Order Code RL31284
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
K-12 Education: Highlights of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110)
Updated January 10, 2006
Coordinated by Wayne C. Riddle
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

K-12 Education: Highlights of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110)
Summary
On January 8, 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, legislation to extend
and revise the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), was signed into law
as P.L. 107-110 (H.R. 1). This legislation extensively amended and reauthorized
most federal elementary and secondary education aid programs.
Major features of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 include the following:
(a) states are required to implement standards-based assessments in reading and
mathematics for pupils in each of grades 3-8 by the end of the 2005-2006 school
year, and at three grade levels in science by the end of the 2007-2008 school year; (b)
grants are provided to states for assessment development; (c) all states are required
to participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 4th and
8th grade reading and mathematics every second year; (d) states must annually apply
adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards, incorporating a goal of all pupils reaching
a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year, to
each public school, local education agency (LEA), and the state overall; (e) a
sequence of consequences, including public school choice and supplemental services
options, must be implemented for schools and LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards
for two or more consecutive years; (f) ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas have been
modified to increase targeting on high-poverty LEAs and to move Puerto Rico
toward parity with the states; (g) by the end of the 2005-06 school year, all
paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds must have completed at least two years
of higher education or met a “rigorous standard of quality”; (h) several new programs
aimed at improving reading instruction have been initiated; (i) teacher programs have
been consolidated into a state grant authorizing a wide range of activities including
teacher recruitment, professional development, and hiring; (j) states and LEAs
participating in Title I-A must ensure that teachers meet the act’s definition of
“highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year; (k) almost all states and
LEAs are authorized to transfer a portion of the funds they receive among several
programs; (l) federal support of public school choice has been expanded in several
respects; (m) several previous programs have been consolidated into a state grant
supporting integration of technology into K-12 education; (n) the Bilingual and
Emergency Immigrant Education Acts have been consolidated into a single formula
grant, with previous limits on the share of grants for specific instructional approaches
eliminated; and (o) the 21st Century Community Learning Center program has been
converted into a formula grant with increased focus on after-school activities.
Issues regarding implementation of many of these requirements and other
provisions are being considered by the 109th Congress.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Major Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA),
P.L. 107-110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Aggregate Structure and Funding Levels of the NCLBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Assessments, Adequate Yearly Progress Standards, and
Outcome Accountability Under ESEA Title I, Part A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Teacher and Paraprofessional Programs
and Qualification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reading Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Special Flexibility Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Education for Limited English Proficient Pupils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other ESEA Title I Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other ESEA and Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributors to this report include the following Congressional Research Service
specialists and analysts: Richard Apling, Edith Cooper, Paul Irwin, Jeff Kuenzi, Gail
McCallion, Wayne Riddle, David Smole, James Stedman, and Roger Walke.

---

K-12 Education: Highlights of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110)
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), signed into law on January
8, 2002 (H.R. 1, P.L. 107-110), extended and amended the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This report outlines major highlights of the
NCLBA. Only the most basic provisions of this act are briefly described in this
report; other CRS reports provide more specific and substantial analyses of the major
provisions of the NCLBA.1
Major features of the NCLBA include the following: (a) states are required to
implement standards-based assessments in reading and mathematics for pupils in
each of grades 3-8 by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and at three grade levels
in science by the end of the 2007-2008 school year;2 (b) grants are provided to states
for assessment development; (c) all states are required to participate in National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and
mathematics every second year; (d) states must annually apply adequate yearly
progress (AYP) standards, incorporating a goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or
higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year, to each public
school, local education agency (LEA), and the state overall; (e) a sequence of
consequences, including public school choice and supplemental services options,
must be implemented for schools and LEAs that fail to meet AYP standards for two
or more consecutive years; (f) ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas have been
modified to increase targeting on high-poverty LEAs and to move Puerto Rico
toward parity with the states; (g) by the end of the 2005-06 school year, all
paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds must have completed at least two years
of higher education or met a “rigorous standard of quality”; (h) several new programs
aimed at improving reading instruction have been initiated; (i) teacher programs have
been consolidated into a state grant authorizing a wide range of activities including
teacher recruitment, professional development, and hiring; (j) states and LEAs
participating in Title I-A must ensure that teachers meet the act’s definition of
“highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school year; (k) almost all states and
LEAs are authorized to transfer a portion of the funds they receive among several
programs; (l) federal support of public school choice has been expanded in several
respects; (m) several previous programs have been consolidated into a state grant
supporting integration of technology into K-12 education; (n) the Bilingual and
1 For current information on these reports, see [http://www.crs.gov].
2 These requirements are in addition to an ongoing, previous requirement for assessments
in reading and mathematics at three grade levels.

---

CRS-2
Emergency Immigrant Education Acts have been consolidated into a single formula
grant, with previous limits on the share of grants for specific instructional approaches
eliminated; and (o) the 21st Century Community Learning Center program has been
converted into a formula grant with increased focus on after-school activities. Issues
regarding implementation of many of these requirements and other provisions are
being considered by the 109th Congress.
Major provisions that were in the House- or Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1
but were not included in the final legislation include the Senate bill’s provisions for
mandatory funding at specified levels for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part B grants to states, discipline provisions for children with disabilities,
authorization for up to seven states to eliminate a wide range of program
requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil outcomes, and
pest management in schools; and the provisions in both the House- and Senate-
passed versions for aggregate (i.e., not program-specific) performance bonuses or
sanctions, especially for states.
Major features of the NCLBA, as well as brief references to relevant provisions
of previous law, are compared in the following table.3
3 For information on the specific authorizations and appropriations in the NCLBA, see CRS
Report RL31244, K-12 Education Funding: FY2002 Authorizations and Appropriations
for FY2002, and CRS Report RL33058, K-12 Education Programs: Recent Appropriations,
by Paul M. Irwin.

---

CRS-3
Major Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), P.L. 107-110
Aggregate Structure and Funding Levels of the NCLBA
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Structure of the
Prior to the NCLBA amendments, the ESEA
As amended by the NCLBA, the ESEA consists of nine titles and 45
ESEA: number of
consisted of 14 titles. In general, ESEA
authorizations of appropriations. Each authorization is for the period FY2002
programs and titles,
programs were authorized from FY1995 through
through FY2007. For FY2002, 16 out of 45 authorizations were for such sums as
aggregate
FY1999, plus a one-year automatic extension
may be necessary; the remaining 29 authorizations were for specific amounts
authorization and
provided under the General Education
that totaled $26.3 billion. For the period FY2003 through FY2007, all but four
appropriation levels,
Provisions Act (GEPA). In terms of funding,
authorizations are for such sums as may be necessary. The four exceptions have
major consolidations
there were 57 line item appropriations for ESEA
dollar amounts specified for each year — (1) Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs; (2)
and repeals
activities in FY2001, which totaled $18.6
Title IV, Part B 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC); (3) Title V,
billion. In addition, there were 24 ESEA
Part A Innovative Programs; and (4) the Fund for the Improvement of Education
activities previously authorized that were not
(FIE). For K-12 education activities outside of the ESEA, such as Education for
funded in FY2001.
Homeless Children and Youth or certain Indian education activities operated by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the NCLBA includes an additional six
authorizations of appropriations.
—
The FY2002 appropriations enacted by P.L. 107-116 (Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act) included 45 line
items for ESEA activities, for a total ESEA appropriation of $21.9 billion. The
45 ESEA line items did not completely correspond with the 45 authorizations of
appropriations for FY2002. Also, the single line item for the FIE included the
designation of specific appropriations for 15 separate activities, many of which
were funded as separate programs in FY2001.a
—
Major consolidations and reorganizations of ESEA authority under the NCLBA
included (1) Title I of ESEA, as amended by NCLBA, was expanded to include
reading programs, school library programs, and programs providing dropout
assistance; (2) Title II authorizes a broad program of teacher assistance,
consolidating the former Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size
Reduction programs, plus math and science programs, and grants for technology
activities; (3) Title III combines several bilingual education programs and
emergency immigrant education assistance into a single state formula grant; (4)
Title IV authorizes both the 21st CCLC and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act programs (although these are retained as separate programs);

