Content uploaded by Emily Eyrolles Sobeck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emily Eyrolles Sobeck on Apr 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910740
Intervention in School and Clinic 1 –8
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1053451220910740
isc.sagepub.com
Collaboration Forum
Kimberley Paulsen, Associate Editor
A rising number of paraeducators are employed nationwide
as part of the special education service delivery for students
with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
Paraeducators often spend a substantial part of their school
day supporting these students in inclusive classrooms
(Biggs et al., 2018; Brock & Carter, 2015). With continued
emphasis on inclusive practices (Gerzel-Short et al., 2018),
schools are presented with one of the most important chal-
lenges facing the field of education: how to provide services
to students with disabilities that are universal, effective, and
least restrictive. In response to this challenge, schools often
rely on paraeducators as an integral part of the instructional
process for students with disabilities (Giangreco et al.,
2010). Paraeducators are now providing small group
instruction (Chopra et al., 2018), one-to-one academic
instruction (Hall et al., 2010), and targeted interventions
(O’Keeffe et al., 2011).
Although the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and mandates of
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) require that
paraeducators are adequately trained and supervised for
their specific roles, research consistently highlights that
paraeducators often lack the formal preparation and profes-
sional development needed to carry out their responsibili-
ties (Chopra & Uitto, 2015; Sobeck & Robertson, 2019). In
addition, with a lack of paraeducator supervision-specific
content embedded within preservice teacher preparation
910740ISCXXX10.1177/1053451220910740Intervention in School and ClinicYates et al.
research-article2020
1Alma College, Alma, MI, USA
2University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
3Franciscan University of Steubenville, Steubenville, OH, USA
4Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
5University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
6University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
7Northern Vermont University, Johnson, VT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Peggy A. Yates, Assistant Professor, Alma College, 614 West Superior
Street, Alma, MI 48801, USA.
Email: yatespa@alma.edu
Working With Paraeducators: Tools and Strategies for
Planning, Performance Feedback, and Evaluation
Peggy A. Yates, EdD1, Ritu V. Chopra, PhD2, Emily E. Sobeck, PhD3,
Sarah N. Douglas, PhD4, Stephanie Morano, PhD5,
Virginia L. Walker, PhD, BCBA-D6, and Rob Schulze, EdD7
Abstract
With continued emphasis on inclusive practices, paraeducators are increasingly relied upon as an integral part of
instructional service delivery for students with disabilities. However, research consistently reveals that the effective use of
paraeducators depends largely on teacher leadership and supervision. Currently, few teacher preparation programs offer
meaningful coursework pertaining to managing paraeducators, leaving teachers unprepared for their supervisory role upon
entering the field. Incorporating paraeducators into the instructional planning and delivery process requires that several
considerations be made. This column shares several recommendations with teachers for designing, implementing, and
evaluating the effectiveness of lesson plans that incorporate paraeducators in the inclusive setting. A lesson plan template
is provided and discussed, and guidance is provided for teaching paraeducators evidence-based practices (EBPs) using
behavioral skills training and supporting them in using EBPs during instruction.
Keywords
paraeducator supervision, lesson planning, co-teaching, behavioral skills training, evidence-based practice
2 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)
programs (Biggs et al., 2018; Douglas et al., 2016), teachers
report feeling unprepared and uncomfortable in their super-
visory roles (Douglas et al., 2016; Fisher & Pleasants,
2012).
Although preparing teachers to effectively incorporate
and manage paraeducators in their classroom can be chal-
lenging, utilizing paraeducators appropriately in the class-
room can be valuable to both special education teachers and
students (Brock & Carter, 2015). Appropriately training and
managing paraeducators can aid in reducing the perfor-
mance gap for students with disabilities (Brown & Stanton-
Chapman, 2015). Specifically, incorporating and
supervising paraeducators effectively within the instruc-
tional planning process can (a) increase active student
engagement, (b) increase student access to content, (c) pro-
vide increased rates of student feedback, and (d) allow for
more differentiated instruction.
