Bulletin Boards |Shopping & Classifieds |Calendar |About Us

Front page

Behavior Management

Conflict Resolution

Early Intervention

For Educators

For Families

Internet & Assistive Technology

Recreation & Sports

Specific Disabilities

State By State

Transition

Washington Watch

Site Map

STATES ARE DRIVING PARAEDUCATOR CERTIFICATION PLANS

May 19, 2000

Paraeducators are under a microscope lately as federal laws and several state initiatives signal growing support for standardizing their roles. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was amended in 1997 to allow paraeducators to work with students with special needs if they are properly trained, but one bill currently under consideration in Congress may further define such training to force paraeducators to get college degrees. Observers say state efforts to establish paraeducator certification programs could offer an alternative to the strict requirement of a college degree, which has come under fire from teachers' unions and other education organizations.

H.R. 2, the "Student Results Act," is one of several bills moving through Congress to reauthorize provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which spells out how federal funds should be spent for most major areas of public education in the United States. One provision of H.R. 2 would require all "teachers' aides" within three years of the bill's enactment to have completed at least two years of college study and obtained at least an associate's degree. Alternatively, the paraeducators could meet "a rigorous standard of quality established at the local level, which includes an assessment of their knowledge of math, reading, and writing," the bill states.

PARAEDUCATOR'S ROLE IS CHANGING AMID TEACHER SHORTAGE May 19, 2000

The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose measures that would force current paraeducators to return to college or take extra classes to meet new standards. As the AFT notes, "Ours is a field in which experience counts." The NEA says it objects to H.R. 2 "because it does not require LEAs (local education agencies) to provide necessary training and also creates a completely arbitrary limit on the number of paras that a school may have."

However, both unions support the development of standards for incoming paraeducators, and in communities where they have a presence, the unions have gotten more aggressive organizing paraeducators and pushing for better training and benefits. "We have to do all we can to ensure that students attending public schools receive the best education possible. We must have the most highly skilled education workforce we can field. Standards for employment and training of instructional paraprofessionals will ensure that we do," the AFT says.

"Comprehensive training and professional development is essential for paraeducators and for all other education support personnel," the NEA agrees. "Improving the quality of public schools is not possible without an investment in training for all school staff."

The latest word on Capitol Hill is the ESEA bills are not likely to make it through the reauthorization process this year, meaning new measures will have to be introduced in the 107th Congress next year. Nevertheless, some states have heeded the signal that paraeducators, like teachers, will soon be expected to meet certain basic certification requirements. Several states have taken the lead in establishing paraeducator certification programs that other states may use as models, according to Anna Lou Pickett, director of the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals. Such efforts often start with new state laws, either specifically or generally specifying the need for more standardization, as more and more state legislatures are recognizing the importance of the paraeducator position, she said.

Minnesota's Omnibus Education Bill of 1998, for example, requires paraprofessionals hired to work with students with special needs to "develop sufficient knowledge and skills in emergency procedures, building orientation, roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, vulnerability, and reportability." The law also requires school districts to provide annual training opportunities to further develop those skills and others, such as understanding disabilities, following lesson plans and implementing instructional activities. In addition, it requires the districts to pair the paraeducators with licensed teachers and provide the supervision of a school nurse "where appropriate and possible." Based on this law, Minnesota established a Statewide Paraprofessional Consortium to develop "Guiding Principles" to clarify the paraeducator's role and build a training program.

Maine, Kansas and Iowa have also either begun the process of building certification programs or have pushed new laws through their state legislatures to spur that movement. Iowa is on the verge of passing a law authorizing school districts to voluntarily implement standards and certification programs for paraeducators, says Pacific Lutheran University Professor of Education Kent Gerlach, who helped implement a paraeducator plan in Washington. At the same time, the Iowa Learning Resource Network's Paraeducator Project and the state education department's Bureau of Special Education are trying to increase training opportunities for paraeducators. The group conducted a needs assessment for Iowa paraeducators and has compiled a list of recommendations the state can follow to improve their training and skills.

Iowa's "voluntary" plan looks like a stepping stone to a mandatory requirement that all paraeducators get certified, Gerlach noted, while Maine's certification plan is mandatory but loosely defined to give school districts some flexibility in how they go about it. Kansas has implemented a stricter, three-tiered mandatory program that applies only to special education paraprofessionals.

Even in the states where such certification programs are still voluntary for school districts, Gerlach said he expects an eventual shift to mandatory statewide plans. There is a general trend, he noted, toward statewide standards for all education professionals, based on federal mandates governing supervision and background checks of anyone working with children.

The question of whether to require the implementation of paraeducator certification programs or make them voluntary centers on the "fear factor," Pickett says. Many policy makers and administrators worry about the costs of adding such a certification program to all the other programs they have to fund in each school year budget. By making the programs voluntary, therefore, school districts that are ready to move forward can do so and, in the process, demonstrate to other districts effective strategies, she argues. "We cannot let [the funding issue] be a barrier," she adds. "If we are really serious about the quality of education for children, then everyone needs to be properly trained."8