Paraprofessional Quality and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Paraprofessional Quality
and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) established minimum
qualifications for paraprofessionals employed in Title I, Part A-funded schools.
Paraprofessionals in such schools who perform instructional duties were required to
meet these qualifications by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. This report describes
the act’s paraprofessional quality requirements and discusses their implementation and
specification through guidance by the U.S. Department of Education. The report
concludes with some issues that may arise as the 110^th Congress considers
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), 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 NCLBA states that paraprofessionals (also known as teacher aides) must have
either 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 U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that the paraprofessional deadline
would be extended to the end of the 2005-2006 school year to coincide with the related
NCLBA deadline for highly qualified teachers.²

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 RL33333, A
Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act,
by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

The use of teacher 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.
In 1980, teacher aides accounted for 11% of total full-time equivalent instructional staff;
by 2001, they composed 17% of all instructional staff.³ Paraprofessionals are also
increasingly handling classroom responsibilities without supervision. An ED report
issued in April 2000 indicated that 95% of paraprofessionals spent at least 60% of their
time “teaching without a teacher present.”⁴ The report further revealed that
paraprofessionals accounted for more than half of all Title I instructional staff — about
69,000 of all 135,000 full-time equivalent instructional personnel paid with Title I-A
funds nationwide in the 1997-98 school year.
Recognition that the quality of instruction in U.S. schools is increasingly affected by
the quality of paraprofessional staff has bolstered support for federal teacher aide
standards. Prior to the NCLBA, 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).⁵ Legislative proposals establishing higher
standards for paraprofessionals were supported by ED under both the Clinton and Bush
administrations, and were eventually enacted under the NCLBA.
As of the enactment of the NCLBA 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 2005-06 school year.
The NCLBA 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;

³ U.S. Education Department, Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 78, available at
[http://nces.ed.gov/progr ams/digest/d05/tables/dt05_078.asp].
⁴ U.S. Education Department, Study of Educational Resources and Federal Funding, Washington,
DC, April 2000.
⁵ Prior to those amendments, the ESEA was silent on this issue dealing with paraprofessionals.

^!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.
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 NCLBA. The guidance describes various school settings under
which paraprofessionals may or may not be required to meet the NCLBA 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 a local education agency (LEA)
with Title I funds must meet the NCLBA requirements; however, these requirements do
not apply to those in the Americorps program, volunteers, or those working in either 21^st
Century Community Learning Centers or Head Start programs.
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.
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.
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.
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.⁶ In addition, 21states 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.⁷ The ECS also identifies 11 states that have professional development
programs for 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
NCLBA highly qualified teacher requirements).
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.

⁶ ECS Issue Brief, Instructional Paraprofessional Statistics and Trends, Denver, CO, September

2005.

⁷ 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].

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 established by the state for increasing the percentage of highly
qualified teachers, and has failed to make adequate yearly progress for three cumulative
years.⁸ 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 NCLBA
requirements; four states reported that at least nine of every 10 of their paraprofessionals
met these standards.⁹ However, ED officials have recently indicated that most
paraprofessionals acquired the minimum qualifications by the June 30, 2006, deadline.¹⁰
The NCLBA authorized Title I-A through FY2007. A one-year automatic extension,
through FY2008, is provided under the General Education Provisions Act; however, the
NCLBA may be considered for reauthorization by the 110^th Congress. 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 teacher 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 teacher 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

⁸ For more information on the highly qualified teacher requirement, see CRS Report RL33333,
A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind
Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi. For more information on the adequate yearly progress, see CRS Report
RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by
Wayne C. Riddle.
⁹ 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
[ h t t p : / / www.edweek.or g/ me di a/ 27admi n.pdf ] .
¹⁰ According to an Education Week article published on August 30, 2006; available at
[ ht t p: / / www.edweek.or g/ ew/ a r t i c l e s/ 2006/ 08/ 30/ 01par a s.h26.ht ml ?qs=par a pr of essi onal ] .

parental involvement be curtailed? Is the language regarding “direct
supervision” too vague or too difficult to enforce?
^!Do current provisions for the professional development of teacher 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 NCLBA, 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?