Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act: Background
and Issues in Brief
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
January 14, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22545
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Summary
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) established minimum qualifications for
paraprofessionals (also known as instructional aides) employed in Title I, Part A-funded schools.
NCLB required that paraprofessionals must complete two years of college, obtain an associate’s
degree, or demonstrate content knowledge and an ability to assist in classroom instruction. Prior
to the NCLB, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) required only that
paraprofessionals possess a high school diploma.
These requirements, as enacted through NCLB, apply to all paraprofessionals employed in a Title
I-A Schoolwide (Sec. 1114) program without regard to whether the position is funded with
federal, state, or local funds. In Title I-A programs known as Targeted Assistance (Sec. 1115),
only those paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds must meet the requirements (not those paid
with state or local funds). A report by the Education Department (ED) reveals that
paraprofessionals accounted for about one-third of instructional staff in Title I-A funded schools
and districts.
NCLB authorized most ESEA programs through FY2007. The General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA) provided an automatic one-year extension of these programs through FY2008. While
most ESEA programs no longer have an explicit authorization, the programs continue to receive
annual appropriations and paraprofessional quality requirements continue to be in place. LEAs in
states that have received an ESEA flexibility waiver are not restricted in the use of Title I-A funds
for failing to meet NCLB teacher quality and student achievement accountability requirements;
however, all LEAs still must comply with the law’s paraprofessional quality requirements.
This report describes the paraprofessional quality provisions, guidance provided by ED regarding
implementation, and available information on how states have responded to some of these
requirements. The report concludes with some issues that may arise as Congress considers
reauthorization of the ESEA.
Congressional Research Service
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Requirements for Paraprofessionals Under NCLB .......................................................................... 2
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education .......................................................................... 3
Who Must Meet the NCLB Rules? ............................................................................................ 3
Qualified Status ......................................................................................................................... 3
Education Credits ...................................................................................................................... 3
Assessment of Paraprofessionals ............................................................................................... 3
Supervision of Paraprofessionals............................................................................................... 4
Professional Development Funding........................................................................................... 4
Reauthorization ................................................................................................................................ 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6
Congressional Research Service
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), signed into law on January 8, 2002 (P.L. 107-
110), required that all paraprofessionals assigned instructional duties and employed in Title I, Part
A-funded schools meet minimum qualifications by January 8, 2006.1 The NCLB states that
paraprofessionals (also known as instructional aides) must have completed two years of college,
obtained an associate’s degree, or demonstrated content knowledge and an ability to assist in
classroom instruction. On June 17, 2005, the Education Department (ED) announced that the
paraprofessional deadline would be extended to the end of the 2005-2006 school year to coincide
with the related NCLB deadline for highly qualified teachers (HQT).2
The use of instructional aides in U.S. classrooms has been increasing every year since data on
paraprofessionals were first collected by ED’s National Center for Education Statistics.
Instructional aides accounted for 2.5% of total full-time equivalent instructional staff in 1970,
11.9% in 1980, 16.5% in 2000, and 17.2% in 2009.3 ED’s interim report on NCLB teacher quality
implementation revealed that paraprofessionals accounted for about one-third of instructional
staff in Title I-A funded schools and districts.4 Instructional aides are also increasingly handling
classroom responsibilities without supervision. ED’s final report on NCLB teacher quality
implementation indicated that 19% of paraprofessionals spent “at least half of their time working
with students in the classroom without a teacher present.”5
Recognition that the quality of instruction in U.S. schools is increasingly affected by the quality
of paraprofessional staff has bolstered support for federal instructional aide standards. Prior to the
NCLB, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) required only that
paraprofessionals possess a high school diploma. This requirement was established in previous
ESEA amendments passed under the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382).6
Legislative proposals establishing higher standards for paraprofessionals were supported by ED
under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and were eventually enacted under the NCLB.
