These articles outline several professional development models designed to:
These documents Include programs created through collaborative efforts among provider agencies, community colleges, teacher education and other professional preparation programs. They were done to facilitate career advancement as well as models developed by local school districts to increase the productivity of paraeducator employees. They are also representative of educational opportunities to prepare paraeducators to work in different disciplines and program areas. Finally, they provide examples of training models that are being used to meet the needs of paraeducators who live and work in urban, rural and suburban areas across the country.
These monographs were developed through the recourses of two grants from the Division of Personnel Preparation, Office of Special Education Programs of the United States department of Education. The first is a project of national significance (H029K970088-98) Teacher and Paraeducator Teams: Strategies for Building Them. The second is another project of national significance (H029K0136) A Core Curriculum & Training Program to Prepare Paraeducators to Work with Learners who have Limited English Proficiency. The content in these monographs does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Department and no official endorsement should be inferred. The editor of these articles was Andrew Humm.
Arlene Barresi, Training Coordinator and James Fogarty, Executive Director of Instructional Services,Board of Cooperative Services - Eastern Suffolk County, New York.
The Eastern Suffolk Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), located on the eastern end of Long Island in New York State, has launched a comprehensive inservice program for training the district's paraeducators.
BOCES provides a wide range of services to children and youth from birth to 21 years of age who have diverse developmental levels and learning styles and require individualized and compensatory education services. Many of the education and related services for school-age students who have disabilities or other special needs are designed to provide a transitional bridge from BOCES-based programs to general education classrooms near a student's home. Among the direct services provided by BOCES are home- and center-based education and support services to infants, young children, and their families. BOCES also offers opportunities for junior and senior high school students with challenging behaviors and learning or other disabilities to gain academic, vocational, and social skills that will enable them to return to their home district or to live and work in their community.In addition, BOCES administers learning centers for students who have drug or alcohol dependency or are at risk because of chronic health problems.We also provide specialized technical and occupational training for teenagers and adults to prepare them to (re)enter the workforce.Training for careers as automotive technicians, child care workers, computer technicians, medical and laboratory assistants and, in other fields is available through this program.
To provide these services, BOCES uses a differentiated staffing arrangement. Members of instructional teams include teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech language pathologists, vocational specialists, and paraeducators.Indeed the 730-plus paraeducators employed by BOCES are integral members of the team who work alongside their professional colleagues and participate in all phases of the educational process.
Developed jointly with the local affiliate of the New York State United Teachers, the BOCES training program is a flexible system that may be used to train paraeducators working in general, special, compensatory, and early childhood education.
In addition to the training, there are several other components that have contributed to the success of the program, including:
The following sections describe the procedures that we used to develop the curriculum and plan the model.
Planning, implementing, and maintaining a viable staff development program for paraeducators is not an easy task. We believe that personnel at all levels must be committed and actively engaged in the process.It is the administration that sets policy, establishes the guidelines for
managing the program, and provides fiscal support.Trainers and mentors develop and carry out the program.Principals and teachers provide opportunities for paraeducators to practice and master skills learned in the training.
During the developmental phase for the BOCES paraeducator training program, administrators and representatives of the paraeducators identified several issues that needed to be addressed. First, we needed to make sure that we were fully aware of the diverse tasks that paraeducators perform in varied learning environments.Second, we needed to know what skills paraeducators require to perform these tasks. Third, we needed to develop a process that would enable us to provide ongoing training of the highest quality using cost-effective strategies.Fourth, we needed to gain the support of district personnel and building staff, including principals, teachers, and paraeducators.
The methods that we used to define current roles and duties of paraeducators included spending time in classrooms and other education settings observing and interviewing paraeducators and teachers.In addition, we obtained lists of duties from other districts across the country and compared them with what is happening in BOCES.Based on our findings, we developed a set of skills required for all paraeducators employed by the district.
Once we determined the skills needed by the BOCES paraeducators, we began a search to find appropriate training models and instructional materials.It was easier to find resource materials to meet our needs than to find training models that had been tested, had achieved longevity, and could be readily integrated into our personnel development system.
After reviewing several instructional programs, we selected a series developed by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services (NRCP). These competency based materials are designed to prepare paraeducators to work in inclusive classrooms and transitional/vocational programs for children and youth with disabilities. They have also proven to be easily adapted to train paraeducators working in Title 1 other compensatory and general education programs.
There were two primary concerns that confronted BOCES administrators and paraeducators as we began to develop a paraeducator training system.The first was to meet the needs of both new employees and experienced paraeducators that have, in some cases, worked for the district for as long as thirty years. The second was to develop a viable process for maintaining ongoing and structured opportunities for training.
To address this issue, we established two goals. They were to develop a training program that would: 1) recognize the similarities in the duties of all paraeducators working with students of different ages in a broad range of programs, and 2) prepare more experienced paraeducators to take on duties that are continuing to evolve and become more complex and demanding.
During the start-up phase of the training, we decided that because systematic training had not been previously available, all paraeducators would benefit from participating in three core courses that include: 1) Roles and Duties of Paraeducators; 2) Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Paraeducators; and 3) Communication and Problem Solving.All of these courses are part of the NRCP curriculum. In addition, the NRCP curriculum offered us a framework and resources for preparing paraeducators to use effective instructional techniques and behavior management strategies developed by teachers, observe and document data about student performance and to report the results to teachers, understand principles of human development, and respect the diversity in cultural heritages, values, and lifestyles among students.
Because paraeducators require additional (specialized) skills in order to work in different programs that serve children and youth who have different learning needs, levels of ability, healthcare and physical needs, we also incorporated opportunities for building-specific training.
In order to meet our second challenge, we had to look beyond content and address the process.After exploring many approaches, we decided to develop and implement a Paraeducator Mentor Trainer Program that would allow us to: 1) orient new paraeducators and substitutes; 2) conduct program and building specific training for more experienced paraeducators; and 3) establish and maintain an ongoing paraeducator training program.
Skilled and experienced paraeducators are the key to ensuring that structured/systematic training and support for new paraeducators are available.They are mentors for paraeducators in their building and they welcome substitute paraeducators to their building.They also participate in the delivery of the core courses to their colleagues. In the BOCES training model, the paraeducator mentors/trainers:
Paraeducator mentors/trainers are selected using the following criteria.They are:
As the training model evolved, we identified two new issues that required our attention. The first was the need to add more courses to the core curriculum for all paraeducators.And the second was to develop inservice workshops to prepare teachers to direct and work more effectively with paraeducators. (The development of training for teachers was based on the requests we received from teachers.)
To expand the paraeducator curriculum and to provide training to teachers, we decided to add teachers to the training staff.Now teachers and paraeducators work together to develop workshops for members of the BOCES instructional teams.
Similar criteria are used to select teacher trainers.
Paraeducator and teacher trainers receive ongoing training provided by the program coordinator and a consultant. They are provided release time from their day-to-day responsibilities in the classroom to attend the training seminars and conduct the core courses for paraeducators, teachers, and substitutes. The paraeducators and teachers participate in 2 two-day training sessions annually and meet with the training coordinator periodically.Depending on the number of new paraeducators and teachers entering the system each year or the need to train substitutes, individual trainers conduct an average of three or four training sessions annually.These sessions require approximately two hours depending on the content being covered and the skill levels of the participants.
The procedures used to prepare the trainers are designed to provide them with the skills that they need to carry out their instructional and mentoring responsibilities. The training utilizes methods that recognize adult learning preferences and styles.
Specifically, paraeducator and mentors/trainers learn to:
The trainers learn and practice using role plays, case studies, small group discussions, brainstorming activities, and problem-solving strategies.They are also provided with opportunities to review audio-visual and other resource materials they will use during various workshops.In addition, they identify their own learning styles and assess their individual strengths as effective communicators.
Once again we turned to the NRCP curriculum for paraeducators.In addition to the core courses described above, we have added the following workshops: 1) Human Growth and Development; 2) Instructional Techniques; 3) Behavior Management; 4) Observing Behavior and Recording Data; and 5) Appreciating Diversity.
We also selected instructional materials developed by the NRC for Paraprofessionals for the teacher training. Some of the topics addressed in the modules are identical to the core training for paraeducators.They include: Distinctions in the Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers and Paraeducators, Communication, and Problem Solving. In addition, teachers learn to plan paraeducator assignments, direct and monitor the performance of paraeducators, and provide on-the-job coaching of paraeducators in order to help them master the skills learned during their inservice training.
Most of the core courses and program-specific training are provided at the building level. It is, however, sometimes more efficient to provide various workshops at the district level.Attendance is limited to no more than 25 to ensure that the district-level workshops enable trainers to use a wide range of instructional methods that meet the needs of adult learners. The time needed to present the core courses is approximately ten (10) clock hours.We have reached the point where we are able to provide training to paraeducators and teachers during their first year of employment. In subsequent years, they attend sessions on human development, instructional techniques, behavior management, observing behavior and recording data, appreciating diversity, and more and teachers participate in more in-depth courses to enhance their supervisory skills. The district provides these training sessions during the school day and employs substitutes for the teachers and paraeducators.
Program-specific training topics for paraeducators may include but are not limited to: assistive technology, using adaptive equipment, positioning, turning and transferring children and youth with physical disabilities, working with learners with challenging behavior, and health, safety and emergency procedures. These training sessions are conducted by occupational and physical therapists and/or nurses with skills in the content area or, when appropriate, the paraeducator and the teacher-training teams.
The paraeducator mentors in the individual buildings in collaboration with teachers and principals have developed a handbook for substitutes that contains information about building policies and procedures, schedules, and guidelines for working with the students in the program.The mentors are also available to orient and assist substitutes new to their building or program.
In addition, substitutes who are interested are offered an opportunity to attend a more formal training session that includes a brief overview of the skill-building information presented in the core courses for paraeducators.These workshops are delivered by the paraeducator and teacher trainers.
The development of the BOCES paraeducator staff development model was based on the concept that a successful inservice program could not take place in a vacuum.Establishing and maintaining a standardized, systematic training program requires the commitment of many players.Policymakers and administrators at the district level, principals, and teachers must: 1) be aware of the contributions that paraeducators make to the delivery of individualized education for children and youth; 2) recognize the need to enhance the on-the-job performance of paraeducators; and 3) work together to create an environment that accepts paraeducators as integral members of the instructional team.
