Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act:
Comparison to Current Law
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Erin D. Lomax
Analyst in Education Policy
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
August 3, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41355
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Summary
On March 13, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released A Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (hereafter referred to as the
Blueprint). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I-A
program for Education for the Disadvantaged, is the primary source of federal aid to K-12
education. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended
and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110).
The Blueprint indicates that it builds on reforms already being implemented, which are supported
through funding initiatives that were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5). The Blueprint outlines five areas of key priorities:
1. College- and Career-Ready Students includes a focus on improving standards for
all students, supporting the development of better assessments, and providing
students with a well-rounded education.
2. Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School focuses on effective teachers and
principals, the distribution of effective teachers and leaders, and teacher and
leader preparation and recruitment.
3. Equity and Opportunity for All Students includes a focus on rigorous and fair
accountability, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and resource equity.
4. Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence focuses on achieving these goals through
continuing Race to the Top, supporting public school choice, and promoting a
“culture of career readiness and success.”
5. Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement includes a focus on “fostering
innovation and accelerating success,” supporting local innovations, and
supporting student success.
This report examines ED’s ESEA reauthorization proposal and, where appropriate, draws
comparisons between the proposal and current law. The report is organized around the broad
themes used to organize the detailed discussion of ED’s reauthorization proposal, beginning with
College- and Career-Ready Students and ending with Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities.
Comparisons between the proposal and the ESEA are drawn only for proposals included in the
Blueprint. As this report mirrors the Blueprint discussion, it in many ways also reflects the level
of detail provided by ED on any given element in the Blueprint. In general, the discussions in this
report of the individual elements of the proposal vary substantially in length and detail depending
on the amount of detail ED provided about a particular element in the Blueprint. In some
instances, other relevant data sources, such as the FY2011 budget request, were used to provide
additional information and analysis of a particular part of the proposal.
The analysis of the Blueprint is followed by several tables. These tables present information on
the similarities and differences between key proposals included in the Blueprint and current law;
the consolidation of programs proposed by the Administration’s FY2011 budget request; the
funding for ESEA programs not subject to consolidation under the FY2011 budget request; and
ESEA programs slated for elimination under the FY2011 budget request.
This report will be updated as warranted by legislative action or the provision of additional
information about ED’s proposals for reauthorization of the ESEA.
Congressional Research Service
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
I. Standards, Assessments, and Accountability ............................................................................. 3
College- and Career-Ready Students ........................................................................................... 4
College- and Career-Ready Students ..................................................................................... 4
Rigorous College- and Career-Ready Standards............................................................... 4
Rigorous and Fair Accountability and Support at Every Level ......................................... 6
Measuring and Supporting Schools, Districts, and States ................................................. 8
Building Capacity for Support at Every Level ............................................................... 14
Fostering Comparability and Equity .............................................................................. 15
Assessing Achievement....................................................................................................... 16
School Turnaround Grants................................................................................................... 18
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 20
II. Teachers ............................................................................................................................... 21
Great Teachers and Great Leaders ............................................................................................. 21
Effective Teachers and Leaders ........................................................................................... 22
Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders................................................................... 23
Measuring Success........................................................................................................ 24
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund................................................................................... 25
Teacher and Leader Pathways ............................................................................................. 25
Teacher Pathways.......................................................................................................... 26
Transformational Leaders.............................................................................................. 26
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 27
III. Supporting Diverse Learners............................................................................................... 27
Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners .......................................... 28
Students with Disabilities .................................................................................................... 28
English Learner Education .................................................................................................. 28
Migrant Education .............................................................................................................. 30
Homeless Children and Youths Education ........................................................................... 30
Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education .................................................... 31
Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education ....................................................... 32
Rural Education .................................................................................................................. 32
Impact Aid .......................................................................................................................... 33
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 34
IV. Content Area Instructional Programs ................................................................................... 34
A Complete Education .............................................................................................................. 34
Literacy .............................................................................................................................. 34
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) ............................................. 36
Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education ................................................................................... 37
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning ....................................................................... 37
Activities to Strengthen a Complete Education .................................................................... 38
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 39
V. Supporting the Whole Child................................................................................................... 39
Supporting Student Success....................................................................................................... 39
Congressional Research Service
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Promise Neighborhoods ...................................................................................................... 40
21st Century Community Learning Centers.......................................................................... 40
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students................................................................................ 41
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 42
VI. Competition, Innovation, and Choice................................................................................... 42
Fostering Innovation and Excellence ......................................................................................... 43
Race to the Top ................................................................................................................... 43
Investing in Innovation ....................................................................................................... 44
Expanding Educational Options .......................................................................................... 45
Supporting Effective Charter Schools ............................................................................ 46
Promoting Public School Choice ................................................................................... 47
Magnet Schools Assistance Program ............................................................................. 48
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 49
VII. ED’s Priorities Across ESEA Programs .............................................................................. 49
Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities ........................................................................................... 49
Flexibility for Success......................................................................................................... 50
Growing Success................................................................................................................. 50
Evaluation and Building the Knowledge Base ..................................................................... 51
Cross-Cutting Priorities....................................................................................................... 51
Technology ................................................................................................................... 52
Evidence ....................................................................................................................... 52
Efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 53
Supporting English Learners and Students with Disabilities........................................... 53
Supporting Rural and Other High-Need Areas ............................................................... 54
Summary of Key Provisions................................................................................................. 54
Tables
Table A-1. Alignment Between Stated Priorities in the Blueprint and
Discussion of These Priorities ................................................................................................ 55
Table A-2. Comparison of Key Provisions Under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and the U.S. Department of Education’s
Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization....................................................................................... 57
Table A-3. Programs Subject to Consolidation Under the Administration’s FY2011
Budget Request...................................................................................................................... 69
Table A-4. Programs Not Subject to Consolidation or Elimination Under the
Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request .............................................................................. 73
Table A-5. ESEA Programs Slated for Elimination Under the
Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request .............................................................................. 74
Appendixes
Appendix. Tables ...................................................................................................................... 55
Congressional Research Service
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 75
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 75
Congressional Research Service
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Introduction
On March 13, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released A Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (hereafter referred to as the
Blueprint). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), particularly its Title I-A
program for Education for the Disadvantaged, is the primary source of federal aid to K-12
education. The ESEA was initially enacted in 1965 (P.L. 89-10), and was most recently amended
and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110),1 which
authorized virtually all ESEA programs through FY2008.2
The Blueprint indicates that it builds on reforms already being implemented, which are being
supported through funding initiatives included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5). The ARRA created three sources of federal funding that have, in part,
shaped ED’s Blueprint for reauthorization: the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top
Program (RTTT), and the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
provided funding to states when many were experiencing budgetary shortfalls to help increase
state support for elementary and secondary education and public institutions of higher education
(IHEs). From the $53.6 billion made available under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, $5
billion was reserved for the Secretary of Education to implement three competitive grant
programs: RTTT, the RTTT Assessment Program, and i3.3 These programs are particularly
relevant to some of the priorities identified in the Blueprint.
The Blueprint outlines five key priorities:
1. College- and Career-Ready Students includes a focus on improving standards for
all students, supporting the development of better assessments, and providing
students with a well-rounded education.
2. Great Teachers and Leaders in Every School focuses on effective teachers and
principals, the distribution of effective teachers and leaders, and teacher and
leader preparation and recruitment.
3. Equity and Opportunity for All Students includes a focus on rigorous and fair
accountability, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and resource equity.
4. Raise the Bar and Reward Excellence focuses on achieving these goals through
continuing RTTT, supporting public school choice, and promoting a “culture of
career readiness and success.”
5. Promote Innovation and Continuous Improvement includes a focus on “fostering
innovation and accelerating success,” supporting local innovations, and
supporting student success.
1 The Blueprint does not propose a title for an eventual reauthorization bill.
2 The NCLB authorized most ESEA programs through FY2007. The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
provided an automatic one-year extension of these programs through FY2008. While most ESEA programs no longer
have an explicit authorization, the programs continue to receive annual appropriations. Thus, the programs are
considered to be implicitly authorized.
3 For more information on programs funded by ARRA, see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/
programs.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
These five priorities and their associated foci are discussed in greater detail in the Blueprint.
However, within the Blueprint, the topics highlighted under each of the priorities are not
consistently discussed in the same order as the priorities, nor are they consistently discussed
under broad headings that necessarily match the priorities under which they are initially
discussed. Thus, Table A-1 in this report provides a crosswalk between ED’s priorities that are
briefly discussed at the beginning of the Blueprint and a more detailed discussion of the specific
elements of ED’s reauthorization proposal.
It is often the case that when Administrations release an overview document outlining plans for
reauthorizing major legislation, the approach is thematic in nature. The Blueprint is a document
that generally addresses themes and priorities, and details associated with the design of new
strategies, programs, and provisions are provided in varying levels of depth, and sometimes not at
all. The Blueprint has received considerable attention and some regard it as a starting point for
ESEA reauthorization discussions. This report has been prepared in response to considerable
congressional demand for a document that helps map the proposals in the Blueprint against the
ESEA. In preparing this document, we have relied heavily on the Blueprint itself, and in some
instances have drawn on other sources, such as the Administration’s budget proposal when it
explicitly elaborates on proposals in the Blueprint.
Throughout this report, we have attempted to identify where the Blueprint offers precise
proposals, and where a general direction is suggested. Under the latter scenario, there may be
instances where we believe a direction is implied when it is not. That said, we have attempted to
be thorough and to carefully describe the basis for our depictions of Administration proposals.
This document reflects our attempt to more directly map themes introduced in the Blueprint
against current law, and since the alignment is not perfect, the exercise requires some judgment.
As has been noted, this report principally examines ED’s ESEA reauthorization proposal and,
where appropriate, draws comparisons between the proposal and current law. The report is
organized around the broad themes presented in the Blueprint, beginning with College- and
Career-Ready Students and ending with Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities. The majority of the
headings included in the report reflect those used in the Blueprint. Headings that appear in italics
are CRS headings that have been included to either help frame the overall discussion of a broad
theme or clarify whether provisions being discussed are based on current law or the Blueprint.
Wherever possible, comparisons between the proposal and the ESEA are drawn for elements
included in the Blueprint. Some sections of the Blueprint did not provide sufficient detail to make
relevant comparisons to current policy in the ESEA. The comparative discussions covering the
individual elements of the proposal, therefore, differ substantially in length and detail depending
on the extent to which ED provided detail in the Blueprint. In some instances, other relevant
sources, such as the FY2011 budget request, were used to provide additional information and
analysis of a particular part of the Blueprint proposal. For some elements of the proposal,
however, there was little that could be said beyond restating what was included in the Blueprint or
budget request.
The examination of the Blueprint is followed by several appendix tables. There has been some
demand for a concise side-by-side comparison of key provisions of the Blueprint to current law.
Table A-2 provides a summary of similarities and differences of key provisions; however, it does
not include the same level of detail as the discussion in the text and does not discuss every section
of the Blueprint. Table A-3 examines the consolidation of programs proposed by the
Administration’s FY2011 budget request and the Blueprint to identify which programs would be
consolidated; the current and proposed type of program (e.g., formula or competitive grants); the
Congressional Research Service
2
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
FY2010 funding level for the program; and the proposed funding levels for FY2011. Table A-4
examines funding for ESEA programs that are not subject to consolidation under the FY2011
budget request, including the types of grants awarded under each program. Table A-5 lists ESEA
programs slated for elimination under the Administration’s FY2011 budget request.
I. Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
Over the last decade, more attention has been focused on strategies that emphasize accountability
in elementary and secondary education. These strategies generally require the following
components: (1) the development of academic standards that aim to provide a clear and consistent
understanding of what students are expected to learn across grades and subject areas; (2) the
adoption of “standards-based instruction” that is aligned to the academic standards; and (3) the
use of test-based accountability to measure students’ progress toward meeting the academic
standards. Under accountability systems, schools are typically rewarded for their success in
boosting student achievement or face consequences for failing to do so.
With the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, new provisions regarding standards,
assessments, and accountability were incorporated into the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. These provisions built upon those already included in the ESEA, focusing specifically on
holding schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and states accountable for the academic
achievement of all students. The NCLB required all states to develop an accountability system
featuring state-developed content and performance standards and assessments for
reading/language arts (hereafter referred to as language arts) and mathematics in grades 3 through
8 and for one grade in grades 10 through 12. The NCLB required states to establish benchmarks
for the percentage of students who will score at the proficient level in language arts and
mathematics based on the ultimate goal of having all students reaching the proficient level (as
defined by the state) in language arts and mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
Each year, schools and LEAs are held accountable for student proficiency on the required
assessments, student participation in the required assessments, and student performance on one
additional academic indicator. How well a school or LEA does with respect to these requirements
determines whether a school or LEA makes adequate yearly progress (AYP). Schools and LEAs
that fail to make AYP are subject to a series of outcome accountability requirements, including
corrective action and restructuring.
Under the Blueprint, many of the current requirements regarding standards, assessments, and
accountability would be altered. Most notably, the Administration has indicated that it would
eliminate the concept of AYP, require standards to be developed in language arts and mathematics
for grades 3 through 12, alter assessment requirements, and modify the actions required when
students in a school or LEA do not meet their performance targets. In addition, the Administration
would eliminate the goal of all students reaching the proficient level in language arts and
mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year, replacing it with the goal of all students
being college- and career-ready by 2020.
Congressional Research Service
3
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
College- and Career-Ready Students
This section of the Blueprint focuses on the use of Title I-A, Education for the Disadvantaged
funds with respect to standards, assessment, and accountability. According to the FY2011 budget
request, this program would be renamed College- and Career-Ready Students. The Blueprint
notes that students are not graduating from high schools with the skills and knowledge needed to
be successful in postsecondary education or employment. It also notes that Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization must “follow the lead of the nation’s governors” to
focus on state-developed, college- and career-ready standards and related assessments.4 Finally,
this section of the Blueprint discusses rewarding schools making significant progress, bringing
change to low-performing schools, and addressing “persistent gaps” in student academic
achievement and graduation rates. These issues are addressed below under three main headings:
College- and Career-Ready Students, Assessing Achievement, and School Turnaround Grants.
College- and Career-Ready Students
In this section of the Blueprint, ED outlines changes to Title I-A accountability requirements,
including new requirements for college- and career-ready standards. The proposal states that Title
I-A grants would remain formula grants.
Rigorous College- and Career-Ready Standards
Current Law. Prior to enactment of the NCLB, the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994
(IASA; P.L. 103-382) required states to adopt standards and assessments in the subjects of
language arts and mathematics at three grade levels—at least once in each of the grade ranges of
3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. States that wanted to remain eligible for Title I-A grants were required to
develop or adopt curriculum content standards, as well as academic achievement standards and
assessments tied to the standards. These requirements were retained and expanded under the
NCLB.
Under the NCLB, states were also required to develop and adopt standards and assessments in the
subjects of mathematics and language arts in each of grades 3-8 by the end of the 2005-2006
school year.5 In addition, states were required to adopt standards in science (at three grade levels)
by the end of the 2005-2006 school year and adopt corresponding assessments by the end of the
2007-2008 school year.6 States were also required to establish achievement standards that include
at least three performance levels for all students—advanced, proficient, and partially proficient
(or basic).7 State assessments aligned with the standards are used to determine students’
performance levels.
4 This is a reference to the Common Core State Standards Initiative being spearheaded by the National Governor’s
Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. For more information, see http://www.corestandards.org/.
5 These requirements only have to be met if certain minimum levels of annual federal funding are provided for state
assessment grants. The minimum level of funding for these assessments has been provided in FY2002 through FY2010.
6 States had the option of including other academic indicators, such as student achievement on state assessments in
other subject areas, as part of their accountability systems.
7 If no agency or entity in a state has authority to establish statewide standards or assessments (as is generally assumed
to be the case for Iowa), then the state may adopt either (1) statewide standards and assessments applicable only to Title
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, states would be required to adopt state-developed standards in
language arts and mathematics that build across grade levels to ensure that students graduate from
high school college- and career-ready. According to ED, states would be required to adopt
standards for grades 3-12 for language arts and mathematics.8 As discussed previously, under
current law states were required to adopt standards for grades 3-8 and for at least one grade in
grades 10-12. States would now also be required to adopt assessments aligned with these
standards (see subsequent discussion under “Assessing Achievement”). In addition, according to
ED the high school assessment would now have to be used to determine whether students were
college- and career-ready, as opposed to assessing a student’s language arts or mathematics
proficiency at a specific grade level.9
States would have two options for developing these new standards. States could upgrade their
existing standards and have them certified by a four-year public university system to ensure that
if a student completes the required standards, the student would not need remedial coursework
upon admittance into the public university system. The second option would be to work with
other states to create state-developed “common standards” that build toward college- and career-
readiness. Regardless of how they are developed, the new standards would have to be based on
evidence indicating what skills and knowledge are required at each grade level, so that students
would be on track to graduate from high school college- and career-ready. While the Blueprint
indicates that being prepared to do college-level work without remediation would define being
college-ready, it does not provide a similar indication of what would constitute being career-ready
or how standards for career-readiness would be established.
With respect to the option of adopting state-developed common standards, there is a grassroots
effort currently being led by the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers to develop common standards for language arts and mathematics in grades K-12
that build toward college- and career-readiness. The initiative, commonly known as the Common
Core State Standards Initiative, is supported by 48 states and the District of Columbia.10 Once the
final version is released in 2010, it will be up to the states to decide whether they want to adopt
and implement the standards. It is possible that not all 48 states and the District of Columbia will
choose to adopt the standards, even though they participated in the development process and
provided feedback on the standards. For example, education leaders in Massachusetts and
Minnesota have expressed concerns that the standards developed through the Common Core
Initiative will not be as high as the standards currently used in each of their respective states.11 In
addition, states adopting the standards are required to adopt all of them, but they may add an
additional 15% to the standards to reflect state priorities and interests. Thus, the standards may
not be 100% “common,” even among the states that adopt them. While the federal government
has not been involved with the Common Core Initiative, it has been supportive of the effort.12
(...continued)
I-A pupils and programs, or (2) a policy providing that each LEA receiving Title I-A grants will adopt standards and
assessments that meet the requirements of Title I-A and are applicable to all pupils served by that LEA.
8 ED also indicated that it is still considering whether standards in language arts and mathematics would also have to be
developed for grades K-2 (Information provided by the U.S. Department of Education at a meeting with staff from the
House of Representatives on March 25, 2010).
9 See footnote 8.
10 For more information, see http://www.corestandards.org/.
11 Catherine Gewertz, “Draft Common Standards Elicit Kudos and Criticism,” Education Week, March 10, 2010.
12 One way the federal government has demonstrated support for the Common Core Initiative is by creating a
competitive grant program to develop common assessments called the RTTT Assessment Program. For more
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Presumably, the work of the Common Core Initiative is what ED envisions many states adopting
in order to be in compliance with the proposed Title I-A accountability requirements.13
In addition to having standards and assessments for language arts and mathematics, states would
be required to continue implementing statewide science standards and aligned assessments in
specific grade spans.14 Under the provisions included in the Blueprint, states would be permitted
to include the science assessment and other statewide assessments in the accountability system.
While current law allows states to administer statewide assessments in subjects other than
language arts and mathematics, neither these assessments nor the science assessment have been
included in the accountability system required under Title I-A for determining adequate yearly
progress (AYP).15 As ED proposes the elimination of AYP, it appears that ED would allow states
to develop new academic accountability systems that include more subjects than language arts
and mathematics provided that student performance evaluated using statewide assessments for
any subjects included in the accountability system.
Current Law. Under current law, states are required to develop and adopt statewide English
language proficiency standards based on the domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing
for English language learners (ELLs) that are aligned with the achievement of state academic
content and student academic achievement standards required under Title I-A.
Blueprint. The Blueprint would require states to develop and adopt statewide English language
proficiency standards that are aligned with the new college- and career-readiness standards states
would be required to develop so that they “reflect the academic language necessary to master the
state’s content standards.”16 Other issues related to ELLs are discussed in a later section,
“Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners.”
Rigorous and Fair Accountability and Support at Every Level
Current Law. The NCLB strengthened the accountability provisions of the ESEA, Title I-A over
what was required under the IASA by requiring states to demonstrate in their state plans that they
have a single, statewide accountability system applicable to all elementary and secondary schools
and LEAs in the state. Each state’s accountability system is required to be based on the academic
assessments and other academic indicators it uses to measure academic progress. LEAs are
required to annually review the status of each public school in making AYP toward state
standards of academic achievement; and state education agencies (SEAs) are required to annually
review the status of each LEA in making AYP.17
(...continued)
information on the RTTT Assessment Program, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html.
13 For example, in the Race to the Top grant competition, states are awarded points for indicating that they will adopt
the common standards being developed through the Common Core Initiative.
14 The grade spans include grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.
15 AYP is discussed in detail in the next section of this report.
16 For a discussion of the meaning of “academic language,” see footnote 7 in the Framework for High-Quality English
Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments: Brief, available online at http://www.aacompcenter.org/pdf/
ELPFramework_Brief_Jan2009_AACC.pdf.
17 Accountability provisions for charter schools must be implemented to be consistent with state charter school laws.
Congressional Research Service
6
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Under the ESEA, AYP is defined primarily on the basis of multiple aggregations of student scores
on state assessments of academic achievement. State AYP standards must also include at least one
additional academic indicator. In the case of high schools, this additional indicator must be the
graduation rate; for elementary and middle schools, the attendance rate is often used as the
additional indicator. The additional indicators may not be employed in a way that would reduce
the number of schools or LEAs identified as failing to meet AYP standards.
AYP calculations must be disaggregated—that is, determined separately for several demographic
groups as well as for an “all students” group. The specified groups include economically
disadvantaged students, limited English proficient (LEP) students,18 students with disabilities, and
students in major racial and ethnic groups. However, student groups need not be considered if
their number is so small that results would not be statistically significant or the identities of
students might be divulged (i.e., there is a minimum group size before disaggregation occurs). In
order to make AYP, at least 95% of students overall and 95% of each demographic group must
participate in assessments. Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the required
threshold levels of performance on assessments, other academic indicators, and test participation
with respect to all of the designated student groups that meet the minimum group size criterion
selected by the state.
Each year, states and LEAs are required to prepare and disseminate report cards containing
academic achievement and other data. States are also required to prepare annual reports for
submission to the Secretary. The Secretary, in turn, is required to compile national and state-level
data for presentation in annual reports to Congress. While AYP determinations must be made with
respect to every public school and LEA in a state that receives Title I-A funds, states vary in the
extent to which they apply sanctions to non-Title I-A schools or LEAs.
