Trans-Atlantic Concord: Tutoring by Paraprofessionals Works

Whenever I speak to skeptical audiences about the enormous potential of evidence-based reform in education, three of the top complaints I always hear are as follows.

  1. In high-quality, randomized experiments, nothing works.
  2. Since educational outcomes depend so much on context, even programs that do work somewhere cannot be assumed to work elsewhere.
  3. Even if a given approach is found to be effective in many contexts, it is unlikely to be scalable to serve large numbers of students and schools.

In light of these criticisms, I was delighted to see a recent blog by Jonathan Sharples at the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), the main funder of randomized evaluations of educational programs in England (and a former colleague at the University of York). The blog summarizes results from six experiments in England that used what they call teaching assistants (we call them paraprofessionals or aides) to tutor struggling students one-to-one or in small groups, in reading or math, at various grade levels.

 

Sharples included a table summarizing the results, which I have adapted here:

2016-03-03-1457013458-3599669-33201685349AM.jpg

What is interesting about this chart is that although every study was a third-party randomized experiment, the effect sizes fall within a range from moderately positive to very positive (+0.12 to +0.51).

Another interesting thing about the table is that it resembles findings in U.S. studies of tutoring by paraprofessionals. Here is a chart of such studies:

2016-03-03-1457013877-3944587-Table2_HP121.jpg

The contents of the Tables 1 and 2 are heartening in providing relatively consistent positive effects in rigorous studies for replicable, pragmatic interventions for struggling students, a population of great substantive importance. Because paraprofessionals are relatively inexpensive and usually poorly utilized in their current roles, providing them with good training materials and software to work with individuals and small groups of students in dire need of help in reading and math just makes good sense.

However, think back to the criticisms so often thrown at evidence-based reform in general. The findings from tutoring and small-group teaching studies devastates those criticisms:

  1. Nothing works. Really? Not everything works, and it would be nice to have a larger set of positive examples. But tutoring by paraprofessionals (and also by teachers and well-supervised and trained volunteers) definitely works, over and over. There are numerous other programs also proven to work in rigorous studies.
  2. Nothing replicates. Really? Context matters, but here we have relatively consistent findings across the U.S. and England, two very different systems. The effects vary for one-to-one and small-group tutoring, reading and math, and other factors, and we can learn from this variation. But it is clear that across very different contexts, positive effects do replicate.
  3. Nothing scales. Really? Various proven forms of tutoring – by teachers, paraprofessionals, and volunteers – are working right now in schools across the U.S., U.K., and many other countries. Reading Recovery alone, a one-to-one model that uses certified teachers as tutors, works with thousands of teachers worldwide. With the slightest encouragement, proven tutoring models could be expanded to serve many more schools and students, at modest cost.

Proven tutoring models of all types should be a standard offering for every school. More research is always needed to find more effective and cost-effective strategies. But there is no reason whatsoever not to use what we have now. And I hope this example will help critics of evidence-based reform move on to better arguments.

Advertisements

Unleash the Mighty Paraprofessional

RICH LEGG VIA GETTY IMAGES

In a recent blog I discussed six free and low-cost things that could be done in American education to produce substantial gains at little or no cost. One of these is particularly easy, perhaps shockingly easy in light of how effective it could be: Make better use of paraprofessionals.

Paraprofessionals, of course, are people without teaching certificates (usually) who work in schools. They are poorly paid and don’t get the respect they deserve, but schools spend an enormous amount on them. About 80 percent of Title I funds are spent on salaries and benefits, and much of this is for paraprofessionals. Non-Title I schools also hire a lot of paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals do a lot of useful things in schools, such as helping teachers with discipline problems, materials, clean-up, and playground duty. They often circulate in classrooms and help out students having difficulties, and they may sit with students with special needs who need ongoing assistance.

The problem is that several studies in the U.S. and the U.K. have found no achievement benefits for paraprofessionals as they are used today. The famous Tennessee Class Size study compared class sizes of 25 to those of 15 and found that children in the early grades learned more in the smaller classes. Less famous are the results of another comparison in that same study, which found that adding a paraprofessional to a class of 25 added nothing to student learning. Teachers and principals argue that paraprofessionals at least make their jobs easier, and they certainly do. It would be wasteful to have certified teachers spending a lot of their time on bus or cafeteria duty. Yet paraprofessionals could be doing a lot more than freeing up teachers.

In contrast to research on ordinary uses of paraprofessionals, there is a great deal of research on one-to-one and one-to-small-group tutoring models, especially in reading, but also in math. Many of these successful models use paraprofessionals as tutors. The reading models that work are structured and phonetic, and require training and supervising the paraprofessionals, but they can be very effective for struggling readers. Our own research has developed computer-assisted tutoring models in reading that involve students working with each other in pairs. These programs are delivered to groups of 6-8 students at a time by ordinary paraprofessionals (with good training). They can produce particularly strong outcomes.

