NRCP, April 28, 2005 1

Rigorous Preparation for Paraeducators

Meeting NCLB Mandates

Margaret Gessler Werts, Ph.D.Appalachian State University

NRCP, April 28, 2005 2

Purpose

To determine how states are meeting the requirements

To determine the attitudes of state officials toward paraeducators who do not meet the requirements

To determine the progress made toward having all paraeducators meet the requirements

NRCP, April 28, 2005 3

Methods

List of Title I Directors obtained from DC Call to each state Interviews in summer 2002 Interviews in Spring 2005 Websites Spring 2005

NRCP, April 28, 2005 4

Results

2002 46 states contacted by phone

2005 45 contacted by phone

Confirmed by checking the websites

NRCP, April 28, 2005 5

Mandated Education

Associates Degree 2 years of higher education Pass designated test in reading, writing, and

math

NRCP, April 28, 2005 6

In 2002

All had heard of and were familiar with the legislation (except Washington, D. C.)

18 had made decisions 13 states decided or considering Parapro 2 adopted Workkeys Others in process of making decisions

NRCP, April 28, 2005 7

In 2005

Testing 69% can use the ETS Parapro 25% mentioned the WorkKeys Others have state devised testing A few can use the Praxis I Some have teaching modules and tests to

follow each

NRCP, April 28, 2005 8

Classes

Majority of persons are taking the tests Most states mentioned classes at community

colleges

NRCP, April 28, 2005 9

Other ways

Apprenticeship programs Teacher and paraeducator study teams Training to prepare for tests

Portfolios Some states: these were used. One state: “Nobody submitted one.”

NRCP, April 28, 2005 10

Associate degrees

Any degree Any degree that would be accepted as entry

into a 4 year institution A paraprofessional degree (Utah) An early childhood degree (encouraged) Articulation agreements with Universities and

Colleges

NRCP, April 28, 2005 11

Degree of preparation

Overall, 69.5% reported prepared as of last reporting date

Only about ½ of states would estimate or give figures (Some were on line, some said the data was too difficult to collect.)

Range of 30% to 100%

NRCP, April 28, 2005 12

Comments on the legislation

I think it has, nationally, cause the biggest stir but it is working out well. We have about 90% who have met the requirements so it is not a huge issue any more. It required a lot of fast decisions.

We agree with the concept. We want people who are well qualified.

NRCP, April 28, 2005 13

It is a process of including the whole community including the parents. It is difficult to implement all the requirements because we want high quality and well prepared paraprofessionals, but there is such a teacher shortage.”

They must be certified if they are employed.

NRCP, April 28, 2005 14

“There has certainly been money allocated to try to get them to become teachers. IDEA has professional development money, and they may be using the Title I money.”

There are going to be relatively few who do not meet the requirements. Some are going to retire, if they do not, they may be moved to a position not requiring the NCLB requirements. We do not foresee a problem in January

NRCP, April 28, 2005 15

“Concerns? Only what we have been hearing from districts about the number of paras left at the end. Some people are hesitant to take the tests because they fear not passing. So some are thinking about retirement but would like to work for a few more years. Some districts are providing more support than others.”

NRCP, April 28, 2005 16

“It caused a great deal of confusion at first because we were implementing new state requirements at the same time, but now that we are past that, we are OK.”

NRCP, April 28, 2005 17

“We may have to fire them and then hire them back as casual employees; they will lose the benefit packages, they will not have a salary. But they may make more money per hour.”

NRCP, April 28, 2005 18

“I just don't know what will happen. The state has been making the requirements clear. The districts will not be able to keep the paras in title I positions or in Title I schools. Maybe they could stay in Non-title I positions. By putting them in special education positions, what message are we sending? I hope the districts would have the same requirements for special education for consistency across programs.”

NRCP, April 28, 2005 19

Last Word?

“Performance has improved tremendously in the last three years."