Blueprint. ED has publicly stated that it would no longer use the current outcome accountability
system based on AYP to determine which schools and LEAs were low-performing.19 Under the
Blueprint, states would be required to ensure that their statewide accountability systems reward
schools and LEAs for growth and success. These systems would be required to include “rigorous
interventions” for the lowest-performing schools and LEAs. Unlike the current accountability
requirements under the ESEA, strategies for improving and supporting most schools would be
determined at the local level. More specific requirements related to rewarding schools and
intervening in low-performing schools are discussed in the next section.
The Blueprint would require states to have data systems that could collect data needed to
determine the progress being made by schools and LEAs in preparing students to be “college- and
career-ready.” States and LEAs would also be required to make available to the public data on
student performance and growth in language arts and mathematics, and student achievement in
science;20 and at the state’s discretion, it could make public academic achievement and growth
data for other subjects included in the state’s accountability system. At the high school level, the
public data must also include data on graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and students’
18 The Blueprint refers to LEP students as English language learners (ELLs). The terms “LEP” and “ELL” will be used
interchangeably in this report.
19 See, for example, U.S. Department of Education, Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: Fiscal
Year 2011, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. B-25, http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/justifications/
index.html. (Hereafter referred to as ED, Justifications of Appropriations.)
20 The Blueprint would not require states and LEAs to show growth in science. Science assessments, unlike
assessments in language arts and mathematics, would not be administered in most grades.
Congressional Research Service
7
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
need for remediation upon college enrollment. Under current law, data are only required to be
collected on graduation rates, and these data must be made public by subgroup. The Blueprint
would require that all of the aforementioned data be disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity,
disability status, English learner status, and family income. As previously discussed, under the
ESEA, AYP data must be disaggregated by each of these categories except gender for
accountability purposes,21 assuming a minimum group size is met. However, on state (and LEA)
report cards, data must also be disaggregated by gender for reporting purposes only.22 Thus, the
gender subgroup could be a new accountability subgroup for which schools and LEAs might be
required to take steps to improve performance if gaps exist between male and female students.
Under the Blueprint, states and LEAs would also be required to collect additional information
about “teaching and learning conditions,” including data on school climate such as attendance
rates for students, teachers, and the school leader; disciplinary incidents; or data generated
through student, parent, or staff surveys. While some of these data may currently be reported by
some states and LEAs,23 other data may not be reported regularly. Based on details provided on
teachers (see subsequent discussion on teachers), teacher survey data on working conditions and
teacher and principal attendance data would have to be published at least once every two years. It
is unclear how frequently other data (e.g., student and parent survey data on working conditions)
would have to be published.
Measuring and Supporting Schools, Districts, and States
This section of the Blueprint outlines goals for student performance over time and discusses how
student performance would be measured. It also provides information about how schools, LEAs,
and states would be rewarded for meeting performance targets and about the requirements that
would apply to low-performing schools, LEAs, and states.
Student Performance Goals
Current Law. Under current law, AYP standards developed by the states must incorporate
concrete movement toward meeting an ultimate goal of all students reaching a proficient or
advanced level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. The steps—that is, the
required levels of achievement—toward meeting this goal must increase in “equal increments”
over time. The first increase in the thresholds had to occur after no more than two years, and
remaining increases had to occur at least once every three years. Several states have
accommodated these requirements in ways that assume much more rapid progress in the later
years of the period leading up to 2013-2014 than in the earlier years. As of the 2008-2009 school
year, about one-third of public elementary and secondary schools had failed to meet AYP under
the current goal of all students reaching proficiency in language arts and mathematics.24
21 This includes data on the percentage of students proficient in language arts and mathematics, percentage of students
tested, and percentage of students meeting the additional academic indicator (e.g., high school graduation rate) for the
all-students group and for all subgroups for which data are disaggregated. For more information, see U.S. Department
of Education, Report Cards Title I, Part A: Non-Regulatory Guidance, September 12, 2003.
22 For reporting purposes only, data must also be disaggregated by migrant status. For more information, see U.S.
Department of Education, Report Cards Title I, Part A: Non-Regulatory Guidance, September 12, 2003.
23 For example, many schools use student attendance rates as the additional academic indicator for AYP purposes.
24 For three states, data from the 2007-2008 school year were used. For more information, see Center on Education
Policy, How Many Schools Have Failed to Make Adequate Yearly Progress Under the No Child Left Behind Act?,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Blueprint. The Blueprint would eliminate the goal of having all students reach proficiency in
language arts and mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. This goal would be
replaced by the goal of having all students be on track to graduate high school college- and
career-ready by 2020. Performance targets would be established based on the achievement and
growth of all students in a school and in subgroups. Graduation rates would also be considered in
determining whether the 2020 goal was being met. States, LEAs, and schools that meet their
performance targets would be recognized and rewarded. It is unclear who would establish the
performance targets, the extent to which achievement and growth gains would need to be
demonstrated from year to year, and whether targets would be established by working backward
from having 100% of all students college- and career-ready or on track to be college- and career-
ready by 2020. In addition, it is also unclear what states, LEAs, and schools would be held
accountable for in the interim as they develop the college- and career-ready standards and related
assessments that would be used for determining whether all students were on track for the 2020
goal. Finally, as previously discussed, being prepared to do college-level work without
remediation would define being college-ready, but it is unclear how being career-ready would be
demonstrated.
Student Growth as a Measure of Performance
Current Law. Under current law, the primary basic structure for AYP under the NCLB is now
specified in the authorizing statute as a “group status model.”25 Under the “group status model,” a
“uniform bar” approach is employed: states set a threshold percentage of students at proficient or
advanced levels of performance each year that is applicable to all student subgroups of sufficient
size to be considered in AYP determinations. The threshold levels of achievement are to be set
separately for language arts and mathematics, and may be set separately for each level of K-12
education (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools).
In determining whether scores for a group of students are at the required level, the averaging of
scores over two to three years is allowed. In addition, the NCLB statute includes an alternative
safe harbor provision, under which a school that does not meet the standard AYP requirements
may still be deemed as having met AYP if there is a 10% reduction, compared to the previous
year, in the number of students in each of the student groups failing to reach the standard
requirement, and those groups also make progress on at least one other academic indicator
included in the state’s AYP standards. This alternative provision adds “successive group
improvement” as a secondary type of AYP model under the NCLB.
A third basic type of AYP model, not explicitly mentioned in the NCLB statute, is the
individual/cohort growth model. The key characteristic of this model is a focus on the rate of
change over time in the level of achievement among cohorts of the same students. Growth models
are longitudinal, based on the tracking of the same students as they progress through their K-12
education careers. Although the progress of students is tracked individually, results are typically
aggregated when used for accountability purposes. In general, growth models give credit for
(...continued)
Washington, DC, March 26, 2010, http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document_ext.showDocumentByID&
nodeID=1&DocumentID=303.
25 For a discussion of the models of AYP, see CRS Report RL33032, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
Congressional Research Service
9
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
meeting steps along the way to proficiency in ways that a status model typically does not (e.g.,
moving from the below-basic level to the basic level).
In November 2005, the Secretary announced a growth model pilot program26 under which up to
10 states would be allowed to use growth models to make AYP determinations.27 In December
2007, the cap on the number of states that could participate in the growth model pilot was lifted
by the Secretary.28 In October 2008, ED issued regulations allowing a state to request authority
from the Secretary to incorporate measures of student growth into its definition of AYP.29 Related
non-regulatory guidance released by ED in January 2009 provides detailed discussion of the
information and evidence a state needs to provide when requesting the authority to use growth
models in its AYP determinations. As of 2010, 15 states included growth models in their
definition of AYP.30
Blueprint. The Blueprint emphasizes that performance would not be judged only on absolute
performance and proficiency, and that individual student growth and school progress over time
would be taken into account in evaluating performance. Thus, it appears that states, LEAs, and
schools would be expected to use growth models in evaluating performance. In order to use
growth models, states, LEAs, and schools would need to be able to track student performance
over time. As mentioned previously, relatively few states are currently using growth models as
part of their AYP determination process.
Rewards for Performance
Current law. The ESEA establishes a system of rewards and sanctions designed to hold Title I-A
schools and LEAs accountable for their performance. Each participating state is required to
establish an Academic Achievement Awards Program for the purpose of making academic
achievement awards to schools that have either significantly closed academic achievement gaps
between student subgroups or have exceeded their AYP requirements for two or more consecutive
years. States may also give awards to LEAs that have exceeded their AYP requirements for two or
more consecutive years. Under Academic Achievement Award Programs, states may recognize
and provide financial awards to teachers or principals in schools that have significantly closed the
academic achievement gap or have made AYP for two consecutive years. States may fund
Academic Achievement Awards for schools and LEAs by reserving up to 5% of any Title I-A
funding that is in excess of the state’s allocation for the previous year.31 States may fund teacher
26 For details on the growth model pilot, see CRS Report RL33032, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.
27 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary Spellings Announces Growth Model Pilot, Addresses Chief State School
Officers’ Annual Policy Forum in Richmond,” press release, November 18, 2005, at http://www.ed.gov/news/
pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html.
28 See http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/071207.html.
29 For more information, see http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2008-4/102908a.pdf.
30 ED, Justifications of Appropriations, p. B-20. The 15 states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. The list of
the states is available from the Council for Exceptional Children at http://cecblog.typepad.com/policy/2010/01/report-
on-growth-models-highlights-the-difficulties-states-have-including-alternative-assessment-sco.html.
31 Guidance on procedures for reserving funds for State Academic Achievement Awards Programs is available in U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Guidance: State Educational Agency
Procedures for Adjusting Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant Allocations
Determined by the U.S. Department of Education, May 23, 2003, pp. 32-34.
Congressional Research Service
10
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and principal awards by reserving such sums as necessary from the amount received under the
ESEA, Title II-A-1—Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund, Grants to States. While
states have complied with this requirement, relatively few schools and LEAs appear to receive
rewards under this program.32
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, there would be an increased focus on rewarding schools, LEAs,
and states that reach their performance targets, “significantly” increase student performance for
all students, close achievement gaps, and turn around the lowest-performing schools.33 Schools,
LEAs, and states that meet these criteria would be referred to as “Reward” schools, LEAs, and
states. States would be provided with funds to design innovative programs to reward schools and
LEAs identified as Reward schools and LEAs. Rewards provided to these schools and LEAs may
include financial rewards for the staff and students; development of and participation in
“communities of practice,” designed to share best practices and replicate successful strategies in
other schools and LEAs; and flexibility in the use of ESEA funds.34 Competitive preference may
be given to Reward states, “high-need” Reward LEAs, and “high-need” Reward schools in some
federal grant competitions.35 Finally, Reward LEAs would be provided with flexibility in
implementing interventions in their lowest-performing schools. The Blueprint does not specify
how much flexibility these LEAs would receive in this respect. It is unclear whether states would
use Title I-A funds to design innovative programs and provide rewards or what percentage of
funds could be used for these purposes if Title I-A funds are used.36
Outcome Accountability for Low-Performing Schools, LEAs, and States
Current law. Under current law, after not making AYP for two consecutive years, a Title I-A
school is identified for school improvement. Being designated for school improvement carries
with it the requirement to develop or revise a school plan designed to result in the improvement
of the school. LEAs are required to provide schools within their jurisdictions with technical
assistance in the design and implementation of school improvement plans. Schools identified for
improvement must use at least 10% of their Title I-A funding for professional development. All
students attending Title I-A schools identified for school improvement must be offered public
school choice—the opportunity to transfer to another public school within the same LEA. Under
public school choice, students must be afforded the opportunity to choose from among two or
more schools, located within the same LEA, that have not been identified for school
32 See, for example, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/sr/aa/index.asp (California), http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/tss_title.aspx?
PageReq=TSSAcademicAchievement (Georgia), http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/title1/achieve/award.pdf (North Dakota),
and http://www.k12.wa.us/EducationAwards/AcademicAchievement/2003.aspx (Washington).
33 The latter criteria would apply only to states and LEAs.
34 The Blueprint does not specify what type of flexibility in the use of ESEA funds would be provided.
35 The term “high-need” is not defined in the Blueprint. However, ED recently defined the term “high-need LEA” in
the RTTT grant competition to mean the following: “an LEA (a) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from
families with incomes below the poverty line; or (b) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the
LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line.” This is identical to the definition of a high-need LEA
contained in ESEA Title II-A, Section 2101(3)(A). The term “high-need school” was not defined in the RTTT grant
competition. The RTTT grant competition application defines a “high-poverty school,” but it is not clear whether the
reference to “high-need school” is the same as a “high-poverty school” as defined in the RTTT grant application. The
RTTT grant application is available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.
36 Under current law, funds to support the Academic Achievement Awards Program are provided under Title I-A.
States may also use funds under Title II-A to support awards to teachers and principals. The Blueprint does not provide
specific information on which funds would be used to reward schools, LEAs, and states.
Congressional Research Service
11
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, and that have also not been identified as
persistently dangerous schools.37 LEAs are required to provide students who transfer to different
schools with transportation and must give priority in choosing schools to the lowest-achieving
children from low-income families. LEAs may not use lack of capacity as a reason for denying
students the opportunity to transfer to their school of choice.38 In instances where there are no
eligible schools in the student’s LEA, LEAs are encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements
with surrounding LEAs to enable students to transfer to an eligible public school.
If, after being identified for school improvement, a school does not make AYP for another year, it
must be identified for a second year of school improvement by the end of that school year. All
students attending a school identified for a second year of school improvement must continue to
be offered the option of attending another eligible public school within the same LEA. In
addition, students from low-income families who continue to attend the school must be offered
the opportunity to receive supplemental educational services (SES). Supplemental educational
services are educational activities, such as tutoring, that are provided outside of normal school
hours and are designed to augment or enhance the educational services provided during regular
periods of instruction. Supplemental educational services may be provided by a nonprofit entity, a
for-profit entity, or the LEA, unless such services are determined by the SEA to be unavailable in
the local area. The SEA is required to maintain a list of approved SES providers (including those
offering services through distance learning) from which parents can select. LEAs may be required
to expend up to 20% of their Title I-A grants on transportation for public school choice and
supplemental educational services combined.
If a school fails to make AYP for a total of two years after being identified for school
improvement, it must be identified for corrective action by the end of the school year. For schools
identified for corrective action, LEAs must continue to provide technical assistance and offer
public school choice and supplemental educational services, and they must implement one of the
following corrective actions: replacing school staff relevant to the school not making AYP;
implementing a new curriculum; limiting management authority at the school level; appointing an
expert advisor to assist in implementing the school improvement plan; extending the school year
or the school day; or restructuring the school’s internal organization. If a school does not make
AYP for a third year after being identified for school improvement, by the end of the school year
the LEA must begin to plan for restructuring while continuing to implement the requirements of
corrective action. Restructuring of the school must involve implementation of one of five
alternative governance structure options: reopening the school as a charter school, replacing most
or all of the school staff, contracting with an education management organization to operate the
school, turning the school over to the SEA, or implementing any other “major restructuring” of
the school’s governance structure. If an additional year passes without the school making AYP,
the LEA must implement restructuring of the school.
Any of the sanctions described above may be delayed for up to one year if the school makes AYP
for a single year, or if the school’s failure to make AYP is due to unforeseen circumstances such
as a natural disaster or a significant decline in the financial resources of the LEA or school.
37 Students attending schools that are identified as being persistently dangerous by the state are eligible to transfer to
another public school. This is referred to as the unsafe school choice option. For more information on this option, see
CRS Report RL33371, K-12 Education: Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110),
coordinated by Gail McCallion.
38 34 CFR 200.44(d).
Congressional Research Service
12
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Schools that make AYP for two consecutive years may no longer be identified for school
improvement, nor subject to the sanctions associated with school improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring.
AYP standards under the NCLB must be applied to all public schools and LEAs, and to states
overall, if a state chooses to receive Title I-A grants. However, outcome accountability
requirements for failing to meet AYP standards need only be applied to schools and LEAs
participating in Title I-A, and there are no consequences for states failing to meet AYP standards
beyond the provision of technical assistance.39
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, lower-performing states, LEAs, and schools would be referred to
as “Challenge” states, LEAs, and schools. States would be required to identify schools in need of
“specific assistance.” These schools would be classified into one of three categories. The first
category, referred to as Challenge schools, would include the lowest-performing 5% of schools in
each state. These schools would be identified based on student academic achievement, student
growth, and graduation rates. As discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section (see “School
Turnaround Grants”), ED is currently requiring states to identify the lowest-performing 5% of
schools for purposes of the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It is unclear whether
states would be required to follow similar requirements in identifying the lowest-performing 5%
of schools. It also appears that the lowest-performing 5% of schools referenced in the Blueprint
may include schools receiving Title I-A funds as well as non-Title I-A schools. In general, non-
Title I-A schools are currently prohibited from receiving Title I-A funds. However, under recent
changes made to the SIG program, non-Title I-A secondary schools that meet specific criteria are
eligible to receive SIG funds.
The aforementioned Challenge schools would be required to implement one of four school
turnaround models: the transformation model, turnaround model, restart model, or school closure
model. (Each model is discussed in detail in the “School Turnaround Grants” section.) It is
unclear whether current restrictions on how many schools may use specific models at a given
time under SIG would apply to the implementation of the turnaround models in Challenge
schools.
Reward LEAs would not be required to implement one of the four turnaround models. Rather,
these LEAs would be given the flexibility to implement a different research-based intervention
model.
The second category of schools that would be identified as needing specific assistance would
include the next 5% of the lowest-performing schools. These will be referred to as schools in the
“warning category.” Again, this category of schools would appear to include both Title I-A and
non-Title I-A schools. States and LEAs would be required to implement “research-based, locally-
determined strategies” to provide assistance to these schools. That is, states and LEAs would not
be limited in providing assistance to these schools through the four turnaround models. In
addition, the flexibility granted in providing assistance to schools in the warning category would
not be limited to Reward LEAs.
39 For a more comprehensive discussion of accountability under NCLB, Title I-A, see CRS Report RL32495, Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner and CRS Report
RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by
Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
13
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The third category would actually be a second category of “Challenge schools,” which would
include schools that fail to close “significant, persistent achievement gaps.” This category does
not appear to be limited to any specific percentage of schools. Rather, it appears that any school
(Title I-A or non-Title I-A) that fits the aforementioned criteria could be identified as a Challenge
school. LEAs would be required to implement “data-driven interventions” to assist students who
are the lowest-performing and to close the achievement gap.
LEAs serving Challenge schools would be able to implement a variety of strategies, including
“expanded learning time, supplemental educational services, public school choice, or other
strategies to help students succeed.” Under current law, schools are required to implement public
school choice and supplemental educational services in schools that fail to meet AYP for a
specific number of years. Under ED’s proposal, the use of these strategies would become
optional.
The Blueprint also includes provisions that would apply to Challenge LEAs and states. While it is
not clear how an LEA or state would be identified as a Challenge LEA or state,40 Challenge LEAs
whose schools, principals, or teachers are not receiving the support necessary to be successful
could be subject to “significant governance or staffing changes, including replacement of the
superintendent.” The Blueprint does not specify the precise conditions under which these steps
would be taken, what the governance changes might include, or the extent to which staffing could
be changed. In addition, Challenge LEAs and states would be subject to restrictions on the use of
ESEA funds and could be required to work with an outside organization to help improve student
achievement. Again, no details are provided regarding the specific restrictions that could be
imposed on the use of ESEA funds or under what circumstances a Challenge LEA or state could
be required to seek outside assistance.
It is unclear what percentage of Title I-A funds would have to be reserved to support Challenge
schools, LEAs, and states and schools in the warning category. As discussed previously, states can
currently reserve 4% of their Title I-A funds to support schools identified for improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring, and LEAs are required to reserve an amount equal to 20% of
their Title I-A funds for similar purposes. Depending on the amount or percentage of funds that
would have to be reserved to support schools and LEAs that were either succeeding or failing,
with no increase in Title I-A funding based on the FY2011 budget request, it is possible that
schools and LEAs that do not fit into either the Challenge or Reward categories may receive less
Title I-A funding to continue to support the staff or activities for which they currently use Title I-
A funds.
Building Capacity for Support at Every Level
Current law. Under current law, while funds are available to assist failing schools, funds are not
available specifically for capacity building at the state and LEA levels. One of the criticisms that
has been leveled at the requirements of the NCLB is that not all states or LEAs have the capacity
to help failing schools, and this problem will only be exacerbated as more schools and LEAs fail
to make AYP. Under current law, states are able to reserve 4% of their total Title I-A funds to
support school improvement efforts and funds are also available for these purposes through
School Improvement Grants. In both cases, states may reserve 5% of the funds (e.g., 5% of the
40 For example, all states would have Challenge schools and schools in the warning category, so it is unclear what
additional criteria, if any, must be met before a state is labeled a Challenge state.
Congressional Research Service
14
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
4% reservation of Title I-A funds and 5% of the state’s SIG grant) for state administration and
activities (e.g., state school-level improvement activities). These funds are not reserved
specifically to build the capacity of states and LEAs to assist schools in need of improvement.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, states and LEAs would be permitted to reserve funds for the
following purposes:
• supporting the adoption of new college- and career-ready standards and
assessments aligned with these standards, and supporting teachers in the teaching
of such standards;
• supporting the use of data to identify local needs and improve student outcomes;
• improving the capacity of states and LEAs to use technology to improve
instruction;
• coordinating with early childhood programs to improve school readiness; and
• implementing family engagement strategies.
The Blueprint does not specify the percentage of funding that may be reserved for these purposes.
In addition, LEAs would be required to reserve Title I-A funds to improve student performance in
high-need schools. This would be accomplished by “implementing effective school improvement
strategies and carrying out strategies to ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and
school leaders.” LEAs identified as “Reward districts” would be provided with flexibility with
respect to this reservation. It is unclear what percentage of funds LEAs would be required to
reserve. Under current law, LEAs must reserve up to 20% of their funds to provide public school
choice and supplemental educational services. Under the Blueprint, LEAs would no longer be
required to provide these services.
