Preparing And Retaining All (PARA) Educators Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 17, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes a federal grant program to provide financial support to states and local school districts for initiatives aimed at improving the recruitment, retention, training, and compensation of paraprofessionals in schools.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Education to establish a grant program to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) in recruiting and retaining paraprofessionals in public elementary schools, secondary schools, and preschool programs. SEAs would then award competitive subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and educational service agencies (ESAs) for activities such as establishing mentoring programs, providing professional development, supporting certifications, and increasing wages or offering bonus pay incentives for paraprofessionals.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that paraprofessionals are indispensable for student success, particularly for those with special needs or English language learners, and that investing in their professional development, fair compensation, and retention will enhance educational outcomes and bolster the overall teaching workforce. They contend that this federal support will help address critical staffing shortages and elevate the status of these vital school personnel.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that this program represents an expansion of federal involvement into areas traditionally managed by state and local governments, potentially creating administrative burdens or an unsustainable reliance on federal funding for ongoing personnel costs. Concerns could also be raised about the effectiveness of competitive subgrants or whether the authorized funding will be sufficient to make a meaningful, long-term impact nationwide.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Federal Grant Program for Paraprofessional Support
This section mandates the Secretary of Education to create a grant program. Under this program, funds will be allocated to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help states, local school districts (LEAs), and educational service agencies (ESAs) recruit and retain paraprofessionals in public elementary schools, secondary schools, and preschool programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated federal grant program is essential to provide targeted resources to address the widespread shortage and high turnover rates of paraprofessionals, thereby ensuring consistent support for students across the nation.
Critics contend
Critics might suggest that federal intervention in local school staffing decisions could lead to increased bureaucracy and that states and local districts are better positioned to manage their own workforce needs without additional federal oversight.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for federal support to address a national educational workforce challenge with the principle of local control over school administration and personnel.
Section 2(c)(2)
Allowable Uses of Subgrant Funds
This section specifies how eligible entities (LEAs and ESAs) can use the subgrant funds. Permitted activities include establishing evidence-based induction and mentoring programs for paraprofessionals, developing high-quality professional development, assisting paraprofessionals in obtaining specialized certifications (e.g., special education, English learner, or teaching certifications), and increasing wages or providing bonus pay incentives to attract and retain staff.
Section 2(d)
Priority for High-Need and Rural Schools in Subgrant Awards
When State educational agencies award subgrants, they must prioritize eligible entities that serve a greater number or percentage of children from low-income families. Additionally, priority is given to entities where all schools are designated as rural (using specific locale codes) or where all schools participate in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the National School Lunch Act with a high identified student percentage.
Defines 'low-income family' for the purpose of subgrant priority by referencing eligibility for the school lunch program, special assistance payments under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or Medicaid.
Section 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency and leverage existing federal eligibility criteria across different programs, rather than creating new, potentially conflicting definitions.
Case for: Using established definitions from existing federal programs streamlines administration and ensures that the priority aligns with other federal efforts to support low-income populations, promoting coherence in policy.
Case against: The reliance on multiple external definitions can make it challenging for a casual reader to fully grasp the precise criteria for 'low-income family' without consulting several other statutes and regulations, potentially obscuring the true reach of the priority.
Estimated impact: This definition directly influences the distribution of federal subgrant funds, directing a greater proportion of resources to school districts and educational service agencies that serve populations meeting these specific low-income criteria.
States that nothing in this Act shall alter existing rights, remedies, and procedures afforded to school employees under federal, state, or local laws or collective bargaining agreements. However, it also clarifies that states and eligible entities must still comply with the Act and negotiate in compliance with state labor laws to meet its requirements.
Section 2(g)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the relationship between new federal law and existing labor protections, ensuring the bill does not inadvertently undermine collective bargaining rights while still requiring compliance with its provisions.
Case for: This provision ensures that the implementation of the grant program respects existing labor agreements and collective bargaining processes, protecting the rights of paraprofessionals and other school employees where such agreements are in place.
Case against: Some might argue that such clauses can introduce ambiguity if there is a perceived conflict between new federal requirements and existing agreements, potentially leading to legal challenges or implementation delays in specific contexts.
Estimated impact: This clause prevents potential conflicts with labor unions and ensures that any changes to wages, benefits, or working conditions funded by the grants are implemented through appropriate collective bargaining channels where applicable, maintaining labor stability.