Adult Learners / Instructional Aides Initiative

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The text below is a portion of the complete document.

INTRODUCTION

In January 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This legislation requires, among other things, that all employees providing instructional support (paraprofessionals,¹ teacher aides, tutors, etc.) in a program/school supported with Title I, Part A funds be "highly qualified" by January 2006. To achieve this status, paraprofessionals must meet one of the following criteria: hold an associate's degree (or higher); complete at least two years in an institution of higher education; or obtain a passing score on a test that measures reading, writing, and mathematics competency. Some paraprofessionals—the name used in this report to refer to all instructional support staff—are exempt from this requirement, namely, those working in non-Title I schools, those working as translators for language minority students, and those working in noninstructional capacities (e.g., food services, hall monitoring, clerical assistance) This report, and the surveys upon which it is based, exclude these paraprofessionals and focus exclusively on those who must comply with NCLB.

Newly hired and existing paraprofessionals who work in an instructional capacity in Title I schools must meet one of the three aforementioned criteria to be considered "highly qualified." New hires must meet qualifications prior to their hire, while existing employees have until January 2006 to do so. This requirement could create a serious problem for schools in two ways: (1) schools that employ paraprofessionals may lose valuable staff who are unable to comply with NCLB by the deadline and (2) the preconditions for employment could prevent many traditional paraprofessional candidates from being hired in the first place. This might be particularly serious for schools serving limited English proficient and immigrant children, as these schools often rely on bilingual teacher aides to assist in instruction. The loss of these and other paraprofessionals could also exacerbate the problems already facing high-poverty schools, as these schools tend to rely on the use of paraprofessionals more than those that are low poverty. According to the Center on Education Policy, in the 1997-98 school year, 84 percent of principals in high-poverty schools reported having paraprofessionals in their staff, versus 53 percent of principals in low-poverty schools.² The focus of our research, and of RNT's broader initiative, is on these high-poverty districts.

As requested by RNT, the Urban Institute designed a study focusing on high-poverty urban and rural school districts, as well as state departments of education. Information was gathered through surveys designed to assess the degree of compliance with the NCLB provisions affecting paraprofessionals, identify the problems faced by those districts whose paraprofessionals tend not to meet the new requirements, and uncover the strategies used to comply with NCLB requirements. The main goal of the surveys was to provide an understanding of the issues surrounding the implementation of NCLB. Surveys were sent to a sample of rural school districts, a sample of urban districts, and to the education departments of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Several factors determined school district selection: rural/urban status, degree of poverty, and use of paraprofessionals. Only high-poverty districts that reported high use of paraprofessionals were selected for participation. The Methodology section, below, provides detailed information on sample selection. The Findings section provides a brief analysis of survey responses, while a summary of key findings is presented in the Conclusion.

Notes from this section of the report

1 This includes paraprofessionals working in Title I targeted assistance programs as well as those working in Title I schoolwide programs.

2 Stark Rentner, Diane, Naomi Chudowsky, Tom Fagan, Keith Gayler, Madlene Hamilton, Jack Jennings, and Nancy Kober. 2003. From the Capital to the Classroom: State and Federal Efforts to Implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.