ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th
Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Cassandria Dortch
Analyst in Education Policy
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Policy
July 12, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43146
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Summary
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate
have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the
Strengthening America’s Schools Act (S. 1094) by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House
Education and Workforce Committee also considered and ordered reported a bill that would
reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All
Students Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported. It is unclear whether S. 1094 or H.R. 5 will be
considered on the Senate or House floors, respectively.
S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in
three key areas:
1. Accountability for student achievement: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would
modify current accountability requirements related to student achievement,
including eliminating the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress
(AYP) and the requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability
provisions to all schools, regardless of the extent to which they failed to make
AYP. Both bills would continue to require that states have standards and
assessments for reading, mathematics, and science, and would require that
assessments measure student proficiency and growth. Both bills would require
that reading and mathematics be included in each state’s accountability system,
and would permit states to include science or other subjects in their
accountability systems. S. 1094, but not H.R. 5, would require states to establish
“ambitious and achievable” annual performance targets for the state, local
educational agencies (LEAs), and public schools for each subject area and grade
level that is assessed for accountability purposes. Performance targets would
have to be established for student proficiency and student growth, as well as for
English language proficiency for English learners and high school graduation
rates. The Secretary would have to approve all performance targets. S. 1094
would require various interventions to be implemented in certain low-achieving
schools, while H.R. 5 would not require that specific actions be taken to address
issues in low-performing schools.
2. Teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness: Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 scale
back (or, in the case of H.R. 5, eliminate) existing teacher quality requirements,
and each bill introduces requirements pertaining to how teachers’ performance is
evaluated. H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements related to “teacher
quality,” which focus largely on ensuring the equitable distribution of qualified
teachers and that teachers possess a baccalaureate degree and full state teaching
certification, as well as demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in the areas in
which the teacher teaches. S. 1094 would retain these requirements for new
teachers and for all teachers until approved teacher evaluation systems are in
place. S. 1094 would require all LEAs that receive Title II-A funds to develop
and implement teacher and principal evaluation systems, known as professional
growth and improvement systems. H.R. 5 would also require LEAs that receive
Title II-A funds to develop and implement a teacher evaluation system but would
not include school leaders in required evaluation systems. Under both bills, staff
Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

being evaluated would have to be evaluated based, in part, on student
achievement.
3. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of
a block grant: Each bill would consolidate some existing competitive grant
programs, but H.R. 5 would consolidate a greater number of programs than S.
1094. At the same time, S. 1094 would create several new targeted grant
programs, while H.R. 5 would greatly expand the use of block grant funding.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Recent ESEA Flexibility Provided by the Administration ............................................................... 2
Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in Key Areas ........................................................ 3
Accountability for Student Achievement................................................................................... 3
S. 1094 ................................................................................................................................. 5
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 6
Teacher Quality and Performance ............................................................................................. 6
S. 1094 ................................................................................................................................. 7
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 8
Targeted Support Versus Block Grant ....................................................................................... 9
S. 1094 ................................................................................................................................. 9
H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 10
Structural Orientation of the ESEA Reauthorization Proposals ..................................................... 11
Comparison of Key Features of ESEA Reauthorization Proposals with Current Law .................. 19

Tables
Table 1. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under S. 1094 and H.R. 5 ................................................................................ 11
Table 2. Comparison of Major Features of S. 1094 and H.R. 5 to Current Law ........................... 21
Table A-1. Specific Program Authorizations Under ESEA and Treatment Under S. 1094
and H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendixes
Appendix. Comparison of Program Authorizations Included in ESEA Reauthorization
Proposals with Current Law ....................................................................................................... 60

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 67

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Introduction
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). Most programs authorized by the ESEA were
authorized through FY2007.1 As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA, ESEA programs are
currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the programs continue to receive annual
appropriations, they are considered implicitly authorized.
During the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize
the ESEA. On June 12, 2013, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
Committee considered and ordered reported the Strengthening America’s Schools Act (S. 1094)
by a strictly partisan vote of 12-10. The House Education and Workforce Committee also
considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. On June 19, 2013, on a
strictly partisan vote of 23-16, the Success for All Students Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported. It
is unclear whether S. 1094 or H.R. 5 will be considered on the Senate or House floors,
respectively.
S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in
three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher
effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a
block grant. In addition, both the HELP Committee and Education and Workforce Committee
bills would eliminate existing programs, while creating new programs.
This report examines major features of S. 1094 and H.R. 5 with respect to current law.2 The report
begins by discussing the approach that each bill takes toward reshaping the ESEA in key areas.
Next, the report provides a structured orientation by ESEA title and part of how the ESEA would
be reconfigured under each bill. Then it more thoroughly summarizes the major proposals in the
bills, focusing on those aspects of the bills that would fundamentally change a portion of current
law. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of these bills or of technical
changes that would be made by each measure. The report concludes with an appendix that
examines the proposed program authorizations included in each bill.
For the purposes of this report, a program is considered to be a new program if the program is a
newly proposed program or is a substantively changed or reconfigured existing program (e.g.,
multiple aspects of a program are changed, such as the purpose of the program, distribution of

1The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provided a one-year extension of ESEA program authorizations.
GEPA provides that, “The authorization of appropriations for, or duration of, an applicable program shall be
automatically extended for one additional fiscal year unless Congress, in the regular session that ends prior to the
beginning of the terminal fiscal year of such authorization or duration, has passed legislation that becomes law and
extends or repeals the authorization of such program” (20 U.S.C. 1226a). As Congress did not pass legislation to
reauthorize the ESEA by the end of the 2005 calendar year, the program authorizations were automatically extended
through FY2008.
2 This report focuses on a comparison between current law and S. 1094 and H.R. 5. It does not examine how the
various ESEA reauthorization proposals would compare with the ESEA flexibility package being offered to states by
the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The ESEA flexibility package allows states to waive many of the current
accountability requirements included in current law in exchange for states meeting four principles established by ED.
For more information about the ESEA flexibility package, see CRS Report R42328, Educational Accountability and
Secretarial Waiver Authority Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
, by Rebecca R.
Skinner and Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
1

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

funds, uses of funds, or eligible recipients of funds). Programs included in the ESEA
reauthorization bills are considered to be similar to programs in current law if they are
substantively similar in purpose, recipients, and activities. The tables in this report refer to these
programs as being “retained” by a particular bill. For example, the Advanced Placement program
is considered to be retained under S. 1094, as the new program (Accelerated Learning) would be
substantively similar to the program included in current law, despite change in the use of funds to
support tests administered under the International Baccalaureate program. On the other hand, the
block grant program created under H.R. 5 is considered a new program, as it differs from the
current Innovative Programs block grant program in numerous ways including program purposes,
funding to subgrantees, and allowable activities. Concurrently, the block grant program under
current law is considered to be “not retained” under H.R. 5.
It should be noted that an indication that a particular program would not be included in a
particular bill does not mean that all of the activities authorized under current law for the program
would be eliminated. The activities may be continued under a different program. For example,
while H.R. 5 would no longer retain many of the current ESEA programs, H.R. 5 would include a
block grant program under which funds could potentially be used for similar activities as were
permitted or required under some programs that would not be retained. The uses of funds under
the proposed block grant program are discussed in this report. Similarly, if an existing program or
activity is not specifically mentioned as allowable under a new program, it should not be assumed
that funds could not be used to support such programs or activities. It is beyond the scope of this
report to discuss proposed programs or activities in great detail. At the same time, an indication
that a program would be “similar to current law” does not mean that it would be retained without
changes. As previously discussed, this report focuses on major changes that would be made to
current law, so there may be additional changes made to a program or activity that are not
highlighted in this report.
Recent ESEA Flexibility Provided by the
Administration

While Congress has not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, on September 23, 2011,
President Obama and the Secretary announced the availability of an ESEA flexibility package for
states and described the principles that states must meet to obtain the included waivers. The
waivers exempt states from various academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-
related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. State
educational agencies (SEAs) may also apply for optional waivers related to the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program and the use of funds, determinations of adequate yearly
progress (AYP), and the allocation of Title I-A funds to schools.3 However, in order to receive the

3 ED recently announced three new optional waivers for states that had their applications for the ESEA flexibility
package approved. These states may request a waiver to delay the implementation of any personnel consequences for
teacher and school leaders that are related to the new state assessments for up to one year (until the 2016-2017 school
year at the latest). They may also request a waiver to avoid “double-testing” students during the transition from their
current assessments to their new assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards. Related to the testing of
students, a state may also request a waiver for schools to retain their accountability designation for an additional year,
during which they would continue to implement the same interventions. For more information, see the policy letter sent
to the Chief State School Officers by Secretary Duncan on June 18, 2013, available online at http://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/guid/secletter/130618.html.
Congressional Research Service
2

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

waivers, SEAs must agree to meet four principles established by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) for “improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of
instruction.” The four principles, as stated by ED, are: (1) college- and career-ready expectations
for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3)
supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary
burden. The waivers apply to school years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. States have
the option to apply for a one-year waiver extension for the 2014-2015 school year.
Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to
a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related
requirements included in current law. As of June 2013, ED had approved ESEA flexibility
package applications for 39 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications
from several other states.4 If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization during the
113th Congress, it is possible that provisions included in any final bill may be similar to or
override the waivers and principles established by the Administration.
The remainder of this report focuses only on current law and does not compare the provisions in
H.R. 5 or S. 1094 with the provisions included in the ESEA flexibility package.5
Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in
Key Areas

This section of the report examines the reauthorization approaches taken by S. 1094 and H.R. 5 in
three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher
effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a
block grant. For each of the three areas, a brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under
current law is included, followed by a summary of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would address the
issues.
Accountability for Student Achievement
Under NCLB, a series of comprehensive standards-based accountability requirements were
enacted. States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools must comply with these
requirements in order to receive Title I-A funds. The key features of these requirements are
discussed below. This is followed by a brief discussion of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would treat
each of these requirements.
Standards. At a minimum, each state must adopt challenging academic content
and challenging student academic achievement standards in mathematics and
reading/language arts (hereinafter referred to as reading) for each of grades 3-8
and for one grade in grades 10-12. States must also adopt content and
achievement standards for science for at least three grade levels (grades 3-5,

4 Approved state applications and pending applications are available at http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/requests.
5 For more information about the ESEA flexibility package, see CRS Report R42328, Educational Accountability and
Secretarial Waiver Authority Under Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
, by Rebecca R.
Skinner and Jody Feder.
Congressional Research Service
3