---

CRS-4
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
(5) Title V includes education block grants, charter schools, magnet schools, and
the FIE, which provides authority for 21 specific program-like activities; (6)
Title VI authorizes state assessment grants and rural education programs; and (7)
Title VII authorizes Native American programs, Title VIII remains the Impact
Aid authority, and Title IX contains general provisions.
—
With regard to major repeals, the NCLBA repealed only one K-12 program that
had a sizable appropriation in FY2001 — School Repair and Renovation, first
funded in FY2001 at $1.2 billion. It also repealed a number of previously
unfunded programs, including the former Title XII, the School Facilities
Infrastructure Improvement Act.
Assessments, Adequate Yearly Progress Standards, and Outcome Accountability Under ESEA Title I, Part A
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Assessments
Assessments under ESEA Title I (which were
In addition to previous assessment requirements, all states participating in ESEA
due to be implemented in 2000-2001, although
Title I are required to implement standards-based assessments for pupils in each
only a minority of states met this deadline) were
of grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2005-2006 school
required to be adopted in at least the subjects of
year. States must also develop and implement assessments at three grade levels
mathematics and reading/language arts; be
in science by the end of the 2007-2008 school year.
aligned with state content and pupil performance
—
standards; be administered annually to students
Annual grants to states for assessment development are authorized, and states
in at least one of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12;
could delay administration (but not development) of the expanded assessments
include all pupils in the grades being assessed
(above) one year for each year that minimum amounts are not appropriated for
who have attended schools in the LEA for at
this purpose (the minimum amount has been appropriated for each of FY2002-
least one year; involve multiple approaches;
06).
assess higher order thinking skills; and produce
—
results disaggregated by gender, racial and
Pupils who have been in U.S. schools for at least three years must be tested (for
ethnic groups, English proficiency status,
reading) in English, and states must annually assess the English language
migrant status, disability status, and economic
proficiency of their limited English proficient (LEP) pupils.
disadvantage.
—
Assessments must be of “adequate technical quality for each purpose required
under [this] Act,” and grants are authorized for the development of enhanced
assessments. The Department is to contract with an independent organization for
a study of the assessments and accountability policies used by states to meet

---

CRS-5
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Title I requirements.
All participating states are required to participate in National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics
to be administered every two years, with costs paid by the federal government.
In addition, the statutory provisions authorizing NAEP were amended to enhance
consistency with the NCLBA requirements, and to: provide that pupils in home
schools may not be required to participate in NAEP tests; prohibit the use of
NAEP assessments by agents of the federal government to influence state or
LEA instructional programs or assessments; provide for review of complaints
about NAEP tests; and specify that at least two members of the National
Assessment Governing Board must be parents who are not employed by any
educational agency.
Adequate Yearly
States were to select AYP standards and apply
Previous requirements for state-developed AYP standards have been
Progress (AYP)
these to participating LEAs and schools; there
substantially expanded in scope and specificity. Such standards now have to be
standards
was no requirement for AYP standards for states
applied specifically to economically disadvantaged pupils, limited English
overall. Schools and LEAs could limit the
proficient (LEP) pupils, pupils with disabilities, and pupils in major racial and
application of these standards to the specific
ethnic groups, as well as all pupils, in each public school, LEA, and states
pupils served by Title I. The previous statutory
overall. They have to incorporate a goal of all pupils reaching a proficient or
provisions regarding AYP standards were
advanced level of achievement by the end of the 2013-14 school year.
relatively broad and vague. There was no
—
explicit requirement for a specific focus on any
In general, a “uniform bar” approach must be employed: states are to set a
high need or other pupil group; and no
threshold percentage (of pupils at proficient or advanced levels) each year that is
requirement that the standards incorporate a goal
applicable to all pupil subgroups. The “uniform bar” must generally be
of all pupils reaching a proficient level of
increased once every three years, although in the initial period it must be
achievement by any specific future date. In
increased after two years. The minimum level for the “uniform bar” in the initial
practice, there was wide variation among states
period is to be based on the greater of the percentage (of pupils at proficient or
in the nature and apparent rigor of their
advanced levels) for the lowest-achieving pupil group or the threshold
standards.
percentage for the lowest-performing quintile of schools statewide in the base
year (2001-2002). Averaging of scores over 2-3 years is allowed. Under a “safe
harbor” provision, a school that does not meet the standard AYP requirements
may still be deemed to meet AYP if it experiences a 10% reduction in the gap
between 100% and the base year for pupil groups that fail to meet the “uniform
bar.”
—
For a school to meet AYP standards, 95%+ of relevant pupils must be assessed.

---

CRS-6
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Outcome
States were required to identify LEAs, and LEAs
While participating states are required to establish and apply AYP standards to
accountability under
to identify schools, which failed to meet AYP
all public schools and LEAs, a variety of actions must be taken only with respect
ESEA Title I (see also
standards for 2 consecutive years. Such schools
to public schools and LEAs receiving grants under ESEA Title I-A. Schools that
“School choice”
and LEAs were to receive technical assistance.
fail to meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive years must be identified as needing
below)
After the third year following identification,
improvement; technical assistance is to be provided and public school choice
corrective actions — which may include loss of
must be offered to their pupils by the next school year (unless prohibited by state
funds or reconstitution of school staff — were to
law). LEAs are generally required only to offer public school choice options
be taken. However, most corrective actions
within the same LEA; however, if all public schools in the LEA to which a child
could not be taken until standards and
might transfer have been identified as needing improvement, then LEAs “shall,
assessments were fully implemented, and no
to the extent practicable,” establish cooperative agreements with other LEAs to
specific corrective action need be taken at any
offer expanded public school choice options.
time. States could reserve up to 0.5% of grants
—
for program improvement.
If a school fails to meet the state AYP standard for 3 consecutive years, pupils
from low-income families must be offered the opportunity to receive
States were to identify especially successful
supplemental instructional services from a provider of their choice. States are to
“distinguished schools” and “distinguished
identify and provide lists of approved providers of such supplemental
educators,” were authorized to use Title I funds
instructional services, which might include public or private schools, non-profit
reserved for program improvement to support
organizations, or commercial firms, and monitor the quality of the services they
such schools and educators. LEAs could also
provide. The amount spent per child for supplemental services is to be the lesser
provide nonfinancial rewards to these schools
of the actual cost of the services or the LEA’s Title I-A grant per child counted in
and educators.
the national allocation formula (approximately $1,400 on average for FY2005).
—
The Secretary of Education was authorized to
Transportation must be provided to pupils utilizing the public school choice
reduce administrative funds to states which
option. LEAs are to use up to 20% of their Title I funds for transportation and
failed to establish standards and assessments
supplemental services costs, although the grant to any particular school identified
under ESEA Title I.
for corrective action or restructuring may not be reduced by more than 15%.
LEAs are authorized to use Innovative Programs grants (ESEA Title V-A) to pay
In addition, FY2001 appropriations legislation
additional supplemental services costs. States are also authorized to use funds
required the provision of public school choice
they reserve for program improvement or administration under Title I-A, or
options, within limits, to pupils attending
funds available to them under Title V-A, to pay additional supplemental services
schools identified as needing improvement.
costs. If insufficient funds are available to pay the costs of supplemental
services for all eligible pupils whose families wish to exercise this option, LEAs
may limit services to the lowest-achieving eligible pupils. The requirement to
provide supplemental services may be waived if none of the approved providers
offer such services in or near a LEA.
—
One or more of a specified series of “corrective actions” must be taken with