Paraprofessionals trained and equipped to provide high-quality small-group tutoring can also continue to help out in traditional ways, such as playground, lunch, and bus duty. Times such as the beginning and end of the day and lunchtime are not conducive to tutoring anyway. But paraprofessionals can make a powerful difference tutoring students who are behind in reading and math during appropriate parts of the day.

I’ve written before about paraprofessionals, reporting on two recent U.K. studies once again showing positive effects of tutoring models led by paraprofessionals in reading and math. I bring up this topic again because I think making effective use of paraprofessionals is an outstanding example of how American education could greatly improve outcomes for children at little cost, using the findings of research and development and taking advantage of resources already in the system.

Paraprofessionals are usually capable and motivated individuals who want to make a difference with children. Many of them have college degrees and some even have teaching certificates (for example, their certifications may be from another state). Some paraprofessionals have more qualifications and skills than others, and these would be particularly suited to roles as tutors.

Paraprofessionals in schools serving many minority students are much more likely than teachers to share their students’ ethnicity and language, and are more likely to live in the neighborhood. Given training in proven tutoring models, software, materials, and respect, paraprofessionals can be a mighty force for good in our schools.

Six Low-Cost or Free Ways to Make American Education the Best in the World

2014-06-12-HP38Image_06_12_2014.jpg

It does not take a political genius to know that for the foreseeable future, American education is not going to be rescued by a grand influx of new money. Certainly in the near term, the slow economic recovery, gridlock in Washington, and other factors mean that the path to substantial improvement in outcomes is going to be paved not with new gold, but with better use of the gold that’s already there.

No problem.

We already spend a lot of money on education. The task right now is to change how we spend federal, state, and local resources so that more money is spent on programs and practices known to make a difference rather than on investments with zero or unknown impacts on learning. Here are my top six suggestions for how to spend our education resources more effectively. (I’ll go into more details on these in future blogs).

1. Provide incentives for schools and districts to implement programs with strong evidence of effectiveness in competitive grants. In competitive grants in all parts of federal and state government, offer “competitive preference points” for applicants who promise to adopt and effectively implement programs proven to be effective. For example, schools proposing to implement programs identified as having “strong evidence of effectiveness” under the new EDGAR definitions might receive four extra points on a 100-point scale, while those meeting the criteria for “moderate evidence of effectiveness” might receive two points. Readers of this blog have seen me make this recommendation many times. Perfect example: School Improvement Grants for low-achieving schools. Cost: zero.

2. Provide incentives for schools and districts to implement programs with strong evidence of effectiveness in formula grants. The big money in federal and state education funding is in formula grants that go to districts and schools based on, for example, levels of poverty, rather than competitive applications. The classic example is Title I. Schools have great freedom in how they use these funds, so how can they be encouraged to use them in more effective ways? The answer is to provide additional incentive funding if schools or districts commit to using proven programs with their allotted formula funds. For example, if schools agree to use a portion of their (formula-driven) Title I funds on a proven program, they may qualify for additional funds (not from the formula pot). This was the idea behind the Obey-Porter Comprehensive School Reform initiative of the late 1990s, which encouraged thousands of Title I schools to adopt whole-school reform models. Cost: This strategy could be done at a cost of perhaps 1% of the current $15 billion annual Title I budget.

3. Offer commitment to proven programs as an alternative to use of value-added teacher evaluation models. A central part of the current administration’s policies is incentivizing states and districts to adopt teacher evaluation plans that combine principal ratings of teachers with value-added scores based on students’ state reading and math tests. This is a required part of Race to the Top in those states that received this funding, and it is a required element of state applications for a waiver of elements of No Child Left Behind.

In practice, current teacher evaluation policies are intended to do two things. First, they insist that schools identify extremely ineffective teachers and help them find other futures. If done fairly and consistently, few oppose this aspect of teacher evaluation. Principals have evaluated teachers and identified those with serious deficits forever, and I am not arguing against continuing this type of evaluation.

The second purpose of the teacher evaluation policies is to improve teaching and learning for all teachers. This is the expensive and contentious part of the policies; in most states it requires a combination of frequent, structured observation by principals and “value-added” assessments of a given teacher’s students. The technical difficulties of both are substantial, and no study has yet shown any benefit to student learning as a result of going through the whole ordeal.

If the goal is better teaching and learning, why not require that all reform approaches meet the same evidence standards? If a school proposes to use a schoolwide strategy that (unlike current teacher evaluation policies) has strong evidence of effectiveness, the school should be permitted, even encouraged, to suspend aspects of the new model as long as it is implementing proven alternatives with fidelity and good outcomes. Cost: Modest, assuming proven programs are similar in cost to the expensive new teacher evaluation strategies.