Role of the Paraeducator in the
Inclusive Setting
Although it is widely accepted that paraeducators hold a
valuable role in special education, vast evidence in the lit-
erature suggests that they are often inappropriately uti-
lized in the instruction of students with disabilities
(Giangreco et al., 2010). For example, paraeducators are
often assigned to perform functions that are appropriate
for general and special education teachers (e.g., curricular
adaptations, instructional planning, primary instruction,
pedagogical decisions). Evidence suggests that the inap-
propriate use of paraeducators may not only compromise
the quality of services for students with disabilities, but
also raise legal, ethical, and programmatic concerns and
challenges (Chopra & Giangreco, 2019).
In the past three decades, researchers have pointed out
that the effective use of paraeducators depends on teacher
leadership and the teacher’s ability to integrate paraeduca-
tors into the classroom setting (Biggs et al., 2018). However,
teacher delegation of tasks to paraeducators and their role as
supervisors continues to be an area in education that needs
attention (Chopra & Uitto, 2015). Teachers note a lack of
competence in paraeducator supervision and attribute this
in part to inadequate preservice preparation (Ashbaker &
Morgan, 2012; Biggs et al., 2018; Carnahan et al., 2009).
Despite professional standards for special education teacher
preparation (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC],
2015) and repeated calls for special educators to receive
training to work with paraeducators, meaningful course-
work and experiences pertaining to supervising and manag-
ing paraeducators is often lacking during teacher preparation
(Chopra et al., 2018). Although paraeducators should never
replace certified teachers, with appropriate direction, coach-
ing, and training, paraeducators can effectively deliver
instruction designed by the teacher (Jones et al., 2018),
which might also include supporting the instruction in
response to intervention (RTI).
Establishing a Collaboration Process
Utilizing paraeducators efficiently within instructional ser-
vice delivery for students with disabilities requires exten-
sive planning (Chopra & Uitto, 2015). Establishing clear
roles and expectations (e.g., assist with classroom manage-
ment) at the start of the school year not only supports incor-
poration of the paraeducator in the classroom, but it also
allows paraeducators to feel a sense of confidence in their
skills when it comes to supporting instruction. Taking time
to review the expectations and procedures may provide
clarity for the paraeducator. A meeting between the teachers
and the paraeducator who are planning to work together in
the inclusive setting should occur prior to the start of the
school year, ideally during a time for professional develop-
ment. During this meeting, establishing a cohesive instruc-
tional planning process to ensure that instruction is teacher
driven is necessary as expectations are needed. This process
should include (a) writing comprehensive lesson plans
which incorporate the paraeducator (see Figure 1), (b) dis-
cussing and coaching to support the paraeducator’s under-
standing of the lesson plan, and (c) providing feedback on
the effectiveness of the paraeducator’s instruction (see
Figure 2). Under the guidance of the teacher, paraeducators
also need to be able to implement and monitor behavior
intervention plans (BIPs) and learn how to integrate behav-
ioral strategies during instruction (Fisher & Pleasants,
2012). Although it is the teacher who ultimately is in charge
of instruction, creating a collaborative, responsive environ-
ment with clear guidelines and expectations is crucial; the
involvement of the paraeducator in supporting such an
environment is essential. It is also recommended that the
school administration provide a common time for the teach-
ers and paraeducator to plan and train together; this support
is critical to the success of the inclusionary classroom (Solis
et al., 2012).