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

grades 6-9, and grades 10-12). States may choose to adopt standards for other
subject areas.
Assessments. All states must develop and implement annual assessments aligned
with content and achievement standards in reading and mathematics for grades 3-
8 and one grade in grades 10-12. In addition, each state must develop and
administer science assessments aligned with content and achievement standards
once in grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12.
Annual measurable objectives (AMOs). States must develop AMOs that are
established separately for reading and mathematics assessments, are the same for
all schools and LEAs, identify a single minimum percentage of students who
must meet or exceed the proficient level on the assessments that applies to the
“all students group” and each subgroup for which data are disaggregated,6 and
ensure that all students will meet or exceed the state’s proficient level of
achievement on the assessments based on a timeline established by the state. The
timeline must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an “ultimate goal”
of all students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of
the 2013-2014 school year.
Adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP is determined based on three
components: student academic achievement on the required state reading and
mathematics assessments, with a focus on the percentage of students scoring at
the proficient level or higher; 95% student participation rates in assessments by
all students and for any subgroup for which data are disaggregated; and
performance on another academic indicator, which must be graduation rates for
high schools. Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the
required threshold levels of performance on all three indicators for the all
students group and any subgroup for which data are disaggregated. AYP must be
determined separately and specifically not only for all students but also for all
subgroups for which data must be disaggregated within each school, LEA, and
state.
Consequences based on performance. States are required to identify LEAs, and
LEAs are required to identify schools, for program improvement if the LEA or
school failed to meet the state AYP standards for two consecutive years. LEAs or
schools that fail to meet AYP standards for additional years are required to take a
variety of actions.7 For example, schools that fail to meet AYP for two
consecutive years are identified for school improvement and must offer public
school choice to students, develop a school improvement plan, and use Title I-A
funds for professional development. Failure to make AYP for an additional year
results in a school also having to offer supplemental educational services (SES).
LEAs are required to reserve 20% of their Title I-A funds for transportation for

6 For accountability determinations, provided minimum group sizes are met, data must be disaggregated for
economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students, students with disabilities, and students in
major racial and ethnic groups as determined by the state. These specified demographic groups are often referred to as
subgroups. For reporting purposes, if minimum group sizes are met, data must be disaggregated for the aforementioned
subgroups as well as by gender and migrant status.
7 A school or LEA identified for improvement can exit this status by making AYP for two consecutive years. If a
school or LEA makes AYP for one year, the school or LEA remains at its current improvement status level. If a school
or LEA fails to make AYP the next year, it moves to the next level of consequences.
Congressional Research Service
4

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

public school choice and for SES. Schools that fail to make AYP for an additional
year continue to do all of the aforementioned activities and enter into corrective
action. Under corrective action, they are required to take one of several
statutorily specified actions, including replacing school staff, changing the
curriculum, extending the school year or school day, limiting management
authority at the school level, working with an outside expert, or restructuring the
schools’ internal organization. Subsequent failure to make AYP requires a school
to plan for and, ultimately, implement restructuring. Restructuring involves the
continuation of the aforementioned activities and implementation of an
alternative governance structure, such as converting to a charter school. It should
be noted that these consequences are applied regardless of the extent to which a
school failed to make AYP in a given year but consequences need only be applied
to schools receiving Title I-A funds.
S. 1094
S. 1094 would retain similar requirements related to standards and assessments; however, all
states would be required to develop college and career ready standards in reading, mathematics,
and science, and assessments would have to be aligned with these new standards. States would
have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple assessments
administered throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. Assessments
would have to provide data on student proficiency and growth. States would be permitted to use
computer adaptive assessments that could measure student proficiency and growth against grade
level standards, as well as above and below those standards. S. 1094 would require that
assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and not less than 95% of the
members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated.
Each state’s accountability system would have to include the subjects of reading and mathematics
and could include science or any other subject selected by the state. Each state accountability
system would be required to have at least three categories of student performance which must
include (1) students who are meeting or exceeding state academic standards; (2) students whose
proficiency in a subject is below grade level but who are achieving sufficient growth; and (3)
students whose proficiency is below grade level and are not achieving sufficient growth. Each
state would also be required to establish “ambitious and achievable” annual performance targets
for the state, LEAs, and public schools in the state for each subject area and grade level that is
assessed for accountability purposes instead of AMOs. States would be permitted to use: (a) the
performance standards adopted under the ESEA flexibility package offered to the states by the
Administration; (b) standards that set a goal for every public school to meet the achievement level
of the highest-performing 10% of schools in the state, provided that annual progress toward that
goal within a specified “reasonable time period” is required, and accelerated progress for students
at the lowest levels or student achievement is required; or (c) performance targets that are equally
ambitious as the other two options. Performance targets would have to be developed for student
proficiency, student growth, English language proficiency for English learners, and high school
graduation rates. The Secretary would have to approve all performance targets that had not
already been approved through the ESEA flexibility package. AYP determinations would no
longer have to be made.
With respect to “consequences,” states would be required to identify “lack of improvement”
schools, “focus” schools, and “priority” schools. Lack of improvement schools would include
schools that have failed to meet the same subgroup performance target for the preceding three
Congressional Research Service
5

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

consecutive years. These schools would have to work with the SEA to implement a state-
approved intervention based on best practices within the state. A school would be identified as a
focus school if it has not been identified as a priority school and (1) is in the 10% of schools with
the greatest achievement gaps among subgroups as compared to the statewide average or (2) is a
public high school that is in the 10% of schools with the greatest graduation rate gaps among such
subroups, as compared to the statewide average. These schools would be required to develop and
implement a “measurable and data-driven” correction plan. A school would be identified as a
priority school if it is in the lowest-achieving 5% of elementary schools, is in the lowest-
achieving 5% of secondary schools, is a public high school with a graduation rate of less than
60%, or has been identified as a focus school for the six preceding consecutive years. Each LEA
serving a priority school would be required to implement several activities including a needs
analysis in the school, a statutorily specified intervention strategy (i.e., transformation strategy,
turnaround strategy, whole school reform strategy, restart strategy and school closure strategy),
and public school choice. SES would no longer be required.
H.R. 5
Under H.R. 5, states would be required to adopt content and achievement standards for
mathematics, reading, science, and any other subject as determined by the state. Assessments
would have to be aligned with these standards and be administered in each of grades 3-8 and once
in grades 9-12. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative
assessment or multiple assessments administered throughout the school year that result in a single
summative score. Assessments would have to provide data on student performance and growth.
States would also be permitted to use computer adaptive assessments that could measure student
proficiency and growth against grade level standards, as well as above and below those standards.
States would no longer be required to establish AMOs. The bill would eliminate the concept of
AYP. It would require that assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and
not less than 95% of the members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated. The bill
would require that high school graduation rates be reported. In addition, there would be no
“ultimate goal” with associated consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work.
The bill would eliminate current outcome accountability requirements. States would not be
required to identify a specified percentage or number of schools as low-performing. However,
they would be required to establish a system for school improvement for low-performing public
schools receiving Title I-A-1 (Grants to LEAs) funds that would be implemented by LEAs and be
designed to address the weaknesses of such schools. While public school choice and SES would
no longer be required, the bill would create a new reservation of funds for direct services to
students under Section 1003A. That is, states would be required to reserve 3% of the total amount
received by the state under Title I-A-1 (Grants to LEAs) to make competitive grants to LEAs to
provide public school choice or high-quality academic tutoring that is designed to help increase
student academic achievement.
Teacher Quality and Performance
With the enactment of NCLB, new requirements were included in Title I-A to ensure an equitable
distribution of highly qualified instruction across schools and establish minimum professional
standards for what constitutes a highly qualified teacher. NCLB also authorized programs to
support efforts to meet the teacher quality requirements, as well as systems that reward teacher
Congressional Research Service
6

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

performance. These provisions are described below, followed by a discussion of how S. 1094 and
H.R. 5 would amend them.
Distribution. Current law requires that states ensure Title I schools provide
instruction by highly qualified instructional staff and take specific steps to ensure
that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children
by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
Newly hired teachers. Each LEA receiving Title I-A funds must ensure that all
newly hired teachers teaching in a program supported by such funds be highly
qualified.
Highly qualified teacher (HQT). The definition of an HQT has two basic
components involving professional credentials and subject-matter knowledge.
First, to be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must possess a baccalaureate
degree and full state teaching certification. Second, a teacher must demonstrate
subject-matter knowledge in the areas that she or he teaches. The manner in
which teachers satisfy the second component depends on the extent of their
teaching experience and the educational level at which they teach.
Deadline. Each state receiving Title I-A funds was required to have a plan to
ensure that, by no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all public
school teachers teaching in core academic subjects8 within the state met the
definition of an HQT.9 The plan was required to set annual measurable objectives
to meet this deadline.
Support. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Fund (Title II-A)
provides formula grants to support state and local efforts to meet ESEA teacher
quality requirements.
Performance. The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D) supports competitive
grants for high-need schools to develop and implement performance-based
teacher and principal compensation systems that must consider gains in student
academic achievement and classroom evaluations conducted multiple times
during each school year, among other factors.
S. 1094
S. 1094 would retain an HQT definition similar to that in current law and require each LEA
receiving Title I-A funds to ensure that all teachers in core academic subjects be HQT. The bill
would only apply this requirement to new teachers for LEAs with approved teacher evaluation
systems.
For the first year after enactment, S. 1094 would retain requirements similar to those in current
law regarding the equitable distribution of teachers. For each year after the first year, the bill
would require states to provide for the equitable distribution of teachers so that poor and minority

8 Current law defines core academic subjects as English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
9 All states established an HQT plan. These plans are available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/
hqtplans/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
7

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

children are not taught at higher rates than other children by “teachers with the lowest ratings in
the State professional growth and improvement system.”10
S. 1094 would require states participating in Title II-A to ensure that all LEAs that receive Title
II-A funds are implementing teacher and principal evaluation systems, known as professional
growth and improvement systems. These systems would have to provide meaningful feedback to
teachers and principals, include multiple categories of performance, evaluate teachers and
principals on a regular basis, be aligned with professional development activities, be developed
and implemented with teacher and principal involvement, and provide training for the evaluators
responsible for conducting classroom and school observations. Principal evaluations would be
required to be based “in significant part” on evidence of improved student academic achievement
and growth and student outcomes, as well as evidence of providing strong instructional leadership
and support to teachers and other staff. Principal evaluations may also include other measures of
principal performance (e.g., parent and family engagement). Teacher evaluations would be
required to be based “in significant part” on evidence of improved student academic achievement
and growth “that is limited to evidence-based or externally validated measures,” classroom
observations, and other measures (e.g., student perception surveys). These systems would be
similar to the teacher evaluation system currently used in the Teacher Incentive Fund competitive
grant program. S. 1094 would require states to provide technical assistance to LEAs receiving
Title II-A funds to support the design and implementation of professional growth and
improvement systems. LEAs must implement these systems no later than the 2015-2016 school
year.
S. 1094 would retain the Title II-A formula grant program; however, the current hold harmless
provision for state grants would be eliminated11 and LEA grants would be held to at least 90% of
the previous year allotment. The bill would require that at least 20% of Title II-A funds be used
for professional development in “priority” and “focus” schools. Allowable uses include most
activities provided under current law as well as the development and implementation of
professional growth and improvement systems.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements regarding the equitable distribution of instructional
quality and highly qualified teachers. The bill would require states that receive Title II-A funds to
either develop and implement a statewide teacher evaluation system or ensure that each LEA
receiving Title II-A funds will implement a teacher evaluation system within three years of
enactment of H.R. 5. The teacher evaluation system would be required to use student
achievement data from multiple sources as a “significant factor” in determining a teacher’s
evaluation, use multiple evaluation measures, have more than two performance categories, be
used to make personnel decisions, and be based on input from parents, school leaders, teachers,
and other staff. The teacher evaluation system would be similar to those required by the Teacher
Incentive Fund. H.R. 5 would not require the evaluation system to include school leaders.