1 Section 1119(c) states that all paraprofessionals newly hired after the date of enactment be highly qualified, and
section 1119(d) states that those hired prior to enactment be highly qualified not later than four years after enactment.
2 This announcement is at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/06/06172005a.html. For more information on
the highly qualified teacher requirement, see CRS Report R42127, Teacher Quality Issues in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
3 U.S. Education Department, Digest of Education Statistics, 2011, Table 85, available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/.
4 U.S. Education Department, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, State and Local
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Inerim Report, Washington, DC, 2007, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/
eval/teaching/nclb/report07.pdf.
5 U.S. Education Department, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, State and Local
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Final Report, p. xxxi, Washington, DC, 2009, http://www2.ed.gov/
rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/report.pdf.
6 Prior to those amendments, the ESEA was silent on this issue dealing with paraprofessionals.
Congressional Research Service
1
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Requirements for Paraprofessionals Under NCLB
As of the enactment of the NCLB on January 8, 2002, all newly hired Title I paraprofessionals
whose duties include instructional support must possess the minimum qualifications prior to
employment. That is, they must have
• completed two years of study at an institution of higher education,
• obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree, or
• passed a formal state or local academic assessment, demonstrating knowledge of
and the ability to assist in instructing reading, writing, and mathematics.
Paraprofessionals hired on or before January 8, 2002, who were performing instructional duties in
a program supported with Title I funds, were required to meet these requirements by the end of
the 2005-2006 school year.
The NCLB paraprofessional qualification requirements apply only to Title I paraprofessionals
with instructional duties; that is, those who
• provide one-on-one tutoring if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student
would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
• assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other
materials;
• provide assistance in a computer laboratory;
• conduct parental involvement activities;
• provide support in a library or media center;
• act as a translator; or
• provide instructional services to students under the direct supervision of a
teacher.
Individuals who work in food services, cafeteria or playground supervision, personal care
services, non-instructional computer assistance, and similar positions are not considered
paraprofessionals, and do not have to meet these requirements. Also, ESEA Section 1119(e)
indicates that paraprofessionals who only serve as translators or who only conduct parental
involvement activities must have a secondary school diploma or its equivalent, but do not have to
meet additional requirements.
Under NCLB, local education agencies (LEAs) must make progress toward meeting their state’s
annual objectives for teacher quality and student achievement. If a state determines that an LEA
has failed to make progress toward meeting those annual objectives for three consecutive years,
the LEA is prohibited from using Title I-A funds on any paraprofessional hired after the date of
the determination.7
7 For more information on accountability provisions in the ESEA, see CRS Report R41533, Accountability Issues and
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
2
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education
Who Must Meet the NCLB Rules?
The most recent non-regulatory guidance on paraprofessionals, issued by ED on March 1, 2004,
clarifies a number of questions that have been raised during implementation of the NCLB. The
guidance describes various school settings under which paraprofessionals may or may not be
required to meet the NCLB rules. The requirements apply to all paraprofessionals employed in a
Schoolwide Title I program without regard to whether the position is funded with federal, state, or
local funds. In Targeted Assistance Title I programs, only those paraprofessionals paid with Title I
funds must meet the requirements (not those paid with state or local funds); however, special
education paraprofessionals in targeted assistance programs must meet the requirements even if
only part of their pay comes from Title I funds. A paraprofessional who provides services to
private school students and is employed by an LEA with Title I funds must meet the NCLB
requirements; however, these requirements do not apply to those in the Americorps program,
volunteers, or those working in either 21st Century Community Learning Centers or Head Start
programs.
Qualified Status
LEAs have discretion when it comes to considering who is an “existing” paraprofessional and
whether qualified status is “portable.” If an LEA laid off a paraprofessional who was initially
hired on or before January 8, 2002, the LEA may consider that person an “existing” employee
when the individual is subsequently recalled to duty. Also, an LEA may determine that a
paraprofessional meets the qualification requirements if the individual was previously determined
to meet these requirements by another LEA.
