CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee is a joint, bipartisan, statutory committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. It was established in 1972 to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and statutory compliance of selected state agencies and programs, recommending remedies where needed. In 1975, the General Assembly expanded the committee's function to include investigations, and during the 1977 session added responsibility for "sunset" (automatic program termination) performance reviews. The committee was given authority to raise and report bills in 1985.

The program review committee is composed of 12 members. The president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, the speaker of the house, and the House minority leader each appoint three members.

2005-2006 Committee Members

Committee Staff

Carrie Vibert, Director

Catherine M. Conlin, Chief Analyst

Jill Jensen, Chief Analyst

Brian R. Beisel, Principal Analyst

Michelle Castillo, Principal Analyst

Maryellen Duffy, Principal Analyst

Miriam P. Kluger, Principal Analyst

Anne E. McAloon, Principal Analyst

Renee La Mark Muir, Principal Analyst

Scott M. Simoneau, Principal Analyst

Carrie O. Evangelinos, Legislative Analyst II

Bonnine T. Labbadia, Executive Secretary

Project Staff

Brian R. Beisel

Anne E. McAloon

Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

School Paraprofessionals

December 2006

SCHOOL PARAPROFESSIONALS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION 1

Federal Standards 1

Scope of Study 2

Methodology 3

Report Content 4

Agency Response 4

I. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 5

Evolution of Duties and Number of Paraprofessionals 5

Current Duties and Responsibilities 7

Interaction with Students 10

II. PARAPROFESSIONALS IN CONNECTICUT 13

Summary Profile 14

Data in Detail 14

Gender 15

Race/Ethnicity 15

Age 16

Education 16

Work Schedules 17

Tenure 18

Compensation 18

Union Representation 21

III. EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS 23

Previous State-Level Efforts 23

Federal Requirements 24

Local Requirements 28

Other States 29

IV. STATE ORGANIZATION AND ROLES 33

State Department of Education 33

State Education Resource Center 34

Comprehensive System of Personnel Development 35

Regional Education Service Centers 36

V. RECOMMENDATIONS 37

Credential Recommendation 37

Professional Development 39

Supervision 42

Guidelines 43

Data Collection 43

VI. OPTIONAL MODEL CREDENTIAL 45

Type of Credential 45

Position Title 47

Definition 48

Duration 49

Credential Types and Requirements 49

Renewals 52

System Administration 53

Fees 54

Estimated Costs 55

APPENDICES

Executive Summary

School Paraprofessionals

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee authorized a study of school paraprofessionals in April 2006. The study focused on whether Connecticut should establish minimum standards for public school paraprofessionals who perform instructional tasks for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) and whether different categories should be established for different duties. Findings and recommendations were made in several areas affecting paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, including the development of a state credential, professional development, supervision, implementation of guidelines for paraprofessionals established by a previous state task force, and data collection.

Overall, the program review committee found that the recurring themes identified in past studies of paraprofessionals in Connecticut, the sentiments expressed by existing paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities regarding their place in the education system, and the recent creation of federal standards for paraprofessionals working in Title I schools justify the creation of a set of state standards.

Establishing a state-issued credential based on specific standards would be a significant step toward enhancing the overall professionalism of paraprofessionals in Connecticut, while at the same time balancing the needs of local school districts. The committee determined that any state standards for paraprofessionals should be developed through the State Department of Education (SDE) and balance three goals: 1) the needs of paraprofessionals; 2) the autonomy of local school districts regarding education issues; and 3) the resources of state government.

Report Content

A key component of the report is a detailed profile of paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working in Connecticut's local public schools, which was never previously developed on a statewide basis. The profile -- developed through information collected from school districts and contained in an in-house database -- includes an analysis of various demographic characteristics of instructional paraprofessionals, a summary of wages and benefits provided to instructional paraprofessionals, a synopsis of their main duties and responsibilities, and the educational backgrounds and tenure of paraprofessionals.

The report also contains an analysis of the degree to which individual school districts in the state have implemented specific standards. A summary of the other states that have implemented standards for instructional paraprofessionals is included, as are the various federal requirements for paraprofessionals and the changes made to those requirements over time.

State-level efforts in Connecticut over the past several decades to study specific issues relevant to instructional paraprofessionals were also reviewed in the study. A synopsis of the national literature regarding the overall effectiveness of instructional paraprofessionals on student achievement is provided.