10 The bill would require that implementation of LEA professional growth and improvement systems “shall not be later
than the 2015-2016 school year.”
11 For additional information about the Title II-A formula under current law, see CRS Report R41267, Elementary and
Secondary School Teachers: Policy Context, Federal Programs, and ESEA Reauthorization Issues
, by Jeffrey J.
Kuenzi.
Congressional Research Service
8

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

H.R. 5 would retain formula grant funding under Title II-A; however, the enrollment and poverty
elements used for allocation would be modified and the hold harmless for state and LEA grants
would be eliminated.12 The bill would also scale back allowable activities principally including
activities that support the development and implementation of state and local evaluation systems
for teachers.
Targeted Support Versus Block Grant
Under current law, the ESEA includes several formula grant programs that provide grants to
states, LEAs, or other entities (e.g., Indian tribes). These programs provide aid to support specific
student populations (e.g., disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students), provide
additional aid to entities based on their location (i.e., rural LEAs), or provide funds for a specific
set of activities (e.g., those related to literacy or school safety). The ESEA also contains numerous
competitive grant programs, which generally receive less funding than formula grant programs.
The competitive grant programs included in the ESEA address issues such as counseling, arts
education, physical education, and magnet schools. As shown in Table 1, many of the
competitive grant programs and some of the formula grant programs included in the ESEA are no
longer funded.
The HELP Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee have proposed
fundamentally different approaches with respect to how to continue to provide program funding
through the ESEA. In general, S. 1094 would retain several competitive grant programs,
eliminate others, and create new programs to support activities that are currently supported under
either formula or competitive grant programs that would be eliminated. H.R. 5 would eliminate
some formula grant programs and most competitive grant programs included in current law but
would include a block grant program13 whose funding could potentially be used to support similar
activities to those that are supported under programs slated for elimination. The divergent
approaches taken by these bills with respect to targeted support and block grants are discussed in
more detail below.
S. 1094
S. 1094 would retain most of the current formula grant programs, while eliminating several
competitive grant programs (see Table 1). It would add several targeted grant programs that
would broadly support similar activities as those supported under some of the programs being
eliminated. For example, the bill would add a new literacy program; a new science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) program; a program to support a well-rounded education,
which would fund subject-matter specific activities (e.g., arts, economics); and a program focused
on student well-being. The bill would not include a block grant program.

12 Ibid.
13 A federal education block grant is a form of aid generally provided to state educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs to
assist them in addressing broad education purposes. For general information about block grants, see CRS Report
R40486, Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies, by Robert Jay Dilger and Eugene Boyd.
Congressional Research Service
9

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would retain some, but not all, of the existing formula grant programs and would eliminate
most competitive grant programs (see Table 1). However, H.R. 5 includes a new block grant
program (the Local Academic Flexible grant) that would be authorized annually at $2.1 billion
and would provide formula grants to states. In contrast, the Innovative Programs grant program,
the block grant included under current law, was last authorized at $600 million and last funded at
$99 million in FY2007. The new block grant would be designed to support activities aiming to
improve academic achievement and protect student safety, and would afford states and eligible
entities (which include LEAs) considerable flexibility in how funds are used.
Under the new block grant program, states would be required to use at least 75% of the funds
received to award competitive grants14 to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs,
community-based organizations (CBOs), business entities, and nongovernmental entities.15 All
partnerships would be required to include at least one LEA. In addition, the state would be
required to use not less than 10% to award competitive grants to nongovernment entities.16 States
could use funds for state level activities as well. For instance, in addition to using funds for
administrative costs, SEAs could use funds for developing standards and assessments,
administering assessments, monitoring and evaluating programs and activities receiving funding,
providing training and technical assistance, implementing statewide academic focused programs,
and sharing evidence-based and other effective strategies. Grants to LEAs and other eligible
entities could be used for (1) supplemental student support activities (e.g., before or after school
activities, summer school activities, tutoring, expanded learning time) but not athletics or in-
school learning activities; and (2) activities to support students (e.g., academic subject specific
programs, adjunct teacher programs, extended learning time programs, parent engagement) but
not class-size reduction, construction, or staff compensation. Nongovernmental entities must use
funds for a program or project to increase the academic achievement of public school students
attending a public elementary or secondary school. Thus, it is possible that funds provided under
this program could be used to support activities that previously received ESEA support, but which
would no longer have a targeted funding stream under H.R. 5. However, there is no way to know
whether a state or an LEA would receive the same amount of funding, less funding, or more
funding under the proposed block grant program as it would if programs that would be eliminated
under H.R. 5 were retained.

14 All eligible entities that submit an application that meet the statutory requirements would receive a grant of at least
$10,000.
15 A single LEA is not eligible to apply for a grant. An LEA must apply in partnership with a CBO, business entity, or
nongovernmental agency. A consortium of LEAs must also partner with at least one of the aforementioned types of
organizations. A CBO must apply in partnership with an LEA and may also partner with a business entity or
nongovernmental entity. Similarly, a business entity must apply in partnership with an LEA, and may also partner with
a CBO or nongovernmental agency.
16 The bill specifies that nongovernmental entities include public or private organizations, community-based or faith-
based organizations, and business entities. Nongovernment entities are not required to enter into a partnership with an
LEA or other entity.
Congressional Research Service
10

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Structural Orientation of the ESEA Reauthorization
Proposals

Table 1 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would
modify current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in
appropriations tables, as well as the individual programs included under the Fund for the
Improvement of Education. This list of “programs” does not take into account the number of
programs, projects, or activities that may be funded under a single line-item appropriation, so the
actual number of ESEA programs, projects, or activities being supported through appropriations
is not shown. Current ESEA programs under which the federal government provides grants to the
initial grantee (as opposed to a subgrantee) by formula are noted in the table.
The table provides appropriations information for FY2013.17 It also indicates where S. 1094 and
H.R. 5 would place a given program in a reauthorized ESEA if the program is retained. It should
be noted that an indication that a program would not be retained does not mean that all of the
activities authorized under current law for the program would be eliminated. The activities may
be continued under a different program. For example, while H.R. 5 would no longer retain many
of the current ESEA programs, it would include a block grant program under which funds could
potentially be used for similar activities as were permitted or required under some programs that
would not be retained. In addition, the table notes when an existing ESEA program would not be
retained but a new, targeted program would address similar broad purposes (e.g., literacy, dropout
prevention).
At the same time, an indication that a program would be retained does not mean that it would be
retained without changes. For example, while both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would retain a state grant
program focused on teachers like Title II-A of the ESEA, both bills would modify the formula
used to award grants and would change the uses of funds. In addition, an indication that a
program would be retained does not mean that it would be retained under the same name. For
example, the Advanced Placement program in current law would be retained as the Accelerated
Learning program under S. 1094. The program would be expanded to include International
Baccalaureate programs and exams.
Table 1. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under S. 1094 and H.R. 5
Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
School
Title I, Section
$505,756 Would be retained
Would not be
Improvement
1003(g)
as Title I-A, Section
retained
Grants (formula
1116(f)a
grant)

17 All FY2013 appropriations (except those for the Troops-to-Teachers program) account for sequestration and the
across-the-board reduction.
Congressional Research Service
11

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
$13,760,219 Would be retained
Would be retained
Local Educational
as Title I-A
as Title I-A-1
Agencies (LEAs):
Basic Grants,
Concentration
Grants, and
Targeted Grants
(formula grant)
Reading First
Title I-B-1
$0 Would not be
Would not be
(formula grant)
retainedb
retained
Early Reading First
Title I-B-2
$0 Would not be
Would not be
retainedb
retained
Even Start (formula Title I-B-3
$0 Would not be
Would not be
grant)
retainedb
retained
Improving Literacy
Title I-B-4
$0 Would be retained
Would not be
through School
as Title IV-A-2
retained
Libraries
Migrant Education
Title I-C
$372,751 Would be retained
Would be retained
Program (formula
as Title I-C
as Title I-A-2
grant)
Neglected and
Title I-D
$47,614 Would be retained
Would be retained
Delinquent
as Title I-D
as Title I-A-3
(formula grant)
National
Title I-E (Section
$3,028 Would not be
Would be retained
Assessment of
1501)
retainedc
as Title I-B
Title I
Striving Readers
Title I-E (Section
$151,378 Would not be
Would not be
1502)
retainedb
retained
Close Up
Title I-E (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Fel owships
1504)
retained
retained
Comprehensive
Title I-F
$0 Would not be
Would not be
School Reform
retained
retained
Advanced
Title I-G
$28,483 Would be retained
Would not be
Placement
as Title I-B-2d
retained
School Dropout
Title I-H
$46,267 Would not be
Would not be
Preventione
retainedf
retained
Teacher and
Title II-A
$2,337,830 Would be retained
Would be retained
Principal Training
as Title II-A
as Title II-A
and Recruiting
Fund (Grants to
States, LEAs, and
Eligible
Partnerships;
formula grant)
Congressional Research Service
12