Fostering Comparability and Equity
Current law. Title I-A includes a fiscal accountability requirement known as “comparability” that
does not apply to other ESEA programs. Comparability requires that services provided with state
and local funds in schools participating in Title I-A must be comparable to those in non-Title I-A
schools in the same LEA.41 The Title I-A comparability requirement (Section 1120A(c)) is
intended to provide that equivalent levels of state and local funds are provided to the schools
receiving Title I funds and to the other public schools within each LEA participating in the
program. Comparability is designed to assure that federal Title I-A funds provide a net increase in
funding for Title I-A schools, compared to non-Title I-A schools, and do not simply supplant state
and local funds which would, in the absence of Title I-A, be provided to the Title I-A schools.
Under current law, states are required to review comparability among schools in an individual
LEA, and if comparability does not exist, the LEA is not supposed to receive Title I-A funds.
Concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of the current Title I-A comparability
requirement, and whether many LEAs may be, in effect, using Title I-A funds to subsidize their
general operations in addition to increasing the level of services and resources available to
41 If all of an LEA’s schools participate in Title I-A, then services funded from state and local revenues must be
“substantially comparable” in each school of the LEA.
Congressional Research Service
15
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
disadvantaged students.42 Under current law and regulations, many LEAs meet the comparability
requirement without any reporting of data that compare expenditures or resources in Title I-A
versus non-Title I-A schools. In addition, statutory language permits LEAs to exclude staff salary
differentials based on years of employment in making comparability determinations. While this
may help to minimize burdens on LEAs, it raises questions about the significance of the
comparability requirement as currently implemented.
An underlying difficulty in requiring LEAs to report more detailed financial data in determining
comparability, however, is the lack of comprehensive school-level budgeting and accounting
systems in much of the nation. Typically, LEAs can attribute staff salaries to individual schools,
but often they cannot similarly allocate other costs of public K-12 education. Until
comprehensive school-level budgeting and accounting systems are common, it will remain
difficult to ensure that the Title I-A comparability requirement can be meaningfully implemented.
Under provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, all LEAs receiving
Title I-A funds or School Improvement Grant funds were required to provide a school-by-school
listing of per-student expenditures from state and local sources for the 2008-2009 school year by
December 1, 2009. States, in turn, were required to provide these data to the Secretary no later
than March 31, 2010. These data may provide additional information about the extent to which
comparability is being achieved within a given LEA. ED has expanded on these provisions to
require every LEA that received Title I-A funds in FY2009 to report these data.43
Blueprint. The Blueprint indicates that ED would continue to focus on comparability issues and
collect data on personnel and relevant non-personnel expenditures at high- and low-poverty
schools. ED would also require states to measure and report on resource disparities and to
develop plans to address these disparities. In this section of the Blueprint, ED mentions that it
would also give additional flexibility to LEAs that use their resources to support disadvantaged
students to continue providing such support. It is unclear what type of additional flexibility is
being referenced.
Assessing Achievement
The NCLB requires states to administer assessments to students and use the results of these
assessments as part of a system to determine whether schools and LEAs have made AYP.
Currently, states are required to administer assessments in language arts and mathematics for
students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. In addition, states are required to
administer science assessments at least once in each of three grade bands (3-5, 6-8, and 9-12).
The ESEA authorizes two grant programs that support states’ efforts to develop and administer
these assessments. The following sections describe these two grant programs and the Blueprint’s
proposed changes.
42 See, for example, “Strengthening Title I to Help High-Poverty Schools,” by Marguerite Roza, et al., published on
August 18, 2005, by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington, available at
http://www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/TitleI_reportWeb.pdf, visited on October 20, 2006.
43 Without this requirement, there were about 1,095 LEAs that received Title I-A funds through FY2009 regular
appropriations, but not through the ARRA, as funds awarded under the ARRA were provided under only two of the
four formulas used to make Title I-A grants. For more information, see ED’s request to the Office of Management and
Budget for emergency clearance of the data collection, http://edicsweb.ed.gov/edics_files_web/04119/
Att_SSLE%20Emergency%20Request%208-28-09.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current law. Under current law, the ESEA, Title VI-A-1 (Sections 6111 through 6113) provides
funding for the development and implementation of state assessments used for accountability
under Title I-A. Funding is provided through both formula and competitive grants to states.
Section 6111 authorizes the Secretary to make formula grants to states for the purpose of assisting
states in meeting the assessment requirements of Section 1111(b). Section 6112 authorizes the
Secretary to make competitive grants to states (or consortia of states) for the purpose of
improving the quality, validity, and reliability of state assessments beyond what is required by
Section 1111(b). For example, these competitive funds may be used to develop multiple measures
of achievement, performance- or technology-based assessments, and assessments for special
populations, such as English language learners and students with disabilities. The competitive
grant program is typically referred to as grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments.44
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, states would continue to receive formula funding for the
development and implementation of assessments; however, states would use these funds to
develop assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards in language arts and
mathematics rather than with current state content standards (as has been required under the
ESEA, Section 1111(b)). These assessments would measure student academic achievement and
growth, provide feedback to support and improve teaching, and measure school success and
progress. States would also use these funds to develop additional statewide assessments in other
academic or career and technical subjects, high school course assessments, English language
assessments, and interim or formative assessments. Beginning in 2015, formula funds would only
be available to states that are implementing assessments based on college- and career-ready
standards.45
The Blueprint would also continue to support competitive grants to a consortia of states (and to
other partnership entities) to research, develop, and improve additional assessments in the areas
of science, history, or foreign languages; high school course assessments in academic and career
and technical subjects; universally designed assessments; and assessments for English language
learners and students with disabilities.
The Blueprint does not specify any changes to the current ESEA assessment requirements with
respect to content areas and grade levels that would be assessed. ED has indicated that it would
continue to support the current ESEA requirements (i.e., assessing language arts and mathematics
in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and assessing science at least once in each of three grade
bands: 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12).46
The Blueprint does not address the issue of how to assess students with disabilities. Although the
ESEA currently requires that all students with disabilities participate in state assessments, it does
not provide any assessment options for students with disabilities for whom the state assessment is
inappropriate (i.e., due to the nature or severity of their disability). After passage of the NCLB,
ED issued regulations regarding alternate assessment options for two groups of students with
disabilities: (1) students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities” (alternate assessments
based on alternate achievement standards, or AA-AAS), and (2) students with disabilities whose
44 For more information on Enhanced Assessment Instruments, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/eag/awards.html.
45 It is unclear if the formula funding restriction would apply to the set-aside for the outlying areas and BIE-funded
schools.
46 Statements made about assessment requirements are based on information provided by the U.S. Department of
Education at a meeting with staff from the House of Representatives on March 25, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
disabilities may prevent them from achieving grade-level proficiency within a year but who do
not have the “most significant cognitive disabilities” (alternate assessments based on modified
achievement standards, or AA-MAS).47 ED has indicated it would continue supporting alternate
assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (i.e., AA-AAS).48
However, ED has not indicated that it would continue to support alternate assessments for other
students with disabilities whose disabilities may prevent them from achieving grade-level
proficiency (AA-MAS). Rather, ED stated that the new state assessments developed through the
Assessing Achievement formula grant program would consider the needs of students with
disabilities in the assessment development process, and that most students with disabilities would
be able to participate appropriately in these new assessments.49
School Turnaround Grants
Under current law, federal funds are provided under School Improvement Grants, authorized
under Title I, to assist failing schools. The specific statutory and regulatory requirements related
to this program were revised at the beginning of 2010. The Blueprint proposal would build on
changes already made to this program and continue the current focus on having School
Improvement Grant funds be targeted on the lowest-performing schools.
Current law. The ESEA authorizes a separate formula grant program for state School
Improvement Grants under Title I to provide additional funds to support school improvement
activities.50 At least 95% of each state’s funds is to be allocated at the state’s discretion to LEAs to
serve schools identified as being in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
States are required to give priority in awarding grants to LEAs that demonstrate the greatest need
for such funds and the strongest commitment to ensuring that the lowest-achieving schools are
provided with adequate resources to meet the goals established under their school and LEA
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring plans. Through the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), the School Improvement Grants program was amended to include any
school eligible to receive assistance under Title I-A that has not made AYP for at least two years51
or is in the state’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates or, for secondary
schools, has a graduation rate below 60%. For each such school that will be served using School
Improvement Grants, the state must provide the LEA with at least $50,000 but not more than $2
million annually.52 Grants are renewable for two one-year periods.
47 For more information on alternate assessments, see CRS Report R40701, Alternate Assessments for Students with
Disabilities, by Erin D. Caffrey.
48 Statements made about alternate assessments are based on information provided by the U.S. Department of
Education at a meeting with staff from the House of Representatives on March 25, 2010.
49 See footnote 48.
50 School Improvement Grants are authorized under Title I, Section 1003(g); that is, they are not Title I-A grants.
51 Under the requirements of ESEA Title I-A, a school is identified as being in need of improvement if it fails to meet
AYP for two consecutive years. If a school fails to make AYP one year, makes it the next, then fails to make it the
following year, it is not identified as being in need of improvement. It appears that P.L. 111-117 would allow schools
that had failed to meet AYP for any two years to receive a School Improvement Grant. However, as discussed below,
ED has added additional requirements for the receipt of School Improvement Grants that focus on schools that have
failed to make AYP for at least two consecutive years.
52 The $2 million limit applies to funds allocated through the ARRA (P.L. 111-5) or for FY2010 through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117). For other fiscal years, the ESEA establishes an upper limit of
$500,000 annually for an individual school.
Congressional Research Service
18
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
These changes complement changes made to the School Improvement Grant program by ED
through Interim Final Requirements. Based on these new requirements, each state is required to
give priority in making competitive grants to LEAs that serve the lowest-performing schools. For
the purposes of the School Improvement Grants program, ED has defined the lowest-performing
schools using two tiers. A Tier 1 school is a Title I-A school that has been identified for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and is among the lowest-achieving 5% of all
such schools or has a high school graduation rate that is less than 60%. A Tier 2 school is any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I-A funding and has been
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and is among the lowest-achieving
5% of all such schools or has a high school graduation rate that is less than 60%. LEAs using
funds for a Tier 1 or Tier 2 school must select from four school intervention models prescribed by
ED for each school. After making awards to LEAs serving Tier 1 or Tier 2 schools, grants may be
awarded to LEAs that serve Tier 3 schools, which consist of schools that have been identified for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring but are not in the lowest-achieving 5% of schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. States may establish criteria for
determining which Tier 3 schools to support (e.g., those in the lowest achieving 6%-10% of
schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring).53 This focus on the
lowest-performing 5% of schools that have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring is somewhat similar to the proposal contained in the Blueprint regarding low-
performing schools (see previous discussion in “Outcome Accountability for Low-Performing
Schools, LEAs, and States ”).
States are required to award funds to LEAs with the strongest commitment to improving schools.
According to the Interim Final Requirements, “strongest commitment” is defined as an LEA that
agrees to implement and demonstrate the capacity to implement one of four models in all Tier 1
and Tier 2 schools. These four models include the turnaround model, restart model, school
closure model, and transformation model. A brief description of the key components of each
model is provided below.
• Turnaround model: This model requires the LEA to replace the school principal
and provide the new principal with greater flexibility (including in the areas of
staffing and budget); screen all staff and rehire no more than 50% of existing
staff; provide “ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development”;
adopt a new governance structure (e.g., hiring a “turnaround leader”); implement
a research-based instructional program; continuously use data to differentiate
instruction to meet the needs of individual students; increase learning time; and
provide social-emotional and community-oriented student services and supports.
• Restart model: This model requires the LEA to convert a school or close and
reopen a school under a charter school operator, a charter management
organization (CMO), or an education management organization.54 The operator
or organization assuming control of the school must have been selected through a
“rigorous review process.”
53 For more information, see http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html.
54 A CMO is defined as a “non-profit organization that operates or manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing
certain functions and resources among schools.” An EMO is defined as a “for-profit or non-profit organization that
provides ‘whole-school operation’ services to an LEA.”
Congressional Research Service
19
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• School closure model: This model requires an LEA to close a school and enroll
the students who attended it in other schools in the LEA that have higher
achievement. This could include enrollment in charter schools.
• Transformation model:55 This model requires an LEA to implement several
strategies. For example, the LEA must implement strategies to increase teacher
and school leader effectiveness, including replacing the principal and using
teacher and school leader evaluation systems that take student growth into
account as a significant factor. It must also implement a research-based
instructional program and continuously use data to differentiate instruction to
meet the needs of individual students. The LEA must also increase learning time
and create community-oriented schools.
Blueprint. Under its reauthorization proposal, ED would rename the program School Turnaround
Grants. States would continue to receive funds by formula and would be permitted to reserve a
portion of the funds to build state capacity for improving low-performing schools. The Blueprint
does not specify what percentage of funds could be used for this purpose. Remaining funds would
continue to be awarded on a competitive basis. Funds could be awarded to LEAs, as is done
under current law, or to partnerships of LEAs and nonprofit organizations. Subgrantees would be
required to implement one of four intervention models in each of the low-performing schools.
The models specified in the Blueprint include the transformation model, turnaround model, restart
model, and school closure model. Based on limited information provided in the Blueprint, these
models appear to be similar to those that ED has recently required LEAs to use under SIG. LEAs
and their partners, if applicable, would receive three-year grants to implement an intervention
model and would be eligible for two additional years of funding for schools that are showing
improvement. In addition, the Secretary would be permitted to reserve a portion of the funding
for the School Turnaround Grants to support additional activities designed to improve state, LEA,
and nonprofit capacity to improve low-performing schools. Under current law, SIG does not
include any reservation of funds for the Secretary.
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to standards,
assessment, and accountability.
• States would be required to develop and adopt standards in language arts and
mathematics in grades 3-12 that ensure that students have the skills and
knowledge needed to graduate college- and career-ready.
• States would continue to implement annual assessment in language arts and
mathematics for grades 3-8 and would be required to develop an assessment to
measure college- and career-readiness for administration in high school.
• The current system of AYP would be eliminated.
• The goal of all students reaching proficiency in language arts and mathematics by
the end of the 2013-2014 school year would be replaced with the goal that all
55 If an LEA has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, the LEA is prohibited from implementing the transformation
model in more than 50% of those schools.
Congressional Research Service
20
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
students are on track to be or are completing high school college- and career-
ready by 2020.
• There would be an increased focus on rewarding schools, LEAs, and states that
reach their performance targets, increase student performance for all students,
close achievement gaps, and turn around the lowest-performing schools.
• Three categories of low-performing schools would be established and different
requirements related to school improvement would apply to each of the three
categories.
• Funds would continue to be provided to turn around low-performing schools, and
LEAs would continue to be required to use specific models for turning around
low-performing schools meeting specific criteria.
II. Teachers
The federal government has historically had a limited role in shaping policy related to teachers.
Decision making around issues such as hiring, promotion, tenure, and compensation has typically
been conducted at the local level. With the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, new
provisions regarding teachers were incorporated into the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. These provisions established minimum teacher quality requirements and charged states and
LEAs with developing plans to meet them. Under the NCLB, each state educational agency
(SEA) receiving Title I-A funding was required to have a plan to ensure, by no later than the end
of the 2005-2006 school year, that all public school teachers teaching in core academic subjects
within the state would meet the highly qualified teacher definition.56
During implementation, the NCLB highly qualified teacher requirement came to be seen as
setting minimum qualifications for entry into the profession and was criticized by some for
establishing standards so low that nearly every teacher met the requirement.57 Meanwhile, policy
makers have grown increasingly interested in the output of teachers’ work—that is, their
performance in the classroom and the effectiveness of their instruction. Under the Blueprint, ED
proposes to shift the emphasis from highly qualified teachers to effective teachers and also to
effective leaders. This shift would require states for the first time to define effective teachers and
leaders based, in part, on student academic growth.
Great Teachers and Great Leaders
This section of the Blueprint focuses on the federal teacher and leadership programs, particularly
on the largest of these programs—the ESEA, Title II-A, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants.
The Blueprint makes the following assertions: the interaction between teacher and student is the
primary determinant of student success, great teachers can help students achieve at high levels,
56 For more information, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation
of the No Child Left Behind Act and Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
57 According to a study conducted for the Education Department by the RAND Corporation, “By 2006-2007, the vast
majority [over 90 percent] of teachers met their states’ requirements to be considered highly qualified under NCLB.”
See http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and great leaders can help teachers succeed as part of a strong, well-supported instructional team.
The proposal seeks to improve current programs by consolidating and refocusing them on the
conditions that allow teachers and leaders “to get meaningful information about their practice,
and support them in using this information to ensure that all students” receive effective
instruction.58 The Blueprint places emphasis on improving the evaluation of teacher and leader
effectiveness, rewarding and advancing effective teachers and leaders, and strengthening the
recruitment and preparation of teachers and leaders. These issues are addressed below under three
main headings: effective teachers and leaders, teacher and leader innovation fund, and teacher and
leader pathways.
Effective Teachers and Leaders
ED proposes to continue formula grants to states under the ESEA, Title II-A, Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants.59 However, the program would be refocused on improving the effectiveness
of school staff and be renamed Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants.
Current Law. Under the current ESEA, Title II-A, formula grants are awarded to SEAs, which
then award formula subgrants to LEAs. The allocation formula provides each state (including
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) with a base guarantee of funding equal to the amount it
received for FY2001 under two antecedent programs.60 Any excess funding is allocated by
formula among the states based 35% on school-aged population (ages 5-17) and 65% on school-
aged population in poverty. Ninety-five percent of the state grant is distributed to LEAs according
to their base guarantee (i.e., FY2001 antecedent grant) with the remainder allocated by formula
based 20% on school-aged population and 80% on school-aged population in poverty.61
Blueprint. The Blueprint describes a similar formula grant allocation to states; however, the
proposal neither discusses hold harmless provisions nor specifies population elements or formula
weights to be used for the distribution of funds. States would be required to subgrant at least 90%
of their funds to LEAs, but again the proposal gives no detail as to how the funds would be
allocated. The new program would authorize the Secretary to reserve 1.5% of the total
appropriation for national activities. In addition, funds appropriated to the Effective Teachers and
Leaders State Grants would also be used to support continuation grants for other current
programs—School Leadership, Teacher Incentive Fund, Teacher Quality Partnerships, Teachers
for a Competitive Tomorrow, and Transition to Teaching.
Current Law. Under the current Title II-A program, states may use their funds for a variety of
activities, but they primarily used them to reform teacher and principal certification or licensing
requirements. LEAs are also authorized to engage in a variety of activities focused on improving
teacher quality; however, most LEAs used three-quarters of their funds for two activities:
professional development and class-size reduction.62 Over the course of NCLB implementation,
58 Blueprint, p. 13.
59 Although the program is widely referred to by this name, by statute, Title II, Part A is entitled, the Teacher and
Principal Training and Recruitment Fund.
60 As amended by the NCLB, the ESEA Title II-A replaced the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size
Reduction programs.
61 For more information on this formula grant allocation, see CRS Report RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and
Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi (available from the author).
62 The list of allowable LEA uses includes teacher and principal recruitment and retention initiatives, signing bonuses
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
LEAs increasingly shifted their use of funds toward professional development in order to meet
the law’s new highly qualified teacher requirement. Under the NCLB, all core subject-matter
teachers63 were required to possess a bachelor’s degree, hold a state teaching certificate, and
demonstrate subject-matter knowledge by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.64
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the proposed Effective Teachers and Leaders program would
refocus the emphasis of federal teacher policy generally, and the purpose of this program in
particular, from reforming certification standards and requiring minimum teaching credentials to
mandating reform of teacher and principal evaluation systems. Specifically, the Blueprint would
require states and LEAs to put in place three policies and systems, none of which are required
under current law.
1. Statewide definitions of “effective teacher,” “effective principal,” “highly
effective teacher,” and “highly effective principal” developed in collaboration
with stakeholders that are “based in significant part on student growth and also
include other measures, such as classroom observations.”65
2. State-level data systems that link information on teacher and principal
preparation programs to the job placement, student growth, and retention
outcomes of their graduates.
3. District-level evaluation systems that (1) meaningfully differentiate teacher and
principal effectiveness in at least three performance levels, (2) are consistent with
state definitions of effectiveness, (3) provide meaningful feedback that informs
professional development, and (4) are developed in collaboration with
stakeholders.
Developing Effective Teachers and Leaders
Current Law. The majority of Title II-A funds are used for class-size reduction and professional
development. In recent years, professional development has replaced class-size reduction as the
single largest area of spending. The percentage of funds used for reducing class size decreased
from 57% in 2002-2003 to 38% in 2008-2009, and the percentage of funds used for professional
development increased from 27% in 2002-2003 to 39% in 2008-2009.66 Criticism of the use of
current Title II-A funds rests on research that calls into question the impact of class-size reduction
and the effectiveness of traditional professional development for improving teaching and
(...continued)
and other financial incentives, teacher and principal mentoring, reforming tenure systems, merit pay, teacher testing,
and pay differentiation initiatives. However, ED has found that less than one-quarter of Title II-A funds are used for
these additional activities, see U.S. Department of Education, Findings from the 2008-2009 Survey on the Use of Funds
Under Title II, Part A , Washington, DC, July 2009, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/2009findings.doc.
63 Under ESEA, the core academic subjects are English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography (Section 9101(11)).
64 For additional information on this requirement, see CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every
Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act and Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress, by
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
65 Blueprint, p. 14. The Blueprint notes that during the transition to using these new definitions, ED will maintain
provisions of current law relating to “Highly Qualified Teachers” with additional flexibility.
66 U.S. Department of Education, Findings from the 2008-2009 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A,
Washington, DC, July 2009, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/data2009.doc.
Congressional Research Service
23
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
learning. Specifically, class-size reduction has been shown to have an impact only with very large
reductions in class size (larger than is typically the case under the current program).67 Although
most teachers (92%) receive professional development, less than half (43%) receive more than 16
hours of training in their content area each year and a little over half (59%) found such training to
be useful in the classroom.68 Professional development also tends to be delivered away from
schools on college campuses and fosters little teacher-to-teacher collaboration and curriculum
development.
Blueprint. The Blueprint would attempt to address these criticisms by refocusing the emphasis of
this program on the outcome of supported activities—that is, on teacher and leader effectiveness.