Paraprofessionals in Connecticut

The role of paraprofessionals has changed over time from when paraprofessionals first began working in public schools several decades ago. Originally used as an additional resource to provide clerical assistance to teachers, paraprofessionals in the modern-day classroom perform multiple functions. Chief among those functions is assisting teachers to instruct a wide array of students, particularly students with special needs.

In Connecticut, the State Department of Education reported approximately 37,000 noncertified staff (i.e., paraprofessionals) were employed by the state's local public schools for School Year 2005-06. Of those, roughly 12,000 paraprofessionals provided instructional services to students, with nearly two-thirds working in the area of special education.

Analysis conducted as part of the program review committee study revealed the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals assisting with student instruction in Connecticut's public schools are extremely diverse, and a multitude of titles are used by districts across the state for such employees. Over 50 different job titles are used to describe paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in Connecticut's public schools.

Because data at the state level about paraprofessionals are limited, a key source of information used in the review was a database developed from information collected from 119 of the 169 (70 percent) public school districts in the state. Information about paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities was collected in several areas, including general demographics, wages and benefits, qualifications, duties and responsibilities, professional development, turnover, and student performance. Using this information, a profile was developed of public school paraprofessionals in Connecticut who assist with student instruction.

Results from the data collection effort showed that, as of October 1, 2005, a majority of the roughly 8,700 instructional paraprofessionals employed by the local public school districts that responded to the program review data request were:

In terms of the 119 local school districts that provided information to the program review committee, the database indicates that on average (using median numbers) the districts:

Information received from the school districts also indicated that many paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities were actively involved with students for the entire workday. However, the total number of students who interacted with paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities on a daily basis was low in many districts.

Standards for Paraprofessionals

The changes evident in the modern-day classroom have brought increased attention to the quality of the personnel assigned to help students learn. Although no state-level education or training standards exist in Connecticut for instructional paraprofessionals, the committee found various school districts throughout the state have established their own requirements for paraprofessionals. Of the 119 districts responding to the data request, 60 districts had some form of standards for paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, while another four districts had preferences. Typically, districts required some form of formal education -- either a high school diploma or at least two years of college -- for their paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities.

Federal standards. The issue of standards for paraprofessionals was heightened by the imposition of federal requirements for some paraprofessionals in 2002. Following a study by the federal Department of Education, which found a high percentage of paraprofessionals in schools supported with federal funds were instructing students even though they did not have the proper education qualifications to do so, standards for instructional paraprofessionals were implemented under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The standards apply to paraprofessionals working in any “schoolwide” school supported with Title I funds, regardless of whether the funds are used to pay for the paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals working in “targeted assistance” schools that use Title I funds to pay for those positions must also meet the federal standards.

The program review committee found that several local school districts in Connecticut now require all newly hired paraprofessionals providing instructional services to meet the federal standards, even if the paraprofessionals are not covered under the federal law.

Other states. Nationally, 17 states have established statutory standards for individuals who are instructional paraprofessionals (as defined by the program review committee). The requirements vary from state to state and are optional in one state (New Hampshire). The three requirements used most frequently in other states for instructional paraprofessionals include possessing a high school diploma, obtaining a specific number of college credits, and having relevant work experience.

Previous Studies in Connecticut

The question of establishing minimum standards for instructional paraprofessionals is not new in Connecticut. Multiple state-level groups have examined this issue and have produced several reports on the topic dating back to the mid-1970s. Although none of the previous studies outlined a state credential based on specific requirements as a condition to work as an instructional paraprofessional, the most recent study in 2001 outlined a draft set of “guidelines” for school districts to use for paraprofessionals working with special needs students. The guidelines, modified from those developed by the National Resource Center for Paraprofessionals Model in 1999, sought to clarify the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals and develop a framework of key competencies for instructional paraprofessionals in Connecticut. They also identified methods and resources for the training, supervision, and evaluation of instructional paraprofessionals.

To date, the guidelines have been distributed to all local public school districts in the state, yet are still considered draft. Moreover, neither the State Board of Education nor the State Department of Education has officially endorsed or adopted the guidelines. The department is currently working with the State Education Resource Center to broaden the guidelines to include paraprofessionals working with all types of students, not just those with special needs.