Education Credits
The ED guidance clarifies that “two years of study” means the equivalent of two years of full-
time study as determined by an “institution of higher education” (IHE)—the definition of an IHE
is specified in Section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Continuing education credits
may count toward the two-year requirement if they are part of an overall training and
development program plan and an IHE accepts or translates them to course credits.
Assessment of Paraprofessionals
Section C of the guidance discusses issues related to the assessment of paraprofessionals. The
guidance indicates that a state or LEA may develop a paraprofessional knowledge and ability
assessment using either a paper and pencil form, a performance evaluation, or some combination
of the two. These assessments should gauge content knowledge (e.g., in reading, writing, and
math) as well as competence in instruction (which may be assessed through observations). The
content knowledge should reflect state academic standards and the skills expected of a child at a
given school level. The results of the assessment should establish a candidate’s content
knowledge and competence in instruction, and target the areas where additional training may be
needed.
Congressional Research Service
3
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Most states are employing more than one type of written assessment along with performance
evaluation. Two of the most common tests are ParaPro (developed by the Educational Testing
Service) and WorkKeys (developed by the American College Testing Program). According to the
Education Commission of the States (ECS), 36 states allow LEAs to use ParaPro for
paraprofessional assessment, and 17 states allow the use of WorkKeys.8 In addition, 21 states
allow LEAs to develop their own assessments. ECS considers 12 states to have established
paraprofessional qualifications that exceed federal standards, and identifies 10 states that require
paraprofessionals to obtain professional certification.9 The ECS also identifies 11 states that have
professional development programs for paraprofessionals.
Supervision of Paraprofessionals
Section D of the guidance discusses programmatic requirements that pertain to the supervision of
paraprofessionals. The guidance points out that ESEA Section 1119(g)(3)(A) stipulates that
paraprofessionals who provide instructional support must work under the “direct supervision” of
a highly qualified teacher. Further, the guidance states the following:
A paraprofessional works under the direct supervision of a teacher if (1) the teacher prepares
the lessons and plans the instruction support activities the paraprofessional carries out, and
evaluates the achievement of the students with whom the paraprofessional is working, and
(2) the paraprofessional works in close and frequent proximity with the teacher.
[§200.59(c)(2) of the Title I regulations] As a result, a program staffed entirely by
paraprofessionals is not permitted.
In addition, the guidance states that the rules regarding direct supervision also apply to
paraprofessionals who provide services under contract. That is, paraprofessionals hired by a third-
party contractor to work in a Title I program must work under the direct supervision of a teacher
(even though teachers employed by the contractor need not meet NCLB highly qualified teacher
requirements).
Professional Development Funding
The ED guidance discusses funding sources for the professional development and assessment of
paraprofessionals. An LEA must use not less than 5% of its Title I, Part A allocation for the
professional development of teachers and paraprofessionals. LEAs may also use their general
Title I funds for this purpose. Funds for professional development of paraprofessionals may also
be drawn from Title II, Part A (for core subject-matter personnel); from Title III, Part A (for those
serving English language learners); from Title V, Part A (for “Innovative” programs); and from
Title VII, Part A, subpart 7 (for those serving Indian children). Schools and LEAs identified as
needing improvement must reserve additional funds for professional development.
Section B-2 of the guidance describes conditions under which LEAs are prohibited from using
Title I funds to hire new paraprofessionals. Such a prohibition may be imposed by a state on an
LEA that has failed to make progress toward meeting the annual measurable objectives
8 ECS Issue Brief, Instructional Paraprofessional Statistics and Trends, Denver, CO, September 2005.
9 Ibid. Paraprofessional qualification requirements for each state can be found on ECS’s online interactive
paraprofessional database, which is available at http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/educationIssues/
teachingQuality/parapro/NCLB_parapro_DB_intro.asp.