Improved evaluation systems are at the center of the Blueprint’s focus. To identify and improve
effectiveness under the proposal, grantees would develop and implement fair and meaningful
teacher and principal evaluation systems; foster and provide collaboration and development
opportunities; build instructional teams; and improve instructional practice through effective,
ongoing, job-embedded professional development. The proposal requires that these activities
“must be aligned with evidence of improvements in student learning … [and] aimed at improving
the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals. Districts that have put in place the
required evaluation systems may generally spend funds flexibly.”69
Measuring Success
Current Law. Under the ESEA, states and LEAs are required to issue reports annually on the
progress made toward meeting the 2005-2006 highly qualified teacher deadline. LEAs are
required to issue these reports publicly and report progress for the LEA as a whole and for each
school within the LEA. States are required to submit reports annually to the Secretary on their
progress toward meeting the deadline.
Blueprint. The Blueprint would require publication of key indicators of program success in state
and district report cards to be released at least every two years. These reports must include
information on
• teacher qualifications and teacher and principal designations of effectiveness;
• teachers and principals hired from high-performing pathways;
• teacher survey data on levels of support and working conditions in schools;
• the novice status of teachers and principals;
• teacher and principal attendance; and
• retention rates of teachers by performance level.70
67 Mary Ann Millsap et al., A Descriptive Evaluation of the Federal Class-Size Reduction Program, U.S. Department of
Education, Doc. #2004-18, Washington, DC, August 2004, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/class-size/
report.pdf.
68 Linda Darling-Hammond et al., Professional Learning in the Learning Profession, National Staff Development
Council, Dallas, TX, February 2009, http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf.
69 Blueprint, p. 15.
70 Blueprint, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
24
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund
Under the Blueprint, ED proposes to merge two existing competitive grant programs that reward
teacher performance and career advancement—the Teacher Incentive Fund (ESEA, Title V-D)
and Advanced Credentialing (ESEA, Title II-A, Section 2151(c))—into a new competitive grant
program called the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.
Current Law. The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) supports the reform of teacher and principal
compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for successful job
performance (including gains in student achievement), for teaching in hard-to-staff schools or
subjects, and for taking on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. The program provides
grants to encourage school districts and states to develop and implement innovative strategies for
providing financial incentives to achieve these goals. Under the appropriations language
authorizing the TIF program, these compensation systems must take into consideration gains in
student achievement as well as other factors, including classroom observations conducted
multiple times during the year. Further, ED requires applicants for TIF grants to demonstrate a
significant investment in, and a commitment to ensuring the fiscal and programmatic
sustainability of, their project.
The Advanced Credentialing program awards grants to the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the American Board for the Certification of Teacher Excellence
to support the development and implementation of advanced certifications or credentials for
teachers who have demonstrated mastery in the teaching of their academic discipline.
Blueprint. According to the Blueprint, the new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would build
on the strengths of the Teacher Incentive Fund and support compensation reforms and
complementary reforms of teacher and principal development and evaluation, teacher placement,
and other practices. It would support states and districts willing to “implement ambitious reforms
to better identify, recruit, prepare, develop, retain, reward, and advance effective teachers,
principals, and school leadership teams.”71 These reforms would be required to differentiate
among teachers and principals on the basis of their students’ growth and other measures and must
use this information to differentiate credentialing, professional development, retention,
advancement, and rewards for effectiveness. NBPTS and other nonprofit organizations eligible
for a grant under Advanced Credentialing would be eligible to partner with states and LEAs and
compete for an Innovation Fund grant.
Teacher and Leader Pathways
ED proposes to merge several existing competitive grant programs into a new competitive grant
program called Teacher and Leader Pathways. Five current competitive grant programs would be
combined under this new program into two activities: Teacher Pathways and Transformational
Leaders.72
71 Blueprint, p. 16.
72 The proposal would transfer the Troops to Teachers program (ESEA, Title II-C-1-A) to the Department of Defense
in FY2011, U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2011 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress,
v. 1, p. F-136.
Congressional Research Service
25
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Teacher Pathways
Current Law. Four programs authorized in current law are intended to increase the supply of
teachers through support for traditional teacher preparation programs as well as alternative
pathways to teaching. The Transition to Teaching (ESEA, Title II-C-1-B) program provides grants
to high-need schools and LEAs to help them recruit and employ qualified teachers by
encouraging the development and expansion of alternative routes to certification. The Teacher
Quality Partnership (Higher Education Act (HEA), Title II-A) program provides grants to higher
education institutions to improve the preparation of teachers and enhance professional
development activities for teachers through Pre-Baccalaureate Preparation, Teaching Residencies,
and School Leadership programs. The HEA authorizes the Secretary to award a grant to Teach for
America, Inc. (HEA, Title VIII-F), a nonprofit organization that recruits outstanding recent
college graduates who commit to teach for two years in underserved communities. The Teachers
for a Competitive Tomorrow (America COMPETES Act, Title VI-A-1) program provides grants
to higher education institutions to enhance and improve teachers’ content knowledge by funding
the development of master’s and baccalaureate level degree programs that provide integrated
courses of study in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages,
in conjunction with teacher education.
Blueprint. The Blueprint would consolidate these four programs to strengthen traditional and
alternative pathways into teaching by providing competitive grants to programs that would (1)
prepare teachers to teach to college- and career-ready standards; (2) meet the needs of high-need
areas, including rural areas, or high-need fields; and (3) recruit and prepare high-performing
college graduates or non-traditional teacher candidates, such as mid-career professionals and
military veterans. The Secretary would be authorized to reserve up to 5% of funds for a national
teacher recruitment campaign, working with states, districts, and outside organizations to recruit
talented candidates into the teaching profession.
Transformational Leaders
Current Law. The current School Leadership program (ESEA, Title II-A, Section 2151(b)) assists
high-need LEAs in recruiting, training, and retaining principals and assistant principals by (1)
providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, (2) providing stipends to principals who
mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional development programs in instructional
leadership and management, and (4) providing incentives that are appropriate for teachers or
individuals from other fields who want to become principals and that are effective in retaining
new principals.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, ED would refocus this program to strengthen traditional and
alternative pathways into school leadership by providing competitive grants to programs that
would (1) prepare principals to improve student academic achievement and other outcomes at
low-performing schools; and (2) put in place the conditions that increase the likelihood that their
graduates and other principals will succeed in improving low-performing schools, such as
autonomy over staffing, budget, instructional programs, and schedule. The Secretary would be
authorized to reserve up to 5% of funds for grants to recruit, prepare, place, and support the
retention of state and district leaders—such as superintendents, chief academic officers, and
human resource directors—who are able to lead transformational change in their states and
districts.
Congressional Research Service
26
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to teachers.
• States would be required to develop definitions of “effective teacher,” “effective
principal,” “highly effective teacher,” and “highly effective principal.” These
definitions would be based in significant part on student growth and also include
other measures, such as classroom observations. States would also be required to
develop district-level evaluation systems that (1) meaningfully differentiate
teacher and principal effectiveness in at least three performance levels, (2) are
consistent with state definitions of effectiveness, (3) provide meaningful
feedback that informs professional development, and (4) are developed in
collaboration with stakeholders.
• The Blueprint would require the publication of new indicators of program
success in state and district report cards to be released at least every two years.
• Two existing competitive grant programs—the Teacher Incentive Fund and
Advanced Credentialing—would be merged into a new competitive grant
program called the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.
• Five existing competitive grant programs would be consolidated into a new
competitive grant program called Teacher and Leader Pathways.
III. Supporting Diverse Learners
One purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.73 To ensure that all children have
access to an education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act supports programs to meet
the educational needs of student groups that face unique challenges in obtaining a high-quality
education. Current programs supported by the ESEA include Title I programs that support
migrant children and neglected and delinquent children; Title III programs that support language
instruction for English language learners (ELLs); Title VI programs that support rural education;
Title VII programs that support Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; and Title
VIII programs that support children connected with federal activities. In addition, Title VII of the
McKinney-Vento Act supports access to education for homeless students.
Under the Blueprint, ED proposes to thematically group the various educational programs that
support access to high-quality education for student groups that face unique challenges. Current
programs would be supported under the new heading of Meeting the Needs of English Learners
and Other Diverse Learners.
73 ESEA, Sec. 1001.
Congressional Research Service
27
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other
Diverse Learners
This section of the Blueprint seeks to strengthen the existing elementary and secondary education
programs that target support to diverse learners. The Blueprint recognizes that schools are
responsible for ensuring that all students, including diverse learners, are ready to succeed in
college or a career upon high school graduation. Diverse learners include students with
disabilities, ELLs, the children of migrant workers, homeless children, neglected and delinquent
children, American Indians, children residing in rural areas, and children connected with federal
activities. The following sections briefly outline ESEA programs related to diverse learners and
highlight any changes that the Blueprint would make to existing programs.
Students with Disabilities
Current Law. The majority of federal funding to support the education of students with
disabilities is provided through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Because
most students with disabilities are included in the general education classroom, the ESEA also
influences their education. For example, students with disabilities are required by the IDEA and
the ESEA to participate in state assessment and accountability systems as outlined by the ESEA,
Title I-A.
Blueprint. The Blueprint does not indicate that a reauthorized ESEA would change current
practices related to students with disabilities. ED states that the ESEA would support programs
related to teachers, assessments, and instructional approaches that would “increase support for the
inclusion and improved outcomes of students with disabilities.”74
English Learner Education
Current Law. Title III of the ESEA requires SEAs and LEAs to provide language instruction
educational programs to limited English proficient (LEP) students and to ensure LEP students
gain proficiency in English and meet state academic content and achievement standards. Title III
does not include provisions regarding the process or standards for identifying LEP students, in
part to allow SEAs and LEAs greater flexibility.75 Although many states and LEAs use similar
criteria of English language proficiency to identify LEP students and place them in and exit them
from language instruction educational programs, there is concern that the criteria do not
sufficiently take into consideration grade-level expectations, native language proficiency,
academic achievement, years of schooling, or year of entry into an English-speaking society.76
74 Blueprint, p. 20.
75 Under Title I-A, LEP students must be assessed annually on their level of English proficiency in speaking, reading,
writing, and listening.
76 Alex Ragan and Nonie Lesaux, “Federal, State, and District Level English Language Learner Program Entry and Exit
Requirements: Effects on the Education of Language Minority Learners,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 14,
no. 20 (August 15, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
28
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, states would be required to establish consistent statewide criteria
for identifying LEP students. In addition, the Blueprint proposal would require states to establish
consistent statewide criteria for placing LEP students into and exiting them out of language
instruction educational programs.
Current Law. Under current law, SEAs that find LEAs failing to meet their annual measurable
achievement objectives (AMAOs)77 for two consecutive years can require LEAs to develop an
improvement plan. The SEA must provide technical assistance and consult with the failing LEA
during the development and implementation of this plan. LEAs found to be failing for four
consecutive years can be forced to modify their language instruction educational program, have
their funds withdrawn, and have relevant personnel replaced by the SEA.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, LEAs that consistently fail to meet their AMAOs would lose
even this level of flexibility to a certain extent. LEAs that fail to meet their AMAOs after a
number of years (the number is not specified in the Blueprint) would be required to work with the
SEA to implement more effective strategies. The SEA would identify the effective program or a
set of effective programs from which the LEA could choose. Under current law, SEAs provide
assistance to LEAs in identifying and implementing the programs, while LEAs retain the
flexibility to actually choose the language instruction educational program.
Current Law. Under current law, states are required to provide technical assistance to LEAs to
help them achieve their AMAOs. In FY2007, 28 states received Title III awards with conditions
for not determining or incorrectly determining the AMAOs; failing to assess students; lacking
evidence of a process for aligning English language proficiency standards with assessments or
academic content standards; failing to reserve funds for LEAs with significant increases in
immigrant students; and failing to submit annual data to ED.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, states would be required to create a system to evaluate the
effectiveness of language instruction educational programs to increase the accountability of states
for ensuring that LEP students are achieving English proficiency and state academic content and
achievement standards. Beyond the current provision of technical assistance, states would be
required to take a lead role in helping LEAs improve their language instruction educational
programs and selecting effective programs. States would also be required to disaggregate LEP
students by subgroups, although the Blueprint does not specify the subgroups. In the past, states
and LEAs have requested subgroup reporting by the student’s length of stay in the United States,
by grade, by type of language instruction educational program, by English language domain
(listening, speaking, reading, and writing), and by length of time in language instruction
educational programs.
Finally, under the Blueprint at least one competitive grant program would be funded in addition to
the state formula award program discussed above. SEAs, LEAs, and nonprofit partners would be
eligible for the competitive grants. The competitive grants would support the development of
innovative programs, expand knowledge of promising practices, and implement effective
practices among more LEP students. The Blueprint specifically suggests funding graduate
77 SEAs must develop annual measurable achievement objectives that reflect (1) the amount of time individual children
are enrolled in programs, (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.
Congressional Research Service
29
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
research fellowships and teacher preparation or professional development programs under the
proposed competitive grants programs.
Migrant Education
Current Law. The Migrant Education Program (MEP) provides grants to SEAs to develop or
improve education programs for migrant children.78 Since FY2002, the amount of a state’s grant
allocation has been based on the level of its FY2002 state grant, which is largely dependent on the
2000-2001 count of eligible migrant children79 residing in the state relative to other states,
although these numbers have been adjusted in recent years for inaccurate or incomplete data
submitted by states for the calculation of their FY2002 MEP grants.80 That is, ED calculates a
defect rate for each state that is then applied to the 2000-2001 counts of eligible migrant children
that were used to make FY2002 awards. Thus, the base grant amount received by states is
actually an “adjusted” FY2002 grant.81
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the program would remain a formula grant program, and the
formula would be updated to use more accurate and timely data.
Current Law. Under MEP, the Secretary is required to assist states in developing methods to
transfer student records electronically and in determining how many migrant students are in the
state. The Secretary is also required to help states link their migrant student record systems.
Grants may also be made to improve the interstate and intrastate coordination of educational
programs serving migrant students.
Blueprint. Based on the Blueprint, it appears that ED would continue to support interstate efforts
to facilitate the educational transition of migrant students into local schools and communities.
Homeless Children and Youths Education
Current Law. The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program (Title VII, Part B,
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; P.L. 100-77) was most recently authorized under the
NCLB. Currently, the program provides assistance to SEAs to ensure that all homeless children
and youth have equal access to the same free and appropriate public education, including public
preschool education, that is provided to other children and youth. Grants made by SEAs to LEAs
78 A migrant child is defined as a child who is, or whose parent or spouse is, a migratory agricultural worker or a
migratory fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, in order to obtain, or to accompany such parent or spouse in
order to obtain, temporary or seasonal work in agriculture or fishing, (1) moved from one school district to another, (2)
moved from one administrative area to another in a state comprised of a single school district, or (3) resides in a school
district larger than 15,000 square miles and migrates a distance of 20 miles or more to a temporary residence to engage
in fishing work.
79 Two migrant child estimates were used to determine these counts: (1) the 12-month estimated number of migrant
children ages 3 to 21 years old, and (2) the summer and intersession estimated number of migrant children ages 3 to 21
years old. (U.S. Department of Education, Migrant Education Program Annual Report: Eligibility, Participation,
Services (2001-02), and Achievement (2002-03), 2006, available at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/migrant/
annualreport/report.pdf; and U.S. Department of Education, Title I Migrant Education Program Trends Summary
Report: 1998-2001, 2004, at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/migrant/report01.pdf.)
80 Federal Register, May 4, 2007, p. 25229.
81 For more information on the formula allocation of the Migrant Education program, see CRS Report RL34721,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
30
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
under this program must be used to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of
homeless children and youth. LEAs may use funds for activities such as tutoring, supplemental
instruction, and referral services, as well as medical, dental, mental, and other health services. In
order to receive funds, each state must submit a plan indicating how homeless children and youth
will be identified; how assurances will be put in place that homeless children will participate in
federal, state, and local food programs if eligible; and how the state will address such problems as
transportation, immunization, residency requirements, and the lack of birth certificates or school
records.
Blueprint. The Blueprint proposes to rename the program as Homeless Children and Youth
Education and to include it as program authorized by the ESEA. It would also change the formula
used to allocate awards to states. Grants would be awarded to states based on the most recent data
available on each state’s share of homeless students.82
Current Law. The current program, as amended by NCLB, prohibits states that receive
McKinney-Vento funds from segregating homeless students from non-homeless students, except
for short periods of time for health and safety emergencies or to provide temporary, special,
supplementary services. An exception was made for four counties that operated separate schools
for homeless students in FY2000 (San Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego counties in California,
and Maricopa County in Arizona), as long as (1) those separate schools offer services that are
comparable to local schools; and (2) homeless children are not required to attend them.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the current exception to the prohibition on operating separate
schools for homeless children and youth would be eliminated.
Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education
Current Law. Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education (ESEA, Title I-D)
authorizes a pair of programs intended to improve education for students who are neglected,
delinquent, or at risk of dropping out of school.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, both programs (Title I-D, Subpart 1 and Subpart 2) would be
retained. Subpart 1, which provides formula grants to states, would continue to be based on the
number of children in state-operated institutions and per-student expenditures for the state.
Subpart 2, which currently draws its funds for local subgrants from a state-level reservation of
local ESEA, Title I-A grants,83 would continue to be awarded to LEAs with high numbers or
percentages of children and youth residing in locally operated correctional facilities.
82 For more information on the formula allocation of the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program, see
CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by
Rebecca R. Skinner.
83 ESEA Section 1402(b) requires each state to retain funds generated throughout the state under Title I-A based on
children and youth residing in local correctional facilities, or attending community day programs for delinquent
children and youth.
Congressional Research Service
31
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education
Current Law. The ESEA, Title VII authorizes supplemental educational programs to address the
unique cultural, linguistic, and academic needs of American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska
Native children and families. Funds may be used for early childhood education, family-based
education, the incorporation of culturally relevant curricula, and other purposes, depending on the
particular program.
Currently, the Indian education formula grant program (Part A, Subpart 1) allows funds to be used
for the language needs of Indian students and to incorporate American Indian- and Alaska Native-
specific curriculum content into the curriculum used by the LEA. The Special Programs and
Projects To Improve Educational Opportunities for Indian Children (Part A, Subpart 2) allow
funds to be used for bilingual and bicultural programs. The Native Hawaiian (Part B) competitive
grant program and Alaska Native (Part C) competitive grant program currently allow funds to be
used for Hawaiian language literacy and Native Alaskan language instruction, respectively.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, ED would expand the use of funds under the Part A American
Indian education programs to be used for native language immersion and restoration. In addition,
funds under one of the Indian education programs could be used to develop tribal-specific
academic standards and assessments.84 Finally, under the Blueprint, eligibility under the Native
Hawaiian and Alaska Native programs would be expanded to LEAs and public charter schools.
Currently, only organizations and consortia of organizations meeting specific criteria (e.g., Native
Hawaiian educational organizations) are eligible for the two programs.
Current Law. Under current law, BIE-funded schools receive ESEA program funds through set-
asides or by competing as an LEA, but the schools are not eligible for most programs that fund
states or specific organizations. Tribal groups have requested in the past that BIE-funded schools
be eligible for all ESEA programs, and tribal education departments have requested more
oversight of Indian students in the public school system. Some tribal education departments
(TEDs) provide resources and supplemental services to the public schools that educate the tribe’s
students. The relationship, unless facilitated by a parent committee requirement under the ESEA,
Title VII-A or the Johnson O’Malley Act,85 between the LEA or public school and TED is
dependant upon the preference of the LEA or public school.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint the access that Indian tribes have to ESEA funding for the support
of BIE-funded schools would increase and a role and relationship between TEDs and LEAs
would be codified.
Rural Education
Current Law. The ESEA, Title VI-B provides funding for rural education through the Rural
Education Achievement Program (REAP). REAP currently provides two formula grants to rural
LEAs that would be retained with level funding: the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
84 The Blueprint does not specify which program.
85 The Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program provides supplementary financial assistance, through contracts, to meet the
unique and specialized educational needs of Indian students in public schools and non-sectarian private schools. For
more information on the program, see CRS Report RL34205, Federal Indian Elementary-Secondary Education
Programs: Background and Issues, by Roger Walke.
Congressional Research Service
32
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
program (Subpart 1) and the Rural, Low-Income School (RLIS) program (Subpart 2). SRSA
funds are allocated by formula to eligible LEAs based on the number of students in average daily
attendance (ADA) and the amount the LEA received under certain federal programs in the
previous fiscal year.86 ED calculates an initial allocation for each eligible LEA equal to $20,000
plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. To be
eligible to receive funds under the current SRSA program, an LEA must, among other criteria,
serve only schools that (1) have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of
7 (rural) or 8 (rural near an urban area), or (2) are located in an area of the state defined as rural
by a governmental agency of the state. In addition, under current “REAP Flex” authority, LEAs
with small REAP allocations are permitted to use these funds for activities authorized under Title
I-A, Title III (English Language Acquisition), or Title IV-B (21st Century Community Learning
Centers).
RLIS funds are allocated by formula to states based on each state’s proportionate share of
children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. States have the option of allocating funds to eligible LEAs
competitively or through a formula based on the number of children in ADA in eligible LEAs
within the state.87 To be eligible for funds under the current RLIS program, an LEA must, among
other criteria, serve only schools that have an NCES locale code of 6 (small town), 7 (rural), or 8
(rural near an urban area).
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, appropriated funds would continue to be split evenly between
SRSA and RLIS. The formulas used to determine LEA grant amounts would also remain the
same. However, the Blueprint states that “in order to improve targeting of funds, [ED] will update
the method used to identify districts as rural.” Although no further details are provided as to how
the method would be updated, given that NCES recently completed the process of updating its
locale codes, these new codes would presumably be incorporated into the updated identification
method.88 This could result in changes in LEA eligibility for one or both REAP programs.
Under the Blueprint, the current “REAP Flex” authority for SRSA grantees would be continued
and expanded to LEAs eligible for RLIS. In addition, the Secretary would be authorized to
reserve REAP funds for national activities such as technical assistance and research on innovative
programs that are designed to help rural districts overcome common capacity constraints in order
to help rural LEAs apply for competitive grants and to improve student academic achievement.
Impact Aid
Current Law. Impact Aid, authorized under the ESEA, Title VIII, compensates LEAs for the loss
of tax revenue resulting from federal activities, such as federal ownership of certain lands and the
enrollment in LEAs of children of parents who work or live on federal land (e.g., children of
parents in the military and children living on Indian lands). The largest Impact Aid payments—
86 An LEA’s final allocation is equal to an initial allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding” (funds
allocated under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities State Grants, and State Grants for Innovative Programs) in the previous fiscal year.
87 A state may also use an alternative formula to allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an alternative would better
target funds to eligible LEAs that serve the highest concentrations of poor students. Currently, however, all states make
RLIS awards through the statutory formula.