---

CRS-7
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
respect to schools that fail to meet AYP for 4 consecutive years; these include
replacing relevant school staff, implementing a new curriculum, decreasing
management authority at the school level, appointing an outside expert to advise
the school, extending the school day or year, or changing the internal
organizational structure of the school.
—
Schools that fail to meet AYP standards for 5 consecutive years must be
“restructured” by implementing one or more of the following “alternative
governance” actions: reopening as a charter school, replacing all or most school
staff, state takeover of school operations (if permitted under state law), or other
“major restructuring” of school governance.
—
Procedures analogous to those for schools apply to LEAs that fail to meet AYP
requirements. Both an increased state reservation (rising from 0.5% currently to
4% by FY2004) and a separate authorization of funds are provided for school
improvement grants.
—
ED is required to establish a peer review process to evaluate whether states have
met their statewide AYP goals. States that fail to meet their goals are to be listed
in an annual report to Congress, and technical assistance is to be provided to
states that fail to meet their goals for 2 consecutive years.
—
States are to provide academic achievement awards to schools which
significantly close achievement level gaps among different groups of pupils, or
which exceed AYP standards for 2 or more consecutive years.
School choice
Under the ESEA, states and LEAs were
The ESEA, as amended, provides for increased public school choice
authorized, but not required, to provide the
opportunities by continuing or amending previous grant programs supportive of
option of intradistrict school choice to students
the voluntary provision of school choice (Innovative programs, the Public
attending schools that failed to meet Title I AYP
Charter Schools program, and the Magnet Schools program); and by authorizing
requirements. Under the FY2001 appropriations
discretionary grants under the new Voluntary Public School Choice programs. It
legislation (P.L. 106-554), LEAs were required
also provides for the mandatory provision of public school choice in instances
to offer students attending schools identified for
where schools fail to make AYP toward raising the proportion of students
school improvement intradistrict public school
proficient on state academic assessments. If a school fails to make AYP for 2
choice. Additionally, the ESEA authorized the
consecutive years, students attending that school must be offered the opportunity
use of Title I funds for choice programs limited
to transfer to a successful school in the same LEA; if the school fails for a third
to other Title I schools (although no Title I funds
year, students must continue to be offered school choice and also the opportunity

---

CRS-8
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
could be used for transportation). The ESEA
to receive supplemental or tutorial services. In such instances, the lowest
also authorized grants supportive of school
achieving children from low-income families must receive priority.
choice under the Magnet Schools Assistance,
Transportation must be provided to pupils exercising public school choice
Innovative Education Program Strategies, and
options, and up to 20% of Title I-A funds may be used for such transportation
Public Charter Schools programs.
plus supplemental services. If a LEA fails to make AYP for 4 consecutive years,
the state may require that students attending schools in that LEA be offered the
opportunity to transfer to a successful school in another LEA, with transportation
provided by the sending LEA. Finally, the ESEA now requires students
attending persistently dangerous schools, or who become a victim of violent
crime while at school, to be allowed to transfer to a safe public school.
Reports to parents and
Each school and LEA participating in ESEA
Beginning in the 2002-2003 school year (with a one-year waiver authorized
the public regarding
Title I was to be reviewed annually. When
under exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances), pupil assessment results and
school system
standards and assessment systems were fully
certain other data for individual public schools, LEAs, and states overall must be
performance
implemented, “individual performance profiles”
reported to parents and the public. Report cards must generally include
were to be prepared and disseminated by LEAs
information on pupil performance disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender,
for each participating school. “Statistically
as well as disability, migrant, English proficiency, and economic disadvantage
sound” achievement data, disaggregated by pupil
status. The report cards must also include information on pupil progress toward
gender, race or ethnicity, as well as LEP,
meeting any other educational indicators included in the state’s AYP standards,
migrant, disability, and low-income status, were
plus secondary school student graduation rates, the number and identity of any
to be reported for each school, LEA, and the
schools failing to meet AYP standards, and aggregate information on the
state overall.
qualifications of teachers. The report cards may include additional information,
such as average class size or the incidence of school violence. LEA and school
report cards are to be disseminated to parents of public school pupils and to the
public at large. Preexisting report cards may be modified to meet these
requirements.

---

CRS-9
Teacher and Paraprofessional Programs and Qualification Requirements
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Teacher programs
Federal support was provided through the
ESEA Title II, Part A replaced the Eisenhower and CSR programs with a new
Eisenhower Professional Development (ESEA
state formula grant program. Authorized uses of funds were substantively
Title II) and Class Size Reduction (CSR —
expanded beyond professional development and class size reduction, and include
annual appropriations legislation) programs.
such activities as certification and tenure reform, merit pay, teacher testing, and
The former was a formula grant program
training to integrate technology into the curriculum. National activities are
primarily supporting professional development
separately authorized and include such efforts as national teacher and principal
for K-12 teachers. The latter was a formula
recruitment campaigns, support for advanced certification, professional
grant program principally focused on reducing
development for early childhood educators, and a national panel to study teacher
class sizes through the recruitment and hiring of
mobility. The NCLBA includes new provisions to shield school employees
new teachers.
(including teachers, administrators, and school board members) from legal
liability for actions taken in official capacity to maintain school discipline. In
addition, teacher quality accountability requirements are newly applied under
this legislation (see below).
Teacher and
Previously, the ESEA did not have specific
The NCLBA requires LEAs participating in ESEA Title I, Part A to ensure that,
paraprofessional
requirements regarding teacher quality. Teacher
beginning in the 2002-03 school year, teachers newly hired with Title I, Part A
quality requirements
aides/paraprofessionals hired with ESEA Title I
funds are “highly qualified.” States participating in Title I-A must establish
funds generally had to have earned a high school
plans providing that all public school teachers statewide in core academic
diploma or equivalency within two years of
subjects will meet the bill’s definition of “highly qualified” no later than the end
being hired.
of the 2005-2006 school year. Further, LEAs receiving Title I Part A funds must
have a plan to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-
2006 school year.b
—
Under the NCLBA, each LEA that receives Title I-A funding must ensure that all
aides or paraprofessionals newly hired with Title I-A funds after the date of
enactment of P.L. 107-110 either must have completed at least two years of
higher education, or must have both met a “rigorous standard of quality,” and be
able to show through a state or local academic assessment that they have
knowledge of reading, writing, and math (or reading readiness, writing readiness,
and math readiness) and the ability to help with instruction in these subjects.
Each LEA must also ensure that, by the end of the 2005-06 school year, all
paraprofessionals paid with Title I-A funds have met those same requirements.
These requirements do not apply to paraprofessionals providing translation or
parental involvement services. The NCLBA also delineates the types of
responsibilities Title I-A paraprofessionals can undertake.