Congressional Research Service
4
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
established by the state for increasing the percentage of highly qualified teachers, and has failed
to make adequate yearly progress for three cumulative years.10 Two exceptions to this rule are (1)
if the hiring is to fill a vacancy created by the departure of another paraprofessional, and (2) if the
hiring is necessitated by a significant increase in student enrollment or an increased need for
translators or parental involvement personnel.
Forty-two states and the District of Columbia reported data to ED on the qualifications of their
paraprofessionals for the 2003-2004 school year. Among them, 10 states reported that fewer than
half of their paraprofessionals met the NCLB requirements; four states reported that at least nine
of every 10 of their paraprofessionals met these standards.11 However, ED officials have recently
indicated that most paraprofessionals acquired the minimum qualifications by the June 30, 2006,
deadline.12
Reauthorization
NCLB authorized most ESEA programs through FY2007. The General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA) provided an automatic one-year extension of these programs through FY2008. While
most ESEA programs no longer have an explicit authorization, the programs continue to receive
annual appropriations and paraprofessional quality requirements continue to be in place. LEAs in
states that have received an ESEA flexibility waiver are not restricted in the use of Title I-A funds
for failing to meet NCLB teacher quality and student achievement accountability requirements;
however, all LEAs still must comply with the law’s paraprofessional quality requirements.13
Congress may take action to reauthorize the ESEA this year. Possible reauthorization issues
concerning the paraprofessional provisions in Title I include the following:
• Are the assessments used to evaluate paraprofessional quality rigorous enough,
and are they adequately tied to academic standards for students? Some consider
the ParaPro and WorkKeys tests to be the “easy route,” and claim they do not
measure a instructional aide’s ability to improve classroom instruction. Might a
reauthorized ESEA be more explicit about the nature of these tests by linking
them to other accountability provisions? Should ED be given greater authority to
enforce higher standards for paraprofessional assessments?
• Should the paraprofessional qualification requirements be applied to a broader
group of instructional aides? For example, should these requirements be applied
to all paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, not just to those paid
with Title I-A funds? Should the exceptions currently made for computer lab
assistants, translators, and those assisting with parental involvement be curtailed?
10 For more information on the highly qualified teacher requirement, see CRS Report R42127, Teacher Quality Issues
in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
11 These reports were obtained from ED by Education Week through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and
published on March 16, 2005; a state-by-state table is available at http://www.edweek.org/media/27admin.pdf.
12 According to an Education Week article published on August 30, 2006; available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2006/08/30/01paras.h26.html?qs=paraprofessional.
13 ESEA waivers do, however, contain other requirements states must meet to receive exemptions from NCLB
accountability provisions. For more information on ESEA waivers see CRS Report R42328, Educational
Accountability and Secretarial Waiver Authority Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
by Rebecca R. Skinner and Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
5
Paraprofessional Quality and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Is the language regarding “direct supervision” too vague or too difficult to
enforce?
• Do current provisions for the professional development of instructional aides
adequately encourage states to improve the paraprofessional workforce? Should
states be given incentives to adopt paraprofessional certification requirements, as
have been adopted in some states? Are there other ways to encourage
paraprofessional development beyond the minimum qualifications that would
positively affect the overall level of instructional quality?
• Have the paraprofessional qualification requirements significantly affected the
extent to which Title I-A funds are used to hire these staff? In particular, have a
significant number of paraprofessionals lost their jobs, or been assigned to non-
Title I-A positions, after the end of the 2005-2006 school year because they were
unable to meet the paraprofessional qualification requirements? Has this resulted
in an overall decline or improvement in the quality of instruction?
• Should the roles of states versus LEAs in setting policies and implementing these
requirements be clarified? Particularly in comparison to the teacher quality
requirements of the NCLB, there has been relatively little guidance from ED, or
clarity in the statute, on state-versus-LEA roles in the area of paraprofessional
qualification requirements. Has the result been a constructive form of flexibility
or dysfunctional ambiguity?
Author Contact Information
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645
Congressional Research Service
6