Sharing information with the different audiences about the goals of the training program, the instructional activities, and the content is an ongoing process.Policymakers and administrative staff at the district and building levels are kept up to date about the training in several ways including: 1) reports during regularly scheduled district wide meetings from the Executive Director of Instructional Services for BOCES; 2) district and union publications; and 3) periodic briefings provided by the training coordinator and paraeducator mentors in specific programs and buildings.
The day-to-day management of all components of the project is the responsibility of the Training Coordinator. The Coordinator, who is a paraeducator, spends about 1/3 of her time on work connected with administering the program.She, too, receives release time from her classroom duties to carry out these responsibilities. To emphasize its importance and enable us to forge a strong program, we decided that the Coordinator would report to the Executive Director of Instructional Services, who ensures that the training and other activities are based on the district's philosophy of service delivery, staffing patterns, and other personnel practices.The Director also sets the guidelines for managing the program and delegates tasks to the Coordinator.
Evaluation activities are designed to assess the quality of the training and to provide us with information that we need to revise and strengthen the model.The evaluation activities include participant surveys and structured opportunities for feedback from the trainers/mentors about the effectiveness of the training and issues that need to be resolved in order to ensure that the quality and integrity of the model is maintained. Mentors also periodically submit written reports about training sessions held in their buildings.This enables us to maintain a database about the training the paraeducators receive through the various components of the training.
The Director of Instructional Services, the Training Coordinator and a program consultant review the results of the evaluations and determine how to improve the program and to make it more relevant to the needs of the paraeducators and teachers in the diverse programs administered by BOCES.
Perhaps reactions from paraeducators who have participated in the training provide the best insight into the value of the program and why it has been so universally accepted by all members of the BOCES staff.A few comments taken from training evaluation forms and feedback sessions with the paraeducator trainers/mentors are presented here.
"I'm not just an aide anymore. I'm a paraeducator who is an important member of the team. "
"Participating in the trainer/mentor program has given me my own identity in addition to being someone's spouse or mother."
"I appreciate what my teacher does much, much more!"
"The training is enabling me to bring a new dimension to my work.It forces me to think about what I do, why it needs to be done, and how I do it."
"As a trainer/mentor, I've seen the self-esteem of the other paraeducators grow."
"The training has given me an understanding of the wider world, what teachers really do, and what paraeducators contribute beyond the classroom and building."
"Being paraeducator trainer/mentors and doing the training has given us so much confidence in ourselves."
"I wish I could have had this training years ago.It has helped me recognize the impact I have on the kids."
"We make a difference."
If you have questions or want more information about the BOCES model write:
Arlene Barresi
Training Coordinator
40 Pine Street,
Seldon, NY 11784.
Thomas M. Longhurst, College of Health Professions, Idaho State University, Pocatello and Boise, 1997
Paraprofessionals make up about 20 percent of the early intervention and education workforce (Hebbeler, 1994). Striffler (1993) and Longhurst (1997) provide an overview of current trends in the utilization of paraprofessionals in early intervention and preschool services. The focus of this chapter will be on physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology and particularly those individuals that work in partnership with or alongside of professional level therapists as aides or assistants, which will be called paratherapists
(Longhurst & Witmer, 1994).
The Idaho Board of Vocational Education (1994 a, b, c, d, e, f; 1993) has developed Technical Committee Reports and Curriculum Guides that include appropriate performance standards, work setting task lists (competencies), duty areas, enabling objectives, practica suggestions, scope of practice statements, and supervision standards for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology aides and assistants.
It is hoped that the information contained in these curriculum guides and in this chapter will be useful to educators in high school vocational-education programs, community colleges, vocational-technical schools, colleges and universities, as well as those involved with planning health occupation programs. The information is also provided as an aid to early intervention or special education administrators in program planning and implementation that involves aides and assistants in therapy services. This information should become even more relevant as the current shortages of therapists and paratherapists in early intervention, education and rehabilitation settings become even greater in the future (Hebbeler, 1994; Job Trends 2005, 1994).
There should be significant cause for concern for the future of therapy services in early intervention and the schools. With salaries in rehabilitation settings often twice those in schools and significantly better benefit packages, more and more therapists are focusing on rehabilitation in their training and signing on with rehabilitation hospitals or private practices after graduation.
The special focus of this chapter will be on an attempt to (1) clarify the differences between aides and assistants, (2) present the need and demand for paratherapists, (3) review appropriate pre-service training, subsequent on-the-job training, and structured career advancement training that provides career pathways for paratherapists in Idaho, and (4) present an efficient and effective model for the implementation of therapy services utilizing an intradisciplinary team approach, for example SLP Aide, R-SLPA, CCC-SLP. As the demand for more and better trained paratherapists increases, production of current high school and community college programs can be expanded and new programs created to graduate more and better-trained paratherapists for an expanding job market.
Striffler (1993) has provided an excellent overview of current trends in the utilization of paraprofessionals in early intervention and preschool services. Longhurst (1997) has provided an overview of team roles in therapy services.
Occupational therapists (OT) and physical therapists (PT) have for many decades utilized paraprofessionals, both at the aide and assistant levels, to make their therapy more productive and efficient. The profession of speech-language pathology (SLP) has studied the issue repeatedly over the last three decades (ASHA, 1970; ASHA, 1981; ASHA, 1995) with paraprofessional use increasing but without fully recognized educational standards or practice controls.
There has been minimal consistency in occupational titles. Bachelor level speech-language pathologists are called aides in Texas and persons with only a high school diploma called assistants in California.Ê No national guidelines have existed and there are essentially no training programs, accreditation of training programs, nor national credentialing available for paratherapists in speech-language pathology. All that is changing with the official endorsement of the use and credentialing of associate degree (or bachelorâs degree) speech-language pathology assistants by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
The question now is not if the speech-language pathology profession will accept the use of assistants, but how community college programs can best train these paratherapists. ASHA will register speech-language pathology assistants (R-SLPAs) and approve the educational programs in which they are trained. The Council for Exceptional Children (1997), along with a consortium of educational organizations, including ASHA, have a set of guidelines that differ somewhat from ASHA's and are specifically directed to service delivery in early intervention and education settings.
Generally speaking, ASHA-CCC speech-language pathologists will be required by ethical code to supervise only ASHA-credentialed R-SLPAs. That is, in the future (there will be a 1998-2001 grace period), speech-language pathologists with the CCC could not supervise any assistants who are not R-SLPAs. ASHA does limit the number of R-SLPAs supervised by one CCC-speech-language pathologist to three FTEâs while the Consortium Report is silent on this issue. To supervise more would likely be an ASHA code violation if the supervisor holds ASHA-CCC.
The Consortium Guidelines (CEC Consortium Report, 1997) leave credentialing at three levels (I, Aide; II, Assistant; III, Associate) to the state (licensing boards or state education agencies). The supervisor need not have the ASHA-CCC, but would generally be expected to have a masterâs degree in speech-language pathology. With regard to supervision, the Consortium Guidelines require, as a minimum, direct supervision of the first 10 hours of therapy after training and then 10 percent of all sessions, to include at least one in every ten consecutive sessions. ASHAâs supervision requirements are more stringent. The ASHA Guidelines specify that supervision of R-SLPAs consist of a minimum of 30 percent for the first 90 days of service (20 percent must be direct, on-site); and 20 percent after 90 days (10 percent direct). Both the ASHA and Consortium Guidelines specify the scope of responsibilities or scope of practice of assistants and they detail the exclusive responsibilities of the supervisor.
Appropriate assignment of paratherapist roles is addressed in state practice acts, licensure and certification regulations, as well as scope of practice statements of professional organizations such as the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
Aide is a paratherapist title typically given to individuals with a low level of training and a very limited scope of practice. The aide is typically a non-licensed, non-certified employee who works under the direct supervision of the professional therapist. The aide carries out designated or specifically assigned routine tasks. These typically include transporting patients/students; maintaining, cleaning, and assembling materials, devices, and equipment; performing clerical duties, and working with patients/students in a very closely monitored and supervised therapy environment. On-site supervision by the therapist is typically recommended for best practice.Ê Typically, the aide is required to have a high school diploma or GED, be at least eighteen years old, and have completed some aide training in high school, a post-secondary educational facility, or on the job in a school, clinic, or hospital setting. Aides are often hourly employees with slightly above minimum wage pay and few fringe benefits. Some states recognize additional training or experience through pay grades or levels (I, II, III) within the aide category.
Assistant is a paratherapist title given to individuals with an associate degree from an accredited program in physical therapy or occupational therapy. The American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) (1988) or the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) (1991) accredit such programs. There are only a few associate degree programs in speech-language pathology and currently there are no national program approval procedures for speech-language pathology assistants (SLPA), but one will be implemented soon (Longhurst, 1997). The Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) and Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) are typically certified and in most states a licensed employee. Some states certify or license SLPAs, however, ASHA is the nationally recognized credentialing organization. ASHA will provide registration for SLPAs (Paul-Brown, 1995). Assistants work under direct or indirect supervision of the therapist and continuous, on-site supervision is not required, although this may vary from state to state. Their scope of practice is significantly expanded from that of the aide. ÊTheir education, expertise, and clinical training allow them to focus their efforts on patient/student treatment. While they typically donât diagnose, develop or even change treatment programs, they work somewhat independently in carrying out treatment programs planned by the professional therapist. Salaries are typically about 50-75% that of an employed professional therapist and fringe benefits are typically much better than the aide and relatively comparable to that of the professional therapist.
For all professions requiring at least a bachelors degree, therapists are well represented in the ten fastest growing professions. Physical therapists are listed third, with occupational therapists, sixth, and speech-language pathologists, eighth (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 1994). It is expected that these professions will show an 88 percent, 60 percent, and 48 percent growth rate respectively by the year 2005 (Job Trends 2005, 1994). U.S. schools of allied health are gearing up to meet current and future needs (Blayney & Selker, 1992).