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
School Leadership
Title II-A-5 (Section
$27,584 Would be retained
Would not be
2151(b))
as Title II-A-5
retained
Advanced
Title II-A-5 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Credentialing
2151(c))
retained
retained
Math and Science
Title II-B
$141,902 Would not be
Would not be
Partnerships
retainedh
retained
(formula grant)g
Troops-to-
Title II-C-1-A
not availablei Would not be
Would not be
Teachers
retained
retained
Transition to
Title II-C-1-B
$24,691 Would not be
Would not be
Teaching
retained
retained
National Writing
Title II-C-2
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Project
retained
retained
Civic Education
Title II-C-3 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
(We the People)
2344)
retained
retained
Cooperative
Title II-C-3 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Education
2345)
retained
retained
Exchange (Civic
Education)
Teaching of
Title II-C-4
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Traditional
retained
retained
American History
Educational
Title II-D
$0 Would be retained
Would not be
Technology
as Title II-D
retained
Ready to Learn
Title II-D-3
$25,771 Would be retained
Would not be
Television
as Title IV-I
retained
English Language
Title III-A
$693,848 Would be retained
Would be retained
Acquisition
as Title III-A
as Title I-A-4
(formula grant)
Safe and Drug
Title IV-A-1
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Free, State Grants
retainedj
retained
(formula grant)
Safe and Drug
Title IV-A-2
$61,484 Would not be
Would not be
Free, National
retainedk
retained
Programs
Alcohol Abuse
Title IV-A-2 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Reduction
4129)
retained
retained
Mentoring
Title IV-A-2 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Programs
4130)
retained
retained
21st Century
Title IV-B
$1,091,564 Would be retained
Would not be
Community
as Title IV-F
retained
Learning Centers
(formula grant)
Congressional Research Service
13

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Innovative
Title V-A
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Programs (block
retained
retainedl
grant, formula
grant)
Charter School
Title V-B-1
$241,507 Would be retained
Would be retained
Grants
as Title V-D
as Title III-A-1
Charter School
Title V-B-1 (Section
(included in Charter
Would be retained
Would be retained
Facilities Incentive
5205(b))
School Grants)m
as Title V-D
as Title III-A-1
Grants
Credit
Title V-B-2
(included in Charter
Would be retained
Would be retained
Enhancement
School Grants)m
as Title V-D
as Title III-A-1
Initiatives to Assist
Charter School
Facility Acquisition,
Construction, and
Renovation
Voluntary Public
Title V-B-3
$0 Would be retained
Would not be
School Choice
as Title V-E
retained
Magnet Schools
Title V-C
$91,647 Would be retained
Would be retained
Assistance
as Title V-C
as Title III-A-2
Fund for the
Title V-D-1
$38,687 Would be retained
Would not be
Improvement of
as Title IV-Jn
retained
Education,
National Programs
Teacher Incentive
Title V-D-1
$283,771 Would be retained
Would not be
Fundo
as Title II-C
retained
Academies for
Title V-D-1
$0 Would not be
Would not be
American History
retained
retained
and Civics
Promise
Title V-D-1
$56,754 Would be retained
Would not be
Neighborhoodso
as Title IV-G
retained
Elementary and
Title V-D-2
$49,561 Would not be
Would not be
Secondary School
retained
retained
Counseling
Character
Title V-D-3
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Education
retained
retained
Smal er Learning
Title V-D-4
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Communities
retained
retained
Reading is
Title V-D-5
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Fundamental
retained
retained
Javits Gifted and
Title V-D-6
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Talented
retained
retained
Star Schools
Title V-D-7
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Program
retained
retained
Congressional Research Service
14

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Ready to Teach
Title V-D-8
$0 Would not be
Would not be
retained
retained
Foreign Language
Title V-D-9
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Assistance
retained
retained
Carol M. White
Title V-D-10
$74,577 Would not be
Would not be
Physical Education
retainedj
retained
Program
Community
Title V-D-11
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Technology
retained
retained
Centers
Exchanges with
Title V-D-12
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Historic Whaling
retained
retained
and Trading
Partners
Excel ence in
Title V-D-13
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Economic
retained
retained
Education
Grants to Improve
Title V-D-14 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
the Mental Health
5541)
retained
retained
of Children, Mental
Health Integration
in Schools
Grants to Improve
Title V-D-14 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
the Mental Health
5542)
retained
retained
of Children,
Foundations for
Learning
Arts in Education
Title V-D-15
$23,648 Would not be
Would not be
retained
retained
Parental Assistance Title V-D-16
$0 Would be retained
Would not be
and Local Family
as Title IV-H
retainedp
Information
Centers
Combating
Title V-D-17
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Domestic Violence
retained
retained
Healthy, High-
Title V-D-18
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Performance
retained
retained
Schools
Grants for Capital
Title V-D-19
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Expenses of
retained
retained
Providing Equitable
Services for Private
School Students
Congressional Research Service
15

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Additional
Title V-D-20
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Assistance for
retained
retained
Certain Local
Educational
Agencies Impacted
by Federal
Property
Acquisition
Women’s
Title V-D-21
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Educational Equity
retained
retained
Act
Grants for State
Title VI-A-1 (Section
$368,900r Would be retained
Would not be
Assessments and
6111)
as Title I-A-4
retained
Enhanced
Assessment
Instruments
(formula and
competitive
grants)q
Small, Rural School
Title VI-B-1
$84,920 Would be retained
Would be retained
Achievement
as Title VI-B-1
as Title I-A-5-A
Program (formula
grant)
Rural and Low-
Title VI-B-2
$84,920 Would be retained
Would be retained
Income School
as Title VI-B-2
as Title I-A-5-B
Program (formula
grant)
Indian Education,
Title VII-A-1
$100,381 Would be retained
Would be retained
Grants to LEAs
as Title VII-A-1
as Title I-A-6-A
(formula grant)
Special Programs
Title VII-A-2
$17,993 Would be retained
Would be retained
and Projects to
as Title VII-A-2
as Title I-A-6-B
Improve
Educational
Opportunities for
Indian Children
Indian Education,
Title VII-A-3
$5,565 Would be retained
Would not be
National Activities
as Title VII-A-3
retained
Native Hawaiian
Title VII-B
$32,397 Would be retained
Would not be
Student Education
as Title VII-B-1
retained
Alaska Native
Title VII-C
$31,453 Would be retained
Would not be
Student Education
as Title VII-B-2
retained
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$63,445 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments Relating
8002)
as Title VIII, Section
as Title IV, Section
to Federal
8002
4002
Acquisition of Real
Property (formula
grant)
Congressional Research Service
16

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$1,093,203 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments for
8003(b))
as Title VIII, Section
as Title IV, Section
Eligible Federally
8003(b)
4003(b)
Connected
Children (Basic
Support Payments;
formula grant)
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$45,881 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments for
8003(d))
as Title VIII, Section
as Title IV, Section
Eligible Federally
8003(d)
4003(d)
Connected
Children
(Payments for
Children with
Disabilities;
formula grant)
Construction
Title VIII (Section
$16,529 Would be retained
Would be retained
(formula and
8007)
as Title VIII, Section
as Title IV, Section
competitive grant)s
8007
4007
Facilities
Title VIII (Section
$4,591 Would be retained
Would be retained
Maintenance
8008)
as Title VIII, Section
as Title IV, Section
8008
4008
New Programs Included in S. 1094
Centers of
na
na
Would be included
na
Excel ence in Early
as Title I-A, Section
Childhood
1132
Improving
na
na
Would be included
na
Secondary Schools
as Title I-B-1
Teacher Pathways
na
na
Would be included
na
to the Classroom
as Title II-B
Improving Literacy
na
na
Would be included
na
as Title IV-A-1
Improving Science,
na
na
Would be included
na
Technology,
as Title IV-B-1
Engineering, and
Mathematics
Instruction and
Student
Achievement
STEM Master
na
na
Would be included
na
Teacher Corps
as Title IV-B-2
Program
Increasing Access
na
na
Would be included
na
to a Well-Rounded
as Title IV-C-1
Education
Financial Literacy
na
na
Would be included
na
Education
as Title IV-C-2
Congressional Research Service
17

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current Law
FY2013
Statutory
Appropriation
Treatment under
Treatment under
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Successful, Safe,
na
na
Would be included
na
and Healthy
as Title IV-D
Students
Programs of
na
na
Would be included
na
National
as Title IV-J
Significance
Race to the Top
na
na
Would be included
na
as Title V-A
Investing in
na
na
Would be included
na
Innovation
as Title V-Bt
College
na
na
Would be included
na
Information
as Title V-F
Demonstration
Program
New Programs Included in H.R. 5
Teacher and
na
na
na
Would be included
School Leader
as Title II-B
Flexible Grant
Family Engagement
na
na
na
Would be included
in Education
as Title III-A-3
Programs
Local Academic
na
na
na
Would be included
Flexible Grant
as Title III-B
(block grant)
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most
recently amended by P.L. 107-110), S. 1094, and H.R. 5. FY2013 appropriations information for al programs
except the Troops-to-Teachers program is available from the U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.
Notes: An indication that a program would be retained does not mean that the program would not be modified
or have its name changed. An indication that a program would not be retained does not mean that al of the
activities authorized under current law would be eliminated. They may be included in a different program.
a. S. 1094 would include a School Improvement Fund program, which would be similar to the School
Improvement Grant program in terms of providing formula grants to states that would subsequently
provide competitive grants to local entities for school improvement activities. However, the formula used
to award grants to states, the local entities that could receive grants, and the specific school improvement
activities for which funds could be used would be modified.
b. S. 1094 would create a new, comprehensive literacy program for early learning through high school that
would include a parent component.
c. Funds for evaluation of Title I would be available under Section 9601, which would permit the Secretary to
reserve funds to evaluate the program.
d. The program would be expanded to include funding for similar activities related to the International
Baccalaureate program.
e. This program is also referred to as the High School Graduation Initiative.
f.
S. 1094 would include a new program that focuses on secondary school reform and that would address
issues related to high school dropouts.
Congressional Research Service
18

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

g. This is a formula grant program when appropriations equal or exceed $100 million. Otherwise, competitive
grants are made to eligible partnerships.
h. S. 1094 would create a new science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) program.
i.
No data were readily available from the U.S. Department of Defense on the final FY2013 appropriation
amount for the Troops-to-Teachers program.
j.
S. 1094 would create a new program entitled Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students, which would promote
physical and mental health, prevent school violence and harassment, reduce substance abuse, and promote
safe and supportive schools.
k. S. 1094 would create a new program entitled Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students, which would promote
physical and mental health, prevent school violence and harassment, reduce substance abuse, and promote
safe and supportive schools. The Secretary would be permitted to reserve funds for technical assistance and
evaluation only.
l.
H.R. 5 would create a new block grant program.
m. At least $21,756,000 of the amount appropriated for the Charter School Program is required to be used for
Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants and Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School
Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation.
n. S. 1094 would move the authority included in the Fund for the Improvement of Education, National
Programs (Title V-D-1) to Programs of National Significance. It should be noted that the uses of funds under
Programs of National Significance could allow grantees to continue to carry out several of the activities
currently included in other subparts of Title V-D.
o. This program was enacted through appropriations language using authority available to the Secretary under
ESEA Title V-D-1.
p. H.R. 5 would create a new program focused on family engagement in education.
q. The majority of funds are provided to states through formula grants. A relatively small portion of the funds
are provided to states through Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments, a competitive grant program.
r. In recent years, about $9 million of the amount made available for State Assessment Grants has been
awarded to states through a competitive grant process for Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments.
s. Under this program, 40% of funds appropriated are to be awarded by formula and 60% are to be awarded
through competitive grants. In recent years, appropriations bills have directed that all the funds be used
either for formula or competitive grants.
t.
The Investing in Innovation program would include a reservation of funds for the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED).
Comparison of Key Features of ESEA
Reauthorization Proposals with Current Law

Table 2 compares S. 1094 and H.R. 5 to current law. It provides a more detailed description of
specific features of each bill. It is arranged thematically, focusing on key issues that have arisen
during the reauthorization process. The themes are as follows:
• Overall structural and funding issues;
• Accountability;
• Title I-A;
• Other issues related to special populations/areas;
• Teachers, principals, and school leadership;
Congressional Research Service
19

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

• Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education;
• Flexibility and choice;
• Other program areas addressed by current law;
• Programs currently authorized outside of the ESEA and proposed for inclusion in
the ESEA;
• General provisions; and
• Key changes included in ESEA reauthorization bills to non-ESEA programs/acts.
No attempts were made to provide a comprehensive analysis of each of the bills or to compare S.
1094 with H.R. 5.