88 Further details on this issue can be found in CRS Report R40853, The Rural Education Achievement Program: Title
VI-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
Congressional Research Service
33
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Section 8002, Payments for Federal Property, and Section 8003, Payments for Federally
Connected Children—are made by formula grant to LEAs.
Blueprint. The Blueprint indicates that formula grants for these programs would continue, and
LEAs would continue to be provided with flexibility in the use of these funds.
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to supporting
diverse learners.
• No major changes are proposed with respect to Impact Aid or programs for
students with disabilities, neglected and delinquent children, and migrant
children.
• The Blueprint proposes that the Homeless Children and Youths Education would
become an ESEA program.
IV. Content Area Instructional Programs
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act does not promote specific curricula or instructional
methods in content areas such as reading, mathematics, history, and so on. There are, however,
content area instructional programs that are authorized and supported by the ESEA. Content area
instructional programs are supported throughout various Titles of the ESEA. For example, larger
content area instructional programs, such as literacy programs, are currently supported in Titles I,
II, and V. Smaller content area instructional programs, such as economic education, arts
education, and civic education, are supported in Titles II and V.
The Blueprint proposes to group disparate programs under thematic headings that reflect the
content area being taught (e.g., literacy; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; etc.).
The Blueprint would consolidate academic programs under the heading of A Complete Education.
A Complete Education
A Complete Education is a collection of programs that addresses improving teaching and learning
across multiple academic content areas. While college- and career-ready standards may address
elementary and secondary education standards in language arts and mathematics, a Complete
Education would make investments across multiple content areas—from literacy and STEM to
history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy, environmental education, and other
subjects. The following sections discuss the thematic areas addressed by the Blueprint under this
heading. These thematic areas include Literacy, STEM, Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education,
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning, and Activities to Strengthen a Complete Education.
Literacy
Current Law. The ESEA currently provides support for multiple literacy programs. The two
largest federal literacy programs currently receiving funding are the Striving Readers program
Congressional Research Service
34
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and the Even Start program.89 Under the Striving Readers program, ED awards competitive grants
to eligible local entities for the purpose of implementing and evaluating reading curricula and
professional development programs, as well as other activities intended to improve reading
achievement for middle and high school students. The mission of the Striving Readers program
was expanded in FY2010 to allow grantees to provide comprehensive literacy programs for
children from birth through grade 12. Under the Even Start program, ED awards formula grants
to states to support family literacy programs serving low-income children from birth through age
seven and their parents. States, in turn, award subgrants to high-need LEAs and partnerships. The
mission of the Even Start program is to support family literacy by integrating early childhood
education, adult education, and parenting education.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the Striving Readers and Even Start Family Literacy programs,
along with several smaller literacy programs, would be consolidated into a new program titled
Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy (hereafter referred to as the Literacy program). The
following ESEA programs would be consolidated into the Literacy program:
• Striving Readers (ESEA, Title I-E);
• Even Start Family Literacy programs (ESEA, Title I-B-3);
• Literacy Through School Libraries (ESEA, Title I-B-4);
• National Writing Project (ESEA, Title II-C-2);
• Reading Is Fundamental (ESEA, Title V-D-5); and
• Ready-to-Learn Television (ESEA, Title II-D-3).
Under the Blueprint, the Literacy program would award competitive grants to states to assist them
in developing comprehensive, evidence-based pre-K through grade 12 literacy plans and aligning
federal, state, and local funds to provide high-quality literacy instruction. States would retain a
portion of their awards for state activities. The amount to be set aside for state activities is not
specified. Priority in awarding grants would be given to states that have adopted college- and
career-ready standards.
Under the Blueprint, states would subgrant funds to high-need LEAs and partnerships to be used
to support comprehensive literacy programs. At the local level, funds would be used for
professional development, high-quality literacy curricula and assessments, ensuring all students
receive appropriate literacy services, and ensuring that classroom environments are of high
quality. States would be required to give priority in awarding grants to LEAs that plan to align
other federal, state, and local resources with federal funds from this new program to improve
literacy instruction; propose to implement programs with the strongest evidence of effectiveness;
89 Following their authorization in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the largest federal programs exclusively
focused on literacy were Reading First for students in grades K-3, and Early Reading First for preschoolers. Reading
First, a formula grant program, was last funded at $393 million in FY2008, but received funding of approximately $1
billion each year between FY2002 and FY2007. The Early Reading First program, a competitive grant program that
was last funded in FY2009, received approximately $100 billion a year in funding between FY2002 and FY2009. The
Striving Readers’ program, a competitive grant literacy program for students in middle school, was first funded at $30
million in FY2005; funding equaled $35 million in FY2009 and $250 million in FY2010. For more information on the
Reading First and Early Reading First programs, see CRS Report RL31241, Reading First and Early Reading First:
Background and Funding, by Gail McCallion; and CRS Report RL33246, Reading First: Implementation Issues and
Controversies, by Gail McCallion.
Congressional Research Service
35
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
plan to implement programs in schools with the greatest need; or have a plan for sustaining
programs in the future.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Current Law. Under the ESEA, the primary source of funding for STEM programs is the Math
and Science Partnerships (MSP) formula grant program (ESEA, Title II-B). The current MSP
program requires partnerships to engage in one or more of 10 different activities, including
professional development of mathematics and science teachers, the integration of reliable and
technology-based teaching methods into the curriculum, mathematics and science summer
workshops or institutes for teachers, enhanced recruitment efforts (e.g., signing bonuses and
scholarships), and redesigning curricula.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the MSP program would be renamed Effective Teaching and
Learning: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (hereafter referred to as the STEM
program). Under the STEM program, ED would award competitive grants to assist states in
strengthening their STEM education programs and to support “high-need districts in
implementing high-quality instruction in at least mathematics or science and may also include
technology or engineering.”90 States would be required to develop plans to align federal, state,
and local funds to provide STEM instruction, and they may carry out efforts to improve
instruction statewide, identify effective instructional materials, and improve teachers’ knowledge
and skills in STEM instruction. Priority would be given to states that have adopted common,
state-developed, college- and career-ready standards; use technology to address student learning;
cooperate with outside partners; or propose to prepare more students for advanced study and
STEM careers. Under the Blueprint, states would award competitive subgrants to high-need
districts to support “comprehensive STEM instruction in the grades and schools with the greatest
local need.”91 This support would include professional development for teachers, high-quality
curricula, instructional materials, and assessments.
Under the Blueprint, the current formula-based state grant program would be replaced by a
competitive state grant program.92 Similar to the MSP program, the proposed STEM program
would require states to make subgrants to eligible partnerships that must include at least one high-
need LEA. States would also be permitted to reserve funds for state-level activities and ED would
be permitted to reserve funds for State Capacity-Building grants.93 Neither the Blueprint nor the
Administration’s FY2011 budget describe specific grantee activities supported by the new STEM
program; however, the Administration’s budget justification states that “the activities supported
would be more competitive, more accountable, and more likely to result in significant
achievement gains than those carried out under previous Federal math and science programs.”94
90 Blueprint, p. 26.
91 Blueprint, p. 27.
92 According to statute (ESEA, Section 2202(a)(1)), MSP grants must be awarded competitively when the program’s
appropriation is under $100 million; however, that has not occurred since the program was authorized by the NCLB.
93 Justifications, p. D-26.
94 Justifications, p. D-27.
Congressional Research Service
36
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education
Current Law. Under the ESEA, content area programs in history, civics, foreign language, and
economic education are authorized separately, typically by programs authorized in Titles II and V.
These programs represent a relatively small portion of total ESEA funding. The Administration
argues that these existing programs are “too fragmented to provide State and district officials with
the tools they need to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement in the
comprehensive manner required.”95 Further, ED notes that “the current programs are not well-
structured to enable educators and policymakers to identify the most effective practices to
replicate.”96
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, a new competitive grant program would be created to make
grants to states, high-need LEAs, and nonprofit partners to foster the teaching and learning of
arts, foreign languages, history and civics, financial literacy, environmental education, and other
subjects. These grants would support the development or expansion of instructional practices that
benefit all students and may include professional development, improved assessments, state- and
locally determined curricula aligned with state standards, or innovative technology. Priority for
these grants would be given to proposals that integrate teaching and learning across academic
subjects, use technology, and ensure that high school coursework is aligned with college and
university expectations.
The Administration’s FY2011 budget request provides information on the current programs that
would be consolidated to create the new competitive grant program called Effective Teaching and
Learning for a Well-Rounded Education. The following current competitive grant programs
would be combined under this new program:
• Excellence in Economic Education (ESEA, Title V-D-13);
• Teaching American History (ESEA, Title II-C-4);
• Arts in Education (ESEA, Title V-D-15);
• Foreign Language Assistance (ESEA, Title V-D-9);
• Academies for American History and Civics (American History and Civics
Education Act and ESEA, Title V-D);
• Close Up Fellowships (ESEA, section 1504);
• Civic Education: We the People (ESEA, Title II, Part C-3-a, section 2344); and
• Civic Education: Cooperative Education Exchange (ESEA, Title II, Part C-3-b,
section 2345).
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning
Current Law. Under the ESEA, three separate programs are authorized to provide accelerated
learning opportunities: the High School Graduation Initiative, the Advanced Placement program,
and the Javits Gifted and Talented Education program. In general, these program aim to prevent
95 Justifications, p. D-28.
96 Justifications, p. D-28.
Congressional Research Service
37
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
school dropout and raise academic achievement, provide opportunities for high school students to
earn college credit, and enhance programs that meet the needs of students who are gifted and
talented.
Blueprint. Under the College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program included in the
Blueprint, competitive grants would be provided to states, LEAs, and nonprofit partners to
increase accelerated learning opportunities for students. Under the Blueprint, grantees of the
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program would serve elementary and middle school
students by providing access to gifted and talented education programs, particularly in high-
poverty schools. At the high school level, grantees would be encouraged to implement strategies
such as expanding the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs, including
early-college or dual-enrollment programs that allow high school students to earn credit towards a
college degree. Applicants could also propose additional activities, such as allowing credit based
on successful demonstration of competency, or providing counseling, mentoring, or programs to
develop study skills. At the high school level, priority would be given to applicants that propose
to serve schools with low graduation rates. Priority would also be given to applicants who partner
with state higher education offices and institutions of higher education (IHEs) in a program that
allows higher education credits to be portable beyond the individual partner institution.97
The Administration’s FY2011 budget request provides information on the current programs that
would be consolidated to create a new competitive grant program called College Pathways and
Accelerated Learning. The following current programs would be combined under this new
program:
• High School Graduation Initiative (ESEA, I-H);
• Advanced Placement program (ESEA, I-G); and
• Javits Gifted and Talented Education program (ESEA, V-D).
Activities to Strengthen a Complete Education
Current Law. Under the ESEA, there is no particular section that is analogous to the Blueprint’s
section called Activities to Strengthen a Complete Education. One current program that may fall
under the authority of this new section; however, is the Enhancing Education Through
Technology (Ed-Tech) program.98 The goal of the Ed-Tech program is to improve student
academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools, to
ensure that each student is technologically literate by the end of eighth grade, and to encourage
the effective integration of technology resources with teacher training and curriculum
development.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the Secretary would be permitted to set aside funds to carry out
additional activities to improve teaching and learning in academic subjects, such as grants for the
creation of high-quality educational digital content; grants to states to develop and improve their
capacity to use technology to improve instruction; or grants to nonprofits to develop and
implement innovative and effective strategies to improve the teaching and learning of specific
subjects. Under the Blueprint, Ed-Tech would no longer be authorized as a separate program, but
97 The Blueprint did not outline any specific priority areas at the elementary and middle school level.
98 ESEA Title II-D.
Congressional Research Service
38
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
activities currently authorized by Ed-Tech could still be eligible to receive funding under other
programs.
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to content area
instructional programs.
• Six current ESEA programs focused on reading, writing, and literacy would be
consolidated into one Literacy program.
• The STEM program would change from a formula grant program to a
competitive grant program.
• Eight ESEA programs would be consolidated into one program called Ensuring a
Well-Rounded Education.
• Three ESEA programs would be consolidated into one program called College
Pathways and Accelerated Learning.
• The current Ed-Tech program under the ESEA, Title II-D would no longer be
authorized as a separate program.
V. Supporting the Whole Child
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is composed predominantly of programs designed
to provide for improved student achievement. It also includes programs that focus on other
aspects of the lives of children that affect their academic achievement, including attending
schools with a safe learning environment, having access to afterschool programs, and having
opportunities to attend schools where educational opportunities, community services, and systems
of family support are aligned. Currently, programs that address the needs of students beyond
academics or the traditional school day are concentrated in Titles IV and V of the ESEA. The
Blueprint proposes to increase funding for programs that support safe learning environment and
proposes to fund programs that would support a range of activities to meet students’ needs by
consolidating multiple existing programs, expanding an existing program, and changing an
existing program from a formula grant program to a competitive grant program.
Supporting Student Success
This section of the Blueprint focuses on proposed changes to the ESEA, Title IV programs (21st
Century Community Learning Centers and the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
Act), and on the proposed expansion of the Promise Neighborhoods program. Under the
Blueprint, a new program—titled Supporting Student Success—would fund innovative,
comprehensive approaches to meet the full range of children’s needs. This program would
support a range of activities currently supported through the aforementioned ESEA, Title IV and
V programs. Funded activities could include Promise Neighborhoods, before- and after-school
programs, full-service community schools, extended learning time opportunities, and activities to
ensure all students are safe, healthy, and supported in their schools and communities. These
Congressional Research Service
39
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
activities are discussed within three sections of the Blueprint: Promise Neighborhoods; 21st
Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC); and Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students.
Promise Neighborhoods
Current Law. The Promise Neighborhoods program is currently funded under demonstration
authority (ESEA, Title V-D-1). According to the FY2011 budget request: “Promise
Neighborhoods support the goal of all children and youth having access to high-quality
educational opportunities, effective community services, and strong systems of family support
necessary to address their fundamental needs so that they enter school prepared to learn and
succeed in school, college, and beyond.”99 The Promise Neighborhoods program intends to build
on the success achieved by the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ)100 in improving outcomes for the
children and youth in the 97-block neighborhood it serves.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, competitive grants would be awarded to develop and implement,
“a continuum of effective community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive
education reforms to improve the educational and life outcomes for children and youth in high-
need communities, from birth through college, and into careers.”101 Based on the FY2011 budget
request, expanded funding for this program would support 18 to 20 one-year competitive
planning grants for community based organizations serving high-need geographic areas and up to
10 five-year implementation grants.
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Current Law. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers is a formula grant program that
emphasizes activities during non-school hours that offer learning opportunities for children and
youth. The stated purposes of the program are to
• provide opportunities for academic enrichment to help students (particularly
those attending low-performing schools) to meet state and local student academic
achievement standards;
• offer students a wide variety of additional services, programs, and activities
intended to reinforce and complement their regular academic program; and
• offer families of students served an opportunity for literacy and related
educational development.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the 21st CCLC program would be changed from a formula grant
program to a competitive grant program.102 Under the restructured program, competitive grants
would be awarded to states, LEAs, and community based organizations. Priority would be given
to applicants that propose to carry out programs to support the improvement of Challenge schools
99 ED, Justification of Appropriations, p. G-16.
100 HCZ is a community-based organization serving over 17,000 children living in a 100-city-block area in Harlem,
New York City. For more information, see http://www.hcz.org/home.
101 The Blueprint, p.32.
102 For more information on the 21st CCLC program, including information on formula allocation to states, see CRS
Report RL31240, 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Background and Funding, by Gail McCallion.
Congressional Research Service
40
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
served under the proposed College- and Career-Ready programs, and to applicants that propose
comprehensive, coordinated programs. It is not clear from the Blueprint how frequently
competitions would occur. The Blueprint does not indicate whether all competitions would be
open to all eligible entities, or would instead be targeted to different entities (e.g., separate
competitions for states versus LEAs).
In addition to the out-of-school-time activities currently funded under 21st CCLC, the newly
restructured program would fund extended learning time opportunities and full-service
community schools.103 It is not clear from the Blueprint whether a certain amount of the funds
available for new grants would be allocated for full-service community schools and/or extended
learning time opportunities, or whether applicants proposing to operate these programs would be
competing with applicants proposing to operate before- and after-school programs for the same
pool of competitive money.
The Administration’s FY2011 budget request would provide level funding of $1.166 billion for a
restructured 21st CCLC program. The restructured program would include
• 21st CCLC (ESEA, Title IV-B); and
• Full Service Community Schools (ESEA, Title V-D-1).
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
Current Law. The existing Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA;
ESEA,Title IV-A) is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence
in and around schools.104 Through FY2009, the SDFSCA supported two major grant programs—
one for State Grants and one for National Activities.105 In FY2009, State Grants received $295
million in funding, and National Activities received $140 million. Prior to elimination of the State
Grants program, critics had argued that the structure of the program was flawed and spread funds
too broadly to support quality interventions. In FY2010, National Activities received $191 million
in funding; State Grants received no funding.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities National
Activities program and several smaller programs would be consolidated into a new program
called Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students. This program would provide competitive grants to
SEAs and Title I-eligible LEAs and their partners. Grantees would be required to develop and
implement a state or district-wide school climate needs assessment to evaluate school
engagement, safety, and environment. Grantees would use funds to improve school safety and
promote students’ physical and mental well-being. Grantees could also use funds to reduce or
103 Community schools include those schools that coordinate and provide access to comprehensive services that address
the developmental, physical, and mental health needs of their students, their families, and, as appropriate, their
communities at the school site.
104 For more information on this program, see CRS Report RL34496, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act: Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues, by Gail McCallion.
105 State Grants were distributed by a formula that allocated 50% of the funds on the basis of school-aged population,
and 50% in proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year. States subsequently
awarded subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) using a formula that allocated 40% of an LEA’s grant on the
basis of school enrollment and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title I-A grants for the preceding
fiscal year. LEAs were permitted to use their formula funds for a wide variety of activities intended to enhance violence
prevention efforts and reduce drug and alcohol abuse.
Congressional Research Service
41
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
prevent substance use and violence, harassment, or bullying; and to strengthen family and
community engagement with the school. Priority would be given to applicants that propose to
support partnerships between LEAs and nonprofit organizations, or propose to direct funds to
schools with the greatest need (such as Challenge schools, or those identified through school
climate surveys as having the greatest need).
The Administration’s FY2011 budget proposal would consolidate several existing programs into
the new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program, with proposed funding of $410 million
for FY2011.106 The following existing programs would be incorporated into this program:
• Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities (ESEA, Title
IV-A);
• Elementary and Secondary School Counseling (ESEA, Title V-D-2);
• Physical Education Program (ESEA, Title V-D-10);
• Foundations For Learning (ESEA, Title V-D-14, Section 5542);
• Mental Health Integration in Schools (ESEA, Title V-D-14, Section 5541);
• Alcohol Abuse Reduction (ESEA, Title IV-A-2, Section 4129).
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to supporting the
whole child.
• The Promise Neighborhood program would be expanded to provide effective
community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education
reforms to improve the educational and life outcomes for children and youth in
high-need communities, from birth through college, and into careers.
• The 21st CCLC would be changed from a formula grant program to a competitive
grant program.
• The Blueprint would consolidate the Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Communities National Activities program and several smaller programs into a
new program called Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students, which would
provide competitive grants to SEAs and Title I-eligible LEAs and their partners.
VI. Competition, Innovation, and Choice
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act supports educational programs through both
formula and competitive funding. The majority of the funding is provided through Title I-A
106 According to the Administration’s FY2011 budget request, the $410 million in funding would be allocated as
follows: $5 million would be for grants to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the outlying areas, $85 million for National
Activities, $139 million for new competitive grants, $1 million for peer review, and $180.5 million for continuation
awards to predecessor programs ($91.7 million for SDFSCA National Activities, $8.2 million for Alcohol Abuse
Reduction, $36.5 million for Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and $44.1 million for Physical Education
programs).
Congressional Research Service
42
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
formula grants. With the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, however, ED
was authorized to use an unprecedented amount of funding to conduct competitive grant
programs. ED has expressed interest in continuing these competitive grant programs through
ESEA reauthorization in addition to the existing formula grant programs. ED has also expressed
an interest in continuing to offer public school choice options, such as charter schools and magnet
schools.
Under the Blueprint, programs that support competition, innovation, and choice are discussed
under the heading of Fostering Innovation and Excellence.
Fostering Innovation and Excellence
This section of the report discusses the Blueprint proposal with respect to supporting innovative
programs that prepare students to be college- and career-ready and provide students with high-
quality public school options. These programs include an expanded Race to the Top (RTTT)
program, additional funding for the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), a modified Charter Schools
Program, and funding for public school choice and magnet schools.
Division A, Sections 14006 and 14007 of the ARRA authorized State Incentive Grants and the
Innovation Fund. These programs are now known as Race to the Top and i3, respectively. The
other programs discussed in this section are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, Titles V-B and C. Each program and ED’s relevant proposal are discussed below.
Race to the Top
Current Law. Under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund created by the ARRA, $53.6 billion was
appropriated to provide grants to states to increase state support for elementary and secondary
education and public institutions of higher education. Of the funds appropriated, $5 billion was
reserved for the Secretary to establish the RTTT program, and the Secretary was given the option
to use up to $650 million of the $5 billion to establish the i3 program. The Secretary has done
both.
The statutory language authorizing the RTTT competitive grant program specifies that grants
must be made to states and that at least 50% of the funds received by states must be provided to
LEAs receiving grants under the ESEA, Title I-A program. Since the program was authorized as
part of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the RTTT grants also include a variation of the four
priorities associated with the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. To receive a grant under the State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund, states were required to provide assurances about specific school reform
areas. ED modified these assurances to some extent for RTTT’s first round of competition, added
two eligibility priorities for receiving grants, and added several other areas in which states had to
discuss their educational plans.107
107 In their RTTT applications, states were specifically asked to advance reforms around four areas outlined by the
Secretary: (1) adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to
compete in the global economy; (2) building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform
teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; (3) recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining
effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and (4) turning around the lowest-achieving
schools. To be eligible to receive a RTTT grant, the state must have received both rounds of state funding under the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
43
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Blueprint. The RTTT program proposed in the Blueprint is based on the current program with
several modifications, including authorizing the program as part of the ESEA rather than the
ARRA. Under the Blueprint, the RTTT program would be expanded to allow states and LEAs
(rather than states) to compete for grants. According to ED, states would compete against other
states for grants, and LEAs would compete against other LEAs.108 ED indicated that it would like
to allow LEAs in states that receive RTTT grants to separately compete for RTTT funds, but it
was unclear whether the program would be implemented in this way. All grantees under the new
program would be required to develop and implement comprehensive plans with the involvement
of other stakeholders to “dramatically improve student outcomes.” The plans would have to focus
on college- and career-ready standards and associated assessments, providing better data on
educational options to students and their families, providing better information to teachers to help
them improve their practices, supporting effective teachers and school leaders, intervening in
persistently low-performing schools, and supporting innovative reform models.