Actually, the demand for paratherapists exceeds, and will continue to outstrip the need for therapists. For occupations requiring some post-secondary education, physical therapy aides and assistants are ranked first with a projected 93 percent growth and occupational therapy aides and certified occupational therapy assistants (COTAs) are ranked third with a growth rate of 78 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 1994). The use of speech-language pathology aides and assistants is not as well developed as in physical therapy and occupational therapy and employment statistics are not readily available. It is expected that demand in the future for speech-language pathology aides and assistants may be as great as in occupational therapy and physical therapy.
Several factors are driving this tremendous demand for therapists and paratherapists. Federal policy has had a significant impact over the past three decades (Hanft, 1991), particularly with implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was reauthorized in 1997. Advanced medical science is saving more extremely low-birth-weight babies and those with significant birth defects. Early intervention programs are successfully involved in identifying infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with mild to severe disabilities who then move into school programs. Many of these children need the services of therapists and paratherapists (Yoder & Coleman, 1990).
The health care industry's use of therapy rehabilitation services, especially for adults, is growing at a very fast pace (McFarlane, 1992) and will continue to do so because of the demographics of the aging population (Spencer, 1989). This growth in rehabilitation services draws many therapists, especially in speech-language pathology, away from employment in early intervention and the schools. Although the nature of health care and educational reform is uncertain, essentially all proposed plans bode well for significantly increased utilization of paratherapists in both settings. It is likely that the early intervention and education will benefit most from increased production of paratherapists.
The need for paratherapists in rural communities is particularly great (Center for Disability Policy and Research, 1995). In general, these communities have low population density and are separated by distance and geographic barriers from metropolitan areas with their larger hospitals. Few professional-level therapists locate in rural communities. Expanded education in community colleges, which are much more likely to be in rural communities, could supply more paratherapists for employment there.
There is also an increasing recognition of a need to reduce the barriers that prevent students in rural areas, members of minority groups, displaced homemakers, the disabled, school drop-outs, alternative school students, and the impoverished from entering career pathways that may lead first to a paratherapist job and eventually professional therapist status. It is no secret that the therapy professions have been remarkably unsuccessful in attracting, recruiting, and educating members of underrepresented groups into their ranks and few therapists are multi-lingual (Campbell, 1994; Campbell & Taylor, 1992; ASHA Committee on the Status of Racial Minorities, 1991; Holmes, 1987).
The cost and rigor of university education, the lack of articulation agreements among institutions of higher education, high admission criteria, limited program seats, and the length and cost of university, professional school programs have been major barriers to persons from underrepresented groups entering the therapist workforce. Most OT and PT schools now charge very high program fees (often $5,000-$10,000 per year) over and above tuition. Post-secondary vocational/technical schools and community colleges have an exemplary record of reducing these barriers and providing program access. The use of paratherapists who are more likely to be from underrepresented groups would provide a cultural and linguistic link to the community served.
It is also apparent that professional therapist training programs have been minimally successful in providing the family-focused (Jeppson & Thomas, 1995 Bailey et. al., 1990), multidisciplinary, or transdisciplinary training (Rooney, Gallagher & Fullagar, 1993) that is typically acknowledged as best practice in early intervention, education, and rehabilitation. Opportunities for a strong family focus and especially for cross training (or, as it is sometimes called, multi-skilling) are much more feasible in post-secondary vocational/technical schools and community colleges at the aide or assistant levels than in universities at the professional therapist level. Many competencies at the aide and assistant level are comparable and cross-training or multiskilling should be the goal of any paratherapist training program (Pew Health Professions Commission, 1995).
Many of these barriers will remain or be exacerbated in the future, so a well-defined career pathway for paratherapists, with opportunities for cross-training and career advancement through well-articulated programs, takes on increasing social, economic, and best-practice importance.
We clearly need to train more professionals, decrease attrition, and distribute professionals more equitably (rural vs. urban, schools vs. hospitals). However, it is also clear, as Hebbeler (1994, p. 28) so appropriately, stated, that ã[o]f all of the possible responses to the problem of personnel shortages, restructuring how programs are staffed (utilizing paraprofessionals) may hold the most promise.ä
Many post-secondary, vocational/technical school, and community college certificate or degree programs are viewed as tickets to the job market. Vocational educators are fond of calling their programs ãhireä education.
Their focus is often on providing well-qualified technical or support staff to schools, business, and industry.
This is especially true for the rapidly expanding allied health occupations field. Only rarely are they viewed as entry ways to the healthcare professions.
There are clear distinctions between a health care job and a healthcare career and between health occupations and health professions. While preparation for a job is good, career education should be planned and executed to provide access to career advancement through paratherapist levels into the therapy professions, if the student has the financial resources, intellectual capacity, and motivation. Barriers for advancement should be removed and opportunities made readily available.
Career pathways for paratherapists in Idaho (see Appendix A) provide school guidance counselors, educators, parents, and students with an innovative way to look at preparing for the post-secondary transition to the workforce and the need for further education in a vocational/technical school or community college.
Within the paratherapist career pathway, students initially choose health occupations as a career major. The health occupations major includes high school coursework that prepares Idaho students to (1) enter directly into the workforce as a Developmental Disabilities Aide (DD), OT, PT, or SLP aide upon graduation; (2) continue education in a vocational/technical school or community college focused on technical preparation as an OT, PT, or SLP assistant; or (3) eventually pursue advanced baccalaureate or graduate study at a university to enter the professional therapist ranks. Every student in the health occupations major follows an educational plan for their major. Early in the high school years, students should receive competent counseling so that they can choose a career pathway and develop an appropriate educational plan. With this early career guidance, parents and students can make better-informed decisions about the studentsâ high school and post-secondary education and choose relevant courses and related volunteer and part-time work experiences to improve their practical skills.
Through an integration of academic and vocational programs, career pathways help Idaho educators design appropriate curricula. Vocational, academic, and clinical competencies are required in health occupations. For example, students need the academic competencies contained in psychology, human anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, and physics courses as well as applied vocational competencies contained in courses in keyboarding and computers, medical records, medical terminology, and emergency and safety procedures.
Career pathways help to integrate the academic curriculum with the vocational curriculum and, in turn, with clinical practicum by requiring high school educators not only to be proficient in their own discipline (psychology, biology, chemistry, physics), but possess collaborative competencies across disciplines to better meet studentsâ needs. A paratherapist career pathway provides high school educators in Idaho with a framework for developing and coordinating an integrated health occupations curriculum. The material being taught in one course, such as biology, is reinforced in vocational coursework (e.g., in instruction in universal precautions for infectious disease control) and this material in turn is then applied clinically in proper work-surface cleaning, hand washing, and latex glove use.
A health occupations major helps students, parents, educators, and guidance counselors clarify the relationship between education and the world of work. Whether the goal is pursuing a graduate degree, four-year degree, associate degree, short-term secondary training, on-the-job training or a high school diploma, students need to follow a career pathway to be most efficient and effective in acquisition of competencies.
Career pathways help both the university preparatory student and the vocational education student make relevant course selections in high school. Both students would choose the health occupations major. One may focus on courses in university preparatory mathematics, human anatomy and physiology, chemistry, and physics, while the second might focus on applied mathematics, applied biology, applied chemistry, and applied physics. Both would complete coursework in applied technology in health occupations (keyboarding and computers, medical records, medical terminology, and emergency and safety procedures) as well as appropriate workplace experiences.
Health occupations (and professions) require clinical practicum and work experience before one is considered fully prepared. Initial work-based learning activities should be exploratory such as clinical observations, job shadowing, short-term work experiences after school or in the summer, and community volunteer service. As the student progresses in the career pathway, experiences might include more concentrated clinical practicum, clerkships, and internships.
When these clinical activities are incorporated into the curriculum within the career pathway, they complement classroom training by providing related practical experience in the world of work. These experiences answer the question in the studentâs mind, ãWhy should I learn this?ä
Rush (1996) suggests that successful work-based learning experiences should include:
The students' academic transcript documents coursework that has been successfully completed. A portfolio of certificates of training documenting program completion and records documenting work-based experience (volunteer experiences, part-time work, clerkships, internships) are maintained by the student and guidance counselor. Just as official transcripts are transferable among higher education institutions, experience portfolios are transferable in Idaho. If competencies have already been met, there is no reason to meet them again (except re-certification as is required in CPR training).
Through a career pathway, high school students graduate with one or more aide certificates in hand so that they can enter the job market immediately after graduation. The paratherapist career pathway should begin in the sophomore/junior years of high school or even earlier.
The intent is not for students at this point to decide on a specific occupation or profession, but to select an initial career pathway into which they can begin to direct their learning energies. Identifying a career pathway early can help students in selecting courses, school activities, volunteer and service activities, and even part-time employment.
There is some early preparation in life sciences and applied biology and then in general human anatomy and physiology. Keyboarding and computer skills are essential. Some background in applied chemistry, physics, and mathematics, as well as sociology/psychology is helpful. Typically a sophomore year class in Exploring Careers in Health Services is provided (McCutcheon, 1993). In the junior year, a full-year course in Health Occupations is completed (Simmers, 1993).
The senior year starts in the first half-year with a program in Developmental Disabilities Aide (DD Aide) training (Idaho Board of Vocational Education, 1993) with a certificate awarded upon completion.
In the second half of the senior year, students may elect to complete one or two aide programs with the most popular being PT Aide or, if time is available in the studentsâ schedule, the combined OT Aide and PT Aide program. A number of students have elected to complete classes required for high school graduation in the early morning, after school, or in the summer so that they can participate in aide training during the regular school schedule.
Two important national movements in vocational-technical education support high school career pathways for paratherapists. These are the School-to-Work movement (Perry, 1994; American Vocational Association, 1994) and the Tech Prep initiative (American Association of Community Colleges, 1994; Hull & Parnell, 1991). The School-to-Work program provides a practical system of integrating the high school classroom with real world experiences through schools and health care, community and work place partnerships. In this work-based learning program, the high school student participates in education at the work site that is closely connected to the high school curriculum. The immediate goal for students is aide training completion certificates that lead to a job in the chosen field upon high school graduation.
