Competency-based credentialing for paraprofessionals and ESPs
This Legal Briefs column, written by Education Minnesota staff, is one of an occasional series on legal and policy developments that affect educators.
Written by Justin Killian
Over the past two legislative sessions, Education Minnesota has advocated for and won changes to state law that will protect the ability of instructional paraprofessionals in Special Education and Title I to stay in their positions. The new legislation provides a competency-based alternative to standardized tests as a means of demonstrating their qualifications. This article summarizes the history of those efforts and offers practical guidance to members who wish to demonstrate their qualifications through a competency-based assessment.
In 2001, the U.S. federal government passed the No Child Left Behind Act which greatly increased government scrutiny of local education agencies and imposed higher accountability measures tied to testing. Among the many changes, the new law required all non-licensed instructional aides working in Title 1 Part A schools and programs or with students in special education to achieve a credentialing standard known as “highly qualified.” These educators could meet the standard through two years or more of college education or by passing a state and local assessment. LEAs were instructed that compliance with this law is tied directly to funding streams from both the federal and state governments.
The “highly qualified” standard was eventually removed from federal statute with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. This new federal law eliminated the term “highly qualified” from statute, and it placed standard-setting in the hands of state education agencies and local districts. However, the federal government also insisted state agencies maintain the rigorous standards of credentialing in place before the enactment of ESSA. Thus, although the phrase “highly qualified” was removed from federal
statute, the credentialing parameters set by NCLB remained mostly unchanged.
ESSA granted greater flexibility to state agencies, but Minnesota and many other states decided to simply retain the mandates that were established in NCLB. Since 2016, the Minnesota Department of Education has maintained that a Title 1, Part A instructional paraprofessional or a paraprofessional working in a special education setting must carry on the following credentials: (1) two years of college credits from an accredited institution of higher education, (2) an associate’s degree or higher from a U.S.-based institution of higher learning, or (3) a passing score on an approved academic assessment. ESSA authorized states and LEAs to develop local, rigorous assessments, but MDE maintained that the only two assessments recognized by the state would be the Parapro and the Paraeducator.
In 2023, MDE was notified of compliance issues tied to licensing teachers working in special education settings. As a result, the state agency performed a comprehensive review of all federal regulations and the potential ramifications for failing to comply with the law. MDE explicitly identified the credentialling
of non-licensed instructional staff as a compliance requirement that could result in financial penalties if problems were found during an audit.
Districts reacted to this news with panic and urgency and immediately put pressure on paraprofessionals and ESPs to prove compliance with the law. Federal law is clear that only paraprofessionals serving in instructional roles are required to meet the credentialing standards, but some Minnesota districts overcorrected by maintaining all non-licensed educators needed to meet these requirements. This resulted in bus aides, lunch aides, community liaisons, paras offering translation services and clerical support staff all being required to take standardized tests to return to school or risk losing their jobs. In addition, these educators were being asked to meet these requirements on their own time, and some districts required employees to personally pay the exorbitant cost of registering for exams.
A coalition of partner organizations led by Education Minnesota, the Service Employes Internation Union Local 284, and the Minnesota Association of Special Education Administrators engaged in rigorous negotiations with MDE to offer better guidance to districts and improve the local and state assessment options to meet the federal standards. This work led to the passage of a competency-based assessment option for special education paras, which was passed in 2025. The same coalition successfully lobbied to have the state Legislature extend this same competency- based assessment to Title 1, Part A paras in 2026.
Why did Minnesota need a new assessment?
As mentioned above, Minnesota offered only two assessment options for non-licensed staff to comply with the federal standards before 2025. These included the Parapro exam, owned by Education Testing Services, or the ParaEducator exam. Both standardized tests are only offered in English and come with high enrollment fees and additional charges for educators needing to re-take an exam. In addition, the historical testing results for these exams showed a dramatic
racial bias in the passage rates, an unfortunate reality previously ignored by MDE. Finally, Minnesota’s score requirements for both exams far exceeded the threshold set by other states.
Many paraprofessionals speak multiple languages, and English is not the primary language for many of our strongest paraeducators. These credentialing tests require individuals to solve complex Algebra II equations or compose essays analyzing the legal reasoning of major U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The tests, in short, judge test-takers on skill sets that rarely apply to their actual job requirements and roles.
Paraprofessionals and ESPs that had been working in public schools for more than 20 years were finding themselves unable to achieve a passing score, and neither the state agency nor districts proactively offered to explore the creation of the “local assessment” option allowed in federal law. Also, neither testing agency offered to translate their exams into other languages, nor would they have a substantive conversation about the obvious racial bias seen in the scoring data.
SEIU, Education Minesota and MASE joined forces to pressure the state agency to add a competency- based assessment to allow non-licensed staff to comply with federal law by providing evidence from work experiences and completed trainings to show they meet the thresholds outlined in statute. The coalition wanted an assessment that honored the work, experience and immense knowledge base paras and ESPs bring to work each day.
What are the credentialing requirements?
The federal requirements for non-licensed, instructional support staff in special education are clarified in 34 CFR 300.156 and the requirements for Title 1, Part A support staff are found in 34 CFR 200.58 . The language used for the two groups is very similar but not identical. However, the U.S. Department of Education requires both groups of non-licensed support staff in these roles to: (1) show completion of two years of college credit, (2) provide a transcript for an achieved associate’s degree or higher, or (3) achieve a passing score on a state approved or local assessment. MDE still accepts scores
on the ParaPro, the ParaPathways or the ParaEducator. In addition, non-licensed support staff can now work with their administrator to complete a “competency rubric” which requires verification that an educator has mastered seven competencies and 21 sub- competencies through work experience or previous training. This option is modeled after licensure-by- portfolio for teachers and allows these vital educators to receive credit for their hard work and previous training experiences. Administrators merely complete the state rubric and place the evidence in the personnel file of the paraprofessional. The seven competencies and 21 sub- competencies are listed at the end of this article.
Important Reminders
There is still a lot of confusion about these requirements, and this first year of implementation could present unforeseen complications. First, it is recommended that all members who are being asked to meet these credentialing requirements verify through local Education Minnesota field staff that they need to comply with this law. Many districts are still requiring individuals who are not subject to these standards to comply with these thresholds.
Second, members should inform district leaders of their right to the competency-based approach to credentialing and ask for guidance on how to submit evidence. Districts might not proactively
offer this option, so it is incumbent upon members to assert their statutory right to the competency rubric. Members should contact their field staff if they encounter resistance to this request.
Finally, watch for important guidance from MDE that should hit the desks of districts in August 2026. MDE has been directed to have a system in place before the start of the 2026-27 academic year, and many partner organizations are eagerly awaiting that guidance. Also, members should remind districts that Minnesota law (Section 121A.642) requires them to provide eight hours of paid professional development to all non- licensed staff. Those training hours, the cost of which is reimbursed to the district by the state, can be used to help non-licensed staff achieve compliance with the federal and state laws.
The full list of competencies, along with the requirement that districts make the grid available to Special Education and Title I paraprofessionals as an alternative to the approved standardized tests, can be found at Minnesota Statutes, Section 121A.642: revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/121a.642.