Congressional Research Service
20


Table 2. Comparison of Major Features of S. 1094 and H.R. 5 to Current Law
Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Overall Structural and Funding Issues
General structure of the ESEA
The ESEA has nine titles:
Would have ten titles:
Would have five titles:
Title I: Improving the Academic
Title I: Col ege and Career Readiness for
Title I: Aid to Local Educational Agencies
Achievement of the Disadvantaged
All Students
Title II: Teacher Preparation and
Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting Title II: Supporting Teacher and Principal
Effectiveness
High Quality Teachers and Principals
Excel ence
Title III: Parental Engagement and Local
Title III: Language Instruction for Limited
Title III: Language and Academic Content
Flexibility
English Proficient and Immigrant Students
Instruction for English Learners and
Immigrant Students
Title IV: Impact Aid
Title IV: 21st Century Schools
Title IV: Supporting Successful, Wel -
Title V: General Provisions
Title V: Promoting Informed Parental
Rounded Students
Choice and Innovative Programs
Title V: Promoting Innovation
Title VI: Flexibility and Accountability
Title VI: Promoting Flexibility; Rural
Title VII: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and
Education
Alaska Native Education
Title VII: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and
Title VIII: Impact Aid
Alaska Native Education
Title IX: General Provisions
Title VIII: Impact Aid
Title IX: General Provisions
Title X: Commission on Effective
Regulation and Assessment Systems for
Public Schools
CRS-21


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
New programs and program repeals
Not applicable.
Would retain many of the programs in
Would retain compensatory education
current law or replace them with a new
programs, teacher grants, the Charter
program that supports activities similar to
School program, the Magnet School
those in current law. Would add a new
program, and the Impact Aid program.
program related to early childhood
Would repeal many programs included in
education; a new secondary school
current law. Would add a new program
reform program; a new teachers program; for teachers, a new parent and family
a new literacy program; a new science,
engagement program, and a new block
technology, engineering, and mathematics
grant program. The latter would allow
program; a “wel -rounded” education
funds to be used for some of the same
program; and a program focused on
purposes as current law programs that
student health and safety. Would
would be eliminated.
authorize the Race to the Top (RTTT)
and Investing in Innovation (i3) programs
under ESEA.
Authorization and funding levels
ESEA programs were authorized through
Would include 39 separate
Would include 12 separate authorizations
FY2007 and were automatical y extended
authorizationsa that would authorize all
totaling $22.8 billion for each fiscal year
through FY2008 by the General Education ESEA programs at “such sums as may be
from FY2014 through FY2019.
Provisions Act (GEPA). Most ESEA
necessary” for FY2014 and each of the 4
programs were authorized at “such sums
succeeding fiscal years.
as may be necessary” for FY2007. Only
five programs had specified FY2007
authorization levels. For these five
programs, the FY2007 authorizations
totaled $28.9 billion.
CRS-22


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Accountability
Standards
Requires each state to adopt challenging
Would require states to adopt “college
Would require states to adopt content
academic content and challenging student
and career ready” academic content and
and achievement standards for
academic achievement standards in at
achievement standards in reading and
mathematics, reading, science, and any
least mathematics, reading/language arts
mathematics. The state would also be
other subject as determined by the state.
(hereinafter referred to as reading), and
required to adopt science standards that
science. States may choose to adopt
are “aligned with the knowledge and skills
standards for other subject areas.
needed to be col ege and career ready.”
Each state must demonstrate that its
reading and mathematics standards are
aligned with credit-bearing coursework,
without the need for remediation, at
public institutions of higher education in
the state; relevant state career and
technical education standards and
performance measures under the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-270); and
appropriate career skills or standards that
are state-developed and voluntarily
adopted by a “significant number” of
states. If a state wanted to include science
standards in its accountability system, the
science standards would also have to
meet the aforementioned requirements.
Would allow states to adopt “high-
quality” standards in other subjects and
use them as part of their accountability
system.
CRS-23


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Assessments
Requires all states to develop and
Similar to current law. Would provide
Similar to current law but would require
implement yearly assessments aligned
states with discretion to administer a
mathematics and reading assessments to
with content and achievement standards
single annual summative assessment or
be administered at least once in grades 9-
in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8
multiple assessments administered
12 (as opposed to at least once in grades
and one grade in grades 10-12. Also
throughout the school year that result in
10-12 under current law). Would provide
requires science assessments aligned with
a single summative score. Would require
states with discretion to administer a
content and achievement standards to be
assessments to measure both
single annual summative assessment or
administered once in grades 3-5, grades 6-
achievement and student growth.b Would
multiple assessments administered
9, and grades 10-12.
allow students to be assessed, in part,
throughout the school year that result in
based on portfolios, projects, or extended a single summative score. Would require
tasks. Would allow the use of computer
assessments to measure both
adaptive assessment to measure student
achievement and student growth. Would
performance and growth against grade
allow the use of computer adaptive
level standards, as well as above and
assessment to measure student
below grade level standards.
performance and growth against grade
level standards, as well as above and
below grade level standards.
CRS-24


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
English language proficiency (ELP)
Under Title I-A, requires all LEAs to
Under Title I-A, would require ELP
Under Title I-A, would require ELP
standards and assessments
provide for an annual assessment of
assessments to be aligned with state
assessments to be aligned with state
English proficiency.
developed Title I-A ELP standards that
developed ELP standards that must be
must be aligned with college and career-
aligned with academic content standards
Under Title III-A, requires states to
ready academic content standards in
in reading.
establish standards that raise the level of
reading so that achieving English language
English proficiency and that must be
proficiency based on the ELP standards
Under Title I-A-4, would require
aligned with Title I-A academic content
would indicate a sufficient knowledge of
subgrantees and subgrantee schools to
standards. Requires subgrantees to
English to allow the state to “validly and
provide for an annual assessment of
provide for an annual assessment of
reliably” measure a student’s achievement
English proficiency.
English proficiency.
on the state reading assessment without

any interventions designed to support
English learners (ELs). In addition, among
other requirements, the standards must
identify not less than four levels of English
proficiency and must address the different
proficiency levels of ELs, while setting high
expectations regarding the academic
achievement and linguistic proficiency for
English learners at all levels.
Under Title III-A, would require the state
to adopt high-quality ELP standards and
matching ELP assessments that identify at
least four levels of English proficiency and
that are aligned with the Title I-A “college
and career ready” standards. Would
require subgrantee schools to provide for
an annual assessment of English
proficiency.
CRS-25


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Standards and assessments for
The ESEA requires that academic
Would authorize (but not require) the
Would authorize (but not require) the
students with disabilities
assessments measure the achievement of
development of alternate assessments
development of alternate assessments
all children, including students with
aligned with alternate academic standards
aligned with alternate academic standards
disabilities. The statute requires the use
for students with the most significant
for students with the most significant
of “alternative assessments” provided in
cognitive disabilities. Would limit the use
cognitive disabilities. Would not limit the
the same manner as those provided under of alternative assessments in state
use of alternate assessments in the
the Individuals with Disabilities Education
accountability systems by continuing to
accountability system.
Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The statute
limit the percentage of scores used within
does not, however, address how to
the accountability system to 1% of all
Would not explicitly authorize or prohibit
incorporate scores from “alternative
students.
the development or use of alternate
assessments” in the accountability system.
assessments aligned with modified
Would not authorize the development or
achievement standards for other students
ESEA regulations have addressed the
use of alternate assessments aligned with
with disabilities.
development and use of two types of
modified achievement standards for other
alternate assessments for students with
students with disabilities. Would explicitly
disabilities:
prohibit the development or
implementation of any modified
(1) States are permitted to develop
achievement standard.
alternate assessments based on alternate
achievement standards (AA-AAS) for
students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. The number of
proficient scores based on AA-AAS used
within the accountability system may not
exceed 1% of all students.
(2) States are permitted to develop
alternate assessments based on modified
achievement standards (AA-MAS) for
other students with disabilities. The
number of proficient scores based on AA-
MAS used within the accountability
system may not exceed 2% of all students.
Early learning guidelines and early
Not applicable.
Would require the development of early
Not applicable.
grade standards
learning guidelines for young children, as
well as standards for grades kindergarten
through three aligned with the col ege and
career ready content and achievement
standards for grades three and higher.c
CRS-26


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Funding for assessments
Provides formula grants to states for state Similar to current law.
Would not provide formula grants for
assessments required by the ESEA. Also
state assessments or competitive grants
provides competitive grants to states (or
for related assessment activities. Funds
consortia of states) for related
available under the block grant (see
assessment activities (e.g., to improve
below) could be used to develop or
existing assessments or develop new
implement state assessments.
assessments beyond the requirements of
the ESEA).
Subjects included in state
Under current law, only reading and
Similar to current law.
Similar to current law.
accountability system for
mathematics must be included in state
accountability determinations (as
accountability systems. States may choose
opposed to reporting purposes)
to include additional subject areas.
CRS-27