Idaho health care facilities, state agencies, and school district employers benefit from the School-to-Workprogram through lower training costs, an opportunity to shape the high school curriculum, and a larger and better skilled employee pool from which to hire. Because the students are working in the agencies, employers have an opportunity to see the quality of the studentsâ work before hiring full-time. The Tech Prep initiative, while similar to School-to-Work, has as its goal preparation in the high school curriculum for entry into a post-secondary vocational/technical school or community college associate degree program such as physical therapy assistant (PTA), certified occupational therapy assistant (COTA), or speech-language pathology assistant (SLPA). Completion certificates earned in high school as a DD Aide, PT Aide, OT Aide, or SLP Aide provide part-time employment opportunities while the student is pursuing an associate degree.
While the most efficient approach to training new employees at the aide level is through high school programs, access to training opportunities and entrance into a paratherapist career pathway also need to be provided at the post-secondary level. Post-secondary, short-term training is necessary for the 60 percent of high school students who pursued a general track in high school and neither obtained a marketable skill through high school vocational education nor successfully completed a college preparatory course of study.
The paratherapist career pathway can be entered through post-secondary, short-term training after high school graduation, sometimes many years later. For example, short-term training is made available in a highly accessible schedule through six regional, vocational-technical schools in Idaho. Students typically complete the DD Aide training of about 60 clock hours of instruction and then go on to one or more aide (PT Aide, OT Aide, SLP Aide) training programs, each about 60 contact hours in length. Each includes a supervised clinical component and mentored transition to the work place. Each training package is competency based and provides a completion certificate documenting that competencies have been demonstrated.
About 30 states have developed programs for training PTAs and COTAs, but there are currently only a few training SLPAs. Again, the APTA or AOTA accredit such programs to document at least minimal quality while ASHA is planning to approve SLPA programs.
Idaho State University, within its community college role, has completed initial curriculum planning and is proposing initiation of one of the first associate degrees in Speech-Language Pathology Assistanting. This curriculum development was planned to coincide with ASHA initiating program approval of training programs and registering of SLPAs (Paul-Brown, 1995), over the next few years.
The ISU course sequence for training SLPAs is shown in Appendix B. Most of the first year is used to fulfill general education requirements for an Associate of Science Degree. These courses are comparable to a typical freshman year and all courses can be utilized in the future for a Bachelor of Science in Speech Pathology and Audiology degree, if the student continues in the career pathway. The second year is focused on coursework in speech-language pathology assisting with a final spring-summer term consisting of closely supervised clinical practicum and associated applied seminars. ASHA requires two different, six-week placements totaling at least 70 clock hours supervised 50 percent of the time by a supervisor with the ASHA CCC in SLP.
A number of states have bachelorâs degree programs that lead to full certification/licensure in OT and pre-PT. There is a trend toward moving professional-level education in OT/PT to the graduate level. COTAs or PTAs should have the option of moving up the career pathway into upper division coursework after the associate degree to either complete a bachelorâs degree in OT or PT or to complete a preprofessional, or pre- OT or PT degree in majors such as biology, psychology, or special education. Usually admission requirements to most OT or PT programs are high and seats in programs are limited. Work experience as a COTA/PTA often provides some preference to applicants, but high GPA in specific prerequisite coursework, high Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores, and excellent recommendations are required. Tuition is very expensive, frequently requiring additional and significantly higher professional school or program fees.
Baccalaureate degrees in speech-language pathology are readily available in most states but they have been viewed as pre-professional degrees for the last two decades that do not lead to work in SLP. A masterâs degree has been viewed as the minimum practice requirement by ASHA. Most states recognize the masterâs degree as the minimum for state licensure/certification and to meet the qualified provider provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
There are still a number of persons with bachelorâs degrees in the schools nationwide, but often they are working in some other position classification. With some minimal retraining, these persons could become R-SLPAs.
There are a number of baccalaureate in SLP graduates each year who for one reason or another do not go on to graduate school. Again, these persons, with some minimal retraining÷primarily the fieldwork experience÷would make excellent R-SLPAs, significantly expanding the SLP workforce available to the burgeoning service needs of infants, toddlers, school children, adults, and the elderly.
Utilization of paratherapists should be viewed positively. Certainly, those that choose not to supervise paratherapists should not be forced to do so. However, those that choose to qualify themselves and devote the time and energy to supervise paratherapists should be provided appropriate supervision time and resources (CEC, Consortium Report, 1997). When the Dallas (TX) Independent School District hired speech-language pathology assistants in 1994, the SLPs that agreed to supervise SLPAs received a pay raise.
Then they received a 25 percent reduction in their caseloads to allow for that supervision (Moving forward on support personnel
, 1995). That is a good example for other school districts nationwide.
With appropriate utilization of paratherapists, service deliverers can provide more services to more persons with disabilities at a more reasonable cost. Paratherapists can increase the current, typical frequency of one or two sessions per week to five-days-a-week intervention that automatically increases the possibility of improving outcomes and clearly may reduce the overall duration of therapy needed. If paratherapists can be used as extenders of services provided by therapists, the whole service delivery system can move forward a giant step with minimal, if any, erosion of quality of service, and at great cost savings. While some therapists fear paratherapists will cost them their jobs, their real fear should be that they will lose their jobs to healthcare and education reform if they donât provide intervention more relevant to the educational needs of students and become more cost effective. Clinical efficacy is an increasing concern in our cost-conscious and outcomes-based world. The appropriate training and use of paratherapists is the future of therapy services in early intervention and the schools.
American Association of Community Colleges (1994). The Tech Prep associate degree challenge. Washington, DC, Association of Community Colleges.
American Occupational Therapy Association (1991). Essentials and guidelines for an accredited program for the occupational therapy assistant. Rockville, MD:
American Occupational Therapy Association.
American Occupational Therapy Association (1987). Guidelines for occupational therapy services in school systems. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.
American Physical Therapy Association (1988). Accreditation candidacy program of the commission on accreditation in physical therapy education. Alexandria, VA:
American Physical Therapy Association.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Committee on the status of racial minorities. (1991) Multicultural action agenda 2000. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
American Vocational Association, (1994). Building a school-to-work system. Alexandria, VA:
American Vocational Association.
Bailey, D., Simeonsson, R., Yoder, D., & Huntington, G. (1990). Preparing professionals to serve infants and toddlers with handicaps and their families: An integrative analysis across eight disciplines. Exceptional Children, 57, (1), 26-35.
Blayney, K. & Selker, L. (Ed.) (1992). Healthy America: Practitioners for 2005, a beginning dialogue for U.S. Schools of Allied Health. San Francisco, CA: Pew Health Professions Commission.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Outlook Quarterly, (1994). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Campbell, L.R. (1994). Learning about culturally diverse populations. Asha, June-July, 40-41.
Campbell, L.R. & Taylor, O.L. (1992). Perceived competencies of speech-language pathologists employed in schools relative to providing services to culturally diverse children. Tejas Fall/Winter, 18, 31-34.
Center for Disability Policy Research (1995, November).Voices of Disability: Access to Health Care in Rural America, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Center for Disability Policy and Research.
Clark, P. & Allen A. (eds) (1985). Occupational therapy for children. St. Louis, MO:
C.V. Mosby.
Council for Exceptional Children (1997): Report of the Consortium of Education Organizations on the Preparation and Use of Speech-Language Paraprofessionals in Early Intervention and Education Settings, Journal of Childrenâs Communication Development, 18:1, 31-56.
Hanft, B. (1991). Impact of federal policy on pediatric health and education programs. In W. Dunn (Ed.) Pediatric occupational therapy: Facilitating effective service delivery, Thorofore, NJ: Slack Incorporated, 273-284.
Hebbeler, K. (1994).
Shortages in professions working with young children with disabilities and their families. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.
Holmes, E.M. (1987).
Help Wanted: Blacks in Allied Health Professions. Black Issues in Higher Education, 4:19, 18.
Hull, D. & Parnell, D. (1991). Tech Prep Associate Degree: A win/win experience. Waco, TX, Center for Occupational Research and Development.
Idaho Interagency Coordinating Council (1992). Position Statement on paraprofessional training and utilization. Boise, ID: Idaho Interagency Coordinating Council.
Jeppson, E.S. & Thomas J. (1995) Essential Allies: Families as Advisors. Washington, DC:
Institute for Family-Centered Care.
Job Trends 2005: Interviews with economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics on employment force costs for physical, occupational, and speech therapists. (1994, Fall).
Therapy Student, 4.
Longhurst, T.M. (1996a).
Career pathways for related service paratherapists in early intervention and education, Journal of Childrenâs Communication Development, 18:1, 28-30.
Longhurst, T.M. (1996b). Idahoâs three-tiered system for speech-language paratherapist training and utilization. Journal of Children's Communication Development, 18:1, 57-74.
Longhurst, T.M. Team Roles in Therapy Services, Chapter 3 in Pickett, A.L. and Gerlach, K. (Eds.) Supervising Paraeducators in School Settings: A Team Approach. Austin, TX, Pro-Ed, 1997.
Longhurst, T.M. & Witmer, D. (1994). Initiating paratherapist training in Idaho. New Directions, 15:3, 1-5.
McCutcheon, M. (1993).
Exploring Health Careers, Delmar Publishers Inc., Albany, NY.
McFarlane, F.R. (1992).
What does the future hold? American Rehabilitation, Summer, 3-7.
Montgomery, J.K. & Herer, G.R. (1994). Future Watch:
Our schools in the 21st century.
Language Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 25, 130-135.
Moving forward on support personnel. (1995, February).
Asha, 27:2, 13-14.
Perry, N. (1994). Planning to meet career development needs:
School-to-work transition programs. Washington, DC, The National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee.
Paul-Brown, D. (1995).
Speech-language pathology assistants:
A discussion of Proposed Guidelines.
Asha, September, 39-42.
Rooney, R., Gallagher, J., & Fullagar, P. (1993). Distinctive Part H: Three case studies. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Policy Studies Program, frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Rush, W. (1996). Career Pathways-Idaho: Moving to a focused education. Boise, ID: The State Division of Vocational Education.
Simmers, L. (1993). Workbook for Diversified Health Occupations, Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers Inc.
Spencer, G. (1990). Projections of the population of the United States by age, sex and race: 1988 to 2080. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Striffler, N. (1993).
Current trends in the use of paraprofessionals in early intervention and preschool services. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System.
