H.R.7032 creates a new federal grant program administered by the Department of Education that requires States to ensure paraprofessionals and other education support staff are paid a ‘‘living wage.’nThe bill establishes federal baseline thresholds (an initial full‑time annual baseline and an hourly baseline for part‑time staff), ties future increases to inflation with a 5‑year reindexing rule, and authorizes an initial $25 billion appropriation for FY2026 with future annual increases linked to the Consumer Price Index. States must submit plans and timelines to bring wages up within a multiyear schedule and then pass funds through to local educational agencies (LEAs) as subgrants; the statute also reaches employees under contracts and includes monitoring and technical assistance provisions.
Why it matters: the bill uses substantial federal dollars plus an existing Title I allocation formula to drive wage floors across K–12 public education, not just targeted pilot grants. That design creates immediate compliance and distribution issues for State Education Agencies, collective bargaining units, LEAs that rely on contractors, and districts serving high‑need communities — and it anchors federal policy around explicit living‑wage baselines rather than purely state or local determinations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires States to set and enforce minimum annual base salaries for full‑time paraprofessionals and minimum hourly wages for part‑time paraprofessionals/support staff, subject to federal baseline thresholds and periodic CPI‑based indexing. It creates a federal grant program to fund those increases, with a required subgrant pass‑through to local educational agencies.
Who It Affects
State education agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (including charter LEAs), paraprofessionals and classified school employees (full‑ and part‑time), contractors that supply school staff, and entities that provide professional development or certification training. The Department of Education administers grants and monitors compliance.
Why It Matters
By attaching large, ongoing federal dollars to wage floors and using the Title I allocation framework to distribute funds, the bill shifts a core personnel policy lever from local control toward a federally structured standard — meaning budget, contracting, and collective bargaining choices at the district level will be constrained by federally funded timelines and monitoring.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.7032 defines a ‘‘minimum salary’’ for full‑time paraprofessionals and a ‘‘minimum wage’’ for part‑time education support staff as amounts States must set for all LEA employees, and requires those State‑determined minima to exceed explicit federal baselines. For the initial period the bill sets federal baselines and then requires periodic reindexing: States may choose higher minima, but may not set lower ones.
The Department of Education distributes appropriated funds to States, which must submit applications with a timeline and annual goals showing progress toward meeting the State’s minima for both full‑time and part‑time staff within four years.
The funding mechanism channels nearly all appropriation dollars to States and then to LEAs: the Secretary reserves small shares for research and technical assistance, and each State must subgrant at least 98 percent of its award to LEAs using a State formula tied to Title I Part A allocations. LEAs must use subgrant funds to guarantee that their paraprofessionals and support staff meet the State minima; they may also use funds to raise pay across other school roles or invest in training and credentialing.
The statute explicitly requires that staff supplied under contracts be paid at least the State minima and directs States to monitor compliance with that requirement.On timing and administration the bill demands that the Secretary approve State timelines and that States demonstrate yearly progress toward their targets. States may reserve a small portion of funds (up to 2 percent) for statewide technical assistance and administrative tasks.
The law also contains several structural rules: it preserves collective bargaining rights while clarifying that bargaining cannot be used to avoid meeting the Act’s wage requirements; it disallows waiver authority under ESEA section 8401 for this Act; and it requires that federal funds supplement, not supplant, existing State and local education funding.
The Five Things You Need to Know
States must bring full‑time paraprofessional annual base salaries and all part‑time paraprofessional hourly wages up to State‑determined minima within a 4‑year timeline and show annual goals for progress.
The Secretary must reserve up to 1% of annual appropriations for grants to regional educational laboratories or nonprofits for applied research and up to 1% for technical assistance and program administration.
At least 98% of each State’s grant award must be distributed as subgrants to LEAs; States may keep up to 2% of their award for statewide technical assistance and admin.
The statute requires LEAs to ensure contracted staff are paid at least the State minima and directs State monitoring of LEA compliance with that requirement.
The bill bars applying ESEA section 8401 waiver authority to this Act and explicitly requires federal funds under the Act to supplement, not supplant, State and local education funds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the Pay Paraprofessionals and Support Staff Act. Practically this anchors subsequent references and regulatory actions to a single statute name but has no substantive effect beyond identification.
Core definitions and indexing mechanism
This subsection imports several ESEA definitions and creates two key defined terms: the minimum salary for full‑time paraprofessionals/support staff and the minimum wage for part‑time staff. It establishes an ‘‘annual adjustment percentage’’ tied to the CPI for indexing. Importantly, the statutory minima are designed to be state‑determined but must exceed explicit federal baselines and ‘‘increase as experience increases,’’ which forces States to design step schedules or similar experience progressions rather than a flat single‑rate floor.