Grantees would continue to have flexibility in how they use their funds, but states would be
required to award at least 50% of their funds to LEAs participating in the state plan. Under the
current RTTT program, at least 50% of funds received by states must be awarded to Title I-A
LEAs. This restriction on Title I-A LEAs would no longer apply. All grantees would be required
to meet annual performance targets and to improve measurable outcomes for students and
schools. The receipt of continuation funding would be contingent on grantees implementing their
plans effectively and meeting their performance targets. Thus, it appears that states and LEAs
could receive multi-year grants under the proposed RTTT program, as opposed to one-time grants
under the current program. However, the Blueprint does not specify the number of years for
which grants would be made. Finally, all grantees would be required to “invest in rigorous
evaluation” of their performance and reform efforts.
Investing in Innovation
Current Law. The i3 program was established under Section 14007 of the ARRA. During
FY2010, the Secretary will award $650 million in i3 competitive grants to LEAs, partnerships
between nonprofit organizations and LEAs, or a consortium of schools for the purposes of
allowing eligible entities to expand and develop innovative practices that can serve as models of
best practice, to work in partnership with the private sector and the philanthropic community, and
to identify and document best practices that can be shared and taken to scale on demonstrated
success.
The Secretary has outlined four “absolute priorities” for the current i3 program: (1) Innovations
that Support Effective Teachers and Principals, (2) Innovations that Improve the Use of Data, (3)
Innovations that Complement the Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality
Assessments, and (4) Innovations that Turn Around Persistently Low-Performing Schools.
Applicants must choose one of these absolute priorities and address it in the application.
(...continued)
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and may not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the state level to linking
data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and principals for staff evaluation purposes.
108 Information provided by the U.S. Department of Education at a meeting with staff from the House of
Representatives on March 25, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
44
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
In addition to one absolute priority, applicants may choose to address one or more of the
following “competitive preference” priorities: (1) Innovations for Improving Early Learning
Outcomes, (2) Innovations that Support College Access and Success, (3) Innovations to Address
the Unique Learning Needs of Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students,
and (4) Innovations that Serve Schools in Rural LEAs.
The i3 program uses a “three-tiered evidence framework” to award three different types of grants
(i.e., Development, Validation, and Scale-Up grants). The type of grant an applicant applies for is
based on the level of evidence for the particular educational practice or program to be
implemented and evaluated during the grant period. Each applicant for the i3 program is required
to conduct or participate in an independent evaluation. In addition, each applicant must secure
matching funds from the private sector equal to 20% of the grant award.
Blueprint. The i3 program proposed in the Blueprint is based on the current program with several
modifications, including authorizing the program as part of the ESEA rather than the ARRA.
Under the Blueprint, the i3 program would continue to provide competitive grants to expand the
implementation of, and investment in, innovative and evidence-based practices, programs, and
strategies that improve student outcomes. The Secretary would continue to use a three-tiered
evidence framework that would provide higher levels of funding to programs and practices that
are supported by stronger evidence. Each grantee would be required to conduct or participate in
an independent evaluation of its project, and grantees would be required to form partnerships and
secure matching funds. Under the Blueprint, the Secretary would be granted some discretion to
give preference to applications that propose to develop or expand innovations around “specific
pressing needs.” Some of these needs are defined in the Blueprint as improving the teaching and
learning of STEM subjects, improving early learning outcomes, addressing the learning needs of
English language learners and students with disabilities, and serving schools in rural areas. In
addition, the Secretary would be granted discretion to reserve funds for “inducement prizes” to
incentivize interventions that dramatically improve educational outcomes.
The Administration’s FY2011 budget summary requests $500 million for i3 and would consider
the i3 program a newly authorized ESEA program. Of the $500 million, $150 million would be
available for projects involving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. The
description of the program in the budget summary appears to expand the current program so that
states would be eligible applicants and could apply to “undertake special projects.”109
Expanding Educational Options
Currently, there are federal competitive grant programs for charter schools, public school choice,
and magnet schools. The Blueprint addresses the expansion of educational options across these
programs. Under the Blueprint, ED would encourage “educational entrepreneurship” through
expanded competitive grants that would be intended to increase the availability of high-quality
public school options.
109 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 20,
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/11summary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
45
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Supporting Effective Charter Schools
Current Law. The ESEA authorizes three programs related to charter schools: Charter Schools
Program (CSP; Title V-B-1), State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program (Title V-B-
1), and Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility, Acquisition,
Construction, and Renovation (Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities; Title V-B-2).
For FY2010, these programs received a total of $256 million.110
CSP provides competitive grants to support the planning, program design, and initial
implementation of charter schools, and the dissemination of information on charter schools.111
SEAs in states with charter school laws may apply for grants.112 These entities subsequently make
competitive grants to charter schools. Charter schools can receive three-year planning113 and
implementation grants or dissemination grants of up to two years. Through the FY2010 Omnibus
Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), several changes were made to the CSP, including requiring
states applying for grants in FY2010 to describe their plan for monitoring and holding
accountable public chartering agencies in the state through various activities (e.g., providing
technical assistance or professional development). State applications are also required to contain
assurances that state law, regulations, or other policies include requirements related to
performance contracts and charter renewal decisions.114
The State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants program is a competitive grant program that
provides matching funds115 to states to establish or enhance and administer per-student facilities
allowances to help charter schools obtain facilities.116 Only SEAs that have enacted a state law
authorizing per-student annual facilities aid for charter schools may apply. To date, only four
states have received grants under this program: California, the District of Columbia, Minnesota,
and Utah.
110 The funds were appropriated for the CSP. The Secretary is permitted to use up to $23 million for State Charter
School Facilities Incentive Grants and the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program.
111 For the purposes of the current federal charter school programs authorized under the ESEA, a “charter school” is
defined in Section 5210.
112 If the SEA in a state does not apply for a grant, a charter school developer in that state may apply directly to ED for
a grant.
113 Charter schools receiving planning and implementation grants are limited to using the funds for not more than 18
months for planning and program design and not more than two years for the initial implementation of the charter
school. Dissemination grants may only be awarded to charter schools that have been in operation for at least three
consecutive years and have demonstrated overall success in improving student achievement, high levels of parent
satisfaction, and the management and leadership necessary to overcome start-up problems and establish a financially
viable charter school. Charter schools may not receive more than one of each type of grant.
114 More specifically, state applications are also required to contain assurances that state law, regulations, or other
policies require that (1) each authorized charter school operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract
that describes the responsibilities of the school and chartering agency; requires annual, independent audits of the
school’s financial statements; and demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and (2) student performance
for the all-students group and each relevant subgroup on state assessments required under ESEA, Title I-A is the most
important factor in determining whether to renew or revoke a charter.
115 Competitive grants are made for up to five years. The federal share of the cost of the program cannot exceed 90% in
the first year, 80% in the second year, 60% in the third year, 40% in the fourth year, or 20% in the fifth year.
116 This program is authorized as part of the CSP. The specific program authorization appears in Section 5205(b). The
program uses the same state grant priorities criteria as the CSP (Section 5205(e)).
Congressional Research Service
46
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
The Credit Enhancement program provides grants to eligible entities to demonstrate innovative
credit enhancement initiatives to assist charter schools in meeting the costs of acquiring,
constructing, and renovating facilities. Entities eligible to apply for grants include public entities
(including state or local governments), private nonprofit entities, or a consortium of a public
entity and a private nonprofit entity.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, ED would continue to provide competitive grants to start or
expand high-performing charter schools, but would expand the scope of the program to include
the start or expansion of high-performing autonomous public schools. According to the Blueprint,
autonomous public schools are schools that resemble charter schools with respect to having at
least as much autonomy as charter schools over their operations, including staffing, budget,
schedule, and program. Charter schools and autonomous schools receiving grants under the
program would be required to be held to the same accountability system as traditional public
schools and be subject to additional accountability for improving student academic achievement.
Grants would be made to states, charter school authorizers, charter management organizations,
LEAs, and nonprofit organizations. Applicants would be evaluated based on their track record of
“funding, supporting, authorizing, managing, or operating” high-performing charter schools or
autonomous public schools. They would also be evaluated based on their record of eliminating
funding for or closing low-performing charter schools or autonomous public schools, as well as
their commitment to improving the quality of their schools. Grantees would be required to
develop plans to demonstrate how all students in the school would be served, including students
with disabilities, and how information would be provided to students and their families to ensure
they are aware of their education options.
The Blueprint also indicates that ED would support grantees in developing their capacity to
support and hold schools accountable under this competitive grant program. Grantees at all levels
would be permitted to set aside funds to build their capacity for these purposes. Under the
Blueprint, charter management organizations that agree to work with LEAs in improving schools
operated by the LEA may be eligible for larger grants.117 It is unclear whether these would be
traditional public schools or autonomous public schools.
The Blueprint does not specifically discuss either of the two existing charter school facilities-
related programs. Rather, the Blueprint indicates that the Secretary, at his discretion, could
reserve a portion of funds to improve charter schools’ access to facilities or funding for facilities.
Promoting Public School Choice
Current Law. The ESEA, Title V-B-3 authorizes the Voluntary Public School Choice program.
The program provides competitive grants for up to five years to support the establishment or
expansion of public school choice. Eligible grantees for the program include SEAs, LEAs, or
partnerships of SEAs and LEAs, and other public, for-profit or nonprofit entities. In making
awards under this program, priority is given to applications that provide the widest variety of
choice to participating students, would have the greatest effect in allowing students who attend
low-performing schools to attend high-performing schools, and propose partnerships to
implement interdistrict (i.e., among LEAs) choice. Grant recipients must use funds to pay the
117 The Blueprint does not provide any indication of how large grants would be for any grantees.
Congressional Research Service
47
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
transportation costs associated with students choosing to attend different public schools.118
Grantees are required to develop their programs with parent, community, and educator
involvement. They are also required to notify parents in the area to be served by the program
about the existence of the program, the program’s availability, and how the program will operate.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, competitive grants would continue to be made to LEAs, consortia
of LEAs, and states working in partnership with LEAs119 to increase public school options for
students, especially students attending low-performing schools, and to ensure that students and
their families are aware of these options. The program would continue to focus on interdistrict
and intradistrict choice programs but would be expanded to include support for theme-based
schools, high-quality online education programs, or academic pathways.120 Grantees would be
required to provide students, families, and communities with information about how to “identify,
evaluate, and access high-quality educational options.” Several priorities would be established for
awarding grants, including priority for interdistrict choice programs, programs that provide
comprehensive choices to all students in an LEA, and programs “that increase diversity in the
schools served by the program.”121
Magnet Schools Assistance Program
Current Law. Under current law, the Magnet Schools Assistance program is designed to assist in
the desegregation of schools served by LEAs by providing financial assistance for the
elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority group isolation; development and
implementation of magnet programs that will assist students in meeting academic standards; and
development and design of innovative educational methods that promote diversity and increase
school choice. Competitive grants are awarded for a period of three years to LEAs or consortia of
LEAs that are implementing a court ordered desegregation plan122 or are voluntarily
implementing a desegregation plan that has been approved by the Secretary,123 and the
desegregation plan must be designed to bring together students from different social, economic,
ethnic, and racial backgrounds. For the purposes of the program, a magnet school is defined as a
public elementary school, public secondary school, public elementary education center, or public
secondary education center that offers a special curriculum capable of attracting substantial
numbers of students of different racial backgrounds. Magnet schools generally have an academic
subject focus (e.g., engineering, science, arts) or a specialized method of instruction (e.g.,
International Baccalaureate program, Montessori).
118 Funds may also be used for planning or designing a public school choice program, the costs of making tuition
transfer payments, capacity-enhancing activities to enable schools facing high demand for slots to accommodate
transfer requests, and other costs necessary to implement the program.
119 The Blueprint does not indicate that other nonprofit or for-profit entities would be eligible to receive grants as under
current law.
120 “Academic pathways” is not defined.
121 This priority may raise constitutional issues depending on its actual implementation. For more information about
this issue, see CRS Report RL33965, The Constitution and Racial Diversity in K-12 Education: A Legal Analysis of the
Supreme Court Ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, by Jody Feder.
122 This includes a plan required by a state agency or a plan required by the Office of Civil Rights at ED.
123 The Secretary must find the plan to be adequate under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the desegregation
of minority-group-segregated children or faculty in such schools.
Congressional Research Service
48
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, the Magnet Schools Assistance program would be retained as a
competitive grant program. The program would place more emphasis on funding whole-school
magnet programs or models that have demonstrated success in improving student academic
achievement and reducing minority group isolation. According to ED, emphasizing these aspects
of the program would expand and improve education options for students and increase diversity.
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to choice,
innovation, and competition.
• RTTT would become a newly authorized competitive grant program within the
ESEA.
• i3 would become a newly authorized competitive grant program within the
ESEA.
• Competitive grants would continue to be made available to start charter schools,
but the scope of the program would be expanded to include support for the
replication of high-performing charter schools and the start or expansion of high-
performing autonomous public schools.
VII. ED’s Priorities Across ESEA Programs
ED has outlined a set of additional priorities that cut across numerous programs within the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These priorities are not directly tied to any program in
particular and making comparisons between current law and these priorities is difficult because
there is no parallel section of “priorities” within the ESEA. This report does not, therefore,
attempt to make direct comparison between current law and the Blueprint within each of the
following sections. Direct comparisons between the ESEA and the Blueprint are made in select
sections, where appropriate.
Under the Blueprint, ED outlines its priorities for reauthorized programs under the ESEA in
Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities.
Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities
ED states in the Blueprint that it seeks to “redefine the federal role in education: shifting from a
focus merely on compliance to allowing state and local innovation to flourish, rewarding success,
and fostering supportive and collaborative relationships with states, districts, and nonprofit
partners.”124 ED seeks to redefine the federal role in several ways. For example, under the
Blueprint, states and LEAs would be granted more flexibility in return for “improved outcomes.”
ED also proposes to expand programs, projects, and strategies that show results and focus on
“key priorities” across programs.
124 Blueprint, p.39.
Congressional Research Service
49
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ED’s discussion of cross-cutting priorities seems to be an effort to unite the proposed educational
programs and policies and to create focus during the reauthorization of the ESEA. Although ED
describes these priorities as “cross-cutting,” the Blueprint does not offer sufficient detail to
determine how each cross-cutting priority is reflected in the proposed programs and policies. The
remaining sections of this report follow the Blueprint in its discussion of cross-cutting priorities
and, where possible, provide details on how the priorities are incorporated into proposed
programs and policies. “Additional cross-cutting priorities” discussed within the Blueprint
include Flexibility for Success, Growing Success, Evaluation and Building the Knowledge Base,
and Cross-Cutting Priorities.125
Flexibility for Success
In general, federal K-12 education assistance program requirements include activities or
outcomes that SEAs or LEAs are expected to provide or achieve in order to establish
accountability for the use of funds consistent with the purposes of authorizing statutes. These
requirements are usually intended to provide target accountability, ensuring that funds are
focused on eligible localities, students, and purposes; outcome accountability, ensuring that funds
are used effectively to improve student achievement and improve the quality of K-12 instruction;
and fiscal accountability, ensuring financial integrity and providing that federal funds constitute a
net increase in resources.
Current Law. The ESEA contains several special flexibility authorities that allow exceptions to
these general requirements. These include Ed-Flex; Secretarial case-by-case waivers; ESEA, Title
I-A schoolwide programs; flexibility for small, rural LEAs; the Innovative Programs block grant;
and Transferability authority; plus the State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Program (State-
Flex and Local-Flex). In general, these authorities increase the ability of states or LEAs to use
federal funding in accordance with their own priorities. These authorities, however, are
significantly limited in terms of the number of states and LEAs that may participate, the number
and size of the programs affected, or the range of requirements that may be waived.
Blueprint. Under the Blueprint, ED would provide states and LEAs with additional flexibility in
how they spend “federal dollars” to improve student outcomes.126 States and LEAs would be
given the flexibility to use most federal administrative funds and reservations to build their
capacity to support “reform and improvement.” Most LEAs would also be provided with
flexibility in how they spent more of their ESEA program funds, as long as they complied with
the requirements associated with the funds and were improving student outcomes.
Growing Success
Under the Blueprint, ED indicates that it would reward grantees who are improving student
outcomes but would also seek to replicate their best practices. Thus, for each competitive grant
program discussed in the Blueprint, grantees that are “significantly improving” student outcomes
would be eligible to received continuation funds as well as funds to expand their strategies to
125 The Blueprint contains a section on “Cross-Cutting Priorities” under the overall heading of “Additional Cross-
Cutting Priorities.”
126 The Blueprint does not limit flexibility to federal funds administered by ED.
Congressional Research Service
50
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
additional students, schools, LEAs, or states. This particular strategy for “growing success”
would be used as a way to target federal funds to successful projects.
Evaluation and Building the Knowledge Base
The Blueprint proposes that federal, state, and local levels work together to use data for
continuous improvement, test innovative ideas, evaluate and replicate promising approaches, and
“scale-up” programs that show evidence of improved results. Under the authority of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ED has begun to establish competitive grant programs that
allow state and local levels to apply for funding to further certain school reform goals and to
evaluate their progress toward these goals.127 In addition, ED has offices that conduct policy
analysis and evaluation at the federal level. The Blueprint may seek to expand these current
mechanisms of evaluation or seek to align state, local, and federal evaluation.
Several offices currently conduct research that evaluates policies, programs, and practices for
elementary and secondary education students. For example, the Office of Planning, Evaluation,
and Policy Development (OPEPD) conducts evaluations of proposed education policy and
designs, conducts, and reports on evaluations to describe program operations and outcomes to
promote program improvement.128 In addition, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has
several centers that conduct evaluations of educational policies, programs, and interventions.129
OPEPD and IES conduct both congressionally mandated evaluations and evaluations of broad
national interest determined by ED.
Under the Blueprint, a “new evaluation authority” would authorize rigorous, objective
evaluations of the ESEA programs, policies, and practices and support performance measurement
of those programs. The Secretary would also submit to Congress a biennial plan on ESEA
evaluation and performance measurement and would establish an independent panel that advises
the Secretary on the plan. It is unclear whether the “new evaluation authority” refers to granting a
new authority to an existing research and evaluation office within ED (e.g., OPEPD or IES) or
creating a new office specifically designed to evaluate and foster ongoing improvement of ESEA
programs.
The Administration’s FY2011 budget includes $9.2 million for a “reauthorized Title I Evaluation
authority,” which would continue to evaluate the impact and implementation of Title I programs,
including College- and Career-Ready Students and School Turnaround Grants programs. OPEPD
currently conducts evaluations of Title I, so the “new” authority may extend their evaluation
authority to conduct this type of work.
Cross-Cutting Priorities
The Blueprint discusses five other priorities that may be relevant to several areas of education
reform: Technology, Evidence, Efficiency, Supporting English Learners and Students with
Disabilities, and Supporting Rural and Other High-Need Areas. These priorities would not
127 See previous sections of this report: “Race to the Top” and “Investing in Innovation.”
128 For more information on the Policy and Program Studies Service of OPEPD, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/opepd/ppss/index.html.
129 For more information on the Centers of IES, see http://ies.ed.gov/centers.asp.
Congressional Research Service
51
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
represent specific ESEA programs; however, states, LEAs, and schools would be encouraged to
incorporate these priorities across their educational programs and policies. To date, ED has
incentivized these priorities in some of its competitive grant programs, such as RTTT and i3, and
may continue to do so in future competitive grant competitions. Based on the discussion in the
Blueprint, it appears that the cross-cutting priorities are particularly relevant to competitive grants
because competitive grants are a funding mechanism that typically allows the Secretary to grant
“priority” to applicants. It is unclear how the Secretary would incentivize states to apply these
priorities in formula grant programs.
Technology
In the Blueprint, ED states that the use of technology can improve how schools work, how
teachers teach, and how students learn. ED would give priority to programs, projects, or strategies
that leverage digital information or communications technology to accomplish the goals of a
grant. Currently, ED incentivizes the use of technology in the RTTT and i3 grant programs.
Within RTTT, states were given competitive priority if they proposed a high-quality plan to
emphasize STEM across grades and disciplines and prepare more students for advanced study in
STEM careers. In addition, both RTTT and i3 give priority to applications that improve how
schools work in terms of improving data systems and using data to improve student outcomes.
Within the Blueprint, technology is incorporated into several programs, such as a Complete
Education (i.e., Literacy, STEM, Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education, and Activities to
Strengthen a Complete Education); however, as discussed previously, the Ed-Tech program would
no longer receive a separate funding stream under the ESEA.
Evidence
Current Law. Under the ESEA, the concept of “evidence” is addressed through requirements for
using “scientifically based research.” Scientifically based research is defined in the ESEA as
“research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain
reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.”130 The term includes
empirical methods—both experimental and quasi-experimental—that rely on observation or
experimentation and have results that are accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or a panel of
independent experts.
Blueprint. In the Blueprint, ED proposes that funding be devoted to areas with the most evidence
of effectiveness in improving outcomes for students. ED would give priority to programs,
projects, or strategies on the strength of their evidentiary base. The i3 program currently uses a
three-tiered framework of evidence to award competitive grants. Some of the selection criteria
within the RTTT program also requires states to provide specific evidence to support educational
programs proposed within the grant.
In the Blueprint, “evidence-based” is mentioned within the context of College- and Career-Ready
Students, Effective Teachers and Leaders, Literacy, STEM, Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education,
i3, Expanding Educational Options, and Evaluation and Building the Knowledge Base. In most
cases, ED has not defined the type or level of evidence required for a program or policy to be
130 ESEA, Section 9101(37).
Congressional Research Service
52
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
“evidence-based.”131 It is unclear at this time whether the shift from “scientifically based
research” to “evidence-based” programs and policies is intentional or whether this would have
any discernable effect on the type or level of evidence required to determine the effectiveness of a
program or policy.
