The Pay Paraprofessionals and Support Staff Act would create a federal grant program to help states raise pay for paraprofessionals and education support staff in public schools. The bill sets a living-wage framework for these workers, defining minimum compensation levels for full-time staff as a salary of at least $45,000 for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and for part-time staff as at least $30 per hour over the same period, with future increases tied to inflation or a 2 percent floor. It also states that minimum pay should rise with experience and that higher-cost regions may require higher compensation.
The bill directs the U.S. Department of Education to distribute $25 billion in fiscal year 2026, with annual inflation adjustments thereafter. States receiving funds must submit applications, set timelines and annual wage-growth goals, and pass most of the money through to local educational agencies, including charter schools treated as LEAs. Local agencies must use the funds to meet the state’s wage and salary requirements, and they may also use them to improve compensation for other school staff or to support professional development, credentials, and certifications for paraprofessionals and support staff.
The bill would affect the Elementary and Secondary Education Act framework by incorporating ESEA definitions, tying state allotments to Title I formulas, and prohibiting waiver authority under ESEA section 8401. It also includes rules preserving collective bargaining rights, allowing supplemental pay systems and bonuses, and requiring that federal funds supplement rather than replace state and local education funding. States would be responsible for monitoring compliance, including pay requirements for contracted staff.
Overall sentiment in the available record appears supportive and worker-focused, with the bill’s findings and purpose language emphasizing that paraprofessionals and support staff are essential to public schools and deserve respect, dignity, and a living wage. The bill was introduced by a large group of Democratic sponsors and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, but no committee transcript or vote data is available here to show formal debate or bipartisan support.
The main points of contention likely center on cost, federal involvement in school staffing pay, and implementation burdens for states and local districts. The bill requires substantial new federal spending and sets mandatory wage floors and timelines, which could raise concerns among opponents about budget impact, state flexibility, and how districts would finance compliance, especially in lower-funded or rural systems. Supporters are likely to emphasize equity, retention, and the need to address low pay among school support workers.
The bill would create a new federal grant program under the Department of Education to support state and local increases in pay for paraprofessionals and education support staff. It would establish federal minimum salary and wage benchmarks, require state implementation plans and subgrant formulas, and impose monitoring and compliance obligations on states and local educational agencies, including for contracted staff. It also would interact with ESEA-based definitions and funding formulas while preserving collective bargaining rights and prohibiting waiver of the act’s requirements.
The bill’s tone and sponsorship suggest strong pro-worker, pro-public-education sentiment. Its stated purpose frames paraprofessionals and support staff as essential public servants who deserve living wages and better working conditions. No votes or committee testimony are available in the provided record, so there is no documented opposition or bipartisan negotiation in the materials supplied.
Likely areas of contention include the bill’s fiscal cost, the scale of the $25 billion authorization and appropriation, and whether the federal government should set wage floors for school support staff. Another likely issue is administrative complexity: states must design formulas, set timelines, monitor compliance, and ensure pay increases for both direct employees and contracted staff. Some stakeholders may also debate how the bill interacts with existing collective bargaining agreements, state labor laws, and local salary systems.