---

CRS-10
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Mathematics and
The Eisenhower Professional Development
The NCLBA authorizes a Mathematics and Science Partnership program (ESEA
science education
program (ESEA Title II) had a funding
Title II, Part B). Eligible partnerships that include state educational agencies,
programs
reservation for math and science professional
engineering, math, or science departments of higher education institutions, and
development.
high need LEAs receive funds for various activities, among them: professional
development to improve math and science teachers’ subject knowledge; math
and science summer workshops; recruitment of math, science, or engineering
majors into teaching; development of math and science curricula; and distance
learning programs for math and science teachers.
Reading Programs
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Reading programs
The Reading Excellence Act (REA), authorized
Reading First, authorized in Subpart 1 of ESEA Title I, Part B, replaced the
by Title II, Part C of the ESEA, provided
REA. The Reading First program authorizes both formula grants and targeted
competitive grants to states. Authorized uses of
assistance (competitive) grants to states. For FY2002 and FY2003, 100% of
REA funds included professional training;
funds, after national reservations, were to be allocated as formula grants to states,
providing supplemental reading support to K-3
in proportion to the number of children, aged 5-17, from families with incomes
students who needed extra help learning to read;
below the poverty line. Beginning in FY2004, 10% of funds in excess of the
and supporting family literacy efforts.
FY2003 appropriation, or $90 million, whichever is less, is to be reserved for
targeted assistance state grants. Authorized uses of funds include establishing
scientifically based reading programs for children in grades K-3; providing
reading-related professional training; providing assistance in selecting or
administering screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional reading
assessments; providing assistance in selecting or developing effective
instructional materials; strengthening coordination among schools, early literacy
programs, and family literacy programs.
—
Early Reading First, another new program authorized in Subpart 2 of ESEA Title
I, Part B, is a competitive grant program with awards not to exceed five years.
LEAs eligible for Reading First grants, and public or private organizations
serving preschool-aged children, or combinations thereof, may apply for these
grants. This program funds professional training and provides preschool-aged
children with more exposure to high-quality language and literature-rich
environments.

---

CRS-11
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
School library
Library services and materials was one of
Improving Literacy Through School Libraries, Subpart 4 of ESEA Title I, Part B,
programs
several authorized uses of funds under ESEA
authorizes formula grants to states, in proportion to awards states receive under
Title VI, Part C — Local Innovative Education
ESEA Title I-A, if appropriations exceed $100 million; otherwise the program is
programs.
to operate as a competitive grant from the Secretary of Education to eligible
LEAs. (Through FY2006, grants have been awarded competitively.) Authorized
uses of funds include acquiring up-to-date school library media resources,
including books; acquiring and using advanced technology; facilitating Internet
links and other resource sharing networks among schools and libraries; providing
professional development for school library media specialists; and providing
students with access to school libraries during nonschool hours.
—
In addition, use of funds by LEAs for library services and materials continues to
be one of several authorized activities under Local Innovative Programs, now
contained in ESEA Title V, Part A-3.
Special Flexibility Authorities
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Special flexibility
Ed-Flex (P.L. 106-25) authorized participating
In addition to previous special flexibility authorities, Title VI, Part A-1 of the
provisions
states to waive a wide range of requirements for
revised ESEA allows most LEAs to transfer up to 50% of their grants among four
ESEA and certain other state-administered
programs — Teachers, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and the
programs. ESEA Title I-A schoolwide programs
Innovative Programs Block Grant — or into (but not from) ESEA Title I, Part A.
allowed many requirements under most federal
LEAs that have been identified as failing to meet state AYP requirements are
programs to be waived in schools where 50% or
able to transfer only 30% of their grants under these programs, and only to
more of pupils were from low-income families.
activities intended to address the failure to meet AYP standards. States are
Small, rural LEAs were granted authority to
allowed to transfer up to 50% of their state activity funds among the first four of
combine funds under selected ESEA programs.
these programs plus the 21st CCLC program. Funds that are transferred must be
Finally, the former ESEA Title XIV authorized
used in accordance with all of the requirements of the program to which they are
the Secretary of Education to waive many ESEA
transferred. (Note: The authority for ED to grant Ed-Flex authority to states
requirements on a case-by-case basis.
expired at the end of FY2004.)
—
Under a State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Act (ESEA Title VI, Part A,
Subpart 3), up to seven states, selected on a competitive basis, are authorized to
consolidate all of their state administration and state activity funds under the
Title I-A, Reading First, Even Start, Teachers, Technology, Safe and Drug Free

---

CRS-12
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Schools, 21st CCLC, and Innovative Programs Block Grant programs. The
consolidated funds can be used for any purpose authorized under any ESEA
program. The selected states are to enter into local performance agreements with
4-10 LEAs (at least one-half of which must have school-age child poverty rates
of 20% or more), which may consolidate funds under the provisions of the local
flexibility authority described below. In addition, participating states may
specify the purposes for which all LEAs in the states use funds they receive
under the ESEA Title V-A Innovative Programs block grant. This authority will
be granted for a period of five years; states will lose the authority if they fail to
meet state AYP requirements for 2 consecutive years. (As of December 2005, no
state participates in this “State Flex” program.)
—
Further, up to 80 LEAs (no more than three per state initially), plus the LEAs
that enter into agreements in states participating in the state flexibility
demonstration above, are allowed to consolidate all of their funds under the
Teachers, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative Programs
Block Grant programs, and to use these funds for any purpose authorized under
any ESEA program. The authority is to be granted for a period of five years;
LEAs will lose the authority if they fail to meet state AYP requirements for 2
consecutive years. Under both the state and local flexibility demonstration
programs, several specified types of requirements — including those regarding
civil rights, fiscal accountability, and private school pupil and teacher
participation — may not be waived. (As of December 2005, only 1 LEA
participates in this “Local Flex” program.)
—
The previous federal effort to increase funding and flexibility for small rural
school districts will be continued and expanded to authorize funding for poor
rural school districts (see “Rural education” section, below). The Title I-A
schoolwide program eligibility threshold is reduced to 40%. Finally, the
previous authority for the U.S. Secretary of Education to waive a variety of
ESEA program requirements on a case-by-case basis is extended as Title IX, Part
D.

