, 131–140.
11.
French, N. K. (1994). Teachers and paraeducators: How they work together. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado at Denver.
12.
French, N. K. (1995). Teachers as supervisors: What they know and what they do. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Colorado at Denver.
13.
French, N. K. & Pickett, A. L. (1995). Paraprofessionals in Special Education: Issues for Teacher Educators. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Frith, G. H., & Lindsey, J. D. (1982). Certification, training and other programming variables affecting special education and the paraprofessional concept. Journal of Special Education, 16(2), 229–236.
15.
Frith, G. H. & Mims, A. (1985). Burnout among special education paraprofessionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 17(3), 225–227.
16.
Jones, K. H. & Bender, W. N. (1993). Utilization of paraprofessionals in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 7–14.
17.
Lindemann D. P. & Beegle, G. P. (1988). In Brief: Preservice Teacher Training and Use of the Classroom Paraprofessional: a National Survey. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11(4), 183–186.
18.
Logue, O. J. (1993, April). Job satisfaction and retention variables of special education paraeducators. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference on the Training and Employment of Paraprofessional in Education and Rehabilitation. Seattle, WA.
19.
Miramontes, O. B. (1990). Organizing for effective paraprofessional services in Special education: A multilingual/multiethnic instructional service team model. Remedial And Special Education, 12(1), 29–47.
20.
Morgan N. v Los Fresnos ISD, This Trust In, (a monthly publication by Walsh, Anderson, Undrewood, Schulze & Aldridge, P.C.) Docket No. 183-SE-293. (July 15, 1993).
21.
Pearman, E. L., Suhr, D., Gibson, F. (1993). Colorado needs assessment for paraprofessionals.Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
22.
Pickett, A.L. (1986). Certified partners: Four good reasons for certification of paraprofessionals. American Educator, 10(3), 31–37.
23.
Pickett, A.L. (1989). A training program to prepare teachers and administrators to work more effectively with paraprofessionals, (2nd ed.). New York: National Resource Center for Paraprofessional in Education and Related Services, Center for Advanced Study in Education, Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York.
24.
Pickett, A. L., Vasa, S. F., & Steckelberg, A. L. (1993). Using paraeducators effectively in the classroom. Fastback 358. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
25.
Pickett, A.L. (1994). Paraprofessionals in the education workforce.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
26.
Shafer, E. (1984). My experience as a paraprofessional. Social Policy, 14(3), 48–49.
27.
Vasa, S. F., Steckelberg, A.L. & Ulrich-Ronning, L. (1982). A state of the art assessment of paraprofessional use in special education in the state of Nebraska.Lincoln, NE: Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
28.
White, R. (1984). Paraprofessionals in special education. Social Policy, 14(3), 44–47.
29.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research, Design and methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
