After three years of debate--including periods when the very presence of paraprofessionals in the program was in doubt--the Title I program was finally revised and renewed for another six years when President Bush in January signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The bill reauthorizes the entire Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), of which Title I is the largest portion (about $10 billion this year). As AFT president Sandra Feldman said of the wide-ranging bill, "The basic framework of the legislation builds on what was started in the last reauthorization [in 1994] and includes reforms the AFT has championed. At the same time, it is safe to say, as with any legislation of this magnitude that encompasses so many components, there may be a number of elements we wish had been included that were not."

Title I paraprofessionals, the subject of so much discussion and misguided criticism in previous unsuccessful attempts in Congress to agree on a final education bill, were farther from the spotlight this time around. But the final legislation includes some significant--and largely positive--changes that eventually will apply to every paraprofessional working in Title I.

First, a quick mention of the what the law does not say about paraprofessionals, despite any rumors to the contrary. Paraprofessionals will not be required to have a college degree to work in Title I. Anyone who implies that is just plain wrong.

Here's what the law says about education and employment standards for paraprofessionals. Starting in January 2003, anyone hired as a Title I paraprofessional will have to meet one of three standards:

• pass a state or local assessment designed to demonstrate knowledge of, and the ability to assist in, instruction in reading, writing and math or reading readiness, writing readiness and math readiness;
•  complete two years of college; or
•  hold a two-year degree.

Two groups of paraprofessionals in Title I programs are exempt from the education requirements: those who work primarily as second-language translators and those whose duties focus mainly on parent involvement.

Currently employed paras will have to meet the same standards, but they will have four years from next January to do so.

While the last two standards are straightforward, the idea of a state or local assessment is something new and mostly untried by school districts. How states and districts implement this--or not--will vary widely, and it could mean a great opportunity for local unions to shape the process. Some districts may be tempted to simply require two years of college rather than trying to figure out how to assess current and potential employees. But the AFT at the national level has a large and growing body of knowledge about standards for paraprofessionals and will be working with its affiliates to help them shape state and local policies.
 

Roles and responsibilities

It has become clear over the years that Title I paraprofessionals have not always been used appropriately. On the one hand, they have been asked to act as substitute teachers--something clearly in violation of requirements in the law that they work under the direct supervision of a teacher. On the other hand, they have often been assigned to clerical tasks, lunch room duty and other work that takes them away from the classrooms where they should be working with students.

By outlining specific criteria for work they may be assigned, the new law marks a big step forward in addressing appropriate roles for paraprofessionals. That work includes:

• providing one-on-one tutoring for eligible students if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
•  assisting with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials;
•  assisting in a computer laboratory;
•  providing support in a library or media center;
•  acting as a translator; and
•  providing instructional services to students under the direct supervision of a teacher.

"We're happy about this language because it might help keep paras from being asked to do clerical work and other inappropriate assignments," says Lorretta Johnson, an AFT vice president who chairs the union's PSRP program and policy council. "We're still concerned about paraprofessionals acting as substitute teachers because the law doesn't say much on this."

Even with the new language, the law does allow Title I paras to be assigned limited duties not related to the program, as long as the amount of time spent on these duties is the same proportion spent by similar personnel at the same school. Take the example of two paraprofessionals working in the same school, one funded by Title I, the other by the district. If the district-funded employee spends one hour of her six-hour day monitoring the lunch room, then the Title I-funded para could be asked to do similar work for that amount of time. Paraprofessionals and their unions will need to make sure districts and schools comply with this provision.
 

Professional development

Regardless of the program they work in, paraprofessionals want and need better professional development to help them do their jobs as well as possible. A number of provisions in the new law address paraprofessionals' professional development. For one thing, districts can use Title I funds to help paras meet the new education standards mentioned earlier, and they can combine those funds with professional development money from other programs.

Title II of the act, which focuses specifically on professional development, says that districts may--as opposed to must--use funds to train paraprofessionals in effective instructional practices. Ideally, such training should take place with teachers.

In addition, ESEA funds also can be used to develop programs to recruit "highly qualified paraprofessionals" into teacher certification programs. Highly qualified, under the law's definitions, means someone who has at least two years of classroom experience and at least two years of postsecondary education or demonstrated competence in a field or academic subject for which there is a significant teacher shortage.

When it comes to professional development for paraprofessionals, as Johnson points out, the money is often there, but school districts might not have staff who deal with paras' training needs. So the money might not get used appropriately, if at all. Here again, she says, this is a good opportunity for local unions to fill that role because they should know the types of training their paraprofessional members need.
 

Other highlights

The ESEA law, running to hundreds of pages, includes many more provisions that will have a big impact on schools generally and thus, on PSRPs. Among the other highlights:

Increased testing--By the 2005-2006 school year, states will have to test students in grades 3-8 every year in math and reading. States will select and administer their own tests, which are to be aligned with their academic standards. The law requires students to make "adequate yearly progress" to the point where, within 12 years, all students in the state have reached what the state defines as "proficient" reading and math levels. States that don't make adequate yearly progress will be subject to intervention and eventually serious sanctions, including a state takeover or conversion to a charter school.

Focus on reading--A new program called Reading First looks a lot like the sort of approaches the AFT has been advocating for years. The program is designed to help states and districts adopt "scientific, research-based" reading programs for K-3 students. Some of the money can go for professional development, and high-poverty districts are supposed to get priority for program grants. Another program focuses on reading readiness for 3- to 5-year-olds.

More money--While there's a separate process in Congress for actually approving the funds, the new Title I law should help concentrate more money on the highest-poverty districts. And since Congress approved a substantial increase in Title I funds for next year, many urban districts will see big boosts in funding. The Congressional Research Service, for example, estimated that New York City would receive $143 million more and Los Angeles an additional $87 million.

One crucial part of the reauthorization process remains to be completed: developing regulations to guide implementation and enforcement of the law's provisions. The AFT plans to work aggressively to help shape the regulations, which are supposed to be issued by July.

More information on the details of ESEA and the Title I reauthorization is available on the AFT Web site under "Hot Topics."