Large federal appropriation with CPI increases
The bill authorizes a $25 billion appropriation for FY2026 and then sets future annual appropriations to grow by the CPI‑based annual adjustment percentage. That design creates a substantial and ongoing federal funding stream expressly earmarked to implement the wage floors, which has implications for federal budget planning and for how quickly States and LEAs can rely on sustained funding to meet new obligations.
How funds move from the Department to States and LEAs
The Secretary makes reservations for research and administration, then allots remaining funds to States using a ratio based on prior Title I Part A allocations. States must submit applications with timelines and formulas for subgranting to LEAs; at least 98% of each State’s award must be passed to LEAs. LEAs must use the subgrant to ensure compliance with State minima and are explicitly allowed to use funds more broadly for staff compensation and training. The statute also covers contracted employees, requiring LEAs to ensure contract staff receive not less than the State minima and directing States to monitor that compliance.
State plans, timelines, and allowable reservations
To get a grant a State must submit a plan including a timeline to reach the State minima within four years, annual percentage goals, and a subgrant formula that prioritizes high‑poverty districts for faster compliance. The State may reserve up to 2% of its award for technical assistance and administration. The Secretary must approve timelines and ensure States make significant progress, with a hard deadline of four years after final regs for full compliance.
Collective bargaining, supplement‑not‑supplant, and limits on waivers
The bill expressly preserves employees’ collective bargaining rights but makes clear that bargaining cannot be used to avoid meeting the Act’s wage requirements and that compliance is still required under state labor law. It declares that ESEA section 8401 waiver authority does not apply, and it mandates that federal funds be used to supplement, not supplant, State/local education spending — a standard enforcement point for program integrity and potential state audits.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Paraprofessionals and education support staff — Direct wage floor increases and CPI indexing raise baseline pay and introduce career‑based step progression expectations for full‑ and part‑time staff.
- Part‑time and contracted school employees — The statute explicitly extends minima to part‑time workers and contract staff, reducing the pay gap between directly employed and contracted personnel.
- High‑need LEAs and students — The State application requirement prioritizes faster funding and compliance for districts serving large numbers of low‑income students, which can stabilize staffing and student supports in higher‑poverty schools.
- Professional development providers and credential programs — The bill allows use of funds for personnel preparation and certifications, creating market opportunities for training providers.
- Unions and worker advocacy groups — The law’s wage mandates strengthen bargaining leverage and can improve membership outcomes when implemented.
Who Bears the Cost
- State education agencies — New application, allocation, monitoring, and enforcement responsibilities will increase administrative workload; SEAs may need to reallocate staff or funds to comply.
- Local educational agencies — Districts must adjust budgets to meet new wage floors, potentially reallocating program funds, renegotiating contracts, and handling enhanced payroll costs, even when federal funds are provided.
- Contractors and vendor firms — Entities that supply paraprofessionals or classified staff to districts must raise pay to meet State minima or risk losing contracts, shifting costs to vendors or reducing service capacity.
- State and local taxpayers — While the bill provides federal funds, the supplement‑not‑supplant requirement and practical budgeting shifts could pressure State/local budgets and labor negotiations in ways that have local fiscal impacts.
- Department of Education — The Department must manage large appropriations, administer allotments tied to Title I distributions, distribute technical assistance grants, and monitor compliance, which will require staffing and systems investments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between a federal effort to lift low wages nationwide (using large, ongoing federal funding and administrative levers) and the preservation of local labor market flexibility and collective bargaining processes. The bill solves the problem of low pay by imposing federally conditioned funding and timelines, but doing so constrains contract negotiations, local budget choices, and the practical ability of districts to adapt staffing models — a trade‑off between uniform wage floors and decentralized education governance.
Funding adequacy and sustainability: The bill authorizes a large initial appropriation ($25 billion for FY2026) and ties later increases to CPI growth, but it does not include a formulaic estimate of total nationwide need. States and LEAs must still bridge gaps between federal awards and actual wage costs in many labor markets; the statute’s supplement‑not‑supplant rule can limit States’ flexibility to reassign existing funds to cover residual shortfalls, creating tension between promise and practicality.
Collective bargaining and local control: The Act attempts to thread a needle — it preserves collective bargaining rights while insisting that bargaining cannot be used to avoid compliance. That creates predictable legal and negotiating friction.
Districts with multi‑year contracts, pension structures, or step schedules face complex renegotiations; courts or labor boards may be asked to reconcile conflicts between state labor law, existing contracts, and the new statutory wage floors.
Implementation and enforcement complexity: Requiring States to monitor LEAs and ensure contracted staff meet minima is administratively heavy. The reliance on the Title I Part A allocation ratio to distribute funds across States will push money according to existing formulas that don’t perfectly map to local wage pressures or cost‑of‑living differences.
The statute’s requirement that minima ‘‘increase as experience increases’’ forces States to craft step structures, but offers little federal guidance on acceptable models, creating variance in protections and potential legal challenges over adequacy of State plans.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.