Yoder, D. & Coleman, P. (1990). Allied health personnel: Meeting the demands of Part H, Public Law 99-457. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I wish to acknowledge the work of Dorothy Witmer, Ed.D., former Health Occupations Supervisor, Idaho Division of Vocational Education for facilitating the development of the paratherapist Technical Committee Reports and Curriculum Guides (DD Aide, Vo. Ed. 269; PT Aide, Vo. Ed. 283; PT Assistant, Vo. Ed. 285; OT Aide Vo. Ed. 282; COTA Vo. Ed. 284; SLP Aide Vo. Ed. 293; SLP Assistant Vo. Ed. 292). These documents are available for $5.00 each from: Vocational Curriculum Dissemination Center, College of Education, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-3083, (208) 885-6556.
The thoughtful discussion and document editing of the many professional therapists and paratherapists in Idaho who made up the three (PT, OT and SLP) technical committees are also gratefully acknowledged.
Also acknowledged is the financial support from the Idaho Infant-Toddler Interagency Coordinating Council and the Idaho Infant-Toddler Program, Mary Jones, Manager, that was used to provide travel and operating expenses to the technical committee meetings as well as document preparation and printing expenses.
And finally to my long-time administrative assistant, Karen Lewis, thanks are extended for many hours of committee scheduling, preparing correspondence and drafts of the technical documents as well as preparing this chapter for publication.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the author at:
Idaho State University
Pocatello, Idaho 83209-8116
Phone (208) 236-2204
FAX (208) 236-4602
E-mail: longthom@isu.edu.
Lynn Safarik
Coordinator of Career Advancement Training Program at California State University, Long Beach from 1989-1995.
Teresa was among the first students to enroll in the Career Advancement Training Program in the fall of 1992. A friend who knew of her interest in working with children with disabilities referred her to the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) program. She had never been to college but had acquired some post-secondary training through the military. She had worked as a truck driver in shipping and receiving and, at the time she interviewed at CSULB, was employed as a grocery checker. Teresa, a young mother of two, was enthusiastic about beginning a new career in special education; her past volunteer experiences had sparked an interest. Despite her apprehension about going back to college, she clearly had a sense of determination.
The program advisor recommended that Teresa begin by taking the Job Coach class at one of the articulated sites, Coastline Regional Occupational Program (CROP). It was close to her home and would enable her to get some immediate hands-on experience. Teresa excelled in the classroom and in the practical component of the program where she learned how to job coach students with a wide range of disabilities in a vocational program under the supervision of a certified instructor.
Feedback from the CROP site advisor to the Career Advancement Training Program coordinator was positive. She appeared to be a natural teacher and was skilled in working with students and employers alike.
Feeling confident about her progress, Teresa contacted a friend who was employed at the Disabled Students Program and Services at Fresno College coordinating summer white water rafting trips for persons with disabilities. Teresa volunteered to go along on the next trip. This experience proved to be inspirational, further convincing her that she had found her niche. Other volunteer experiences enhanced her training; in fact, she earned extra credit hours for her job coach class by participating in the International Wheelchair Tennis Tournament.
During her first year in the program, Teresa had gained the training, experience, motivation, and confidence that she needed to begin her program at CSULB. Upon advisement from the CROP site advisor, she enrolled in the Winter Bridge Program at CSULB, a class designed to orient new transition students to the university program. Teresa was assigned a peer advocate, Margie, a student in her final year in the CSULB Undergraduate Transition Services Program. Margie was selected because she worked at Coastline ROP in the career guidance department and could help Teresa with her studies as well as with her new position at Coastline ROP. (Teresa had been hired as a part-time assistant in the Learning Handicapped Program, part of the California State Transition Partnership Program.)
Teresa continued her academic program by enrolling in an English 100 course at the community college. Concurrently, Teresa enrolled in her first university course, Introduction to Transition Services. In Fall 1993, one year after her application to the program, she was hired as a full-time job coach and instructional assistant at Coastline ROP.
Four years later, Teresa has made considerable progress in both her studies and professional development. She has only a few courses left toward completion of her bachelorâs degree. When she graduates, she will also have accumulated a wealth of experience in classroom and community settings. With the help of a network of friends and colleagues both at CSULB and Coastline ROP, she will soon reach her goal of becoming a certified special education teacher.
Teresa's story shows how a multi-agency program is well suited to address the needs of paraprofessionals who are seeking training and career advancement. Adult students must coordinate work and family responsibilities when they are planning their educational program. Often, this means that they must alternately take classes at different institutions, depending on when classes are offered and considering travel distance from home, work, and childcare facilities. Their support network includes co-workers, college advisors, friends, classmates, and family. Paraprofessionals may change jobs frequently or combine several part-time jobs. The need for employment is more than financially-based; adult students need to grow professionally as they complete their education in order to sustain a high level of motivation and to establish a career path.
A program that offers flexibility, practical training, and builds the student's support network is necessary to accommodate the complex lives of adult students. The importance of extra-institutional factors, such as community and employment-related social support, is emphasized in sociological models of college impact that are used to describe how and why students persist and attain their goals in higher education institutions (Weidman, in Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Drawing upon this model, the career-ladder program described in this monograph integrates training, education, work, and community experiences to facilitate the professional growth of returning adult students.
The Career Advancement Training Program for Transition Services Personnel is one of several titles used to describe a program that began in 1989 and that has undergone several permutations over the ensuing eight years. Today, the program is referred to as the Transition Services Training Program for Paraprofessionals . The name change reflects the program's increased focus on paraprofessionals. Initially, the program was designed as a certificate program for vocational instructors and other support service personnel who work in schools and adult service agencies with persons with disabilities. The need for trained transition services personnel grew out of the state and federal special education and rehabilitation services policy that emphasized employment preparation and independent-living skills training for youth and adults with disabilities.
Spearheaded by vocational/special needs faculty in the Department of Occupational Studies at California State University, Long Beach, the original program content and structure were based on local training needs research (Morehouse & Albright, 1991). Its eighteen-unit curriculum was designed to augment traditional vocational instructor coursework, but was conceived primarily as a stand-alone certificate option for school and agency-based paraprofessionals such as job coaches or employment training specialists.
The program has grown into a multi-level, multi-agency training system that includes two secondary regional occupational programs 1, four community colleges 2, and California State University, Long Beach. Recently, the program has been extended to include an outreach effort to local school districts that provides intensive, on-site training for district paraeducators who receive a certificate through University College Extension Services at CSULB 3. Over the years, multiple contingencies shaped the program; some were unanticipated; others were predictable but unavoidable. In retrospect, the program that exists today is a result of both purposeful fine-tuning and adaptation for survival.
This monograph describes the transformation of the program from an externally funded special program to an articulated, institutionalized degree program and career-ladder system which links multiple agencies. By examining the adaptive process, the successes and obstacles, and the outcomes--anticipated and unanticipated--this case may provide insights for others interested in organizational change and the innovation process. Elements of the innovation process, as summarized by Palumbo, are readily recognizable:
No single individual or group generally is responsible for getting an innovation routinized in an organization (Yin, 1979), although there generally are policy entrepreneurs, catalysts, or fixers who play large and important roles in the adoption and diffusion process (Bardach, 1980; Doig, 1981; Palumbo, Musheno, & Maynard-Moody, 1985). It usually is impossible to fix the exact date when a particular innovation began, and the innovation will be reinvented a number of times or modified to fit into the specific needs of those who will use it (Rice & Rogers, 1980). Many years usually pass for the diffusion process to unfold, and along the way a number of unanticipated consequences are likely to occur, so that the end results are likely to be quite different from those anticipated earlier in the process (Lincoln, 1985, p. 7).
These aspects of the innovation process can be roughly translated into three ideas about innovation. It is:
1) a messy, dynamic process that is largely consumer-led,
2) a collaborative endeavor, and
3) a long and bumpy ride leading to an unplanned destination. These themes are present throughout this analysis of the processes and program features that appear to have been critical to the program's viability.
Three central components of the implementation and development of the Transition Services Training Program for Paraprofessionals are the focus of this paper. They include: 1) the collaborative curriculum development approach which formed the foundation for the program, 2) the institutionalization of the university program through the establishment of a formalized degree option, and 3) the student support strategies and mechanisms that link the articulated programs to form a career-ladder system.
Of interest to higher education professionals, issues of leadership, college impact and nontraditional student development, and the relationship of policy to practice are raised in consideration of the details of the career-ladder program. For those interested in the training and career-development of paraprofessionals in education and related services, this piece may contribute to the evolving dialogue on how their unique needs may be more systematically addressed by two- and four-year institutions. Since the majority of paraprofessionals who participate in the program are women who have re-entered post-secondary education, those interested in the college experiences of women who combine work, school, and family may also find useful information here.
Implementation research and organizational theory has shifted in focus in recent years to macro-organizational behavior (Lincoln, 1985). Macro-organizational behavior refers to the numerous horizontal relationships between participating agencies that are required for the implementation of social programs. Palumbo stresses that rationality in organizational behavior is retrospective rather than prospective. He explains why this is true:
What is crucial about the focus on macro-organizational behavior is the complexity of joint action. The large number of participants, perspectives, and decision points necessary for the completion of a program brings into stark relief the problems associated with injecting prospective rationality into organization behavior. As successful implementation in such ambiguous circumstance requires mutual adaptation among the actors involved, the only kind of rationality that seems to exist in organizations is retrospective as opposed to prospective. Retrospective rationality involves explaining events after they have occurred, whereas prospective rationality is an attempt to predict and control events before they occur. Although at times organizations attempt to be rational in the prospective sense, most often they are rational only in the retrospective sense. Hence organizational behavior is rational, but only in the sense that organizations act first, then analyze what they did, rather than the other way around (Palumbo & Nachmias, 1983). As Karl Weick (in this volume) explains, intention seldom, if ever, controls action; but because we assume that what appeared to happen did happen, we often conclude that rational models actually work when, in fact, they do not. (1985, p. 9)
This observation about the implementation process aptly describes the way the collaborators proceeded in planning and developing the Career-Ladder Program. After the initial planning session, the original action plan became less and less useful as we plowed through the multiple bureaucracies of our respective institutions. A few of the steps were salvaged, but in the end an entirely new process was delineated and it occurred to us that the step-by-step plan had little relevance to the way we actually worked. Instead, our method was more pragmatic; we worked on aspects of the project that inspired us as a group or on those items that were of pressing concern to individual members. Somewhere in the middle of the process, we constructed a plan that more accurately depicted our course of action.