Efficiency
In the Blueprint, ED states that priority may be given to programs, projects, or strategies that are
designed to significantly increase the efficiency in the use of resources to improve student
outcomes. It is unclear how the priority of efficiency relates to current or proposed ED programs.
In the RTTT program, the application briefly mentions that applicants may be judged on their
ability to effectively and efficiently implement their RTTT programs, including grant
administration and oversight, budget and reporting, and performance measure tracking and
reporting, and fund disbursement. Within the Blueprint, efficiency is only mentioned in the Cross-
Cutting Priorities section and is not mentioned in relation to any proposed programs.
Supporting English Learners and Students with Disabilities
In the Blueprint, ED restates a central theme of the ESEA: schools, LEAs, and states must be held
accountable for educating all students, including English language learners and students with
disabilities. ED states that more work could be done to develop and scale-up effective strategies
for these two groups of students. The Secretary may grant priority to programs, projects, or
strategies that are designed to specifically improve the performance of English language learners
or students with disabilities.
English language learners and students with disabilities are mentioned throughout the Blueprint.
The primary legislation covering the elementary and secondary education of English language
learners is the ESEA, while the primary legislation covering the education of students with
disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Blueprint provides some detail
on ELL education programs (as discussed in “English Learner Education”) but relatively little
information on education programs for students with disabilities.
In general, ELLs and students with disabilities are mentioned together within specific programs in
the Blueprint (e.g., College- and Career-Ready Students, Assessing Achievement, Great Teachers
and Great Leaders, etc.). Although both groups of students are mentioned together and some
students are in both groups, each group has unique educational needs that cannot necessarily be
addressed by the same policy, program, or practice. For example, an assessment that accurately
measures what ELLs know and can do may not be an appropriate assessment for some students
with disabilities. As another example, teachers who are effective in the instruction of ELLs may
not be trained to teach students with disabilities.
Within the current i3 program, applicants are given competitive preference points for proposing
to meet the unique learning needs of ELLs or students with disabilities. In the i3 program, the
131 The exception to this statement is the i3 program, in which ED defined three levels of evidence: plausible
hypothesis, moderate evidence, and strong evidence. For more information, see http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/
FedRegister/finrule/2010-1/031210a.html.
Congressional Research Service
53
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
needs of ELLs or students with disabilities could be addressed within any of the four absolute
priority areas.132
Supporting Rural and Other High-Need Areas
Under the Blueprint, ED would implement strategies to ensure that rural districts and other high-
need districts are not disadvantaged in the process of applying for competitive grants. These
“strategies” are not discussed in the Blueprint, but it is possible that ED may offer more technical
assistance to rural and other high-need districts in applying for and administering competitive
grants. It may also be possible for ED to structure new competitive grant programs in a way that
either gives priority to rural and other high-need districts or incentivizes partnerships between
these districts and districts that may be perceived to be more competitive in the grant process.
Currently, the i3 program awards competitive preference points to applicants that propose to
develop or implement innovations that serve schools in rural LEAs. In the i3 program, applicants
could propose to support rural and other high-need areas within any of the four absolute priority
areas.133 If the i3 program is reauthorized as a new ESEA program, as outlined by the Blueprint, it
is possible that support of rural and other high-need areas may be continued through the use of
competitive preference points.
Summary of Key Provisions
Below are highlights of key changes the Administration proposes with respect to priorities across
ESEA programs.
• The presence of clearly defined priorities across ESEA programs would represent
a new organizational construct for the legislation that is not currently used across
the ESEA.
• It is unclear how or where these additional cross-cutting priorities would be
represented in new legislation.
132 See “Investing in Innovation” for more information on the absolute priority areas.
133 See “Investing in Innovation” for more information on the absolute priority areas.
Congressional Research Service
54
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Appendix. Tables
Table A-1. Alignment Between Stated Priorities in the Blueprint and
Discussion of These Priorities
Page in the Blueprint on Which
Priority Area/Focus
Broad Discussion Section
Discussion Begins
College- and Career-Ready
Students
Raising standards for all
College- and Career-Ready Students
7
students
Better assessments
College- and Career-Ready Students
7
A complete education
A Complete Education
25
Great Teachers and Leaders in
Every School
Effective teachers and
Great Teachers and Leaders
13
principals
Our best teachers and
Great Teachers and Leaders
13
leaders where they are
needed most
Strengthening teacher and
Great Teachers and Leaders
13
leader preparation and
recruitment
Equity and Opportunity for Al
Students
Rigorous and fair
College- and Career-Ready Students
7
accountability for all levels
Meeting the needs of diverse
Meeting the Needs of English
19
learners
Language Learners and Other Diverse
Learners
Greater equity
College- and Career-Ready Students
7
Raise the Bar and Reward
Excel ence
Fostering a Race to the Top
Fostering Innovation and Excel ence
35
Supporting effective public
Fostering Innovation and Excel ence
35
school choice
Promoting a culture of
A Complete Education
25
college readiness and success
Promote Innovation and
Continuous Improvement
Fostering innovation and
Fostering Innovation and Excel ence
35
accelerating success
Congressional Research Service
55
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Page in the Blueprint on Which
Priority Area/Focus
Broad Discussion Section
Discussion Begins
Supporting, recognizing, and
Additional Cross-Cutting Priorities
39
rewarding local innovations
Supporting student success
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
31
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on CRS review of the U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for
Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2010.
Note: The broad discussion area cited in the table references the primary discussion of a specific priority.
Individual priorities may be included in other sections of the Blueprint discussion.
Congressional Research Service
56
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Table A-2. Comparison of Key Provisions Under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and the U.S. Department of Education’s
Blueprint for ESEA Reauthorization
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
College- and Career-Ready Students
College- and Career-Ready Students
Title I-A of current law, known as the Education for
Title I-A would be known as the College- and Career-Ready
the Disadvantaged program, includes numerous
program. It would continue to be the vehicle to which
accountability requirements with which states, local
numerous (but different) accountability requirements would
educational agencies (LEAs), and schools have to
be attached.
comply as a condition of receiving funds.
States are required to adopt standards and
States would be required to adopt state-developed
assessments in the subjects of reading/language arts
standards in language arts/reading and mathematics for
and mathematics in each of grades 3-8. States are
grades 3-12 that ensure that students graduate from high
required to adopt standards and assessments for at
school college- and career-ready. States would be required
least one grade in the range of 10th-12th grade. States
to adopt assessments aligned with these standards in each of
are required to adopt standards and assessments in
grades 3-8. States would be required to administer a high
science for three grade levels (once in each of the
school assessment to determine whether students are
fol owing grade spans: 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). Currently,
col ege- and career-ready. States would be required to
only the results of the reading/language arts and
continue to have science standards and assessments, as
mathematics assessments are required to be included
under current law. These assessments and statewide
in state accountability systems for meeting the
assessments administered in other subject areas could be
requirements of Title I-A.
included in a state’s accountability system.
Each year, states, LEAs, and schools are reviewed to
The current system of AYP would be replaced by a new
determine whether they are making adequate yearly
system based on statewide assessments in reading/language
progress (AYP). AYP is defined primarily on the basis
arts, math, and science. States would be permitted to
of multiple aggregations of student scores on states’
expand the accountability system to include any subject in
assessments of academic achievement in language arts
which a statewide assessment is administered. (Additional
and mathematics. States are permitted to include
details about how the system would function appear below.)
other academic indicators, such as student
achievement on state assessments in other subjects, in
their accountability systems.
States are required to establish an Academic
States would be required to develop accountability systems
Achievement Awards program to recognize schools
that reward schools and LEAs for growth in student
that are making academic gains and to implement a
achievement and academic success. These systems would be
system of outcome accountability specified in
required to use “rigorous Interventions” for the lowest-
statutory language. Under the current system of AYP,
performing schools and LEAs. (Additional details about how
schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two
the system would function appear below.)
consecutive years or more are subject to a system of
outcome accountability. At the school level, this
includes being identified for improvement, corrective
action, and restructuring.
AYP standards developed by states must incorporate
The current goal of having al students reach the proficient
concrete movement toward the goal of having al
level or higher in reading/language arts or math by the end
students reach the proficient level or higher in
of the 2013-2014 school year would be eliminated. It would
reading/language arts or math by the end of the 2013-
be replaced by a goal of having al students graduate from
2014 school year.
high school col ege- and career-ready by 2020.
Congressional Research Service
57
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Student achievement on state assessments is general y Academic performance would no longer be evaluated based
measured using a “group status model,“ which
on absolute performance and proficiency. Rather, individual
determines what percentage of students overall and in student growth and school progress over time would be
various subgroups meet a uniform level of
taken into account in evaluating performance.
performance established by the state for the
assessments. Achievement is also measured using a
“safe harbor” provision, under which a school that
does not meet the aforementioned uniform level of
expected performance but is making a certain level of
progress toward the goal of all students being
proficient in reading/language arts and math by 2013-
2014 is considered to have made AYP. Through
regulations, states are also permitted to use growth
models to determine whether students are on track
to be proficient.
States are required to establish an Academic
There would be an increased focus on rewarding schools,
Achievement Awards program to recognize schools
LEAs, and states that reach performance targets,
that are making academic gains and to implement a
“significantly” increase student performance for al students,
system of outcome accountability specified in
close achievement gaps, and turn around the lowest-
statutory language.
performing schools. Schools, LEAs, and states that meet
these criteria would be referred to as “Reward” schools,
LEAs, and states. Among other benefits, Reward LEAs
would be provided with flexibility in implementing
interventions in their lowest-performing schools.
Competitive preference may be given to Reward states,
“high-need” Reward LEAs, and “high-need” schools in some
federal grant competitions.
Under the current system of AYP, schools and LEAs
States would be required to identify three categories of
that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years or
schools in need of “specific assistance.” The first category
more are subject to a system of outcome
of schools, Chal enge schools, would include the lowest-
accountability. At the school level, this includes being
performing 5% of schools in each state. These schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, and
would be required to implement one of four turnaround
restructuring. Schools identified for improvement are
models. Presumably, these would be the four turnaround
required to provide students with an opportunity to
models that would be used for School Turnaround Grants
attend a public school in the LEA that is making AYP,
(see below). The second category of schools, Warning
provide supplemental educational services (SES), use
category schools, would include the next 5% of the lowest-
at least 10% of their Title I-A funding for professional
performing schools. States and LEAs would be required to
development, and develop and implement a school
implement “research-based, locally-determined strategies”
improvement plan. Once a school reaches corrective
to assist these schools. The third category of schools, also
action, it is required to implement one of several
known as Chal enge schools, would include schools that fail
actions specified in statutory language (e.g., replacing
to close “significant, persistent achievement gaps.” LEAs
school staff, extending the school year), in addition to
would be required to implement “data-driven interventions”
the actions previously required. At the restructuring
to assist students who are the lowest performing and to
stage, the school is required to implement some form
close the achievement gap.
of alternative governance structure, including
reopening as a charter school, replacing all or most of
the school staff, contracting with an education
management organization to operate the school,
turning the school over to the state, or any other
“major restructuring” of the school’s governance
structure.
Schools failing to make AYP for two consecutive years LEAs would have the option to implement public school
and for a third year are required to offer a public
choice or SES for Chal enge schools.
school choice and SES, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
58
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Building Capacity for Support at Every Level
States are able to reserve 4% of their Title I-A funds
States and LEAs would be permitted to reserve funds from
for school improvement purposes. Of these funds, up
their Title I-A al ocation to build their capacity to support
to 5% may be reserved for state administration and
schools, school leaders, teachers, and students. The amount
state activities. States may also reserve up to 5% of
of the reservation is not specified.
their School Improvement Grant funds for state-level
school improvement activities and administration.
None of these funds are specifically reserved for
capacity building at the state level.
LEAs must reserve up to 20% of their Title I-A
LEAs would be required to reserve a portion of their Title
al ocations to provide public school choice and
I-A grants to improve school performance in high-need
supplemental educational services (SES) in schools
schools. The amount of the reservation is not specified. In
that fail to make AYP for at least two consecutive
addition, LEAs would no longer be required to provide
years.
public school choice or SES.
Fostering Comparability and Equity
Services provided with state and local funds in schools Comparability would be retained as a fiscal accountability
participating in Title I-A must be comparable to those
requirement. LEAs receiving Title I-A funds would be
in non-Title I-A schools of the same LEA. This is
required to report on school-by-school per-student
known as the concept of comparability. LEAs can
expenditures for personnel and relevant nonpersonnel
meet the requirement without reporting any data that expenditures.b
compare expenditures or resources in Title I-A
versus non-Title I-A schools, and do not have to
account for seniority-based salary differentials for
teachers.
Assessing Achievement
States receive formula grants to fulfill the assessment
States would receive formula grants to develop and
requirements of Section 1111(b) of the ESEA. These
implement assessments aligned with college- and career-
requirements include the development and
ready standards in English language arts and mathematics.
implementation of assessments in English language arts These assessments would measure student academic
and mathematics annual y for students in grades 3-8
achievement and growth, provide feedback to support and
and once for students in high school. In addition, the
improve teaching, and measure school success and progress.
requirements include the development and
States would also use the funds to develop additional
implementation of science assessments at least once
statewide assessments in other academic or career and
in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-8, and 9-12).
technical subjects, and to develop high school course
assessments, English language assessments, and interim or
formative assessments.
States (or consortia of states) may apply to receive
A consortia of states (and other partnership entities) would
competitive grants to develop and implement
be eligible to apply for competitive grants to research,
assessments for the purpose of improving the quality,
develop, and improve additional assessments in the areas of
validity, and reliability of state assessments beyond
science, history, or foreign languages; high school course
what is required by Section 1111(b).
assessments in academic and career and technical subjects;
universal y designed assessments; and assessments for
English language learners and students with disabilities.
Congressional Research Service
59
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
School Turnaround Grants
Under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, The program would be renamed School Turnaround
formula grants are made to states, which subsequently Grants. Funds would continue to be awarded by formula to
make competitive grants to LEAs to serve low-
states and competitively at the local level, but could be
performing schools. For the purposes of the program,
awarded to LEAs or partnerships of LEAs and nonprofit
these low-performing schools are identified by the
organizations. Grantees would continue to be required to
state and must have been identified for improvement, implement one of four models specified by ED in low-
corrective action, or restructuring, or have a
performing schools. These schools would no longer be
graduation rate of less than 60%. Depending on the
identified based on their identification for improvement,
specific criteria met by each school, the state places
corrective action, or restructuring, as ED would no longer
the school into one of three tiers established by ED.
use the current system of outcome accountability. Rather,
LEAs serving schools in two of the three tiers are
schools would be identified using the new accountability
required to use one of four models to improve these
system described by ED in the Blueprint. It appears that low-
schools. These models include the turnaround model,
performing schools do not have to be receiving Title I-A
restart model, school closure model, and
funds or be eligible to receive Title I-A funds to receive a
transformation model. With the exception of one of
grant under this program.
the three tiers, schools receiving SIG funds must also
receive Title I-A funds.
Great Teachers and Great Leaders
Effective Teachers and Leaders
The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program
States would continue to receive formula grants under Title
(ESEA, Title II, Part A) awards formula grants to
II-A, and the program would be renamed Effective Teachers
states, which then award subgrants to LEAs (95% of
and Leaders State Grants. The Blueprint does not specify any
grant funds) after reserving funds for state activities.
hold harmless provisions or population elements or formula
weights. States would continue to award subgrants to LEAs
and would be al owed to reserve up to 10% of grant funds
for state activities.
States may use funds for a variety of activities and
States would be required to develop definitions of “effective
primarily used them to reform teacher and principal
teacher,” “effective principal,” “highly effective teacher,” and
certification or licensing requirements. States must
“highly effective principal” in collaboration with stakeholders
ensure that all core subject-matter teachers were
that are “based in significant part on student growth and
“highly qualified” by the end of the 2005-2006 school
also include other measures, such as classroom
year.
observations.” States would be required to develop data
systems that link information on teacher and principal
preparation programs to the job placement, student growth,
and retention outcomes of their graduates.
LEAs may use funds for a variety of activities focused
LEAs would be required to use funds to develop and
on improving teacher quality; however most LEAs
implement fair and meaningful teacher and principal
used three-quarters of their funds for two activities:
evaluation systems; foster and provide col aboration and
professional development and class-size reduction.
development opportunities; build instructional teams; and
improve instructional practice through effective, ongoing,
job-embedded professional development.
States and LEAs are required to issue reports annual y State and district report cards would be required to
on the progress made toward meeting the highly-
included biennial publication of key indicators of program
qualified teacher deadline. LEAs are required to issue
success, including information on teacher qualifications and
these reports publicly and report progress for the
teacher and principal designations of effectiveness; teachers
LEA and each school within the LEA. States are
and principals hired from high-performing pathways; teacher
required to submit reports annual y to the Secretary. survey data on levels of support and working conditions in
schools; the novice status of teachers and principals; teacher
and principal attendance; and retention rates of teachers by
performance level.
Congressional Research Service
60
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund
The Teacher Incentive Fund (ESEA, Title V-D)
A new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would be
supports the reform of teacher and principal
established that builds on the Teacher Incentive Fund and
compensation systems so that teachers and principals
supports compensation reforms and complementary
are rewarded for successful job performance
reforms of teacher and principal development and
(including gains in student achievement), for teaching
evaluation, teacher placement, and other practices. The
in hard-to-staff schools or subjects, and for taking on
program would support states and districts willing to,
additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
“implement ambitious reforms to better identify, recruit,
prepare, develop, retain, reward, and advance effective
teachers, principals, and school leadership teams.” These
programs would be required to differentiate among
teachers and principals on the basis of their students’
growth and other measures and must use this information
to differentiate credentialing, professional development,
retention, advancement, and rewards for effectiveness.
The Advanced Credentialing program (ESEA, Title II-
NBPTS and other nonprofit organizations eligible for a grant
A) awards grants to the National Board for
under Advanced Credentialing would be eligible to partner
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the
with states and LEAs and compete for an Innovation Fund
National Council on Teacher Quality (later
grant.
transferred to the American Board for the
Certification of Teacher Excel ence(ABCTE)) to
support the development and implementation of
advanced certifications or credentials for teachers
who have demonstrated mastery in the teaching of
their academic discipline.
Teacher and Leader Pathways
Five programs prepare and recruit new teachers and
Five existing competitive grant programs would be merged
leaders into the profession: Transition to Teaching
into a new competitive grant program called the Teacher
(ESEA, Title II-C-1-B); School Leadership (ESEA, Title
and Leader Pathways.
II-A, Section 2151(b)); Teacher Quality Partnerships
(HEA, Title II-A); Teach for America (HEA, Title VIII-
F); and Teacher for a Competitive Tomorrow
(America COMPETES Act Title VI-A-1).
Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners
English Learner Education
No requirements for identifying limited English
States would be required to establish consistent statewide
proficient (LEP) students.
criteria for identifying LEP students and placing them in and
exiting them from language instruction educational
programs.
The law mandates certain actions when an LEA fails to LEAs would be provided with less flexibility under these
meet its annual measurable achievement objectives
circumstances, and states would be required to provide
for two and four consecutive years.
more oversight.
LEAs choose and evaluate effectiveness of language
States would be required to create a system to evaluate the
instruction educational programs, and states use the
effectiveness of language instruction educational programs
evaluation to provide technical assistance to improve
and select effective programs.
the program or discontinue funding.
States report the total number and percentage of LEP
States would be required to disaggregate data about LEP
students served meeting various benchmarks.
students by subgroups. (Specific subgroups were not
specified.)
Congressional Research Service
61
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Title III funds are al ocated by formula.
While funds would continue to be provided by formula,
funds would also be provided for at least one competitive
grant program.
Migrant Education
Grants are made to states by formula using outdated
Grants would continue to be made to states by formula, but
data.
the formula would use more accurate and timely data.
Homeless Children and Youths Education
The Education for Homeless Children and Youths
The program would be renamed the Homeless Children and
program (currently authorized under the McKinney-
Youth Education program. The formula would be changed
Vento Homeless Assistance Act) provides assistance
to al ocate awards based on the most recent data available
to state education agencies (SEAs) to ensure that all
on each state’s share of homeless students.
homeless children and youth have equal access to the
same free and appropriate public education, including
public preschool education, that is provided to other
children and youth. Grants made by SEAs to LEAs
under this program must be used to facilitate the
enrollment, attendance, and success in school of
homeless children and youth. LEAs may use funds for
activities such as tutoring, supplemental instruction,
and referral services for homeless children and youth,
as well as for providing them with medical, dental,
mental, and other health services.
Under current law, homeless children may be
The current exception to the prohibition on operating
educated in separate schools for short periods of time separate schools for homeless children and youth would be
for health and safety emergencies or to provide
eliminated.
temporary, special, supplementary services.
Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth
Education
The Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth
The state formula grant program under ESEA, Title I-D-1
Education state grant program (Title I-D-1) awards
would be continued.
formula grants to states based on the number of
children in state-operated institutions and per-student
expenditures for the state.
The Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth
The LEA subgrant program under ESEA, Title I-D-2 would
Education local agency program (Title I-D-2) draws
be continued.
funds for local subgrants from a state-level reservation
of local Title I-A grants. Subgrants are awarded to
LEAs with high numbers or percentages of children
and youth residing in locally operated correctional
facilities.
Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native
Education
Part A provides funding for the language needs of
Part A would provide funding for native language immersion
Indian students, for the incorporation of American
and restoration.
Indian- and Alaska Native-specific curriculum content
into the curriculum used by the LEA and for bilingual
and bicultural programs.
The ESEA allows tribal governing bodies and school
Funding would be provided for the development of tribal-
boards to develop academic content and achievement
specific academic content and achievement standards and
standards, assessments, and an alternative definition of assessments.
AYP.
Congressional Research Service
62
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
BIE-funded schools are not eligible for some ESEA
BIE-funded schools would be eligible to participate in
grant programs.
additional ESEA programs.
There is no formal relationship between tribal
A relationship between TEDs and LEAs or public schools
education departments (TEDs) and public schools.
would be formalized.
LEAs and charter schools are not eligible to apply for
LEAs and charter schools would be eligible to apply for Part
Part B and Part C grants.
B and Part C grants.
Rural Education
The Rural Education Achievement Program (Title VI-
Formula grants for both rural programs would be continued
B) provides two formula grants under Subparts 1 and
with the current, even split of funds between Subparts 1 and
2 to rural LEAs that enroll either a small number of
2 of Title VI-B.
students or a large proportion of low-income
students.