Benefits of Paraeducators for All
Students
Paraeducators work with many student populations, includ-
ing students with disabilities, English learners, students
who are falling behind academically (Goe & Matlach,
2014), and students from varying cultures and socioeco-
nomic statuses (SES). Research strongly supports struc-
tured learning environments that are predictable, consistent,
and convey clear expectations to assist students with diverse
needs (Rohrer & Samson, 2014). Incorporating an instruc-
tional planning process improves the effectiveness of the
Yates et al. 3
Lesson Plan with Paraeducator
Pre-planning
Grade Level: 4th
CCSS 4.NBT.A.3
Lesson Objective: I can use place value
to round numbers
Purpose of the lesson: Students will use place value understanding to round whole numbers
to the nearest tenths place
Short Term Goal: Students will identify place value and rounding to the nearest tenths (IEP
Goal: Mary/Tim)
Long Term Goal: The students will apply skills to estimation in dollars, cents, and budgeting
Other Skills to Address:
SEL: Taking Turns (review fair game play at Station 3) Transition: Rounding dollars and cents
Student Needs and Strengths Accommodations/Modifications/Behavior Supports
Mary: 2nd gr. math level, works well in pairs
Tim: 1st grade math level, works hard
Mary: Document behavior goal (keep hands to herself)
Tim: Read test aloud/modified test
General Anticipated Needs
Common academic errors: Confusion of tens with the
tenths place
Behavioral challenges: Plan for Stephanie’s tardiness and disruption
upon entry to class
Three-person instructional team roles (Italic=support role)
Sequence General Ed Teacher Special Ed Teacher Paraeducator
Introduce Topic
(full class)
Support content being introduced;
monitor Stephanie’s entry into class
and record behavior data
Introduce topic; lead discussion on
place value/round numbers; money
Walk around the classroom; redi-
rect student attention; add details
to discussion
Main Lesson
(full class)
Discuss vocabulary; provide problem
examples; dry erase boards for student
responses
Support content being taught; help
students with incorrect answers
Help students with incorrect
answers; collect behavior data for
Mary
Next
(full class)
Describe front of room activities Describe back of room activities Describe kidney-bean table activi-
ties
Next (stations) Front of room: Large screen activity to
review; 10 minutes, rotate to back of
room, use timer
Back of room: Small group review
of place value;
10 minutes, rotate to kidney-bean
table
Kidney-bean table: Comparing
numbers; 10 minutes, rotate to
front of room
Next (transition to
full class)
Return students to large group on cue;
begin cue with countdown
Return students to large group on
cue
Return students to large group on
cue
Next (full Class) Review key concepts; detail how skills
can be applied to money
Support content being taught Watch Mary for disruptive behav-
ior; monitor student behavior in
classroom
Formative Assess-
ment (groups as
assigned)
Hand out test; collect papers; grade all
student work
Have modified test ready for Mary
and Tim; monitor completion
Read test to Tim
Formative assessment: Mary and Tim, 70%; 3 out of 4 times is considered passing
Figure 1. Inclusion lesson plan with paraeducator.
paraeducator–teacher team in the inclusive setting and also
supports academic, behavioral, and social outcomes for stu-
dents with and without disabilities.
A Three-Step Process
A three-step process follows that teachers can use as they
prepare to work with paraeducators. The first step in the
process is writing comprehensive lesson plans. The second
step is to communicate clearly about the lesson plan with
the paraeducator. The third and final step is to provide
feedback to the paraeducator following implementation of
the plan.
Step 1: Writing Comprehensive Lesson Plans
Creating instructional plans can be time-consuming, but
ensuring that the instruction is designed by teachers as
opposed to paraeducators is critical. Several components
are recommended to ensure effective instructional plans for
4 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)
paraeducators including (a) a clear purpose for the lesson,
(b) a long-term goal and the corresponding short-term
objectives, (c) student-specific needs to address and student
strengths on which to capitalize, (d) materials needed (e.g.,
assistive technology), (e) sequence of steps, (f) instructional
methodologies (e.g., use of cues/prompts, pacing, feedback
to students), (g) methods to constructively preempt, man-
age, and respond to challenging student behaviors, and (h)
data collection procedures (Carnahan et al., 2009; Chopra
et al., 2018). Figure 1 provides a sample lesson plan tem-
plate for co-teaching teams who have paraeducator support
during instructional time in the inclusive setting. The roles
of the general educator, special educator, and paraeducator
are each defined to create cohesion among the team, pre-
vent confusion and redundancy, and ensure that all educa-
tors are working harmoniously toward instructional goals.
For example, in the preplanning section (see Figure 1), the
lesson plan provides the paraeducator with lesson details.
Step 2: Communicating the Lesson Plan to the
Paraeducator
The lesson plan also provides a framework from which the
teacher can coach and build the paraeducator’s skills. Once
the instructional plan is created, it is crucial for the teacher and
the paraeducator to allocate time to meet (Carnahan et al.,
2009) to review and discuss the plan. Teachers must go
beyond providing an oral overview of the instructional
sequence and expectations (Giangreco, 2013). Once a meet-
ing time is identified (e.g., morning meeting, common
planning time), the instructional team—including the general
education teacher, special education teacher, and paraeduca-
tor—should each receive a copy of the lesson plan to review
prior to the meeting. Initially, the meetings may take extensive
time, but as the paraeducator and the instructional team
become more comfortable with the components of the lesson
plan (e.g., goals, behavioral needs, activity transitions), less
time will be required. To achieve this seamless teaching, it is
important for the paraeducator to understand their specific
role and actions steps needed throughout the lesson.