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Annual measurable objectives
For accountability purposes, states must
Would eliminate AMOs. Would require
Would eliminate AMOs. There would be
(AMOs)
develop AMOs that are established
that a determination be made regarding
no requirement that states establish
separately for reading and mathematics
how well students are mastering the
performance targets. There would be no
assessments, are the same for all schools
material included in the state’s content
specifically required “ultimate goal” with
and LEAs, identify a single minimum
standards. Would require the state to
respect to student performance.
percentage of students who must meet or establish at least three categories of
exceed the proficient level on the
students, which must include: (1) students
assessments that applies to the “al
who are meeting or exceeding state
students group” and each subgroup for
academic standards; (2) students whose
which data are disaggregated,d and must
proficiency in a subject is below grade
ensure that all students will meet or
level but who are achieving sufficient
exceed the state’s proficient level of
growth; and (3) students whose
achievement on the assessments based on proficiency is below grade level and are
a timeline established by the state. The
not achieving sufficient growth. Would
timeline must incorporate concrete
require each state to establish “ambitious
movement toward meeting an “ultimate
and achievable” annual performance
goal” of all students reaching a proficient
targets for the state, LEAs, and public
or higher level of achievement by the end
schools in the state for each subject area
of the 2013-2014 school year.
and grade level that is assessed. Would
allow states to use: (a) the performance
targets adopted under the ESEA flexibility
package offered to the states by the
Administration; (b) standards that set a
goal for every public school to meet the
achievement level of the highest-
performing 10% of schools in the state,
require annual progress toward that goal
within a specified “reasonable time
period,” and ensure accelerated progress
for students at the lowest levels of
student achievement; or (c) performance
targets that are equal y ambitious as the
other two options. Performance targets
would have to be developed for student
proficiency, student growth, English
language proficiency for ELs, and high
school graduation rates. Would require
al performance targets to be approved by
the Secretary.
CRS-28


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Adequate yearly progress (AYP)
AYP is determined based on three
Would eliminate the determination of
Would eliminate the determination of
components: student academic
AYP. Would require that assessments be
AYP. Would require that assessments be
achievement on the required state
administered to not less than 95% of all
administered to not less than 95% of all
reading and mathematics assessments,
students and not less than 95% of each
students and not less than 95% of each
with a focus on the percentage of
subgroup for which data are
subgroup for which data are
students scoring at the proficient level or
disaggregated. Would also require that
disaggregated. Would also require that
higher; 95% student participation rates in
high school graduation rates be reported
high school graduation rates be reported
assessments by all students and for any
but would not require an additional
but would not require an additional
subgroup for which data are
academic indicator for elementary or
academic indicator for elementary or
disaggregated;d and performance on
middle schools. While no specific
middle schools. No specific consequences
another academic indicator, which must
consequences are associated with failing
are included with respect to participation
be graduation rates for high schools.
to meet the participation rate
rates or high school graduation rates.
Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only requirement, schools with relatively low
if they meet the required threshold levels
graduation rates may be subject to
of performance on all three indicators for
interventions (see outcome accountability
the al students group and any subgroup
discussion).
for which data are disaggregated. AYP
must be determined separately and
specifically not only for all students but
also for al subgroups for which data must
be disaggregated within each school, LEA,
and state.
CRS-29


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Measuring AYP and student growth
Under current law, the primary model for Would no longer require AYP to be
Would no longer require AYP to be
determining whether a school or LEA has
calculated. However, the state
calculated. However, would require state
met the AYP requirements based on
accountability system would be required
assessments to measure individual student
assessment performance is the group
to measure individual academic
academic growth and proficiency in
status model. Such models set threshold
achievement and individual student
addition to performance by the all
levels of performance, expressed as a
growth. Would require the determination students group and designated subgroups
percentage of students scoring at a
of performance for the al students group
for which data are disaggregated.
proficient or higher level on state
and each designated subgroup for which
assessments of reading and mathematics,
data are disaggregated.
which must be met by al students as a
group, as well as students in designated
demographic subgroups, in order for a
public school or LEA to make AYP.
Current law also includes a secondary
model of AYP, a “safe harbor” provision,
under which a school or LEA may make
AYP if, among student groups who did
not meet the primary AYP standard, the
percentage of students who are not at the
proficient or higher level declines by at
least 10%. Regulations permit states to
request a waiver to determine AYP based
on a growth model.e
CRS-30


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Outcome accountability under
States are required to identify LEAs, and
Would no longer require current
Would eliminate current outcome
Title I-A
LEAs are required to identify schools, for
outcome accountability requirements be
accountability requirements related to
program improvement if the LEA or
implemented. Would require the state to
identifying schools and LEAs based on
school failed to meet the state AYP
identify “lack of improvement” schools,
specific performance measures and
standards for two consecutive years
“focus” schools, and “priority” schools.
subsequently requiring a specific set of
(Section 1116). LEAs or schools that fail
Lack of improvement schools would
consequences to be applied to schools
to meet AYP standards for additional
include schools that have failed to meet
and LEAs based on their performance.
years are required to take a variety of
the same subgroup performance target
Would not require states to identify a
actions. For example, schools that fail to
for the preceding three consecutive years. specified percentage or number of
meet AYP for two consecutive years are
These schools would have to work with
schools as low performing. Would
identified for school improvement and
the SEA to implement a state-approved
require the state accountability system to
must offer public school choice, develop a intervention based on best practices
include a system for school improvement
school improvement plan, and use Title I-
within the state. A school would be
for public schools receiving Title I-A-1
A funds for professional development.
identified as a focus school if it has not
(Grants to LEAs) funds that would be
Failure to make AYP for an additional
been identified as a priority school and (1) implemented by LEAs and includes
yearf results in a school also having to
is in the 10% of schools with the greatest
implementing interventions that are
offer supplemental educational services
achievement gaps among subgroups, as
designed to address such schools’
(SES). LEAs are required to reserve 20%
compared to the statewide average or (2)
weaknesses. Would no longer require
of their Title I-A funds for transportation
is a public high school that is in the 10% of LEAs to reserve 20% of their funds for
for public school choice and for SES.
schools with the greatest graduation rate
public school choice and SES. Would
Schools that fail to make AYP for an
gaps among such subroups, as compared
create a new reservation of funds,
additional year continue to do all of the
to the statewide average. These schools
however, for direct services to students.
aforementioned activities and enter into
would be required to develop and
States would be required to reserve 3%
corrective action. Under corrective
implement a “measurable and data-
of the total amount received by the state
action, they are required to take one of
driven” correction plan. A school would
under Title I-A-1 to make competitive
several statutorily specified actions,
be identified as a priority school if it is in
grants to LEAs to provide public school
including replacing school staff, changing
the lowest-achieving 5% of elementary
choice or high-quality academic tutoring
the curriculum, extending the school year
schools, is in the lowest-achieving 5% of
that is designed to increase student
or school day, or working with an outside secondary schools, is a public high school
academic achievement.
expert. Subsequent failure to make AYP
with a graduation rate of less than 60%,
requires a school to plan for and,
or has been identified as a focus school
ultimately, implement restructuring.
for the preceding six consecutive years.
Restructuring involves the continuation of Each LEA serving a priority school would
the aforementioned activities and
be required to implement several
implementation of an alternative
activities, including a needs analysis in the
governance structure, such as converting
school, a statutorily specified intervention
to a charter school. It should be noted
strategy, and public school choice. Would
that these consequences are applied
no longer require SES or a 20%
regardless of the extent to which a school reservation of funds for choice or SES.
failed to make AYP in a given year but
consequences need only be applied to
schools receiving Title I-A funds.
CRS-31


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Rewards for schools and LEAs based
Each state participating in ESEA Title I-A
Would not retain current law
Would not require awards to be provided
on performance
is required to establish an Academic
requirements. Would provide states with
to schools, LEAs, teachers, or principals
Achievement Awards Program for
the option of identifying and rewarding
based on student academic achievement.
purposes of making academic
high-performing public schools through
achievement awards to schools that have
the Blue Ribbon Schools program. The
either significantly closed academic
state’s blue ribbon schools would be
achievement gaps between student
required to be the top 5% of the state’s
subgroups or exceeded their AYP
elementary and secondary schools, as
requirements for two or more
designated by the state, based on various
consecutive years. States may also give
criteria such as the percentage of
awards to LEAs that have exceeded their
students who are proficient or advanced
AYP requirements for two or more
in language arts and mathematics or, in
consecutive years. Under Academic
the case of high schools, graduation rates.
Achievement Awards Programs, states
The state may choose to provide blue
may recognize and provide financial
ribbon schools with increased autonomy
awards to teachers or principals in
over their budget, staffing, and time, and
schools that have significantly closed the
al ow the schools to use their ESEA funds
academic achievement gap or that have
for any purpose al owed under the act.h
made AYP for two consecutive years.
The state may reserve not more than
States may fund Academic Achievement
0.5% of its Title I-A funds to make
Awards for schools and LEAs by reserving competitive grants to LEAs that serve one
up to 5% of any Title I-A funding that is in
or more blue ribbon schools. LEAs would
excess of the state’s previous-year
be required to use these funds to provide
allocation.g
awards to such schools. Schools receiving
funds would be required to use the funds
to improve student achievement and
provide technical assistance to the
lowest-achieving schools that are in the
closest geographical region of the state.
CRS-32


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
School Improvement Grants (SIG;
Provides formula grants to states which
Would eliminate the current SIG program Would not be retained.
Section 1003(g))
subsequently make competitive grants to
but would create a similar program, the
LEAs to provide assistance to schools
School Improvement Fund, under Title I-
consistent with Section 1116 (see
A, section 1116(f). The new program
previous discussion on outcome
would provide formula grants to states
accountability). Regulatory language
(using a different formula than under
specifies which types of schools have
current law) which would subsequently
priority to be served and specific
award competitive grants to eligible
interventions (i.e., turnaround model,
entities (e.g., LEAs) for school
transformation model, restart model, and
improvement activities in schools
closure model) that must be used in
identified as priority schools.
certain types of schools.
School improvement reservation
States are permitted to reserve not more
Would permit states to reserve not more
Would permit states to reserve up to 7%
than 4% of the total amount the state
than 6% of the total amount the state
of the total amount the state receives for
receives under Title I-A for school
receives under Title I-A for school
Title I-A-1 for school improvement
improvement activities, provided that no
improvement activities, provided that no
activities. The requirement that this
LEA receives a smaller Title I-A grant than LEA receives a smaller Title I-A grant than reservation of funds not result in an LEA
it did during the prior fiscal year due to
it did during the prior fiscal year due to
receiving a smaller Title I-A grant than it
the implementation of this provision.
the implementation of this provision.
did during the prior fiscal year would
apply in FY2015 and subsequent fiscal
years. It would not apply in FY2014.
CRS-33