Professional Development

Based on information received from school districts as part of the committee's data request, a high percentage of districts are cognizant of the need for professional development for paraprofessionals and are addressing the issue in various ways. What is not indicated by the results, however, is the specific nature of the training, the overall quality of the training, whether the training helps instructional paraprofessionals become more effective in their profession, or the paraprofessionals' satisfaction level with the training they receive.

There are no statewide standards for the amount or type of professional development paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working in local public schools must receive. Further, there was general consensus among paraprofessionals, school principals, and special education supervisors interviewed during the study that professional development for paraprofessionals needs to be strengthened.

The committee found concerns among some that there is not enough training for paraprofessionals, not all districts pay the cost of training, and paraprofessionals have to attend training on their own time. Although some of those issues are part of the collective bargaining process and thus outside the scope of the study, the committee believes adequate and appropriate training should be available to instructional paraprofessionals. Any state requirements, however, must be balanced with the needs of paraprofessionals and the autonomy of local school districts regarding education issues.

Professional development is not limited to paraprofessionals. The program review committee found a need for teachers, particularly new teachers, to receive training on the purpose of instructional paraprofessionals and how to interact with paraprofessionals, especially within the classroom. At present, there is variability in training provided to teachers regarding the overall duties and responsibilities of instructional paraprofessionals.

In terms of overall coordination at the state level, the education department works with various groups to ensure professional development for paraprofessionals is offered. The department, however, does not assess the overall professional development needs of paraprofessionals from a statewide perspective. As a result, additional emphasis is needed at the state level to identify and coordinate the training needs of paraprofessionals.

Supervision

State regulation requires anyone employed by a local public school district and not directly supervised in the delivery of instructional services to students to have the appropriate state educator certification. The committee received anecdotal information that there have been instances where paraprofessionals may be put in situations that could be considered “teaching” without the presence or guidance of a certified employee. There is no way of fully knowing the extent this is occurring statewide, yet it is important that local districts make certain that noncertified staff are not placed in situations that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. The Department of Education should take steps to ensure school districts follow state regulations in this regard.

Data Collection

Overall, the information at the state level on paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities employed by local public school districts is limited. The Department of Education collects information about noncertified staff, including paraprofessionals, yet any type of statewide analysis of paraprofessionals based on this information is limited. The department, however, has recently required school districts to report specific information to the department regarding Title I paraprofessionals, which the program review committee believes is important and should be made available publicly.

Recommendations

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee adopted the following recommendations:

1) The State Department of Education shall develop a state-issued credential for paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working in Connecticut's K-12 public schools and submit a plan to implement the credential by January 1, 2008, to the legislative committee of cognizance over education. The State Department of Education shall require that any applicant seeking the credential be a citizen of the United States or an alien legally resident in the United States.

2) The Department of Higher Education should begin working with institutions of higher education in Connecticut to establish a network of programs within the community-technical college and state university systems that will provide instructional paraprofessionals with career development opportunities through relevant, accessible, and affordable programs.

3) The State Department of Education should periodically contact a sample of paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators -- through unions, school districts, the State Education Resource Center, and Regional Education Service Centers -- to identify the professional development needs of instructional paraprofessionals and any problem areas that may exist. Following such an assessment, the department should begin coordinating, from a statewide perspective, professional development offerings that meet the needs of instructional paraprofessionals. As part of that effort, SDE should report the results of the assessment to the Department of Higher Education.

4) The State Department of Education should encourage all local public school districts to provide training to teachers, particularly new teachers at the beginning of each school year, on the role and effective use of instructional paraprofessionals. The department should also encourage school districts to develop intradistrict methods and strategies whereby paraprofessionals, teachers, and administrators periodically discuss issues or concerns involving the use of paraprofessionals in providing effective student instruction.

5) The State Department of Education should periodically remind local school districts that existing regulations prohibit the use of noncertified personnel in an initial teaching role. Further, the department should develop a mechanism to periodically monitor local school compliance with this requirement.

6) The State Department of Education should finalize those portions of the May 2004 Guidelines for Training and Support of Paraprofessionals Working with Students Birth to 21: Working Draft concerning roles, responsibilities, and training that it believes would be helpful to all paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in Connecticut and submit that document to the State Board of Education by September 2007 for its approval.