The above explanation withstanding, for the collaborative team (which consisted of representatives from each of the participating regional occupational programs, community colleges, and the university) these steps describe our general direction and activities:
Whereas the above steps represent the guiding process for coordinating the articulation of the individual programs, in a multiple-site collaborative, each agency must operate within the structure, policies, and timetables of its own setting. Procedures for obtaining course approval and administrative support and for navigating communication channels are unique to the participating agencies. The central steps, which involved development of the curriculum and the conceptualization of the articulated programs, comprise the essence of our work together. They were as follows:
Operational decisions about the collaborative planning project (e.g., identifying sites, personnel, timelines, resources) are among the many start-up phase activities. The development of a common conceptual framework, however, is an important first step if all team members are to have joint ownership of the project.
Defining the training needs is probably the most critical collaborative planning activity. This process not only serves as a way to focus the group's efforts, but also creates a forum for expressing individual concerns, personal philosophies, and creative approaches before a course of action has been set. The importance of establishing a spirit of mutual respect and a sense of shared mission cannot be overlooked in articulation work and these initial discussions of purpose and larger policy issues greatly enhanced the collaborative climate. Through this process, we all became committed to this initiative.
The process of defining training needs began with the identification of the roles, skill requirements, and employment settings of personnel providing transition services. A systematic survey of local transition services personnel roles included a review of the literature on their competencies as well as a profile study of a sample of CSULB Undergraduate Transition Services Program applicants. Several brainstorming sessions followed, resulting in the compilation of an extensive list of job titles, some widely used by transition service deliverers (job coaches, employment specialists, and others more loosely associated with transition such as guidance technicians and work experience coordinators).
This collection of job titles was organized by employment setting and professional area. Three major settings were identified as employment sites for transition services personnel: secondary, post-secondary, and adult service agencies. Within each setting, personnel worked in the fields of vocational education, special education, or vocational rehabilitation. This organizational framework provided a point of reference from which the team could identify competency requirements that were realistic in the local job market.
At this point, the development of the conceptual framework required an analysis of role hierarchies as they occurred in the field, using the framework developed by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services. By distinguishing between paraprofessional and professional roles, the team could then begin to sort personnel roles by levels of training (or credentials, degrees) needed. Director Anna Lou Pickett's functional definition of a paraprofessional as one who works directly with students in an instructional capacity- but who ultimately works under the supervision of a certified teacher or professional (Pickett, 1989)- was adapted to include the stipulation that they not have a bachelor's degree.
The process of exploring transition-related job roles in the multiple contexts of agency and professional area (discipline) and by organizing these roles as being either paraprofessional or professional, enabled the team to develop a basis for the development of curriculum at multiple training levels.
The next step in conceptualizing the articulated programs was to clarify the nature and purpose of the training segment to be offered at each institutional level. This was be accomplished by defining the individual missions of secondary vocational education, community college vocational training, and professional development in vocational education at the university level. The team's assumption was that program articulation can best serve students who are seeking career advancement and professional growth if the participating institutions are providing training that is consistent with their mission.
For example, secondary vocational education at a regional occupational program introduces students to an occupational area by providing hands-on, specific skills training that will prepare them for entry-level employment in a specific job. At the same time, regional occupational program training in any one of a cluster of related occupational areas enables students to explore a range of career paths. Community college programs, by offering intensive training in a vocational area, prepare students for more advanced positions in a field and help the student further define his or her career path. The general education component in community college programs provides the student with the educational breadth required for transfer to a four-year university, if the students so desire.
The mission of a university program is broader still, with a more theoretical curriculum and including leadership and professional development as primary goals. The vocational training program at a university prepares students to assume professional roles in an applied field (e.g., transition services). The team studied transition services personnel roles with this perspective on institutional training purposes in mind. Accordingly, entry-level job training in transition service (e.g., job coach) is most effective at the ROPâs and CCâs; job development and instructor training is appropriate at the community college and university; and transition specialists or coordinator training is the focus of training at the university (possibly extending into graduate school).
These guidelines were helpful in ascertaining the general nature of training at each level. Clearly, there is some overlap in training purposes and curriculum objectives. However, the orientation of training varies by institutional level; training is more skills focused at the secondary program, more broad-based at the university, and somewhere in between at the community college. With these guidelines in place, specific training competencies were identified.
The development of model curricula to be used for multi-level transition services personnel training was based on a study of regional training needs in transition services that provided the basis for the original grant proposal (Morehouse & Albright, 1991). The study surveyed 95 paraprofessionals and 47 administrators in public school and adult service agencies in the Southern California area about the relative importance of transition services training competencies. Five categories of baseline competencies were identified.
These original competencies were analyzed and revised repeatedly by the team to produce a set of competencies that would be sufficiently detailed for the purpose of developing a comprehensive curriculum. The set of 32 baseline competencies was expanded to fifty-four. The revised competencies were organized under eight headings:
A. Core Competencies
B. Assessing Transition Program Needs
C. Assessing Learner Needs
D. Planning Transition Programs for Special Needs Learners
E. Implementing Training/Instructional Components
F. Job Development and Placement
G. Job Site Training and Instruction
H. Developing Professional Skills
The rationale that guided our analysis and revisions was the need for a comprehensive career-ladder training program. The curriculum would meet the specific training needs of Job Coaches and Job Developers but would also be generic enough to allow transferable skill development. The philosophical, ethical, and legal aspects of personnel training as well as the foundations of transition services were addressed in the "Core Competencies" area. The "Developing Professional Skills" competencies were part of the university training for paraprofessionals moving into professional roles.
The competency review process was conducted in three phases: 1) a training program participant review, 2) a national expert panel review, and 3) a final validation of competency revisions by four internal and external reviewers. The instrumentation and analysis procedures are described in detail in Safarik, et al , 1994.
The collaborative team was formed through an established network of associates who had professional ties to the Project Director at the lead institution, CSULB. The community colleges and regional occupational programs invited to participate in this project were geographically and programmatically desirable; however, the primary reason for their selection was based on individual qualifications and level of commitment to the project. The start-up phase entailed several meetings with key administrators at each institution, to enlist their support, engage them in establishing long-term directions for the project, and to get their assistance with the identification of collaborative team members to represent their institutions.
The initial project planning meetings included the CSULB Project Director and Coordinator and key administrators from RSC and Mt. SAC: the Deans of Occupational Education; Coordinator of Occupational Services; Coordinator, Special Services; Chair of the Human Development Department; Director, Disabled Students Services; and Disabled Students Services Placement Specialist .
During these planning meetings with administrators, two important project directions were established÷first, that the desired outcome was to develop a model curriculum for transition services training to be used statewide; and second, to expand the articulation process to include ROPâs (East San Gabriel Valley Regional Occupational Program and Coastline Regional Occupational Program).
These two regional occupational programs were selected based on their proximity to the community colleges, their level of activity in transition services programming, and their status as recognized leaders in the state as exemplary secondary vocational education programs. Both individuals selected to participate in the project were alumni of the CSULB Graduate Program in Transition Services.
During the third project year, Coastline Community College was identified as a third community college to participate in the collaborative. Coastline, with a nationally recognized special programs division (particularly their acquired brain injury program) and with strong leadership in the disabilities field, made an important contribution to establishing the program content.
Personnel selection was driven by a pairing notion; that is, we matched ROPâs and community colleges that were compatible in terms of geographic location, history of program articulation, and personnel linkages. In this sense, two pairs were established within the team, Mt. San Antonio College and East San Gabriel Valley ROP and Coastline Community College and Coastline ROP. Rancho Santiago College, which is geographically accessible to both ROP's and which had no prior history of articulation with either, worked with both institutions. A more recent addition to the collaborative, Cypress College is tied closely to our recently developed paraeducator training program at the ABC school district in Cerritos, CA.
The details offered through this explanation of site and personnel selection might seem overstated. Utilizing an existing professional network to mount the collaborative made our work more productive, more enjoyable, and helped to sustain the project over the long haul. The educational backgrounds, areas of professional expertise and position within the organizational structure varied among team members; this diversity enhanced the project, as we drew upon the differing strengths, interests, and resources of individuals who worked from different perspectives. Team members had backgrounds in vocational education, special education, and human development, and had experience in working with at-risk youth, developmentally disabled adults, children with learning disabilities, and persons with acquired brain injuries. Some were among the pioneers in the supported employment field; others had strengths in program administration.
We approached the collaborative project through a shared leadership strategy. This occurred naturally as individual team members participated at differing levels throughout the years when professional and personal commitments impinged on their ability to contribute. Our collaborative shared births, divorces, job changes, and other life changes as we nurtured the program over the years. Several of the team members have moved on to new professional challenges since we started in 1989. New members have joined the group and the original members have planted seeds from the collaborative in their new organizations. Although the project is always about individuals- and they come and go- the collaborative never seems to lose members. Instead the network expands as members move around.
We did find, however, that the position of team members within their organizations determined the degree of efficiency with which we were able to get the programs up and running at the individual sites. The team members who were trainers, had direct control over curricular decisions, and had direct contact with students were most successful in establishing the linkages with other agencies.
At the community college, implementation was easier for those team members who were part of an academic unit than it was, for example, for one team member who worked in the disabled student services program as a placement specialist. This person had to establish credibility with faculty who were unfamiliar with the field of transition services and gain the support of the appropriate academic department before proceeding with course approval procedures. Even though this team member was very experienced and well known for her work with disabled students and state rehabilitation programs, it was difficult for her to gain access to the formal curriculum processes without a faculty advocate. In contrast, for those community college team members who were already a part of the decision-making loop, course approval and articulation was a routine procedure.
At the university, which was the coordinating institution, the support of department faculty and personnel from administrative units was critical. Because two senior faculty played an active role in project administration in the early phase of program development, bureaucratic obstacles were minimized. For instance, a cooperative relationship between the Department of Occupational Studies (in which the program was situated) and the Admissions and Records unit on campus helped smooth the admissions process for paraprofessionals who were classified as adult re-entry students. This special status, typical for the majority of vocational instructors who enrolled in the department for a Designated Subjects Teaching Credential, allowed students to temporarily delay standard admissions requirements such as placement tests and grade-point average criteria. As non-matriculated students were able to complete all of some of their teaching classes after having only completed an abbreviated application and admission process. Later, they had the option of "rolling over" to the degree program, but this process was made simpler since they were now considered transfer students, had established a record of academic success, and felt more confident as university students.