---

CRS-13
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Rural education
A Rural Education Achievement program was
The ESEA contains a revised Rural Education Achievement program (ESEA
added to the ESEA by FY2001 appropriations
Title VI, Part B) that encompasses two separate programs — the Small, Rural
legislation. This program provided eligible
School Achievement program, and the Rural and Low-Income School program.
LEAs (rural districts with small enrollment) with
The first program is a revised version of the program authorized under prior law.
flexibility in the use of funds they received
The second program, which is new, identifies another set of districts (defined by
under specific ESEA authorities. The program
low-income student population and rural location) and authorizes the allocation
also included a one-year authority (which was
of funds to states based on the enrollment in those districts.
not funded) for separate grants to these LEAs.
Education for Limited English Proficient Pupils
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Education for limited
The ESEA provided competitive grants for the
The BEA and EIEP programs have been consolidated into a single formula grant
English proficient
education of LEP pupils under the Bilingual
program (if appropriations for a given fiscal year reach or exceed $650 million, as
(LEP) pupils
Education Act (BEA) and formula grants for the
has occurred each year beginning with FY2002). Grants are distributed to states
education of recent immigrant pupils under the
based on the enrollment of LEP (80% of funds) and immigrant (20%) students.
Emergency Immigrant Education program
State enrollment estimates for these populations can be taken from either data
(EIEP). The use of BEA funds for non-bilingual
available through the Bureau of the Census or data collected and submitted by
instructional approaches was limited to 25% of
SEAs, whichever the Secretary considers most accurate. No state is to receive a
grants. Additional assistance was authorized
grant less than $500,000 and the grant to Puerto Rico may not exceed 0.5% of the
through Foreign Language Assistance program
total available for state allotments. Continuation awards have been provided to
(FLAP) grants for two-way language programs
past recipients of BEA instructional services and professional development grants.
that provide language instruction to native
A 6.5% set-aside provides additional support for a National Professional
English speakers and LEP pupils.
Development Project and continued funding of the renamed National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction
programs.
—
Within-state distribution of funds is based on the enrollment of LEP students only,
regardless of students’ immigrant status. However, states can reserve up to 15%
for grants to eligible entities — one or more LEAs, or one or more LEAs in
collaboration with an institution of higher education, a community-based
organization, or a SEA — containing schools that have recently experienced large
influxes of immigrant children. SEAs can reserve 5% of funds for state activities
such as professional development, planning, evaluation, administration, and
technical assistance. The minimum grant to an eligible entity (hereafter referred to

---

CRS-14
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
simply as an LEA) is $10,000.
Participating LEAs and SEAs are subject to several accountability provisions and
reporting requirements. At the end of every second fiscal year, LEAs must submit
to their SEA a program evaluation that analyzes the progress made by students in
the program as well as those who have moved out of the program. This evaluation
must report data on the number and proportion of LEP students participating in
these programs and the subsequent academic achievement of past program
participants. SEAs must develop annual measurable achievement objectives that
reflect: (1) the amount of time an individual child has been enrolled in a language
instruction program; (2) annual increases in the number or percentage of children
learning English; and (3) the number or percentage of students receiving waivers
for reading or language arts assessments. Exceptions to these objectives can be
made for LEAs that experience significant increases in the number of LEP and
immigrant children. SEAs that find LEAs failing to meet these objectives for 2
consecutive years must provide the LEA with technical assistance to develop an
improvement plan. LEAs found to be failing for 4 consecutive years can be forced
to modify their language instruction program, have their funds withdrawn, and/or
relevant personnel replaced by the SEA.
—
The FLAP was extended as one of several authorized activities under the Fund for
the Improvement of Education (see below).
Other ESEA Title I Provisions
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Allocation of ESEA
In the allocation of funds to LEAs, the Title I-A
In the allocation of Title I-A funds, the NCLBA provides that an amount equal to
Title I-A funds to
statute authorized four different allocation
the FY2001 appropriation is to be allocated under each of the Basic and
states and LEAs
formulas, and provided that all funds above the
Concentration Grant formulas, and any increases are to be allocated under the
FY1995 level were to be allocated under the
Targeted Grant or EFIG formula. A hold harmless rate of 85%-95% of previous
Targeted or Education Finance Incentive Grant
year grants (the higher a LEA’s child poverty rate, the higher is the hold harmless
(EFIG) formulas. However, until FY2002,
percentage), previously applicable only to Basic and Targeted Grants, now applies
appropriations acts prevented any funds from
to each of the four Part A allocation formulas. In particular, the Concentration
being used for these two formulas and, in
Grant hold harmless provision applies to all LEAs, not just those which currently
practice, all funds were allocated under the
meet the eligibility criteria for this formula, except that if a LEA fails to meet such

---

CRS-15
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Basic (84% of funds in FY2001) and
criteria for 4 successive years, then the hold harmless will no longer apply.
Concentration (16% of funds) Grant formulas.
The relative share of funds allocated to Puerto Rico will increase over time as a
result of two amendments: (a) the minimum expenditure factor for Puerto Rico
will be increased in stages to full parity with the minimum applicable to states by
FY2007 (in FY2001 it was approximately 75% of the minimum for states); and (b)
a cap on Targeted Grants to Puerto Rico is marginally raised.
—
State minimum grants are increased from up to 0.25% under current law to up to
0.35%, but only with respect to appropriated funds above the FY2001 level. The
NCLBA provides for the use of population data on school-age children in poor
families that is updated annually, rather than, as previously, every second year
(annual updates were applied beginning with FY2004).
—
Major changes were made to the EFIG formula. First, in the allocation of funds to
states, the population factor was changed from total school-age children to the same
count of poor and other children used to calculate Basic Grants. Second, the state
expenditure factor used in the other three Part A formulas is included in the EFIG
formula, although with somewhat more narrow bounds (85% and 115% of the
national average rather than 80% and 120%). Third, the EFIG formula now has a
distinct intrastate allocation formula, which is based in concept on the Targeted
Grant formula except that the degree of targeting will vary in three stages based on
a measure of disparities in spending per pupil among each state’s LEAs (the greater
the disparities, the greater is the degree of required targeting within states).
Title I migrant
The ESEA Title I Migrant Education program
The MEP remains largely unchanged. As with Title I-A grants, the minimum
programs
(MEP) has provided formula grants to SEAs for
expenditure factor for Puerto Rico is being increased in stages, but for this program
the development of programs targeted to migrant
only to 85% of the minimum applicable to states (in FY2001 it was approximately
students. Grants have been distributed based on
75% of the minimum for states).
each states’ share of migratory children enrolled
in school multiplied by a state expenditure
factor.
Under the MEP, a migratory child has been
defined as a person between the ages of 3 and 21
who is, or whose parent or spouse is, a migratory
agricultural or dairy worker and who has moved

---

CRS-16
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
from one school district (or administrative area)
to another to obtain temporary or seasonal
employment in the past 36 months. Children
who travel more than 20 miles within a school
district with land area larger than 15,000 square
miles to engage in seasonal fishing activity may
also qualify as migratory students. The
enrollment estimates used in the formula were
based on the number of full-time students and
the full-time equivalent number of part-time
students, as determined by the most accurate
information available to the U.S. Secretary of
Education.
Title I neglected and
The ESEA Title I neglected and delinquent
The N&D program remains largely unchanged. As with Title I-A grants, the
delinquent programs
(N&D) program has provided grants to SEAs
minimum expenditure factor for Puerto Rico is being increased in stages, but for
(Subpart 1) and LEAs (Subpart 2) for
this program only to 85% of the minimum applicable to states (in FY2001 it was
educational and related services to neglected and
approximately 75% of the minimum for states). The Secretary is authorized to
delinquent children and youth. Formula grants
reserve up to 2.5% of Subpart 1 funds for technical assistance and development of
have been based on the number of neglected and
techniques to evaluate program effectiveness.
delinquent children and youth in the state and a
state expenditure factor. Local program funds
may be distributed on either a formula or
competitive basis to LEAs with concentrations
of eligible children and youth. Local programs
may serve not only youth in institutions for the
delinquent or community day programs, but also
youth at-risk of dropping out of school.
Comprehensive
The Comprehensive School Reform program
The CSRP is explicitly authorized, with relatively few substantial changes, as
School Reform
(CSRP) has provided grants to public elementary
ESEA Title I, Part F. (While only the former ESEA Title I portion of the program
program
or secondary schools, to help pay the initial costs
is explicitly authorized under the NCLBA, P.L. 107-116 provided an additional $75
of implementing comprehensive strategies for
million appropriation for FY2002 for CSRP grants as formerly made under ESEA
educational reform. The CSRP was linked to
Title X-A.)
authorizations in Title I, Section 1502, and Title
—
X, Part A, of the ESEA, although most of the
There is no longer any explicit reference to specific school reform models;
provisions governing the program were included
however, several characteristics which eligible comprehensive school reform