Paraeducators should be encouraged to ask clarifying ques-
tions and share additional insights related to the components
of the lesson plan. Teachers also may find that modeling or
role-play is needed, as didactic instruction alone often does
not produce lasting effects (Walker & Smith, 2015).
With the instructional activities and academic interven-
tions clearly laid out, the teacher can observe and provide
feedback on specific paraeducator performance. Utilizing
the sequential flow and details of the lesson plan, the gen-
eral education teacher, special education teacher, and para-
educator can discuss learning goals, direct needs, and
anticipated needs before the lesson, support each other dur-
ing instruction, and use the plan as a framework for post-
instruction reflection and coaching. Teachers can effectively
involve paraeducators in many of these lesson components.
The preplanning section contains information (both
strengths and needs) about the specific students that the
paraeducator needs to accommodate during the lesson. In
our example, Stephanie requires supervision for disruptive
behaviors during transition into the classroom. Having
Fidelity Checklist for Using a Visual Cue
Date/Location: Paraeducator: Observer: Pre-requisites:
Step/Behavior Recording
1. Gain student’s attention. + – NA
2. Ensure student can see the visual.
3. Point to the visual and verbally state the behavior or skill.
4. Prompt the student to demonstrate the skill by saying “your turn,” “show me,” or some-
thing similar. For example, “show me quiet hands.”
5. Give 3–5 seconds of wait time for the student to respond to the cued request.
6. Use behavior specific praise, or another form of reinforcement, to reinforce the student for
engaging in the cued behavior.
Total
Correct out of 6: Accuracy %:
Notes:
Figure 2. Sample fidelity checklist for using a visual cue.
Yates et al. 5
Paraeducator Feedback on Lesson Plan form
Planned lesson activities/responsibilities
Italics indicates support role during the lesson
Observation Notes: Next Steps- Glows/
Grows
Reflection Notes
Walk around classroom and redirect student attention.
Add details to discussion as the need arises
Identify and help students with incorrect answers. Pro-
vide cues to the step they are missing,
Collect BIP data on Mary
Describe Station 3 activities
Station 3: Comparing numbers;
10 minutes, rotate to Station 1
Review rules of fair game play (SEL)
Return students to large group on cue
Watch Mary for disruptive behavior; monitor room
Read test to Tim and Dan
Comments:
Figure 3. Sample lesson plan feedback form.
student needs stated specifically in the plan and discussing
what to anticipate will ensure that everyone involved in the
instruction knows what to expect, and that the paraeducator
is prepared to provide the correct interventions and to record
the correct data.
Step 3: Providing Feedback on the Effectiveness
of the Paraeducator’s Instruction
Assessing and providing feedback on paraeducators’
instructional fidelity and effectiveness is critical to ensure
continuous improvement. For example, Figure 2 provides
details on the process of ensuring that a paraeducator under-
stands how to use a visual cue. To assess fidelity, supervis-
ing teachers can conduct direct observations of paraeducators
using visual cues during instruction or video-record instruc-
tion for review at a later time. To assess the effectiveness of
paraeducators’ instruction, supervising teachers can collect
student performance data. In addition, supervising teachers
can ask paraeducators to reflect on their own practice.
During a direct observation, a supervising teacher also can
provide immediate feedback through bug-in-ear technol-
ogy. Alternatively, teachers can share feedback with parae-
ducators in a post-observation conference.
Supervising teachers can use observation forms and
treatment fidelity checklists to focus observations (direct or
video/delayed) and provide specific, targeted feedback. An
example of an observation form aligned with the example
lesson plan (see Figure 1) is provided in Figure 3. Using this
form, the supervising teacher might note aspects of the
paraeducator’s performance that worked well and provide
suggestions for how to improve effectiveness in the future.