Transition students who do not enter with sufficient units to qualify as a transfer student (56 units) are able to benefit from the same admissions policy for re-entry students. This is an important factor in supporting the non-traditional student; otherwise, the admissions and records bureaucracy can become so cumbersome for a re-entry or at-risk student that it prevents students from taking the important first-step in getting back to school. Because CSULB is a large, state university, the support and cooperation of admissions and records personnel can make or break a student's chances of being successful. Fortunately, the records evaluation and admissions process is made more manageable for students and faculty in the undergraduate transition services training program through a student-centered philosophy on both ends.
Ultimately, the success of an innovative program within a traditional academic department depends to a great extent on the support of departmental leadership. When leadership or vision changes within a department, an externally funded program÷particularly when a non-tenure track or junior faculty member administers it÷is quite vulnerable. The high level of commitment required of the program coordinator in order to sustain a multi-agency program cannot be maintained without full support. When a department is not willing to consistently invest in the effort and commit to its full inclusion in the department, hard-won linkages are apt to break down. Given this reality, the critical element is to ensure program institutionalization in as many ways as possible before losing fiscal support. The institutionalization process is discussed further in a later section of this monograph. The need for faculty support from the academic department withstanding, the resiliency of the collaborative is a question of values and commitment.
The resources for the collaborative curriculum development project came from three successive federal grants. The first two, which were three- and five-year awards respectively, included moneys for the participating sites. The first, awarded in July 1989, devoted a total of $3,000 to be used by participating community college sites. Originally, funds were distributed equally between Rancho Santiago and Mt. San Antonio Colleges. During the second project year, when it expanded to include two regional occupational programs, these funds were subdivided to include the two additional sites. During the third year of the original training grant, funds budgeted for the articulation sites were phased out. Later, a second federal training grant provided additional resources for participating sites. A sum of $6,000 was allocated for five Site Advisors (collaborative team members). Each one outlined a site section plan yearly to demonstrate how funds would be used to carry out the project goals.
The amount and use of funds by each site varied year by year depending on the level and purpose of site activity. For instance, when two site advisors presented the project at a national conference, they were provided extra funds to cover travel and presentation preparation expenses. In another case, a site advisor at a community college used project money to pay for the cost of course instruction for the first offering.
Apparently , incentives for participating in the collaborative had little to do with the stipends provided by grants over the years. A relatively small amount of money (between $500 and $1,000 per year per team member for five years) was paid to each participating institution. In some cases, this amount was paid to the team member for the specific services identified through a contractual agreement with CSULB. Other agencies opted to absorb this money into their general fund. Although the stipend was primarily intended for establishing a solid relationship with the institutions, CSULB recommended (in collaboration with the site representative) guidelines for its use, consultant fees, and student scholarships. The team members, some of whom never received the stipend money, seemed to be motivated more by the importance of the career ladder concept. Early in the collaborative the group conceded that our work would not depend on funding, but instead viewed the project as a long-term process with the ultimate goal being institutionalization within and across our sites.
The collaborative project was sustained by our collective value of outcomes beyond program articulation . Instead of limiting our purpose to signing articulation agreements, we intended to create a flexible, coordinated system of support, training, and career advancement for paraprofessionals. The most important outcome of the project has been to establish a network of professionals whose service, creativity, and commitment was not bound to their own institution, but which transcended institutions to support paraprofessionals in transition services and related areas.
There are many incidental benefits of the collaborative approach to building a career-ladder training system. It becomes a way of regularly and systematically sharing information about employment opportunities for paraprofessionals, a method for improving and updating training content, and an opportunity to keep informed about policy and professional development events at the state, local, and national levels and as a mechanism for obtaining external funding to enhance organizational directions (e.g. to increase the number of paraeducators of color in the career ladder program).
As a result, the collaborative has created professional growth opportunities for both the team members and students. Over the years, each of the team members has presented the project at state and national conferences. Seven students have made national presentations of their work through the program.Two of the team members are now adjunct faculty at CSULB and two others have collaborated on related grant-funded projects.
When we first started the project, there were few program models to draw upon. Over the years, it has been gratifying to share our progress and observe the increasing interest in the paraprofessional career development movement. Project spin-offs, such as work with local school districts in developing training and career-ladders for their paraprofessional staff-as well as participation in research conducted by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals in Education and Related Services- are additional outcomes of the collaborative.
Most importantly, the collaborative allows us to keep track of and support students more effectively and over a greater length of time than we are able to individually. Through our network, we keep each other informed about student progress. The collaborative has made long-term mentoring possible for the students who may take five years or longer to move through the various levels of the career-ladder program. Adult students often drop in and out when circumstances arise that interrupt their training program. Sometimes a student will take a leave to take advantage of a job opportunity or to take care of his or her family. The flexibility of the multiple-site program allows for this pattern of adult education. Most students keep in touch with advisors whether or not they are enrolled in classes, even when they have relocated to another region or state.
The process of moving the innovation from an externally funded certificate program to an institutionalized, multi-agency training system was shaped, constrained, and facilitated by many bureaucratic structures, events, and observations. The change process, which did not conform to our neatly laid plans, often seemed erratic and stagnated. On one hand, getting the program off the ground required that we fit the new program into existing degree structures. This entailed highly individualized program advisement; each student's background and training needs were assessed on an case-by-case basis and course substitutions were utilized extensively to get students through. This pragmatic approach appeared to be working during the first year or two. In the sense that it assured the acceptance of the innovation among the other faculty members, it was appropriate and functional. However, this labor-intensive process soon became unmanageable and inefficient. Often, it seemed that the program would not survive. Through this interactive process of trial and error and adaptation, however, the program evolved to a more formal structure.
It became evident that a separate degree option for transition services students was needed. In retrospect, it appears that this development was guided by a rational implementation plan. There were actually several factors that provided the impetus for establishing a new bachelor's degree option in transition services in addition to the impracticability of fitting the training program into existing÷but incompatible÷degree programs: a growing and increasingly diverse group of students interested in a transition services training, the continued passage of federal and state legislation requiring trained transition services personnel, and a growing empirical basis for training competencies in transition services (Safarik, Prather, Hanson, Guzman, Ryan & Schwan, 1991; DeFur & Taymans, 1995). In short, the student/consumer's needs- driven by national, state, and local policy and agency needs÷forced the program changes. As their needs interacted with institution-specific contingencies, dysfunctional structures slowly broke down and were replaced by more functional ones. The following chain of events illustrates how the program evolved at the university level.
The original program, the Undergraduate Transition Services Training Program at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) was designed to be an eighteen-unit certificate program within the bachelor's degree program in the Department of Occupational Studies. The six-course sequence comprised three phases: Phase I, Introduction to Transition Services; Phase II, four courses individually selected from among the Occupational Studies and Educational Psychology offerings; and Phase III, a Practicum. Only two of these courses, Phase I and Phase II, had to be developed. It was not necessary to go beyond departmental review to obtain approval for these courses since existing seminar and generic practicum course numbers were used to run the courses. These six courses were based on nationally researched competencies (Safarik et al, 1991). Students selected Phase II courses based on an assessment of their prior coursework and experience. After several offerings, the Phase I course, Introduction to Transition Services, was refined and subsequently approved by the university through formal curriculum review and approval processes as a regular course offering in the Department of Occupational Studies.
Because the CSULB program was funded by external funds for the first four years, personnel were supported through the grant. A full-time coordinator (non-tenure track) was hired and two senior faculty served as Project Director and Associate Project Director. The grant provided tuition assistance for twenty students per year, part-time clerical support, and stipend money for the community colleges to participate in the articulation aspect of the project.
Project staff worked to fit the certificate program into the existing bachelor's degree program options. Students were advised to select the best degree option out of three: the Bachelor's of Vocational Education (BVE), Bachelor's of Science (BS), or Bachelor's of Arts (BA), Interdisciplinary Major. Depending on their level of experience and specific career interest, students worked with an advisor to match the transition program requirements with the appropriate degree program.
When the program began, it was expected that recruits would come mainly from the pool of vocational teachers who typically enrolled in the Department of Occupational Studies credential and bachelor's degree programs. During the first semester of program operation, approximately one-third of enrolled students were, in fact, vocational teachers who had an interest in working with students with special needs. This pattern changed over the years and soon the transition student pool consisted of only a few vocational teachers. Instead, we were drawing in large numbers of paraprofessionals from public schools and adult service agencies. Five years later, more than 90% of the student population were paraprofessionals working in special and vocational education and adult services. The shift in the student population required a major restructuring of the program design. The Bachelor's of Vocational education degree, specifically designed for vocational teachers, became less appropriate for many transition services students since they did not meet the intensive occupational experience requirement for that degree.4 Two strategies were implemented in response: 1) the BVE degree program requirements were modified at the State and institutional levels and 2) a new degree program was developed.
When the transition services program began, the vocational instructors who enrolled were able to use their prior vocational experience to qualify for the BVE degree program.
It was not unusual for students to have fifteen to twenty years of experience in an occupational area and five or more years of teaching experience. As previously mentioned, the transition student profile began to change as the program became more widely known and soon students who were less experienced in a trade area, but more experienced in working with special populations were enrolling in the program. The Associate Director, who was also a member of the State Board of Vocational Examiners, was instrumental in adapting the Swan Bill (see note) process to accommodate the experience and background of paraprofessionals who worked with persons with disabilities.
This new breed of Swan Bill applicants often came to the university program with twenty years of experience as well; however, their experience was not in one trade area but comprised a range of occupational roles. Also, their teaching experience was non-traditional; often they taught pre-employment, independent-living skills, or supervised community-based training in a variety of entry-level jobs. In other cases, they were coordinating special programs in addition to their teaching responsibilities and their "teaching" included on-going contact with employers, community agencies, and families of persons with disabilities. In short, the students coming into the transition program were already performing the role of the transition specialist, although they had no formal training. The State Board of Examiners recognized the critical role of these paraprofessionals in delivering services and providing employment training for persons with disabilities and was cooperative in modifying the application process to include these non-traditional "vocational" educators.