---

CRS-17
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
in the FY1998 Department of Education
models must exhibit are described (e.g., “provides high quality and continuous
Appropriations Act. The FY1998 appropriations
teacher and staff professional development”). A priority is placed on assisting
legislation listed specific educational strategies
schools that have failed to meet AYP standards under Title I-A. Assisted school
which schools might seek CSRP grants to
reforms must be based on “scientifically based research and effective practices.”
implement, although applicants could propose
Up to 3% of appropriations may be reserved for national quality initiatives,
alternative strategies, including locally
including public-private efforts to help states, LEAs, and schools make informed
developed programs, which met specified
decisions in evaluating and selecting comprehensive school reforms.
general criteria.
CSRP grants were allocated by formula to SEAs,
which then selected grantee LEAs and schools
on a competitive basis. Funds for the Title I
portion of the CSRP were allocated to states in
proportion to their Title I-A Basic Grants, while
the Title X-A portion was allocated to states in
proportion to their population aged 5-17. SEAs
could use up to 5% of grants for administration,
evaluation, and technical assistance. Grants to
individual schools were to be at least $50,000
per year, renewable for up to three years.
Schools participating in the CSRP have been
supported by a series of technical assistance
providers, and also have received technical
support from organizations which develop and
disseminate the instructional programs they
adopt.
Dropout programs
The previous Title V, Part C of the ESEA
The Dropout Prevention program, ESEA Title I-H, authorizes grants to SEAs and
authorized grants to LEAs and educational
LEAs for activities that help prevent school dropout and encourage reentry. The
partnerships for dropout prevention activities.
procedures for allocating funds vary depending on the annual appropriation level.
However, no funding had been provided for this
If appropriations are below $75 million (as has been the case for each of FY2002-
or predecessor authority since FY1995.
06), grants are awarded competitively to SEAs and LEAs directly by ED. If
appropriations exceed $75 million but are below $250 million, ED would make
competitive grants to SEAs, which would then make competitive subgrants to
LEAs. Finally, if appropriations exceed $250 million, grants would be made by
formula to states (in proportion to Title I-A grants), with competitive subgrants to
LEAs. The program targets grants to schools that serve grades 6-12 and have

---

CRS-18
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
annual dropout rates that are above the state average as well as middle schools that
feed students into such high dropout high schools. In addition, 10% of
appropriations for Part H are to be used at the national level for such activities as
evaluation, technical assistance, and establishment of a national clearinghouse on
effective practices.
Other ESEA and Related Programs
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
21st CCLC/After-
This program was originally authorized as Part I
The program was reauthorized in ESEA Title IV, Part B. The reauthorized
school programs
of Title X of the ESEA. The 21st CCLC
program is structured as a formula grant program to states, in proportion to the
provided competitive grants to LEAs for
awards states received under Title I-A for the preceding fiscal year. SEAs must
academic and other after-school programs.
award at least 95% of their state allotment to eligible local entities (defined as
Local grantees were selected directly by ED.
LEAs, CBOs, other public or private entities, or consortia of one or more of the
Grant recipients could receive an award for up to
above) for a period of three to five years. This is a change from the program as
three years and were required to include at least
originally authorized, which only permitted schools or consortia of schools (or
four out of a broad array of potential activities to
LEAs operating on their behalf), to be directly awarded 21st CCLC grants. Funds
serve the local community.
may be used for before and after school activities that advance student academic
achievement.
Educational
ESEA Title III authorized a state formula grant
The Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 (ESEA Title II, Part
technology
(Technology Literacy Challenge Fund) plus
D) consolidated several technology programs authorized under prior law,
several competitive/discretionary grant
including the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants and the Technology
programs (e.g., Technology Innovation
Literacy Challenge Fund. This new authority awards funds by formula to states
Challenge Grants) to expand access to, and
and, in turn, to LEAs and eligible local entities (half of these funds are to be
effective use of, educational technology.
awarded to LEAs by formula). At least 25% of an LEA’s funding must be used
for professional development in the integration of advanced technologies into
curricula and instruction. Other authorized activities for LEAs include increasing
access to technology; using technology to connect schools and teachers with
parents and students; preparing teachers to serve as technology leaders in their
schools; and acquiring, expanding, implementing, repairing, and maintaining
technology. State activities include distance learning, public-private initiatives
for technology acquisition, and development of performance measurements to
determine effectiveness of educational technology programs.

---

CRS-19
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Among the other technology provisions authorized in the NCLBA are the
following: continuation of a separate authorization for the Ready-to-Learn
Television program; inclusion of the Star Schools program, Ready to Teach
program (formerly Mathline), and the Community Technology Centers in the
Fund for the Improvement of Education (see below); and transfer of the Preparing
Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology to the Higher Education Act.
School safety
ESEA Title IV authorized state formula grants
The NCLBA amended and extended the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
and competitive grants for school safety and
Communities Act (SDFSCA) as Part A of Title IV — 21st Century Schools. State
anti-drug abuse programs.
and local grants are funded for programs to prevent student violence in and
around schools and the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. After funds
reserved for outlying areas, Indian youth, and native Hawaiian youth are
distributed, the remaining funds are distributed to the states by a formula of 50%
based on school-age population and 50% based on ESEA Title I-A Concentration
Grants for the preceding fiscal year. National programs are authorized to continue
aid to recruit, hire, and train drug prevention and school safety program
coordinators in schools with notable drug and violence problems. Up to $2
million is to be reserved for evaluating the national impact of the program, and
funds are authorized to continue the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative,
which is jointly funded with the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and the Department of Justice. Grants are permitted for LEAs and
community-based groups to assist localities most directly affected by hate crimes.
—
Funding for several new activities is authorized under national programs, such as:
establishing a national center for school safety to be jointly supported by ED and
the Department of Justice for emergency responses, school hotlines, consultations,
and other school safety activities; providing competitive grants enabling LEAs to
develop and implement programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools;
and awarding grants to eligible entities to assist in creating and supporting
mentoring programs for children with greatest need.
—
Statutory provisions of the Gun Free Schools Act are incorporated into the
SDFSCA requiring states to have a law to expel for one year any student bringing
a weapon to school. In another provision of the NCLBA, a student who attends a
persistently dangerous public elementary or secondary school (as determined by a
state in consultation with the relevant LEA) or who becomes a victim of a violent
crime (determined by state law) while on school property is allowed to transfer to