This form also includes a column for the paraeducator to
record their own reflections. The supervising teacher could
fill out the first observation notes and next steps while
watching a video-recording of the lesson and then use the
form to guide a post-observation conference with the para-
educator. The paraeducator could record their own thoughts/
reflections during or after the conference and keep the form
for future reference.
Embedding an Evidence-Based
Practice
In addition to the general responsibilities outlined in the les-
son plan, paraeducator responsibilities likely will include
implementing targeted evidence-based practices (EBPs) for
one or multiple students. The use of EBPs is central to
effective teaching and supports delivery and promotes stu-
dent success across a range of domains (Spencer et al.,
2012). As such, supervising teachers will need to develop
and provide focused training to support paraeducator
knowledge acquisition and skill implementation around
EBPs. A range of approaches can be used to teach EBPs
including didactic strategies (e.g., providing resources and
written materials, modeling, role-playing) and classroom-
based strategies that promote the application of EBPs in
authentic settings (e.g., delivering performance feedback
after observing paraeducator implementation; Brock &
Carter, 2015; Walker & Smith, 2015).
6 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)
One effective, empirically validated approach that com-
bines several of these strategies is behavioral skills training
(BST; Parsons et al., 2012). In BST, the supervising teacher
uses the following four strategies to teach the paraeducator
the target EBP: (a) provide a written description of the tar-
get skill, (b) model the target skill, (c) facilitate rehearsal to
practice the target skill, and (d) deliver feedback based on
practice (Parsons et al., 2012; see Figure 4). For example, in
the lesson plan, it is noted that Mary has a difficult time
keeping her hands to herself during class (see Figure 1).
Because the paraeducator is not familiar with the EBP the
teacher has selected to address Mary’s challenging behavior
(i.e., using a visual cue), the teacher uses BST to train the
paraeducator to use a visual cue to help Mary keep her
hands to herself. Using BST, the teacher may initially dis-
cuss the rationale for visual cues with the paraeducator and
provide a written overview of how to use visuals. Next, the
teacher models how to use a visual with the paraeducator.
Once the teacher models using the visual several times, the
paraeducator rehearses the skill using a visual. During this
time of rehearsal, the teacher provides ongoing feedback to
the paraeducator. The teacher and paraeducator continue the
process of modeling and practice with feedback until reach-
ing an acceptable implementation level (e.g., paraeducator
demonstrates using a visual cue five consecutive times with
90% accuracy or higher). Based on paraeducator need, the
teacher may choose to facilitate rehearsal in applied con-
texts, where the paraeducator implements the EBP with the
student during naturally occurring routines, or outside of
applied contexts, where practice occurs with the special
education teacher or other adults. Subsequently, the teacher
observes the paraeducator implement the visual cue for
keeping hands quiet with Mary (see Note 1) and offers addi-
tional feedback.
One type of specific feedback that the teacher can pro-
vide to the paraeducator is feedback on implementation
fidelity (i.e., the act of evaluating whether the components
of the strategy are implemented as originally intended;
Keller-Margulis, 2012). High levels of implementation
fidelity have been shown to produce greater academic
gains in students (McKenna et al., 2014) and assist in mak-
ing educational decisions. Implementation fidelity can help
determine whether a student’s lack of academic progress is
the result of incorrect implementation of EBPs, or a mis-
match between the student’s needs and the intervention,
thereby indicating a need for change in the intervention
(Nelson et al., 2015). To accurately measure implementa-
tion fidelity, creating a fidelity checklist is recommended.
When developing a checklist, it is crucial for the teacher to
identify the critical components of the EBP, or strategy,
that must be present to support student skill acquisition
(McKenna et al., 2014). Once the fidelity checklist is
developed, the teacher should observe the paraeducator
demonstrating the strategy within the lesson and provide
supportive and corrective feedback (Parsons et al., 2012),
using the predeveloped checklist as a guide. See Figure 2
for a sample fidelity checklist. The teacher can record
which steps of the strategy the paraeducator completed
Instruction
Prior to the start of the
lesson provide the
paraeducator with
instruction on how to
use picture cues.
Give a rationale for
picture cues, explicitly
discuss the steps using
the fidelity checkilist as
a guide, and provide a
tangible copy of fidelity
checklist for the
paraeducator.