As a result, many paraprofessionals coming through the program during the first several years were granted "Swan Bill" units (in some cases, the maximum 40 units). This degree option was extremely attractive to mature students who had extensive experience in the field but who needed the degree to advance professionally. Later, as younger, less experienced students entered the program, the BVE, even as revised, was not always the appropriate degree option. At first, students who did not meet the criteria for the BVE were advised to plan a BA program with an interdisciplinary major or "Special Major" program as it is known. A popular combination of majors for transition students was occupational studies and educational psychology. This more traditional degree allowed the student to complete a forty-unit major comprising courses from both departments. This interdisciplinary BA program is a university-wide program and was directed by a university-appointed advisor. Although the entrance requirements for this degree program are complex, several students per year opted for this degree.
Another option for students who did not meet the BVE requirements was the BS degree in vocational education. Designed originally as a program for industrial trainers, the BS degree was not suitable for transition students. After several attempts to make multiple course substitutions that essentially revamped the entire BS degree, program staff acknowledged the need to formally establish a degree option designed specifically for transition services students.
The new degree program content and structure were based on several concurrent and intersecting developments÷ample feedback from internal review and evaluation measures, results of a national study of transition services training competency needs, external funding from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and faculty recognition within the Department of Occupational Studies that major revision of the BS degree was long overdue.
As the program evolved, and the transition services competencies were developed and validated, the program content was revised substantially. A new course, Techniques of Job Coaching (OCST 260), was developed and approved and two others÷Performance-based Assessment in the Classroom and Community and Techniques of Job Development÷were offered as experimental courses. These courses are expected to be institutionalized as of this publication. With subsequent funding, and as a result of continued internal and external program review, we began work to institutionalize a separate transition services option within the Bachelor of Science degree in Occupational Studies. This degree option underwent formal approval processes and was approved in 1996.
Along with the adoption of new coursework and the establishment of a separate degree option in the BS program for transition services program undergraduates, we endeavored to integrate the transition competencies across selected department of occupational studies courses. Specifically, key themes such as multiculturalism, collaboration among agencies , and self-determination were identified as areas that need to be addressed within our vocational education courses for all (including non-transition services) students. Ideally, the integration process will be extended to other department from which transition students take coursework, i.e. social work, home economics, educational psychology.
While program articulation was being completed at all of the participating sites, other project outgrowths developed. Three years after the inception of the collaborative curriculum development effort in 1991, CSULB mounted a new grant-funded training program as an extension of the original undergraduate transition services training program. The Career Advancement Training (CAT) Program was established to focus on training people of color in transition services and to support their progress towards full special education certification. The CAT program was developed in response to the critical shortage of special educators in the state, with a special emphasis on increasing the numbers of special educators of color.
Several recruitment and retention strategies were devised to accomplish the project goal of training nine students of color per year for five years through the CSULB Transition Services Training Program. The purpose of these strategies were to provide the necessary support, individualized program planning, and advisement to facilitate their progress toward full special education certification. These strategies include tuition support and a stipend for two years, a peer advocate support system, a winter and summer bridge program, and articulation with the post-baccalaureate special education credential program. A key program feature was to utilize and build upon the existing network of articulated training programs as a way to enhance recruitment and retention of students of color at various points in their education and careers.
The original collaborative team members were identified in the new CAT program as Site Advisors, who are responsible for identifying outstanding students of color interested in becoming special education teachers and referring them to the next educational level when appropriate. Since the Site Advisors were positioned differently at their institutions, their roles as Site Advisors varied accordingly. For example, at the ROPâs, both Site Advisors were Job Coach class instructors. Thus, their direct involvement with students was naturally suited for a mentoring relationship. These Site Advisors work closely with selected students and ensure their access to the articulated programs. Also, both team members are active statewide in transition and recruited students into the program through their professional affiliations.
The role of the three community college Site Advisors varied according to their position at the college. The Disabled Student Placement Specialist at Mt. San Antonio College works with disabled students seeking services at the college who may or may not be interested in transition related careers. Prior to the establishment of the transition program, she was not involved in academic programming and had limited access to students across campus. However, as an active member of several state programs serving the disabled, her network enabled her to recruit individuals from outside of the college and inform them of the various options available through the CAT program. As Site Advisor, her contact with Disabled Student Services staff and other student support personnel enabled her to recruit, advise, and refer students to the CAT program.
The Department Chair of the Human Development Department at Rancho Santiago College served primarily in an administrative role. As an administrator, her role as Site Advisor involved promoting the program to her department and in facilitating the formal curriculum approval and articulation processes. The Special Programs and Services Coordinator for the Disabled served as the Coastline Community College Site Advisor. She was involved directly with student interns whom she referred to the CAT program when appropriate. As the initial instructor of the articulated job coach class and supervisor of other related instructional programs, she was able to advise and refer students in her role as Site Advisor.
The career-ladder approach to training enables paraprofessionals to make progress toward their professional and education goals in an efficient and rewarding manner. Job opportunities, professional conferences, workshops, and intern positions are examples of the types of experiences available to students through their contacts with the Site Advisors. Early and accurate advisement about general education, transfer and credential requirements, and admissions and registration procedures are ways that Site Advisors can support students over the long haul.
The primary role of the Site Advisor is to serve as a contact person, a friendly face that students can feel comfortable talking to about career plans, professional opportunities, and difficulties that they are experiencing at school and/or work. Having a friend at a large institution can make all the difference for students facing the bureaucratic complexities of transferring and program planning. Often the Site Advisors' role is to refer students to other staff or faculty at the college for academic advising or registration information. The Site Advisors provided the critical human link between the six institutions.
Site Advisor Manuals were provided to assist the Site Advisors with program requirements and referral guidelines. It is a fluid document, in that its contents are being constantly revised as new program information is disseminated from each of the sites. Course outlines, admissions requirements, and program benefits and services are among the items included in the manual. It is updated during monthly project meetings. Each Site Advisor creates a yearly Site Action Plan that outlines recruiting approaches, i.e. linkages with EOP Office, Students Services, related departments, community affiliations, retention strategies, and program development ideas. Essentially, these tools enabled the collaborative team members to establish procedures within their present roles to communicate the career-ladder options for students and to expand and refine their transition programs.
The network of articulated training programs provided a natural support system for students interested in career advancement. However, as the team pursued the career-ladder concept, it became clear that some inter-agency operational processes needed to be worked out. A systematic program planning and assessment process for students was viewed as being an essential component. The team agreed that the set of training competencies used to create the articulated curriculum could be adapted as an assessment and planning tool and subsequently created the Career Portfolio for this purpose.
The Career Portfolio uses the competencies as a way for students to conduct a self-assessment of their skills before, during, and upon completion of their total program. Using the portfolio approach, students can also document evidence of attainment of specific competencies. Items such as job experience descriptions and workshops attended, as well as specific courses and academic projects can be used to illustrate skill development or proficiency. By reviewing the Career Portfolio with students, Site Advisors can assist with program planning and career advisement. Later, the Career Portfolio can be used to present an in-depth description of skills and accomplishments to employers. The career portfolio is a powerful communication tool for students but also assists the Site Advisors in assessing the skill level of students entering their program from the other articulated sites. The Site Advisors can then individualize the students' programs to avoid duplication of coursework and to provide extra skill enhancement where needed.
Although the CAT program is structured in three program levels, i.e. regional occupational program, community college, and university, in reality, students rarely follow that chronological pattern of training. Students may take a course at the ROP after having completed their general education or associate's degree at a community college and then decide to come to the university. It is not uncommon for university students to concurrently attend the community college to complete their general education and university transition courses on a part-time basis. A set of referral guidelines was established for the site advisors.
These are shown below in Table 1.
| Student Background | Referral |
| AA degree, experience and demonstrated commitment to pursuing transition/special education career | CSULB |
| Some college coursework, demonstrated English proficiency, several years of experience in the field and commitment to pursuing transition/special education career | CSULB or Community College |
| No prior college coursework, entry-level experience in field, i.e. job coach or job coach training. | Community College /ROP |
| No prior college coursework, no specific transition experience, interest in education, human services career. | ROP |
To encourage students who are potential candidates for the CAT program, but who are not ready for admission in to the CSULB program, a Conditional Acceptance procedure was developed. To be eligible, students must be recommended by a Site Advisor, be interviewed by the CSULB Program Coordinator, and make a formal application to the program. The conditional acceptance assures students of placement into the tuition reimbursed program after they have completed the program entry requirements (at least one year of related job experience and one year of college coursework including demonstrated written English proficiency). With the conditional acceptance, students are also eligible to enroll in the Summer or Winter Bridge Program.
The Bridge Program, a 1-unit course offered through Extension Services, is an orientation to Careers in Special Education and Transition Services and is restricted to new CAT students. Program content includes a program orientation, initial work on the Career Portfolio, guest speakers, readings about current developments in the field, self-awareness instruction, an orientation to campus resources, and an orientation by the Special Education Credential Coordinator. The Bridge Program is an opportunity for CAT students to get to know each other, project personnel, and the campus. All accepted and conditionally accepted students, including high school seniors, are eligible to attend.
Because the CAT program is specifically aimed at recruiting students who are pursuing special education certification, the program is articulated with the graduate program in special education. These students are able to take up to three, lower-division classes as part of their bachelor's degree program that will also apply to their post-bachelor's certification program. The special education credential program coordinator introduces the program, as well as career opportunities in special education during the Bridge program. As students near graduation they are advised to schedule a meeting with the special education credential coordinator to plan the next stage of their program.
Since the CAT program began, several changes in the state special education credential regulations have facilitated the career advancement of paraprofessionals who wish to become certified. Effective January 1992, the state no longer requires a basic teaching (multiple subjects or designated subject) credential as a prerequisite for the special education certification. Those who wish to teach special education may move directly into the special education credential program upon completion of their bachelor's degree. Students who have completed their bachelor's degree in vocational education with a transition services specialization will have an opportunity to waive or substitute coursework based on an individualized assessment. These revisions to the special education credential program will take approximately two years to implement. During the interim period, CAT graduates may progress toward the credential unde