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Reports to parents and the public
Under current law, each state is required
Would require the state to prepare and
Would continue to require annual state
regarding school, LEA, and state
to disseminate an annual state report card disseminate an annual report card for the
report cards to be publicly disseminated.
performance
that includes information on student
state, each LEA, and each school. Would
The report cards would continue to
achievement at each proficiency level that
require data on student achievement (e.g., report on student performance,

is disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
3-year trends in achievement and student
participation rates on assessments, any

disability status, English proficiency, and
growth, graduation rates, postsecondary
other measures of student academic
economically disadvantaged status, as well
enrol ment and the need for remediation), achievement included in the state’s

as by gender and migrant status; a
as well as several other data elements to
accountability system, graduation rates,
comparison of each of the subgroups
be included on school report cards (e.g.,
the academic performance of each public
against the state’s AMO; the percentage
discipline data, data on pregnant and
school (i.e., student academic
of students not tested; 2-year trend data
parenting students, school violence data,
achievement, overall performance, and
in student achievement; information on
and data on sports teams at coeducational achievement gaps), the acquisition of
other indicators used to determine AYP;
schools). State and LEA report cards
English proficiency by English learners, the
graduation rates; performance of LEAs in
would be required to include many of the
number and percentage of teachers in
making AYP, including the number and
same data elements and to provide
each teacher performance rating category
names of schools identified for
information on military-connected
used by the state, and results on the
improvement under Section 1116; and
students and their academic achievement.
National Assessment of Educational
professional qualifications of teachers, the
State report cards would have to
Progress. Would allow the state to
percentage of teachers with emergency
disaggregate data for foster children (if
include additional information.
or provisional credentials, and the
appropriate). LEA report cards would
percentage of classes not taught by highly
have to include information regarding all
Would continue to require LEAs to
qualified teachers. The state is permitted
assessments administered annually. Each
disseminate an annual LEA report and a
to include other information, such as
LEA would also be required to develop an report card for each school served by the
school violence data. Each LEA must
“equity report card” for each school. The
LEA that includes the same types of data
disseminate an annual report card that
report card would be required to include
required on the state report card. Would
includes information for the LEA and each information such as student achievement
also require the LEA report card to
school served by the LEA, including data
data, school funding by source, graduation
include data on how students in the LEA
on the number and percentage of schools
rates, data regarding “educational
compared with students in the state
identified for improvement under Section
opportunity participation,” and data on
overall on academic indicators.
1116(c) and how long the schools have
school climate. Would require the
been so identified and data on student
Secretary to issue an annual report card
achievement. LEAs are permitted to
to the relevant authorizing committees on
include other information of their report
the status of elementary and secondary
cards, regardless of whether the state
education in the United States, as well as
included the information on the state
a biennial report based on national and
report card.
state-level data.
CRS-34


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Competency-based assessment
Not applicable.
Would establish the Competency-Based
Not applicable.
Assessment and Accountability
Demonstration Authority. Would allow
the Secretary to provide SEAs or
consortia of SEAs the authority to
incorporate competency-based
assessment into their state accountability
systems.
Commission on Effective Regulation
Not applicable.
Would establish a Commission on
Not applicable.
and Assessment Systems for Public
Effective Regulation and Assessment
Schools
Systems for Public Schools as part of
ESEA. Among other tasks, the
Commission would examine federal,
state, and local regulatory requirements
on elementary and secondary education;
make recommendations on how to align
and improve such federal, state, and local
requirements to improve performance
and innovation; examine the quality and
purpose of current federal, state, and
local assessment requirements; and make
recommendations to improve and align
assessment systems. The Commission
would report findings to the Secretary,
the members of authorizing committees,
and the public.
CRS-35


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Title I-A
Title I-A formulas
Title I-A funds are allocated to LEAs using Similar to current law.
Would specify that appropriations in
four formulas: Basis Grants,
excess of the FY2001 level must be
Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants,
divided evenly between Targeted and
and Education Finance Incentive Grants
EFIG grants. This would codify annual
(EFIG). Statutory language specifies how
appropriations language that has specified
funds are to be distributed under each
that funds in excess of the FY2001
formula.
appropriation for Title I-A be divided
evenly between Targeted and EFIG
Grants. While funds in excess of the
FY2001 level have been appropriated this
way for several years, the requirement is
not currently in the statutory language
authorizing the Title I-A program.
Comparability
Comparability provisions require that
Would require comparability
Similar to current law.
services provided with state and local
determinations to demonstrate that the
funds in schools participating in Title I-A
combined state and local per-pupil
must be comparable to those in non-Title
expenditures (including actual personnel
I-A schools of the same LEA. The
and actual non-personnel expenditures) in
provisions (Section 1120A(c)) are
each school served under Title I-A in a
intended to provide that schools in the
given LEA were not less than the average
LEA that receive Title I-A funds also
combined state and local per-pupil
receive equivalent levels of state and local
expenditure for non-Title I-A schools in
funds as are provided to public schools in
the same LEA.
the LEA that are not participating in Title
I-A. Comparability is measured only with
respect to the public schools within the
same LEA. In determining whether an LEA
is complying with comparability
requirements, an LEA is able to make the
determination without including staff
salary differentials for years of
employment.
CRS-36


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Other Issues Related to Special Populations/Areas
Education of migratory children
For the purposes of the Migrant
Would amend the definition of a
Would amend the definition of a
Education Program, migratory workers
migratory worker to (a) allow only
migratory worker to include individuals
are defined as individuals who moved in
migratory fishers to move small distances
who move to seek temporary or seasonal
the preceding 36 months to obtain
within geographically large districts; (b)
employment in agriculture, dairy, or
temporary or seasonal employment in
give migratory children a one-year period
fishing.
agriculture, dairy, or fishing.
in which to follow the qualifying move of a
parent or spouse; (c) explicitly include
Funds would be allocated to states based
Funds are allocated to states based on
agricultural work that is the processing of
on a formula using the number of
their FY2002 amounts and a formula for
raw agricultural products; (d) explicitly
migratory youth and state per-pupil
additional funds using the number of
include agricultural and fishing work until
expenditures.
migratory youth and state per-pupil
the point of the initial commercial sale; (e)
expenditures.
explicitly include work that is raw food
processing up to the point of initial
commercial sale; and (f) include individuals
who move to seek temporary or seasonal
employment in agriculture, dairy, or
fishing.
Funds would be al ocated to states based
on a formula using the number of
migratory youth and state per-pupil
expenditures.
Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk
Formula grants are provided to states to
Similar to current law.
Similar to current law.
Youth
support educational services at state
institutions for neglected or delinquent
children and youth. Requires states to
reserve a portion of their Title I-A funds
for subgrants to LEAs to support
educational services for neglected or
delinquent children and youth in local y-
operated correctional facilities or
attending community day programs.
CRS-37


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Education for limited English
Bases the Title III-A accountability system
Would eliminate the current system of
Would eliminate the current system of
proficient (LEP) students
on three annual measurable achievement
AMAOs and address accountability by (a)
AMAOs.
accountability provisions
objectives (AMAOs) for Title III served
including in the Title I-A accountability
students that measure (1) progress in
system annual performance targets for
learning English, (2) attainment of English
the number of ELs who are on track to
language proficiency, and (3) whether LEP
achieving English proficiency based on the
students are making AYP.
ELP standards within five years; (b)
requiring states to include ELP assessment
results in the Title II state designed
professional growth and improvement
system; and (c) requiring each school,
eligible entity, and state to achieve a Title
III-A approved target for the percentage
of Title III ELs who are making progress in
achieving English proficiency within five
years.

English Language Acquisition (Title III-
For appropriations of at least $650
Would allow ED to use ACS data, state
Would (a) eliminate the set-aside for
A) formula
million, Part Ai provides (a) a set-aside for data, or a combination of the two data
Native American and Alaska Native
Native American and Alaska Native
sources to determine the number of EL
children in school and (b) allow ED to use
children in school and (b) formula grants
students for use in calculating formula
ACS data, state data, or a combination of
to states based on data from either the
grants to states.
the two data sources to determine the
American Community Survey (ACS) or
number of EL students for use in
state data for the number of LEP students
calculating formula grants to states.
and number of immigrant students,
whichever ED deems to be more reliable.
Identifying and exiting LEP students
Title III-A does not require SEAs to
Title III-A would require SEAs to establish Similar to current law.
to/from language acquisition
establish uniform statewide criteria for
and implement a statewide Title III-A
programs
identifying and exiting LEPs from Title III-
framework with at least four levels of
A programs.
English proficiency for identifying,
entering, and exiting ELs.
CRS-38


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Rural Education
Two programs in the ESEA provide funds
Would increase the SRSA minimum grant
Would make LEAs that receive SRSA
specifically to meet the needs of rural
amount to $25,000 and maximum amount funds ineligible for RLIS funds. Would
LEAs. The Small Rural School
to $80,000 if the appropriation exceeds
update the “locale codes” used to
Achievement (SRSA) program (Title VI-B-
$211,723,832. Would allow LEAs eligible
determine rural eligibility under both
1) awards formula grants to eligible LEAs.
for both SRSA and RLIS funds to choose
programs.
Initial grant amounts must be at least
whether to participate in one or the
$20,000 and not more than $60,000. Final
other program (not both). Would update
grant amounts are “offset” by funds
the “locale codes” used to determine
received from certain other ESEA
rural eligibility under both programs.
programs. The Rural Low-Income School
(RLIS) program (Title VI-B-2) awards
formula grants to states; states must
award subgrants to eligible LEAs either by
formula or competitively. LEAs eligible for
SRSA funds are not eligible for RLIS funds.
CRS-39


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Education for Indians
ESEA supports the education of Indian
Would provide set-asides to BIE schools
Would provide set-asides to BIE schools
students through several mechanisms: (1)
or make the BIE eligible as a state for
for several formula grant programs.
set-asides to Bureau of Indian Education
several but not al formula grant
(BIE) schools from several formula grant
programs.
Under the formula grant program for
programs; (2) the Title VII-A-1 formula
schools serving Indian students, the
grant program for schools serving Indian
For the Title VII-A-1 program, eligibility
threshold for tribes to apply for grants
students; (3) several competitive grant
would be expanded to Indian
would be lowered from representing at
programs that support Indian education;
organizations, private tribally operated
least one-half of the public school’s Indian
(4) the National Advisory Council on
schools, and Indian community-based
enrol ment to one-third.
Indian Education (NACIE) that advises the organizations. Would increase the
Would strike several competitive grant
Secretary on ED programs affecting Indian minimum grant amounts from the current
programs that support Indian education,
children or adults; and (5) competitive
range of $3,000 to $4,000 and increase it
al of which have not been funded since
grant programs for which BIE schools are
to $10,000 to $15,000. Would expand
FY1995.
eligible as LEAs or for which the BIE is
the list of allowable activities to include
eligible as an SEA.
Native American language immersion and
Would not specify accountability
restoration programs.
provisions for BIE schools.
Subjects BIE schools to most Title I-A
accountability provisions.
Would eliminate several competitive
grant programs that support Indian
education, including those that have not
been funded since FY1995. Would
authorize a new competitive program to
fund the improvement of academic
success for students through Native
American language and authorize a study
of SEA/LEA/tribal collaboration.
Would not specify accountability
provisions for BIE schools.
CRS-40