7) The State Department of Education should summarize the information about Title I paraprofessionals that it will collect annually and post the information on the agency's website. At a minimum, the posted data should include the number of paraprofessionals covered by No Child Left Behind requirements, the number who have not met the NCLB requirements, the number of districts with paraprofessionals out of compliance, and the types of actions taken by those districts to comply (i.e., terminated staff, transferred staff, or did nothing).

Introduction

In public school classrooms across the country, certified teachers work with noncertified employees who help deliver instructional and related support services to students under the supervision of the teachers. This arrangement is intended to give the teachers more time to spend on activities such as lesson planning and direct teaching. According to the federal Department of Education, the use of such paraprofessionals nationwide has increased 123 percent over the last two decades alone.¹

In Connecticut, according to data compiled by the State Department of Education (SDE), during School Year (SY) 2005-2006, approximately 37,000 noncertified full-time equivalent (FTE) staff were employed by local school districts to work in kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12). Of these, about 25,000 were noncertified “noninstructional” staff, while 12,046 were noncertified “instructional” paraprofessionals, assigned to help teachers with instructional and related services.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the noncertified “instructional” staff subdivided into the seven categories used by SDE. As indicated, nearly two-thirds worked in the area of special education.

Federal Standards

In 2002, federal legislation established minimum education standards for paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working in certain programs or schools that receive federal Title I funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (See Appendix A for a description of the provisions of that law.) In broad terms, such employees must have at least two years of college or pass a formal assessment. Newly hired employees had to meet the federal standards immediately, while existing paraprofessionals were given until 2006 to fully comply.

Some states in the country also have their own education and experience requirements for at least some school paraprofessionals, but Connecticut is not one of those states. However, local school districts in Connecticut can set standards for their employees, and some districts do have minimum education or experience requirements for paraprofessionals. For example, a few districts now require all newly hired paraprofessionals providing instructional services to meet the federal Title I requirements, even if the position is not covered by the federal law. Other districts indicate a preference for specific educational credentials, such as a certain number of college credits, or require prior experience working with children.

Scope of Study

In April 2006, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI) voted to study public school paraprofessionals. The scope of the study focused on paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities who work with students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. The definition of a “paraprofessional with instructional responsibilities” used in the study was:

The primary focus of the committee's review was on whether the state should establish minimum standards for public school paraprofessionals who perform instructional tasks. The committee looked at whether different categories of requirements should be established for different duties and what the estimated costs of any new requirements might be to those working as paraprofessionals, those employing paraprofessionals, and those overseeing compliance with the standards.

The program review committee's recommendations concerning instructional paraprofessionals are intended to reflect the evolution of education in the Connecticut public schools of the 21^st century. The specific proposals are guided by three primary themes -- increasing the professionalism of paraprofessionals, preserving local autonomy as it relates to education issues, and balancing state resources. The details of the recommendations and the rationale for each are presented in Chapter Five.

Terminology. Although the term “paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities” was used during the study, the intent was to include all noncertified instructional staff who perform the same functions, regardless of their job title. Indeed, while individuals who provide the support services covered by the committee's definition are often referred to as paraprofessionals, other job titles are also used for people in those positions. Table 1 lists commonly used titles for such positions in Connecticut.

Methodology

Information about school paraprofessionals in Connecticut and other states was obtained from a variety of sources. Limited data were available at the state level so the primary tools used to gather Connecticut-specific information were a data collection form sent to local public school districts in the state and a series of interviews.

The data collection form was sent to the superintendents of all local school districts in the state that operate one or more public elementary, middle, or high schools. Information was requested about the demographic profile of existing paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, as well as the minimum qualifications, day-to-day duties, professional development, and compensation (i.e., wages and benefits) of those employees. A total of 119 of the 169 forms were returned, for a response rate of 70 percent. The data from those forms were the major source of information about instructional paraprofessionals working in Connecticut today. Chapter Two summarizes the responses to the questions, while Appendix B provides additional information about the data collection process.

A second data collection form was mailed to the 19 labor unions that represent paraprofessionals in one or more school districts in Connecticut. That form sought complementary information about the distribution and compensation of paraprofessionals in the state. The response rate was 53 percent, but many of the questions were only partially completed for a lower response rate on individual questions. Consequently, the responses to that form were not included in this report.

