Preparing And Retaining All (PARA) Educators Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a new federal grant program to address the shortage of paraprofessionals in schools by funding recruitment and retention efforts, with a focus on high-need areas.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education, to assist states and local educational agencies in recruiting and retaining paraprofessionals in public elementary schools, secondary schools, and preschool programs. State educational agencies will receive allotments based on their share of Title I, Part A funds and then award competitive subgrants to eligible entities for activities such as induction programs, professional development, certification support, and increasing wages or providing bonus pay for paraprofessionals. Priority for subgrants is given to entities serving low-income families or rural areas.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that paraprofessionals are vital for supporting diverse student needs, especially those with disabilities or English language learners, and that a national program is necessary to address widespread shortages and improve educational outcomes. They contend that investing in paraprofessionals through better pay, professional development, and mentoring will stabilize the workforce, enhance instructional quality, and provide crucial support for teachers, ultimately benefiting students and the entire school community.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, the bill creates another federal program that could lead to administrative overhead and may not be the most efficient way to address local workforce issues. They might contend that states and local districts are better equipped to manage their paraprofessional needs and that federal intervention could impose unfunded mandates or distort local priorities. Concerns could also be raised about the open-ended 'such sums as may be necessary' authorization, which lacks a clear fiscal commitment.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions within the estimated reading time.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Grant Program
This section directs the Secretary of Education to create a grant program. Under this program, the Secretary will provide funds to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help them, along with local educational agencies (LEAs) and educational service agencies (ESAs), recruit and retain paraprofessionals in public elementary schools, secondary schools, and preschool programs across the country.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a dedicated federal grant program is essential to provide the necessary resources and national focus to address the critical shortage of paraprofessionals, ensuring consistent support for students nationwide.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that creating a new federal program adds another layer of bureaucracy and that existing state or local funding mechanisms, if adequately supported, could address these needs more efficiently.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the perceived need for federal intervention to ensure national consistency and resource allocation versus the desire for local control and flexibility in addressing specific workforce challenges.
Section 2(c)
Use of Funds for Recruitment and Retention
This provision outlines how the grant funds can be used. State educational agencies can reserve up to 5% for administrative costs and statewide activities. The remaining funds must be used for competitive subgrants to eligible entities. These subgrants can support activities such as establishing induction and mentoring programs for paraprofessionals, developing high-quality professional development, providing certifications (like special education or English learner certificates), and increasing wages or offering bonus pay incentives.
Section 2(d)
Priority for High-Need and Rural Entities
This section mandates that State educational agencies must give priority when awarding subgrants to eligible entities that serve a greater number or percentage of children from low-income families. Additionally, priority must be given to entities where all schools are located in rural areas (defined by specific locale codes) or where all schools receive special assistance payments under the National School Lunch Act and meet certain identified student percentage thresholds.
This section clarifies that the Act does not alter existing rights, remedies, or procedures for school employees under federal, state, or local laws, or collective bargaining agreements. However, it also states that this provision does not exempt any entity from complying with the Act or negotiating in compliance with state labor laws to meet the Act's requirements.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the relationship between new federal law and existing labor laws or agreements, preventing unintended conflicts while ensuring compliance with the new statute.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause is crucial for protecting the rights of school employees and ensuring that the implementation of the grant program respects established labor practices and collective bargaining agreements, fostering smoother transitions and avoiding legal challenges.
Case against: No direct case against this specific clause, as it aims to prevent conflicts. However, some might argue that it adds a layer of complexity to implementation, requiring careful navigation of existing agreements.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the implementation of the PARA Educators Act integrates with, rather than overrides, existing labor frameworks, potentially affecting how wage increases or professional development programs are negotiated and implemented in unionized districts.
The definitions section heavily relies on cross-references to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for terms like 'educational service agency,' 'elementary school,' 'English learner,' 'evidence-based,' 'local educational agency,' 'secondary school,' and 'State educational agency.' It also defines 'high-need school' and 'paraprofessional' by reference to specific sections of ESEA.
Section 2(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to maintain consistency with existing federal education law and avoid redundant definitions, making the bill more concise. However, it means the bill is not entirely self-contained.
Case for: Supporters argue that using established definitions from ESEA ensures consistency across federal education programs and leverages existing legal frameworks, reducing ambiguity and administrative burden.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying heavily on external definitions makes the bill less accessible to a general audience, requiring additional research to fully understand its scope and implications.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the terms used in this Act align with the broader federal education landscape, affecting which entities and individuals qualify for programs and how they are defined.