1. NRCP, April 28, 20051 Rigorous Preparation for Paraeducators Meeting NCLB Mandates Margaret Gessler Werts, Ph.D. Appalachian State University

2. NRCP, April 28, 20052 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

3. NRCP, April 28, 20053 Methods List of Title I Directors obtained from DC Call to each state Interviews in summer 2002 Interviews in Spring 2005 Websites Spring 2005

4. NRCP, April 28, 20054 Results 2002 46 states contacted by phone 2005 45 contacted by phone Confirmed by checking the websites

5. NRCP, April 28, 20055 Mandated Education Associates Degree 2 years of higher education Pass designated test in reading, writing, and math

6. NRCP, April 28, 20056 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

7. NRCP, April 28, 20057 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

8. NRCP, April 28, 20058 Classes Majority of persons are taking the tests Most states mentioned classes at community colleges

9. NRCP, April 28, 20059 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.”

10. NRCP, April 28, 200510 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

11. NRCP, April 28, 200511 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%

12. NRCP, April 28, 200512 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.

13. NRCP, April 28, 200513 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.

14. NRCP, April 28, 200514 “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

15. NRCP, April 28, 200515 “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.”

16. NRCP, April 28, 200516 “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.”

17. NRCP, April 28, 200517 “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.”

18. NRCP, April 28, 200518 “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.”

19. NRCP, April 28, 200519 Last Word? “Performance has improved tremendously in the last three years."