During the course of the study, program review committee staff spoke with employees of the State Department of Education and the State Education Resource Center (SERC), principals who belong to the Connecticut Association of Schools, the executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, special education supervisors from two local school districts, and administrators from the state university system and the Connecticut Community Colleges. In addition, the Connecticut Education Association submitted a written statement on its position regarding paraprofessionals.

Program review staff met with three groups of paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities from the three unions representing the largest number of instructional paraprofessionals in the state to obtain information about their roles and responsibilities, as well as their perspective on the issues under review. Those workers were employed by 38 different districts. Staff also talked to several individual paraprofessionals, including a few not covered by collective bargaining agreements. In November, committee staff attended a full-day, annual statewide paraprofessionals conference sponsored by SERC.

On September 21, 2006, the program review committee held a public hearing regarding the issues in this and one other study. A total of 11 people spoke or submitted testimony related to the topic of paraprofessionals.

Information about federal requirements and the regulation of paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in other states was obtained from printed reports, regulatory websites, telephone conversations, and e-mail correspondence. Various national sources and literature about paraprofessionals were also used.

Report Content

This report is divided into six chapters. The first describes the role of school paraprofessionals, including the evolution from primarily clerical duties to assisting with instructional duties. Chapter Two provides a detailed profile of Connecticut paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, based on the responses to the program review data request sent to local school districts. Chapter Three summarizes federal, state, and local employment requirements affecting paraprofessionals in Connecticut. It also contains some information about how other states regulate these workers. Chapter Four briefly describes the state entities that are involved in general oversight and training for paraprofessionals. Chapter Five contains the program review committee's recommendations regarding school paraprofessionals, while Chapter Six describes an optional model that could be used to establish a credentialing system for instructional paraprofessionals.

Appendix A summarizes key federal laws relevant to the use and employment of paraprofessionals today. Appendix B describes the process used to compile the school district database, includes a copy of the data collection form, and lists the local school districts that responded to the committee's request for information.

Agency Response

It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment on the recommendations prior to publication of the final report. Appendix C contains the response from the State Department of Education.

Chapter One

Duties and Responsibilities

Paraprofessionals provide an array of services to students and teachers, with the role changing over time. A general function of many paraprofessionals is to provide direct services to students and to assist teachers with classroom activities. The overall duties and responsibilities of paraprofessionals vary, however, depending on factors such as the paraprofessional's level of experience and/or education, and the needs of the particular students in the classroom.

It is also important to reiterate that paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities are not replacements for teachers. The dictionary lists multiple definitions for the word “para,” including beside, near, alongside, and assistant. Each of those definitions reflects the fact that there is a connection between the “para” and another person. Thus, the school paraprofessional is not expected to work alone, but instead is part of a team, working under the supervision of the teacher.

Evolution of Duties and Number of Paraprofessionals

Paraprofessionals began working in public schools in the 1950s as an additional resource to help alleviate the increased workload resulting from a shortage of teachers following the end of World War II. At that time, paraprofessionals performed clerical functions. Their role was intended to allow teachers more time to focus on students.

During the 1960s and 1970s, several major federal acts were passed to help address social changes occurring nationwide at that time. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHC) of 1975 were passed to help meet the educational and economic needs of the country's disadvantaged and disabled children and youth. (See Appendix A for a more detailed description of both federal laws.) The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 also provided school districts with federal funds to establish educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

These major federal laws meant increased access for students into the public school system. For example, with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, all public school districts accepting federal funds were required to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities. Students with special needs were now being integrated into the public school system and educated in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE) possible. As a way to help meet the growing needs of an increasingly diverse student population, the use of paraprofessionals increased.

Figure I-1 shows that the increased use of paraprofessionals in public school systems continued during the 1980s, 1990s, and into the 2000s. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the number of full-time equivalent instructional aides (i.e., paraprofessionals) nationwide over the last two decades increased 123 percent between school years 1985-86 and 2003-04 -- from 306,860 aides to 685,242 aides. (Information about the number of paraprofessionals in Connecticut is provided in Chapter Two.) In comparison, according to the federal education department, the number of students in public elementary and secondary schools (grades pre-K-12) increased 23 percent during the same time period.

