In Context:
What Are the Current Issues Involving Paraeducators?

In the last decade, the number of paraeducators has increased dramatically both in numbers and as a proportion of all instructional staff. In 1990, the total number of full-time paraeducators in the United States was 395,642. In 1999, the number rose to 621,385, an increase of 57 percent. In the Northwest states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, this trend has been even more dramatic—a 67 percent increase in paraeducators, with only a 15 percent increase in teachers (Ghedam, 2001; Snyder & Hoffman, 1993, 2001).

Several more statistics point to the increased importance of paraeducators in the public school system:

• Approximately 75 percent of all paraeducators work in elementary schools.
• Almost half of this paraprofessional workforce is hired for special education programs.
• An estimated 15 to 18 percent work in bilingual programs.
• Paraeducators are employed in Title I programs in more than 70 percent of elementary schools and nearly 50 percent of middle schools throughout the country (Leighton et al., 1997).

While the employment of paraeducators in schools has increased dramatically, clearly defined state and district policies have lagged behind. Concerns regarding the preparation, training, and instructional roles of paraeducators have become more urgent (Ashbaker & Morgan, 2001/2002; Gerber et al., 2001; Shellard, 2002). While a number of states and districts throughout the country are currently developing policies (see Appendix for list of state policies), it is still rare to find well-defined standards for paraeducator roles, supervision, and preparation (Pickett, 1999). Nor do many states have guidelines for preparing teachers and other staff in their role of directing paraeducators.

Some of the primary concerns cited in reports, staff interviews, and case studies (Ashbaker & Morgan, 2000/2001; Gerber et al., 2001; Shellard, 2002) include:

• Lack of formal or even informal training for paraeducators
• Lack of requirements for employment, training, and supervision
• Unclear job responsibilities, which can include paraeducators being assigned duties beyond their job description (and thus not adequately paid)
• Lack of recognition within the school system
• Lack of respect for paraeducator knowledge and experience, especially if the paraeducator is from the same cultural background or community as the students (Monzo & Rueda, 2001; Rueda & Monzo, 2000)
• Lack of role models for paraeducators to follow and lack of feedback on their performance
• Lack of planning time, interaction, and communication between teachers and paraeducators

These concerns combined with the increased national focus on Title I and special education programs, have resulted in recent legislative attempts to establish clear standards and requirements for paraeducators.

One piece of legislation that affects nearly half of all paraeducators is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ’97). Final regulations to implement the Act were released in March 1999. Subpart B Section 300.136 addresses the use of paraeducators within special education:

"A state may allow paraprofessionals and assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with State law, regulations, or written policy, in meeting the requirements of this part, to be used to assist in the provision of special education and related services to children with disabilities under Part B of the Act (IDEA 97)."

While this statute insists on appropriate training and supervision, it also emphasizes the priority of state law and policy—giving states the option of determining whether to use paraeducators and to what extent, and leaving the definition of "appropriate training and supervision" for each state to decide (from IDEA 97, Analysis of Comments, Discussions and Changes from Attachment discussion of Section 300.136(f)). Since IDEA is up for reauthorization in 2002–2003, these requirements may be adjusted.

The recent No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reauthorizing the ESEA (including Title I) for six years, has gone even further in addressing the employment of paraeducators. Section 1119 (pp. 128–133) requires that Local Education Agencies (LEAs) receiving Title I assistance ensure that all paraeducators hired after the enactment of the act have:

• Completed at least two years of study at an institute of higher education OR
• Obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree OR
• Met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate through a formal state or local academic assessment, knowledge of and the ability to assist in instructing in reading, writing, and mathematics (or reading, writing, and mathematics readiness as appropriate)

Paraeducators hired before the date of enactment (January 8, 2002) are expected to satisfy these requirements within four years. Exceptions are made for paraeducators who are primarily acting as translators, or whose duties consist solely of conducting parent involvement activities. To satisfy these requirements, the legislation stipulates that funds from Part B of Title I be used for training and professional development.

In addition to these requirements, LEAs are also being asked to ensure that paraeducators are not "assigned a duty inconsistent" with the following responsibilities:

• To provide one-to-one tutoring, if tutoring is scheduled at a time when the student would not receive instruction from a teacher
• To assist with classroom management such as organizing instructional materials
• To conduct parent involvement activities
• To provide assistance in a computer laboratory
• To provide support in a library or media center
• To act as a translator
• To provide instructional services under the direct supervision of a teacher

To encourage compliance, LEAs are expected to require the principal of each school to annually verify, in writing, that the school is meeting these requirements.