Modeling
Model using the visual
following the fidelity
checklist steps.
Demonstrate several
scenarios of using the
visuals and how to
respond according to
student behavior.
Rehearsal
The paraeducator
practices using the
visual cue with the
teacher, then with a
student.
The paraeducator
implements the visual
cues over 5 consecutive
times with 90%
accuracy.
Feedback
Upon rehearsing using
the visual cue with the
teacher, the teacher
comments on how well
the paraeducator
modeled the strategy.
The teacher encourages
the paraeducator to
incorporate additional
wait time when using
the visual.
Immediately after
working with a student,
the teacher reviews the
fidelity checklist with
the paraeducator.
Figure 4. Steps, descriptions, and an example of behavioral skills training (BST).
Yates et al. 7
accurately and which steps were skipped or completed
incorrectly. Once the checklist is completed and quantified,
the teacher can represent the paraeducator’s performance
visually using a line graph. Then, the teacher and paraedu-
cator should meet to discuss the paraeducator’s perfor-
mance after the lesson (Parsons et al., 2012). During this
meeting, the teacher can share supportive and corrective
feedback as it relates to the fidelity checklist, using oral,
graphic, and written feedback (Ward-Horner & Sturmey,
2012). For example, the teacher may show the paraeduca-
tor that she used the visual cue for “quiet hands” three
times during the lesson, highlight how well the paraeduca-
tor did with getting Mary’s attention, while also reminding
the paraeducator to make sure to give Mary 3 to 5 seconds
of wait time after showing the visual cue.
Conclusion
Supervising paraeducators requires that the teacher pro-
vide instructional plans and ongoing feedback and support
as the paraeducator implements and supports instruction.
Paraeducators serve a variety of students and fill a range
of roles in the classroom. A systematic approach to parae-
ducator supervision is needed to ensure high-quality stu-
dent outcomes (Walker et al., 2019). Indeed, research has
shown that even minimal training for paraeducators can
improve outcomes for students with special needs (Brock
& Carter, 2016). By writing formal lesson plans which
explicitly lay out the paraeducator’s role in the lesson and
the needs of individual students, and then meeting with the
paraeducator to ensure that there is understanding of the
tasks at hand, teachers can ensure that paraeducators are
prepared to deliver high-quality instructional supports.
The lesson plan can also be a tool for training paraeduca-
tors in EBP and give them a structured way to practice
these tools. Providing constructive feedback after the les-
son helps the paraeducator grow their practice and increase
their fidelity to the evidence-based task. It will lead to bet-
ter classroom instruction and, ultimately, improved stu-
dent outcomes.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Stephanie Morano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3061-9926
Note
1. The names Mary, Tim, and Stephanie are pseudonyms and
are used only for readability purposes.
References
Ashbaker, B., & Morgan, J. (2012). Team players and team man-
agers: Special educators working with paraeducators to sup-
port inclusive classrooms. Creative Education, 3, 322–327.
Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., Bumble, J. L., Barnes, K., & Mazur, E.
L. (2018). Enhancing peer network interventions for students
with complex communication needs. Exceptional Children,
85, 66–85.
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2015). Effects of a professional
development package to prepare special education parapro-
fessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal
of Special Education, 49, 39–51.
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2016). Efficacy of teachers training
paraprofessionals to implement peer support arrangements.
Exceptional Children, 82, 354–371.
Brown, T. S., & Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2015). Experiences
of paraprofessionals in US preschool special education and
general education classrooms. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 17, 18–30.
Carnahan, C. R., Williamson, P., Clarke, L., & Sorensen, R.
(2009). A systematic approach for supporting paraeducators
in educational settings: A guide for teachers. TEACHING
Exceptional Children, 41, 34–43.
Chopra, R. V., Carroll, D., & Manjack, S. K. (2018). Paraeducator
issues and strategies for supporting students with disabilities
in arts education. In J. B. Crockett & S. M. Malley (Eds.),
Handbook of Arts education and special education (pp. 105–
128). Routledge.
Chopra, R. V., & Giangreco, M. F. (2019). Effective utilization of
teacher assistants in inclusive classrooms. In M. J. Schuelka,
C. Johnstone, G. Thomas, & A. Artiles (Eds.), Handbook of
inclusion and diversity in education (pp. 193–207). SAGE.