Overall, the increasing and changing role of paraprofessionals over the past several decades can be attributed in large part to more demands being placed on schools and teachers. Federal laws, including EHC, later named the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), have resulted in greater access to public schools and increased individualized attention in public school settings for children of varying backgrounds and abilities, especially those with special needs. To assist with fulfilling federal requirements of providing more individualized services to an increasing number of students, there has been a greater use of paraprofessionals as a resource to assist teachers with student instruction in addition to performing clerical and administrative tasks. In theory, allowing paraprofessionals to assist teachers with instruction provides teachers with more time to concentrate on other tasks such as lesson planning or more focused student instruction.

Although the increase in the number of paraprofessionals has begun to level off during the early 2000s, increased attention has been given to the overall qualifications of paraprofessionals. As part of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002, certain types of paraprofessionals are now required to meet specific minimum qualifications as a condition of employment. (This is discussed further in Chapter Three.)

Mainstreaming/inclusion of special education students. The scope of the committee's study included examining the role of paraprofessionals in “mainstreaming” special education students. As mentioned above, the number of paraprofessionals has steadily increased since the 1980s. This increase is in large part a response to federal legislation requiring greater access and more individualized attention for students with special needs in public schools.

In 1990, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Similar to its enabling act, IDEA requires special needs students to be educated with their nondisabled peers using the same curriculum, extracurricular activities, and other programs as their nondisabled peers in the least restrictive environment within a school. The terms “mainstreaming” and “inclusion” are frequently used to describe the integration of special education students in the public school system. ³

For the most part, the terms denote the same underlying premise that, to the extent possible, students with disabilities are provided the same access to a public education in the least restrictive setting (i.e., general education classroom) as all other children. The term “mainstream” and the phrase “least restrictive environment,” have evolved into the concept of “inclusion.” “Mainstreaming” has generally come to mean integrating children with disabilities and regular school children for a part or all of the school day. This could mean that although a special education student is provided access to a public school education, the student may receive services in a setting within the school that is separate from general education students.

"Inclusion" is generally described in the national literature as placing a greater emphasis on the obligation to provide quality support services to children with disabilities in the general education classroom rather than in a separate setting. This typically involves bringing the necessary supports for the special education student to the general education classroom to the greatest extent possible, including the use of paraprofessionals to provide instruction within the general classroom setting.

The terms “inclusion” and “mainstreaming” are not used in federal law or regulation. The relevant language under IDEA refers to special needs students being educated with their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate in the least restrictive environment possible with the necessary supports and services.

Current Duties and Responsibilities

As the role of paraprofessionals has evolved over time, paraprofessionals with instructional duties have a different role than their “noninstructional” colleagues in at least one aspect of their current daily responsibilities. Paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities are responsible for assisting certified teachers with student instruction and various instruction-related duties, while other paraprofessionals do not provide these services.

Aside from this key difference, the present-day duties and responsibilities of all paraprofessionals may overlap. Paraprofessionals with student instructional responsibilities may perform similar duties during the course of a school day as their noninstructional counterparts. For example, there may be times when all paraprofessionals monitor lunchroom and hallway activities, supervise students during recess, or perform basic clerical tasks.

Paraprofessionals with instructional duties are limited by federal and state law in the type of student instruction they may provide. The federal No Child Left Behind Act prohibits paraprofessionals from providing any type of “initial” instruction to students in schools receiving federal funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This means that a certified teacher must first introduce a lesson or concept to students prior to a paraprofessional providing instruction on that same subject matter. In other words, the role of paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities, at least in schools receiving Title I funds, is to augment the instruction/lesson plans already introduced and taught by a certified teacher.

Under Connecticut regulation (Conn. Regs. Sec. 10-145d-401), appropriate certification is required for any person employed by a local public school district who provides instruction to students. If the person providing the instruction is not certified, then direct supervision of that person by a certified professional employee is required. Appropriate state certification is also required for those school employees (i.e., teachers) responsible for planning instructional programs for students and evaluating students' progress.

It is clear that the roles and responsibilities of paraprofessionals in Connecticut are extremely diverse. Examples of the various duties and responsibilities performed by instructional paraprofessionals in Connecticut are provided in Table I-1. The two columns on the right side of the table indicate the extent to which each task is commonly performed within the local school districts that responded to the program review data request. Although the duties and responsibilities are diverse, most instructional paraprofessionals in Connecticut work in the area of special education. According to SDE data, two-thirds of the 12,045 FTE noncertified instructional paraprofessionals working in local public schools during the 2005-06 school year were considered special education paraprofessionals.

Paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities typically work with students individually or in small groups during the school day, although there may be some work done outside of school hours. How instruction is provided to students by a paraprofessional and the type of setting where the instruction is provided generally depends on the needs of the student or the type of lesson being taught.

The actual settings where instructional paraprofessionals work vary from district to district and school to school, depending on the programs offered and the students enrolled. Some paraprofessionals may be assigned to a particular classroom, computer lab, or media center, spending all day in a single location. Other paraprofessionals may be assigned to a specific student, and as needed will accompany that student to different parts of the school. Paraprofessionals who are considered “floaters” will work in multiple classrooms and/or grade levels during the course of a school day and assist multiple teachers, performing a variety of duties, depending on the needs of each teacher.

The use of instructional paraprofessionals means the modern-day general education classroom could have several adults in the room at the same time responsible for students with various levels of need. Depending on the types of students in the general education classroom, the potential exists for the general education teacher and a paraprofessional to be present in the classroom along with a special education teacher and/or a special education paraprofessional. Regardless of the particular assignments paraprofessionals may have, however, they are typically supervised either by the teacher(s) with whom they work or their school's principal.

The paraprofessionals working in Connecticut with whom program review staff spoke noted that during the course of a single school day, they may be required to perform multiple functions, including some or all of those listed in Table I-1. Furthermore, the tasks that comprise a given function may be very broad, and some may overlap other identified functions. For example, the duties that fall under the most commonly selected function “Give individualized attention to one or a small number of students…” could incorporate aspects of organizing instructional materials or the modification of curriculum. Indeed, the tasks performed by paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working with students might include:

As mentioned previously, in some schools, paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities also have to perform noninstructional tasks. Depending on the students they are working with, they may have to lift students, help with toileting, or accompany a student to an activity, such as recess or an assembly. At certain times of the day, some instructional paraprofessionals are required to monitor playgrounds and lunchrooms, while others may ride the school bus with specific students. The frequency of these assignments ranges from occasionally to regularly.

Many paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in Connecticut are actively involved with students for the entire workday. Indeed, several paraprofessionals who met with committee staff expressed frustration that there is little or no time to confer with individual teachers about the progress of the students that the paraprofessional is working with or about overall lesson planning. Consequently, the paraprofessionals must rely on their previous experiences to guide them on how to adapt broad guidance previously provided by the teacher regarding the best ways to help students with their lessons.

From the list of 16 duties listed in Table I-1, districts were asked to select the three functions most commonly performed by the paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities working in their district. Figure I-2 shows the six duties most frequently selected by respondents. The duty “Give individualized attention to one or a small number of students within the classroom while teacher works with other students” was overwhelmingly the most commonly chosen duty for paraprofessionals in the database, having been selected by 93 districts. ⁴

The only other duty chosen by more than half the respondents was “Facilitate student's inclusion in general education classroom,” which was selected by 57 percent of the districts that limited their answer to three choices. The remaining duties chosen by more than 10 districts were “Assist with Individualized Education Programs” (44 percent), “Organize instructional materials” (35 percent), “Assist teacher with classroom management” (31 percent), and “Modify or adapt classroom curriculum” (20 percent).

Interaction with Students

In addition to understanding the various duties and responsibilities performed by paraprofessionals, the overall level of interaction between paraprofessionals and students is important. According to data from the local school districts that responded to the program review committee's data request, the proportion of public school students in Connecticut who interact on a daily basis with paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities varies considerably from district to district. It also differs by school level, with the portion of students working daily with paraprofessionals decreasing as their grade level increases.

The total number of students who interact with paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities on a daily basis is low in many districts. Only 21 districts in the PRI database indicated a majority of the students at any school level interact daily with paraprofessionals in an instructional capacity, with 10 of those districts indicating all of the students at one or more school levels have that type of daily interaction.

Figure I-3 illustrates by school level the extent of the interaction between students and instructional paraprofessionals for those districts that reported specific numbers to PRI. (The numbers provided for each school level are based on the number of responding districts that operate schools at the specified level.)

At the elementary level, just over half of the 86 districts indicated 20 percent or more of the students have that amount of interaction. Among the 63 districts operating middle schools that responded, just over one-quarter indicated 20 percent or more of the students receive instruction from paraprofessionals daily, while only 14 percent of the 56 districts operating high schools that responded indicated 20 percent or more of the students at that level had daily contact.