---

CRS-20
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
a safe school, including a public charter school, within the same local school
district.
Impact Aid
Impact Aid (ESEA Title VIII) compensates
Unlike most other ESEA programs, Impact Aid had been revised and reauthorized
LEAs for the “substantial and continuing
during the 106th Congress (i.e., previous to the NCLBA) by Title XVIII (the
financial burden” resulting from federal
Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000) of P.L. 106-398 (Floyd D. Spence
activities. These activities include federal
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001). P.L. 107-110 made
ownership of certain lands as well as the
technical changes in sections dealing with federal lands, basic support payments,
enrollment in LEAs of children of parents who
and state equalization. In addition, the act modified provisions dealing with
work and/or live on federal land; for example,
grants to address facilities emergencies and modernization needs (under Section
children of parents in the military and children
8007(b) — discussed below). Finally P.L. 107-110 authorized the act through
living on Indian lands.
FY2007.c
—
Section 8007(b) authorized facilities
Section 8007(b) was significantly modified to authorize: (a) emergency, and (b)
modernization grants from 60% of funds
modernization grants from 60% of funds provided for Section 8007 to qualifying
provided for Section 8007. Eligible LEAs had
LEAs (and under certain circumstances to individual schools) and sets out
to have little or no capacity to issue bonds or be
priorities for such grants as follows: First, emergency grants for LEAs with “a
defined as a ‘heavily impacted’ LEA under
school facility emergency ... that poses a health or safety hazard,” that are eligible
Section 8003(b)(2), and had to qualify for funds
for construction grant assistance under Section 8007(a), and that either have “no
under Section 8002 (related to payments for
practical capacity to issue bonds,” have “minimal capacity,” or qualify for
federal ownership of land) — i.e., those with
payments for certain heavily impacted LEAs. Second, emergency grants for
assessed property value per student below the
LEAs with somewhat more borrowing authority and somewhat less federal impact
state average, or having children living on
(i.e., at least either 40% of enrollment composed of children living on Indian
Indian land or children of military parents
lands or children of parents in the military). Third, modernization grants for
comprising at least 50% of their total
LEAs that receive Impact Aid assistance and meet either the “no capacity,”or
enrollment, and having a school facility
“limited capacity” criterion or receive heavily impacted payments and have
emergency.
“facility needs resulting from the presence of the Federal Government, such as the
enrollment of federally connected children, the presence of tax-exempt Federal
property, or an increase in enrollment due to the expansion of Federal activities,
housing privatization, or the acquisition of Federal property.” And fourth,
modernization grants for LEAs meeting the same criteria as those under the
second priority for emergency grants (above). In addition to these eligibility
requirements, a grant must be matched by local contributions and must not exceed
$4 million during any four-year period. Certain uses of grant funds are
prohibited; for example, for athletic facilities.

---

CRS-21
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Innovative programs
Prior to the NCLBA, the Innovative Education
As amended by NCLBA, ESEA Title IV, Part A, authorizes the Innovative
(block grant)
Program Strategies program was authorized
Programs program, which is informally referred to as the “Education Block
under ESEA Title VI, with many provisions
Grant.” Program purposes include support of educational reform, implementation
similar to the new Innovative Programs
of reform and improvement programs based on scientifically based research,
authority. Formula grants were allocated to
support of educational innovation and improvement, assistance to meet the
states, based on total population aged 5-17,
educational needs of all students, and assistance to improve educational
except that no state received less than one-half
performance.
of 1% of the total. At least 85% of the state
—
grant was required to be distributed to LEAs,
The formula for allocating funds to states, and the provisions for state-developed
using formulas developed by the states which
formulas for allocation to LEAs, were essentially unchanged from previous law.
incorporated specified general factors. The
Each state must allocate at least 85% of its grant to LEAs, except that each state
maximum state administration allocation was
must distribute to LEAs 100% of any amount received in excess of its FY2002
25% of the 15% state-level reservation. LEA
state grant. Remaining funds may be used at the state level to meet the purposes
uses of funds were limited to nine targeted
of this program, except no more than 15% of the remaining funds may be used for
assistance activities.
state administration.
—
LEAs must use their grants to meet locally determined educational needs, as
selected from a list of 27 innovative education assistance activities specifically
authorized under the program. LEA spending must be tied to high academic
achievement standards. Students enrolled in private schools are eligible to
participate in the benefits of this program on an equitable basis. State applications
must provide for, among other requirements, an annual report summarizing
student achievement improvement.
Technical assistance
Provision of technical assistance to SEAs, LEAs,
Several programs formerly authorized by the ESEA were transferred by the
and schools by Comprehensive Regional
NCLBA (without major amendment) to the Educational Research, Development,
Assistance Centers, a National Diffusion
Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 (ERDDIA — Title IX of the P.L.
Network, Eisenhower Regional Mathematics
103-227). These included Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers (Part K of
and Science Education Consortia, and
ERDDIA); National Diffusion Network (Part L); Eisenhower Regional
Technology-Based Technical Assistance
Mathematics and Science Education Consortia (Part M); and Technology-Based
providers was authorized under ESEA Title
Technical Assistance (Part N). A new Part J of ERDDIA, Certain Multiyear
XIII, Parts A through D. Technology-Based
Grants and Contracts, authorized the Secretary to continue funding for
Technical Assistance was not a grant program;
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers and Eisenhower Regional
rather, it authorized the Secretary to support the
Mathematics and Science Education Consortia, as well as the Regional
administration and implementation of ESEA.
Technology in Education Consortia (formerly Section 3141 of ESEA, but not
The other three programs authorized
extended by NCLBA). To continue funding under Part J, these programs must
discretionary grants, and two of these programs
have been funded through multiyear grants and contracts that were in effect the

---

CRS-22
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
were funded in FY2001 — $28 million for
day before the enactment of the NCLBA. Authority was extended on a year-to-
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers,
year basis after the multiyear grants and contracts have expired. Unlike the
and $15 million for Eisenhower Regional
six-year authorizations for ESEA programs, ERDDIA Part J authorized such sums
Mathematics and Science Education Consortia.
as may be necessary for each year, indefinitely.
In addition, the Regional Technology in
Education Consortia program was funded at $10
million in FY2001. The National Diffusion
Network had not been funded since FY1995.
Education for Indians,
Title IX of the ESEA authorized formula grants
In reauthorizing Title IX of ESEA, the NCLBA redesignates it as Title VII,
Alaska Natives, and
for supplemental education programs to LEAs
creates a demonstration program allowing LEAs and BIA-funded schools
Native Hawaiians
and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded
receiving formula grants to integrate those funds with other federal funds they
schools, as well as discretionary grants to Native
receive for Indian children, and consolidates the Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native,
Hawaiian and Alaska Native educational
and several additional Indian programs into fewer programs.
organizations, and to a wider range of entities
—
for educational improvement for Indian children
The NCLBA reauthorized P.L. 95-561 and P.L. 100-297, amending the former act
and adults. The Education Amendments of 1978
to create a new accountability provision for BIA-funded schools, requiring that
(P.L. 95-561), Title XI, Part B, authorizes
each school be accredited (or be a candidate for accreditation) within two years,
standards, distribution formulas, administrative
and setting various corrective actions the Secretary of the Interior may take for
grants, and other programs for BIA-funded
schools that are still unaccredited after that time. Accreditation may be by tribal
schools. The Tribally Controlled Schools Act of
as well as regional or state accrediting agencies, as long as the tribal accreditation
1988 (P.L. 100-297) authorizes tribes and tribal
is acknowledged by a state or regional agency. The amendments also
school boards operating BIA-funded schools to
consolidated support services in the BIA education office, increase tribal
receive BIA grants, instead of contracts, for
influence in various matters, and require reports to Congress on BIA school
educational operations.
construction needs.
Education for
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,
The NCLBA extends the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program,
Homeless Children
P.L. 100-77 as amended (McKinney-Vento),
leaving most of the major provisions of the program in place. In particular, the
and Youth
authorized the Education for Homeless Children
key program policy states that “homelessness alone is not sufficient reason to
and Youth program under Subtitle B of Title
separate students from the mainstream school environment.” The state grant
VII. Formula grants were made to states in
formula is based on allocations made under ESEA Title I, Part A grants to LEAs,
proportion to ESEA Title I-A grants to LEAs.
except that no state shall receive less than the greater of (a) $150,000; (b) one-
States were required to use funds according to a
fourth of 1% of the total appropriation; and (c) the amount the state received in
state plan to ensure that homeless children and
FY2001. Each state must allocate at least 75% of its grant to LEAs, except that it
youth have access to a free, appropriate
can retain up to 50% if it is funded at the minimum state grant level.
education equal to that provided to other