Eligibility under the Subpart 1 Small, Rural School
The method used to identify districts as rural would be
Achievement (SRSA) program requires that an LEA,
updated. The Blueprint provides no detail as to how the
among other requirements, must serve only schools
method would be updated; however, given that NCES
that (1) have a National Center for Education
recently completed the process of updating its locale codes,
Statistics (NCES) locale code of 7 (rural) or 8 (rural
these new codes would presumably be incorporated into
near an urban area), or (2) are located in an area of
the updated identification method.c
the state defined as rural by a governmental agency of
the state. Eligibility under the Subpart 2 Rural Low-
Income School (RLIS) program requires that an LEA,
among other requirements, must serve only schools
that have an NCES locale code of 6 (smal town), 7
(rural), or 8 (rural near an urban area).
“REAP Flex” gives authority to SRSA grantees to use
“REAP Flex” authority would be expanded to RLIS grantees.
their REAP funds to carry activities authorized under
Part A of Title I, Title III (Language Instruction), or
Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning
Centers).
No national activities are authorized.
The Secretary would be authorized to reserve REAP funds
for national activities such as technical assistance and
research on innovative programs that are designed to help
rural districts overcome common capacity constraints.
Impact Aid
Impact Aid, authorized under ESEA, Title VIII,
No substantive changes to the program are discussed.
compensates LEAs for the loss of tax revenue
resulting from federal activities, such as the ownership
of certain federal lands or the enrollment of federally
connected children (e.g., children of parents in the
military) in LEAs.
Congressional Research Service
63
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
A Complete Education
Literacy
The ESEA authorizes the following six programs to
Current literacy programs would be consolidated into a
promote literacy:
new program cal ed Effective Teaching and Learning:
Literacy. This restructured literacy program would be a
1) Striving Readers (ESEA, Title I-E);
competitive grant program serving children from preK
2) Even Start Family Literacy Programs (ESEA,
through grade 12.
Title I-B-3);
3) Literacy Through School Libraries (ESEA, Title
I-B-4);
4) National Writing Project (ESEA, Title II-C-2);
5) Reading Is Fundamental (ESEA, Title V-D-5);
and
6) Ready-to-Learn Television (ESEA, Title II-D-3).
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM)
The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program
The MSP program would be replaced with a new Effective
(ESEA, Title II, Part B) awards formula grants to
Teaching and Learning: Science, Technology, Engineering,
states, which then award subgrants to partnerships
and Mathematics program. The proposed program would
that must include the engineering, mathematics, or
award competitive grants to states that would subsequently
science department of a higher education institution,
award subgrants to high-need LEAs and eligible partnerships,
and at least one high-need LEA.
which are not defined. States would be permitted to reserve
funds for state-level (e.g., coordination) activities, and ED
would be permitted to reserve funds for national activities
(e.g., State Capacity-Building grants).
Advanced Placement competitive grants (Title I-G)
Advanced Placement would be consolidated with two other
support two programs: the Advanced Placement Test
existing competitive grant programs, the High School
Fee program and the Advanced Placement Incentive
Graduation Initiative (ESEA, Title I, Part H) and Javits Gifted
program. The purpose of both programs is to support and Talented Education (ESEA, Title V, Part D), to create a
state and local efforts to increase access to Advanced
new College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program.
Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB)
This new program is further discussed in a subsequent
classes and tests for low-income students. The statute section of this table.
requires ED to give priority to funding the Advanced
Placement Test Fee program, with remaining funds
al ocated to Advanced Placement Incentive grants.
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow (America
Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow would be
COMPETES Act, Title VI-A-1) awards competitive
consolidated with four existing competitive grant programs
grants to enhance and improve teachers’ content
to create a new Teacher and Leader Pathways program.
knowledge by funding the development of master's-
This consolidation is discussed in greater detail in the Great
and baccalaureate-level degree programs that provide
Teachers and Great Leaders section of this table.
integrated courses of study in STEM, or critical
foreign languages, in conjunction with teacher
education.
Congressional Research Service
64
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
The Higher Education Act (HEA) authorizes four
Level funding would be provided for al four STEM
STEM education programs:
education programs currently authorized under the HEA.
1) Minority Science and Engineering Improvement
(Title III, Part E, Subpart 1, $9.5 million in
FY2010);
2) TRIO, Upward Bound Math and Science (Title
IV, Part A, Subpart 2, $35.2 million in FY2010);
3) Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need
(Title VII, Part A, Subpart 2, $31 million in
FY2010); and
4) National Science and Mathematics Access to
Retain Talent (SMART) Grants (Title IV, Part A,
Subpart 1).d
Ensuring a Well-Rounded Education
The ESEA authorizes the following eight programs to
Eight existing programs would be consolidated to create a
improve educational achievement in several subjects: new program cal ed Effective Teaching and Learning for a
Wel -Rounded Education. The new program would award
1) Excellence in Economic Education (ESEA, V-D-
competitive grants to states, high-need LEAs, and nonprofit
13);
partners to improve educational achievement in the arts,
2) Teaching American History (ESEA, II-C-4);
foreign languages, history and civics, financial literacy,
environmental education, and other subjects.
3) Arts in Education (ESEA, V-D-15);
The new program would support the development or
4) Foreign Language Assistance (ESEA, V-D-9);
expansion of instructional practices that benefit al students
5) Academies for American History and Civics
and may include professional development, better
(American History and Civics Education Act
assessments, state- and locally-determined curricula aligned
and ESEA, V-D);
with state standards, or innovative technology. Priority
would be given to proposals that integrate teaching and
6) Close Up Fel owships (ESEA, section 1504);
learning across academic subjects, use technology, and
7)
ensure that high school coursework is aligned with college
Civic Education: We the People (ESEA II, Part
C-3-a, section 2344); and
and university expectations.
8) Civic Education: Cooperative Education
Exchange (ESEA II, Part C-3-b, section 2345).
College Pathways and Accelerated Learning
The ESEA authorizes the following three programs to
Three existing programs would be consolidated to create a
provide accelerated learning opportunities:
new program called College Pathways and Accelerated
Learning. Grantees under the new program would serve
1) High School Graduation Initiative (ESEA, I-
elementary and middle school students by providing access
H);
to gifted and talented education programs, particularly in
2) Advanced Placement (ESEA, I-G); and
high-poverty schools. At the high school level, grantees
would be encouraged to implement strategies such as
3) Javits Gifted and Talented Education (ESEA,
expanding the Advanced Placement and International
V-D).
Baccalaureate programs, including early-college or dual-
enrollment programs that allow high school students to
earn credit towards a college degree.
Congressional Research Service
65
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Activities to Strengthen a Complete Education
Not applicable.
The Secretary would be permitted to set aside funds to
carry out additional activities to improve teaching and
learning in academic subjects, such as grants for the creation
of high-quality educational digital content; grants to states to
develop and improve their capacity to use technology to
improve instruction; or grants to nonprofits to develop and
implement innovative and effective strategies to improve the
teaching and learning of specific subjects.
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
Promise Neighborhoods
The Promise Neighborhoods program was first
The Promise Neighborhoods program would be expanded.
funded through demonstration authority in Title V-D-
1 in FY2010. This program funds neighborhood based
initiatives that provide comprehensive services
intended to improve the educational and life
outcomes for children from birth through college.
21st Century Community Learning Centers
(21st CCLC)
The 21st CCLC program is a formula grant program
The 21st CCLC program would be changed from a formula
to states. States are awarded grants in proportion to
grant program to states to a competitive grant program.
the awards they received Title I-A funding for the
preceding fiscal year. SEAs must award at least 95% of
their state allotment to eligible local entities (defined
as LEAs, community based organizations, other public
or private entities, or consortia of one or more of the
above).
The 21st CCLC program emphasizes activities during
In addition to the out-of-school-time activities funded under
non-school hours that offer learning opportunities for
the existing program, the newly restructured program
children and youth. Funds are most commonly used
would also fund extended learning time opportunities and
to provided after school activities.
ful -service community schools.
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities National
Act (SDFSCA; Title IV-A) is the federal government’s
Activities program would be consolidated with several
major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in
smaller program into a new competitive grant program—
and around schools. The SDFSCA currently supports
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students. The programs to be
competitive grant awards for National Activities.
consolidated include: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Activities; Elementary and Secondary
School Counseling,; the Physical Education Program;
Foundations For Learning,; Mental Health Integration in
Schools; and Alcohol Abuse Reduction.
Congressional Research Service
66
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Fostering Innovation and Excellence
Race to the Top
The Race to the Top (RTTT) program was authorized A modified version of the RTTT program would be
by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
authorized under the ESEA. For example, competitive grants
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5), not by the ESEA. The program
could be made to states or LEAs. States receiving grants
provides competitive grants to states. States are
would be required to award at least 50% of their funds to
required to provide at least 50% of the funds they
LEAs participating in the state plan. These would not have
receive to LEAs receiving Title I-A funds. Funds
to be LEAs receiving Title I-A funds. The receipt of
provided to states under this program are provided
continuation funding would be based on grantees effectively
on a one-time basis.
implementing their plans and meeting their performance
targets.
Investing in Innovation
Under the authority of the ARRA, not the ESEA,
As a newly authorized ESEA program, competitive grants
competitive grants are awarded to LEAs, partnerships
would be awarded to LEAs and other entities to provide
between nonprofit organizations and LEAs, or a
competitive grants to expand the implementation of, and
consortium of schools for the purposes of al owing
investment in, innovative and evidence-based practices,
eligible entities to expand and develop innovative
programs, and strategies that improve student outcomes. In
practices that can serve as models of best practice, to
addition, awards to states and other entities to undertake
work in partnership with the private sector and the
“special projects” would be provided. The Secretary would
philanthropic community, and to identify and
have some discretion to give preference to applications that
document best practices that can be shared and taken
propose to develop or expand innovations around “specific
to scale on demonstrated success.
pressing needs.”
The i3 program uses a “three-tiered evidence
Grant determinations would continue to be based on the
framework” to award three different types of grants
same “three-tiered evidence framework.”
(i.e., Development, Validation, and Scale-Up grants).
The type of grant an applicant applies for is based on
the level of evidence for the particular educational
practice or program to be implemented and evaluated
during the grant period.
Each applicant for the i3 program is required to
Each grantee would be required to conduct or participate in
conduct or participate in an independent evaluation.
an independent evaluation of its project, and grantees would
In addition, each applicant must secure matching funds be required to form partnerships and secure matching
from the private sector equal to 20% of the grant
funds.
award.
Expanding Educational Options
Three federal programs are authorized to provide
Competitive grants would be provided to start or expand
support to public charter schools: Charter Schools
high-performing charter schools, as well as to start or
program, State Charter School Facilities Incentive
expand high-performing autonomous public schools. The
Grants program, and Credit Enhancement for Charter Secretary would be permitted to reserve a portion of funds
School Facilities. The Charter Schools program
appropriated for the program to improve charter schools’
provides grants to states, which subsequently make
access to facilities or funding for facilities.
competitive grants to charter schools for planning,
implementation, and dissemination. Funds may also be
used to support the replication and expansion of
successful charter school models. The remaining two
programs focus on charter school facilities issues. Of
the appropriation currently provided for the Charter
School Program for FY2010, the Secretary is
permitted, at his discretion, to reserve a specific
amount of funding for the facilities focused programs.
Congressional Research Service
67
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Current Law Provisions
Provisions Included in the
Under the ESEAa
Blueprint for Reauthorization
Competitive grants are authorized under the
The program would be retained as a competitive grant
Voluntary Public School Choice program to support
program focused on increasing public school options for
the establishment or expansion of public school
students, especial y students attending low-performing
choice. Grantees must used funds to pay the
schools (as discussed previously), and to ensure students
transportation costs associated with students
and their families are aware of their educational options.
choosing to attend different schools. Grantees are
required to notify parents in the area to be served by
the program.
The Magnet Schools Assistance program provides
The program would be retained as a competitive grant
competitive grants to LEAs designed to assist in the
program with greater emphasis placed on funding whole-
desegregation of schools served by LEAs by providing
school magnet programs or models that have demonstrated
financial assistance for the elimination, reduction, or
success in improving student academic achievement and
prevention of minority group isolation and
reducing minority group isolation.
development and implementation of magnet programs
and innovative educational methods that promote
diversity and increase school choice.
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on CRS analysis of the U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for
Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2010. This table provides a summary of
similarities and differences of key provisions; however, it does not include the same level of detail as the
discussion in the text and does not discuss every section of the Blueprint.
a. Relevant provisions from the ARRA (P.L. 111-5) and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(MVHAA) have also been included in this column in instances where ED would include a program in the
ESEA that is based on ARRA or MVHAA provisions.
b. The Blueprint provisions build on comparability requirements included in the ARRA. Under these
requirements, LEAs receiving Title I-A funds or School Improvement Grant funds under the ARRA were
required to provide school-by-school per-student expenditures from state and local sources during the
2008-2009 school year. Seniority-based salary differentials were required to be included in these
comparability determinations.
c. Additional information about this issue is available in CRS Report R40853, The Rural Education Achievement
Program: Title VI-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
d. Due to underutilization of both American Competitiveness and SMART Grants, the Administration
proposes to defer $561 million in FY2010 funds for these programs to FY2011 and return $597 million to
the Treasury.
Congressional Research Service
68
Table A-3. Programs Subject to Consolidation Under the Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request
(dollars in thousands)
FY2010–
FY2010 FY2011
FY2011
Request
Total Appropriation
Programs Subject to
Award
for Programs that
Requested
Change in
Consolidation
Type
Appropriation
Would Be
New Program Authority
Award
Type
Appropriation
Appropriation
Consolidated
Ready to Teach
C
$10,700
Teacher Quality State
$2,958,449
Effective Teachers and Leaders
F
$2,500,000
-$458,449
Grants
F $2,947,749
Advanced Credentialing
C/DA
$10,649
$410,649
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund
C
$950,000
+$439,351
Teacher Incentive Fund
C
$400,000
School Leadership
C
$29,220
Teach for Americaa C/DA $18,000
Teacher Quality
Partnershipsa
C $43,000 $136,111
Teacher and Leader Pathways
C
$405,000
+$268,889
Teachers for a
Competitive Tomorrowa
C $2,184
Transition to Teaching
C
$43,707
Even Start
F
$66,454
Literacy through School
Libraries
C $19,145
Effective
National Writing Project
DA
$25,646
$413,348
Teaching and
Learning:
C $450,000
+$36,652
Effective Teaching
Reading is Fundamental
DA
$24,803
Literacy
and Learning for a
Ready-to-Learn Television
C
$27,300
Complete Education
Striving Readers
C
$250,000
Mathematics and Science
Effective
Partnerships
F $180,478
$180,478
Teaching and
C $300,000
+$119,522
Learning: STEM
CRS-69
FY2010–
FY2010 FY2011
FY2011
Request
Total Appropriation
Programs Subject to
Award
for Programs that
Requested
Change in
Consolidation
Type
Appropriation
Would Be
New Program Authority
Award
Type
Appropriation
Appropriation
Consolidated
Teaching American
History
C $118,952
Academies for American
History and Civics
C $1,815
Civic Education
C/DA
$35,000
Effective
Teaching and
Close-Up Fel owships
DA
$1,942
$226,084
Learning for a
C $265,000
+$38,916
Well-Rounded
Excellence in Economic
Education
Education
C $1,447
Foreign Language
Effective Teaching
Assistance
C $26,928
and Learning for a
Complete Education
Arts in Education
C/DA
$40,000
(continued)
Educational Technology
State Grantsb
F $100,000
$100,000
na na
$0
-$100,000
Advanced Placement
C
$45,840
High School Graduation
$103,303
College Pathways and Accelerated
Initiative
C $50,000
Learning
C $100,000
-$3,303
Javits Gifted and Talented
C/DA
$7,463
CRS-70
FY2010–
FY2010 FY2011
FY2011
Request
Total Appropriation
Programs Subject to
Award
for Programs that
Requested
Change in
Consolidation
Type
Appropriation
Would Be
New Program Authority
Award
Type
Appropriation
Appropriation
Consolidated
Alcohol Abuse Reduction
C
$32,712
Elementary and Secondary
School Counseling
C $55,000
Foundations for Learning
C
$1,000
Mental Health Integration
$364,966
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
C
$410,000
+$45,034
in Schools
C $5,913
Physical Education
C
$79,000
Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities
C $191,341
National Programs
Charter School Grants
C
$256,031
Credit Enhancement for
Charter School Facilitiesc
C $8,300
Parental Information and
Resource Centers
C $39,254 $409,104
Expanding Educational Options
C
$490,000
+$80,896
Smal er Learning
Communities
C $88,000
Voluntary Public School
Choice
C $25,819
Total
$5,302,492
$5,302,492
$5,870,000 +$567,508
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on analysis of the FY2011 budget request included in U.S. Department of Education, Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the
Congress: FY2011, 2010.
Notes: With respect to the type of program, the interpretation of how to classify a program was primarily based on relevant statutory language. In some cases, programs
may have a “trigger” appropriations level at which the program is either formula or competitive. For example, Math and Science Partnership grants are made on a
competitive basis if the program appropriation is below $100 million. At an appropriations level of $100 million or higher, grants are made by formula. For programs with
“trigger” levels, the designation in the table reflects the current type of program based on the FY2010 appropriations level. As appropriate, the table indicates which
CRS-71
existing ESEA programs would be consolidated under proposed program authority in FY2011. It is unclear, however, under which title in the ESEA the consolidated
programs would then be placed.
F: Funds awarded primarily through formula grants.
C: Funds awarded primarily through competitive grants.
DA: Funds awarded based on congressional y directed authorization or appropriation.
a. The proposed program authority for Teacher and Leader Pathways would also consolidate several non-ESEA programs: Teacher Quality Partnerships (Higher
Education Act Title II-A), Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow (America COMPETES Act VI-A-1), and Teach for America (Higher Education Act VIII-F).
b. The Administration proposes incorporating the integrated use of technology throughout ESEA programs and would no longer have a specific program dedicated to
funding education technology.
c. The $8.3 million the Administration anticipates using for the Credit Enhancement Charter School Facilities program will be subtracted from the total funding provided
for Charter School Grants ($256.031 million) per statutory provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act , 2010 (P.L. 111-117).
CRS-72
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Table A-4. Programs Not Subject to Consolidation or Elimination Under the
Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request
(dollars in thousands)
FY2010–
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
Request
Award
Award
Requested
Change in
Program
Type
Appropriation
Type
Appropriation Appropriation
School Improvement Grants
(School Improvement
F
F
Grants)
$545,633
$900,000
$354,367
Title I-A (College- and
Career-Ready Students)
F
F
$14,492,401
$14,492,401
$0
Migrant Education Program
F
$394,771
F
$394,771
$0
Neglected and Delinquent
F
$50,427
F
$50,427
$0
Evaluation (Title I)
C
$9,167
C
$9,167
$0
English Language Acquisition
(English Learner Education)
F
F
$750,000a
$800,000a
$50,000a
21st Century Community
Learning Centers
C
a
F
$1,166,166
$1,166,166
$0
Magnet Schools
C
$100,000
C
$110,000
$10,000
Fund for the Improvement
of Education (National
C/DA
S/C
Programs)
$125,461
$25,000
-$100,461
Promise Neighborhoods
C
$10,000
C
$210,000
$200,000
Women’s Educational Equity
C
$2,423
C
$2,278
-$145
Assessing Achievement
F
$410,732
F
$450,000
$39,268
Rural Education
F
$174,882
F
$174,882
$0
Indian Education
F
$127,282
F
$127,282
Native Hawai an Education
C/DA
$34,315
C
$34,315
$0
Alaska Native Education
C/DA
$33,315
C
$33,315
$0
Impact Aid
F
$1,276,183
F
$1,276,183
$0
Subtotal for existing
ESEA programs
—
—
$19,703,158
$20,256,187
$553,029
Race to the Topb
na
$0
C
$1,350,000
$1,350,000
Investing in Innovationc
na
$0
C
$500,000
$500,000
Homeless Educationd
F
$65,427
F
$65,427
$0
Total
—
$19,768,585
—
$22,171,614
$2,403,029
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on analysis of the FY2011 budget request included in U.S. Department of
Education, Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: FY2011, 2010.
Notes: With respect to the type of program, the interpretation of how to classify a program was primarily
based on relevant statutory language. In some cases, programs may have a “trigger” appropriations level at which
the program is either formula or competitive.
Congressional Research Service
73
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
F: Funds awarded primarily through formula grants.
C: Funds awarded primarily through competitive grants.
DA: Funds awarded based on congressional y directed authorization or appropriation.
a. Activities authorized by this program would be expanded from before and after school activities to also
include ful service community schools and extended learning time opportunities.
b. The Race to the Top program was initially authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5). It received an appropriation only in FY2009.
c. The Investing in Innovation fund was initially authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA; P.L. 111-5). It received an appropriation only in FY2009.
d. Based on an analysis of the U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for Reform: the Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it appears that the Homeless Education for Children and Youth
program would be removed from the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act and included in
the ESEA.
Table A-5. ESEA Programs Slated for Elimination Under the
Administration’s FY2011 Budget Request
(dollars in thousands)
Program
FY2010
FY2011 Requested
Appropriation
Appropriation
Exchanges with Historic Whaling and
Trading Partners
$8,754 $0
Troops-to-Teachersa
$14,389 $0
Total $23,143
$0
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on review of the FY2011 budget request included in U.S. Department of
Education, Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress: FY2011, 2010.
Note: The Education Technology State Grants program would also be eliminated. In FY2010, the program was
funded at $100,000. It is not reflected on this table because the Administration depicts it with its program
consolidations.
a. Program would be transferred to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Congressional Research Service
74
Administration’s Proposal to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Author Contact Information
Rebecca R. Skinner
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Specialist in Education Policy
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645
Erin D. Lomax
Gail McCallion
Analyst in Education Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
elomax@crs.loc.gov, 7-9447
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov, 7-7758
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
cdortch@crs.loc.gov, 7-0376
Acknowledgments
Ann Lordeman, Specialist in Education Policy, contributed to sections of this report. Chris Van Orden,
Presidential Management Fellow, assisted with the budget tables included in the appendix. This report also
draws on previous work on ESEA issues completed by former CRS analyst Wayne C. Riddle, retired
Specialist in Education Policy.
Congressional Research Service
75