[blank page]

Chapter Two

Paraprofessionals in Connecticut

The Connecticut State Department of Education collects limited information from local school districts about the public school personnel referred to in this study as paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities. The department does request an annual count of full-time equivalent, noncertified instructional staff, with the information subdivided into seven groupings for the personnel working in kindergarten through twelfth grade.⁵

Figure II-1 shows the data compiled by SDE for school years 2001-02 through 2005-06. The total count of noncertified “instructional” paraprofessionals increased 5 percent during those five years, rising from 11,440 to 12,046. To put these numbers in context, for school year 2005-06, statewide there were also almost 25,000 noncertified, “noninstructional” staff employed by districts to work in grades K-12. There were approximately 35,000 classroom teachers and about 565,000 K-12 students.⁶

Several noticeable changes in the composition of instructional paraprofessionals over time were a 27 percent increase in ESL/bilingual noncertified instructional staff and a 17 percent increase in the number of staff in the special education category. Since SY 2001-02, a majority of all K-12 noncertified instructional staff have worked in the special education area, with the number and percent growing annually. In SY 2005-06, they represented 63 percent of the total, while in SY 2001-02, they were 57 percent.

Summary Profile

The questions on the program review data request sent to the local school districts asked for demographic information about the instructional paraprofessionals employed by those districts as well as the qualifications, training opportunities, and compensation (i.e., wages and benefits) of those employees. Responses to those questions are described in detail below.

In summary, however, the database indicates that a majority of the approximately 8,700 paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities employed in October 2005 by the local public school districts that responded to the program review data request were:

In terms of the 119 local school districts that provided information to the program review committee, the database indicates that on average (using median numbers) the districts:

Data In Detail

The local school districts included in the program review database reported employing 8,691 K-12 paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in October 2005. The number per district ranged from one to 494.

Figure II-2 shows the distribution of the paraprofessionals in the database by school level. Nearly three-quarters worked in elementary schools.

Figure II-3 summarizes the total number of instructional paraprofessionals employed per district. In October 2005, slightly more than half (54 percent) of the districts in the PRI database employed less than 51 such paraprofessionals. The median number employed was 47.

Gender

Figure II-4 displays the distribution of male and female paraprofessionals in the database. Overall, 94 percent were female, and 6 percent were male. Broken down by school level, the percent of males ranged from 4 percent at the elementary level to 8 percent at the middle school level to 17 percent at the high school level.

Nearly half (46 percent) of the reporting districts that operate elementary schools employed no male paraprofessionals in their elementary schools, 47 percent that operate middle schools employed no male paraprofessionals in those schools, and 28 percent of the reporting districts operating high schools employed no male paraprofessionals at that school level.

Race/Ethnicity

Table II-1 presents October 2005 data about the racial/ethnic makeup of the paraprofessionals in the program review database at each school level. Overall, 21 percent (of the 7,845 paraprofessionals for whom districts were able to provide data) were members of a minority group.

The elementary school level had the highest proportion of minority group members -- 23 percent. The middle school level was 13 percent, while the high school level was 21 percent. Nearly half of the districts employed no minority group members as paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities.

Age

Table II-2 summarizes information about the age distribution of the paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities in the PRI database. Not all districts were able to answer this question, although some were able to do so by reporting all school levels together. For the 111 districts that did respond, almost half of the employed paraprofessionals were between 35 and 49 years old.

Education

All but four districts in the database were able to provide information about the highest level of education achieved as of June 30, 2006, by at least some of their paraprofessionals. Figure II-5 provides a summary of the data for the 6,012 paraprofessionals with instructional responsibilities for whom educational information was available. Nearly half (48 percent) had some college, with 27 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree. (Only three people did not have a high school diploma.)

Table II-3 breaks down the information summarized in Figure II-5 according to the District Reference Group (DRG) that the districts (for which data were available) are assigned.⁷ As indicated, there is considerable variation among the responses grouped by DRG. For example, the responses for districts in DRGs A and B indicated three-quarters of the instructional paraprofessionals they employ have at least two years of college, while only one-quarter of the instructional paraprofessionals employed by the responding districts from DRG H have that level of education. The responses from districts in DRGs D and E most closely parallel the overall results.