Chopra, R. V., & Uitto, D. J. (2015). Programming and planning
within a multifaceted Classroom. In D. K. Chambers (Ed.),
Working with teaching assistants and other support staff for
inclusive education (pp. 175–194). Emerald Group.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special edu-
cator must know: Professional ethics and standards.
Douglas, S. N., Chapin, S. E., & Nolan, J. F. (2016). Special educa-
tion teachers’ experiences supporting and supervising paraedu-
cators: Implications for special and general education settings.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 39, 60–74.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub L. No. 114-95 § 114
Stat. 1177 (215-2016).
Fisher, M., & Pleasants, S. L. (2012). Roles, responsibilities, and
concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey.
Remedial and Special Education, 33, 287–297.
Gerzel-Short, L., Conderman, G., & DeSpain, S. (2018).
Supporting paraprofessionals: Tips for enhanced collabora-
tion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(4), 152–157.
Giangreco, M. (2013). Teacher assistant supports in inclusive
schools: Research, practices and alternatives. Australasian
Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 93–106.
8 Intervention in School and Clinic 00(0)
Giangreco, M., Suter, J., & Doyle, M. (2010). Paraprofessionals
in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 41–57.
Goe, L., & Matlach, L. (2014). Supercharging student success:
Policy levers for helping paraprofessionals have a positive
influence in the classroom [Policy Snapshot]. Center on Great
Teachers & Leaders at the American Institutes for Research.
Hall, L. J., Grundon, G. S., Pope, C., & Romero, A. B. (2010).
Training paraprofessionals to use behavioral strategies when
educating learners with autism spectrum disorders across
environments. Behavioral Interventions, 25, 37–51.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §
1400 et seq. (2004).
Jones, E., Larsen, R., Sudweeks, R., Young, K., & Gibb, G. (2018).
Evaluating paraeducator-led reading interventions in elementary
school: A multi-cutoff regression-discontinuity analysis. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(4), 507–534.
Keller-Margulis, M. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation frame-
work: A critical need for response to intervention models.
Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 342–352.
McKenna, J. W., Flower, A., & Ciullo, S. (2014). Measuring
fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 50, 15–21.
Nelson, J. R., Oliver, R. M., Hebert, M. A., & Bohaty, J. (2015). Use
of self-monitoring to maintain program fidelity of multi-tiered
interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 14–19.
O’Keeffe, B. V., Slocum, T. A., & Magnusson, R. (2011). The
effects of a fluency training package on paraprofessionals’
presentation of a reading intervention. The Journal of Special
Education, 47, 14–27.
Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-
based staff training: A guide for practitioners. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 5, 2–11.
Rohrer, M. W., & Samson, N. M. (2014). 10 critical components
for success in the special education classroom. Corwin Press.
Sobeck, E. E., & Robertson, R. (2019). Perspectives on current
practices and barriers to training for paraeducators of students
with autism in inclusive settings. Journal of the American
Academy of Special Education Professionals, 131–159.
http://aasep.org/aasep-publications/journal-of-the-ameri-
can-academy-of-special-education-professionals-jaasep/
jaasep-winter-2019/perspectives-on-current-practices-and-
barriers-to-training-for-paraeducators-of-students-with-
autism-in-inclusive-settings/index.html
Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012).
Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical founda-
tions of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 498–510.
Spencer, T. D., Detrich, R., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evidence-
based practice: A framework for making effective decisions.
Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 127–151.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to con-
gress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act parts b and c. https://www2.ed.gov/about/
reports/annual/osep/2018/parts-b-c/40th-arc-for-idea.pdf
Walker, V. L., Douglas, K. H., & Brewer, C. (2019). Teacher-
Delivered Training to Promote Paraprofessional Implementa-
tion of Systematic Instruction. Teacher Education and Special
Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419869029
Walker, V. L., & Smith, C. G. (2015). Training paraprofession-
als to support students with disabilities: A literature review.
Exceptionality, 23, 170–191.
Ward-Horner, J., & Sturmey, R. (2012). Component analysis of
behavior skills training in functional analysis. Behavioral
Interventions, 27, 75–92.