---

CRS-23
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
children, and to remove existing barriers to
With certain exceptions for health and safety emergencies, states are prohibited
enrollment and educational services for
from using funds for either a separate school or separate program within a school.
homeless children and youth.
However, a “grandfather” clause allows the continuation of funding for separate
schools that were in operation in FY2000 in four specified counties — San
The previous program discouraged but did not
Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego Counties in California, and Maricopa County in
prohibit the use of funds for separate schools or
Arizona. States and LEAs must assure that homeless children and youth,
programs for the homeless. The statement of
including unaccompanied youth, can enroll and obtain services comparable to
policy said that “... homelessness alone should
those provided other children and youth.
not be a sufficient reason to separate students
from the mainstream school environment ...”
LEAs were required to use funds to provide
services to homeless children and youth
comparable to services provided to other
children, and, “to the maximum extent possible,”
through existing programs and mechanisms that
integrate homeless and nonhomeless students.
States were required to distribute at least 95% of
their grants to LEAs, except that they could
retain at the state level up to 100% of the
amount they received under the program in
FY1990.
Fund for
ESEA Title X-A authorized both grants for a
The FIE is reauthorized as ESEA Title V, Part D. This Part retains a broad
Improvement of
wide variety of “nationally significant”
authority for grants at the Secretary’s discretion, as well as specific authority for
Education (FIE)
educational activities, to be selected at the
support of specific educational activities in 21 Subparts, all under a single
discretion of the U.S. Secretary of Education,
authorization of appropriations.
and grants for a number of specifically
authorized educational programs, such as an
elementary school counseling demonstration
program and a partnerships in character
education pilot project. In addition, a number of
grants for K-12 education activities beyond
those mentioned in ESEA Title X-A have been
funded under this broad authority in annual
appropriations acts.

---

CRS-24
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Prohibitions against
Both the previous version of the ESEA and
In addition to previous prohibitions against federal control of K-12 education, the
federal control
several other statutes — particularly the
NCLBA: (a) states that the federal government may not “mandate, direct, or
Department of Education Organization Act
control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of
(DEOA) and the General Education Provisions
instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any
Act (GEPA) — have prohibited federal control
subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this
of numerous aspects of K-12 education policy.d
Act;” (b) provides that ED may not “endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum
designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school”; (c) provides
that no state “shall be required to have academic content or student academic
achievement standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order
to receive assistance under” the ESEA; (d) prohibits the use of any ESEA funds to
“develop, pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute any federally
sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject, unless
specifically and explicitly authorized by law”; (e) prohibits the use of any ESEA
funds for any “purpose relating to a mandatory nationwide test or certification of
teachers or education paraprofessionals, including any planning, development,
implementation, or administration of such test or certification,” and prohibits ED
from “withholding funds from any State educational agency or local educational
agency if the State educational agency or local educational agency fails to adopt a
specific method of teacher or paraprofessional certification”; and (f) prohibits the
“development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on
individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this Act” (other
than the database on migrant children and youth authorized under the Migrant
Education program, ESEA Title I-C).
Miscellaneous
Not applicable
P.L. 107-110 prohibits the provision of Department of Education financial
provisions
assistance to any state or local educational agency or school which “has a
designated open forum or a limited public forum,” and which discriminates
against the Boy Scouts of America, or “any other youth group listed in Title 36 of
the United States Code (as a patriotic society),” in providing equal access to
school premises or facilities. At the same time, grantee agencies are not required
to sponsor Boy Scout troops or other organizations affected by this provision.
—
LEAs receiving ESEA grants must provide to armed services recruiters the same
access to secondary school students as provided to postsecondary educational
institutions and prospective employers.

---

CRS-25
Provision
Previous law
No Child Left Behind Act
Selected major
Not applicable
From the Senate-passed version: Mandatory funding at specified levels for
provisions of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grants to states;
House- or Senate-
discipline provisions for children with disabilities; authorization for up to seven
passed versions of
states to eliminate a wide range of program requirements in return for increased
H.R. 1 that were not
accountability in terms of pupil outcomes; and requirements regarding pest
included in the final
management in schools.
legislation
—
From both the House- and Senate-passed versions: Major performance bonuses
or sanctions for states.
a For the FY2002 amounts specifically authorized for each NCLBA activity, and the FY2002 appropriations for ESEA activities, please see CRS Report RL31244, K-12 Education
Funding: Authorizations and Appropriations for FY2002, by Paul Irwin. For more current information on NCLBA authorizations and appropriations, see CRS Report RL33058, K-12
Education Programs: Recent Appropriations, by Paul M. Irwin.
b The definition of “highly qualified” is delineated in CRS Report RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and Legislative Action, by James B. Stedman.
c For further information on the results of the 2000 reauthorization, the provisions regarding Impact Aid in P.L. 107-110, and an overview of the program, see CRS Report RL30075
Impact Aid: Status and Overview of 2000 Reauthorization and 2001 Amendments, by Richard N. Apling.
d Both the DEOA and other legislation have placed explicit limits on federal control or influence. The DEOA provides that:
Section 103 ... The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility
for education which is reserved to the States and local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.
(b) No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer
to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school or school
system, over any accrediting agency or association or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational
institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.
Almost identical provisions are contained in the GEPA. Further, parallel language prohibiting federal control of education systems was adopted in the Improving America’s Schools
Act (IASA, P.L. 103-382), the most recent legislation which comprehensively amended and extended the ESEA before enactment of the NCLBA. That version of the ESEA, now
replaced by the NCLBA, stated that nothing in the ESEA shall be construed to authorize the federal government to “mandate, direct, or control” a state or LEA’s curriculum or allocation
of state and local resources, or to incur any costs not paid for by aid under ESEA programs.
All of these provisions remain in effect after enactment of the NCLBA (including the previous ESEA provision, which is continued in the revised Act).

---