4. Train and equip paraprofessionals as tutors. The most common expenditure of Title I funds is on paraprofessionals or aides, educators who do not usually have teaching degrees but perform all sorts of functions within schools other than class teaching. Paraprofessionals can be wonderful and capable people, but evidence in the U.S. and U.K. consistently finds that as they are most commonly used, they make little difference in student learning.

Yet there is also extensive evidence that paraprofessionals can be very effective if 
they are trained to provide well-structured one-to-one or one-to-small group tutoring to students who are struggling in reading and math
. Paraprofessionals are a multi-billion dollar army eager and capable of making more of a difference. Let’s empower them to do so. Cost: Minimal (just training and materials).

5. Encourage schools to use Supplemental Educational Services (SES) funding on proven programs. As part of No Child Left Behind, Title I schools had to use substantial portions of their Title I dollars to provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) to students in schools failing to meet standards. Study after study has found SES to be ineffective, and expenditures on SES are waning, yet they remain as a significant element of Title I funding, even in states with waivers. If districts could be encouraged to use SES funds on programs with evidence of effectiveness in improving achievement (such as training paraprofessionals and teachers to be tutors in reading and/or math), outcomes are sure to improve. Cost: Minimal.

6. Invest in research and development to identify effective uses of universal access to tablets or computers. Despite economic and political hard times, schools everywhere are moving rapidly toward providing universal, all-student access to tablets or computers. There is a lot of talk about blended learning, flipped learning, and so on, but little actual research and development is going on that is likely to identify effective and replicable classroom strategies likely to make good use of these powerful tools. As it has done many times before, American education is about to spend billions on technology without first knowing which applications actually work. Setting aside a tiny percentage of the costs of the hardware and software, we could fund many innovators to create and rigorously evaluate approaches using all-student technology access, before we get stuck on ineffective solutions (again). Cost: modest.

* * *

I’m sure there are many more ways we could shift existing funds to advance
American education, but they all come down to one common recommendation: use what works. Collectively, the six strategies I’ve outlined, and others like them, could catapult American education to the top on international comparisons, greatly reduce education gaps, and prepare our students for the demands of a technological economy, all at little or no net cost, if we’re willing to also stop making ineffective investments. Moreover, all of these six prescriptions could be substantially underway in the next two years, during the remainder of the current administration. All could be done by the Department of Education alone, without congressional action. And again, I’m sure that others have many other examples of low-cost and no-cost solutions that I haven’t thought of or haven’t addressed here.

A revolution in American education does not necessarily require money, but it does require courage, leadership, and resolve. Those are resources our nation has in abundance. Let’s put them to work.

Making Effective Use of Paraprofessionals

2014-02-27-HP31Image_02_27_2014.jpg

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) in England has just released its first six reports of studies evaluating various interventions. In each case, rigorous, randomized evaluations were done by third parties. As is typical in such studies, most found that treatments did not have significant positive outcomes, but two of them did. Both evaluated different uses of paraprofessionals. In England, as in the U.S., paraprofessionals usually assist teachers in classrooms, helping individual students with problems, helping the teacher with classroom management, and “other duties as assigned.” As in the U.S., teachers, parents, and politicians like paraprofessionals, because they are usually nice, helpful people from the community who free teachers from mundane tasks so the teachers can do what they do best. Unfortunately, research in both countries finds that paraprofessionals make no difference in student learning. The famous Tennessee Class Size study, for example, compared larger and smaller classes, but also had a large-class-with-paraprofessional condition, in which student achievement was precisely the same as it was in the large classes without paraprofessionals.

In one of the recent EEF-funded evaluations, teaching assistants taught struggling secondary readers one-to-one 20 minutes a day for 10 weeks. The study involved 308 middle schoolers randomly assigned to tutoring or ordinary teaching in 19 schools. The tutored students gained significantly more in reading than did controls. Similarly, a studyin which 324 elementary students in 54 schools were randomly assigned to one-to-one tutoring in math or to regular teaching found that the tutored students gained significantly more.

The EEF reports add to a considerable body of research in the U.S. showing that well-trained paraprofessionals can obtain substantial gains with struggling readers in one-to-one and small-group tutoring.

What these findings tell us is crystal clear. Already in our schools we have a powerful but underutilized resource, paraprofessionals who, with training and assistance, could be making a substantial difference in the lives of struggling students. This resource is costing us a lot. Most of the $15 billion we spend on Title I every year is spent on paraprofessionals, as is a lot of state and local funding. From personal experience, paraprofessionals are caring and capable people who want to make a difference. Why not use the evidence to help them do just that?