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Education for Native Hawaiians
Current law authorizes the Native
Would eliminate the Island Councils and
Would eliminate the program for Native
Hawaiian Education Council and Island
give more duties to the Education
Hawaiians.
Councils to help coordinate and guide
Council.
educational services available to Native
Hawaiians. Current law also authorizes
Would amend the grant award priorities.
competitive grants to Native Hawaiian
Would add support for the repair and
organizations and organizations that
renovation of public schools and support
operate programs for Native Hawaiians
for charter schools serving high
to promote the educational achievement
concentrations of Native Hawai an
of Native Hawaiians, including in the
students.
Hawaiian language.
Education for Alaska Natives
Provides grants to organizations that
Would eliminate the specification of
Would eliminate the program for Alaska
support the education of Alaska Natives
particular grantees and awards.
Natives.
to support the unique educational and
culturally related academic needs of
Alaska Native children.
Teachers, Principals, and School Leadership
Highly qualified teachers
All core subject teachers must possess
Similar to current law except that, in a
Would repeal the highly qualified teacher
certain teaching credentials and
state that has ful y implemented an
requirement.
demonstrate instructional knowledge and
approved professional growth and
abilities.
improvement system, only new teachers
must be highly qualified.
Distribution of teacher quality
Requires each state to ensure Title I
Would retain similar requirements for the Would eliminate the requirement
schools provide instruction by highly
equitable distribution of teachers for the
regarding the equitable distribution of
qualified instructional staff and take
first year after enactment; in subsequent
teacher quality.
specific steps to ensure that poor and
years, would require that poor and
minority children are not taught at higher
minority children are not taught at higher
rates than other children by
rates than other children by “teachers
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
with the lowest ratings in the State
teachers.
professional growth and improvement
system.”
CRS-41


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Teacher and principal performance
The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D)
Would require states participating in Title
Would eliminate current requirements
supports competitive grants for high-need
II-A to ensure that all LEAs that receive
regarding the equitable distribution of
schools to develop and implement
Title II-A funds were implementing
instructional quality and highly qualified
performance-based teacher and principal
teacher and principal evaluation systems,
teachers. Would require states that
compensation systems that must consider
known as professional growth and
receive Title II-A funds to either develop
gains in student academic achievement, as
improvement systems by the 2015-2016
and implement a statewide teacher
wel as classroom evaluations conducted
school year. These systems would have to evaluation system or ensure that each
multiple times during each school year,
provide meaningful feedback to teachers
LEA receiving Title II-A funds will
among other factors.
and principals, include multiple categories
implement a teacher evaluation system
of performance, evaluate teachers and
within three years of enactment of H.R. 5.
principals on a regular basis, be aligned
The teacher evaluation system would be
with professional development activities,
required to use student achievement data
be developed and implemented with
from multiple sources as a “significant
teacher and principal involvement, and
factor” in determining a teacher’s
provide training for the evaluators
evaluation, use multiple evaluation
responsible for conducting classroom and
measures, have more than two
school observations. Principal evaluations
performance categories, be used to make
would be required to be based “in
personnel decisions, and be based on
significant part” on evidence of improved
input from parents, school leaders,
student academic achievement and
teachers, and other staff. The teacher
growth and student outcomes, and
evaluation system would be similar to
evidence of providing strong instructional
those required by the Teacher Incentive
leadership and support to teachers and
Fund. Would not require the evaluation
other staff. Principal evaluations may also
system to include school leaders. Would
include other measures of principal
not retain the Teacher Incentive Fund
performance. Teacher evaluations would
program.
be required to be based “in significant
part” on evidence of improved student
academic achievement and growth,
classroom observations, and other
measures. These systems would be similar
to the teacher evaluation system
currently used in the Teacher Incentive
Fund competitive grant program. Would
require states to provide technical
assistance to LEAs receiving Title II-A
funds to support the design and
implementation of professional growth
and improvement systems.
CRS-42


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Title II-A formulas
Title II-A funds are allocated to states and
Similar to current law.
Similar to current law but would amend
subgranted to LEAs based on the total
both state and LEA formulas; both grants
number of students and the number of
would be based on 50% of the total
students in poverty according to the
number of students and 50% of the
following ratios: for states 35% and 65%
number of students in poverty.
and for LEAs 20% and 80%.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education
STEM Education
Under current law, the Math and Science
Would eliminate the MSP program and
Would not retain the MSP program or
Partnerships (MSP) program (Title II-B)
create a new program called “Improving
authorize funding specifically for STEM
awards formula grants to states based on
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
education.
each states’ share of the school-age
Math Instruction and Student
population; states award competitive
Achievement” that would award
subgrants to partnerships between high-
competitive grants to states (or by
need LEAs and STEM departments at
formula grants when appropriations are at
institutions of higher education. Funds
least $500 million). States must award
may be used to provide subject-matter
subgrants to high-need LEAs, which
professional development, promote
would be required to match at least 15%
teaching skills, operate summer teacher
of the award with non-federal funds.
workshops, and recruit new teachers,
Funds would be used to improve
among other activities to improve STEM
instruction, engagement, and achievement
teaching.
gaps in STEM subjects. Would create a
STEM Master Corps program that would,
among other purposes, attract and retain
effective STEM teachers, particularly in
high-need schools, by providing them with
additional compensation, instructional
resources, and instructional leadership
roles.
CRS-43


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Education technology
The Ed Tech program (Title II-D)
Similar to current law.
Would not retain the Ed Tech program
provides formula grants to states to
or authorize funding specifically for
improve student academic achievement
education technology.
through the use of technology in
elementary and secondary schools with
the goal of every student becoming
technologically literate by eighth grade.
States distribute grants to LEAs by
formula and through a competitive
process. Funds may be used for various
purposes, including acquiring and
maintaining new applications of
technology, acquiring connectivity
linkages, and providing professional
development.
Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Not applicable.
Would amend the Department of
Not applicable.
Education (ARPA-ED)
Education Organization Act to authorize
the establishment of ARPA-ED.j ARPA-
ED would provide funding for research
and development in educational
technology to improve student
achievement. The Secretary would
appoint a Director of ARPA-ED who
would carry out projects, “tailored to the
purposes of ARPA-ED and not
constrained by other Department-wide
administrative requirements that could
detract from achieving program results.”
For example, the Director would have
special hiring authority for scientific
personnel and flexibility in providing
compensation. Would provide up to 30%
of the funds authorized for the Investing
in Innovation program to support ARPA-
ED, provided the amount reserved would
not exceed $100 million.
CRS-44


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Flexibility and Choice
Block grants
Innovative Programs authorized under
Would not include a block grant program. Would create a new block grant program
Title V-A is informally referred to as the
to support activities to improve academic
“education block grant" program.
achievement and protect student safety.
Program purposes include support of
Would provide formula grants to states.
educational reform, implementation of
Would require states to use at least 75%
reform and improvement programs based
of the funds received to award
on scientifical y based research, support
competitive grantsk to partnerships of
of educational innovation and
LEAs, community-based organizations,
improvement, assistance to meet the
business entities, and nongovernmental
educational needs of all students, and
entities and not less than 10% to award
assistance to improve educational
competitive grants to nongovernment
performance. The program provides
entities. SEAs could reserve not more
formula grants to states, which
than 15% of the funds received to develop
subsequently provide formula grants to
standards and assessments, to administer
LEAs. LEAs must use their grants to meet
assessments, to monitor and evaluate
local y determined educational needs, as
programs and activities receiving funding,
selected from a list of 27 innovative
to provide training and technical
education assistance activities. The
assistance, for statewide academic
program was last funded in FY2007 at $99
focused programs, to share evidence-
million.
based and other effective strategies, and
for administrative costs. Grants to LEAs
and other eligible entities could be used
for (1) supplemental student support
activities (e.g., before or after school
activities, tutoring, expanded learning
time) but not in-school learning activities;
and (2) activities to support students (e.g.,
academic subject specific programs,
extended learning time programs, parent
engagement), but not class-size reduction,
construction, or staff compensation.
Nongovernmental entities must use funds
for a program or project to increase the
academic achievement of public school
students attending a public elementary or
secondary school. The program would be
authorized annually at $2.1 billion.
CRS-45


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
School choice
Current law includes several mechanisms
Would no longer require LEAs to reserve Would no longer require LEAs to reserve
that support school choice. Under Title I-
funds for public school choice under Title
funds for public school choice under Title
A, students attending schools that have
I-A. However, would require an LEA to
I-A-1. Would provide a reservation of
failed to make AYP for two consecutive
provide students enrolled in a school
state funds under Title I-A-1 for direct
years or more are provided with public
identified as a priority school with the
activities that would include support for
school choice. LEAs are required to
option to enroll in another public school
public school choice and tutoring. Funds
reserve an amount equal to 20% of their
served by the LEA that has not been
would subsequently be provided to LEAs
Title I-A funds to support transportation
identified as a priority school. Would
through competitive grants. Would retain
for public school choice and for SES. Title
retain the Charter School program and
the Charter School program and support
V provides funding for the Charter School the Credit Enhancement program. Would
similar activities as those included under
program, which supports the planning and allow funds remaining after making grants
the Credit Enhancement and the Facilities
implementation of charter schools, as well under the Credit Enhancement program
Incentive Grant programs. Would not
as the dissemination of information about
to be used for other charter school
retain the Public School Choice program
charters schools; the Charter School
facilities purposes, including a per-pupil
but would retain the Magnet School
Facilities Incentive Grant program, which
facilities aid program. Would retain the
program.
is designed to incentivize states to
Public School Choice program and the
provide per-pupil funding for charter
Magnet School program.
school facilities; the Credit Enhancement
Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility
Acquisition, Construction, and
Renovation; the Public School Choice
program, which encourages the
development and implementation of
public school choice programs at the LEA
and state levels; and the Magnet School
program.
CRS-46


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Flexibility provisions
Contains multiple flexibility authorities
Would retain schoolwide programs and
Would retain schoolwide programs and
related to the use of funds provided
eliminate some of the flexibility provisions modified flexibility for LEAs receiving
under various ESEA programs, including
under REAP but provide new flexibility
assistance under REAP. Would eliminate
the authority to operate a schoolwide
specific to rural LEAs under new
state- and local-flex authority. Would
program under Title I-A, flexibility for
transferability authority (discussed
replace the transferability authority
LEAs receiving funds under the Rural
below). Would eliminate state- and local-
available under current law with new
Education Assistance Programs (REAP;
flex authority. Would modify the
authority. Under this new authority,
Title VI-B), state- and local-flex authority
transferability authority available under
states would be permitted to use any
(Title VI-A-3), and transferability authority current law in several ways. Under this
funds provided for states activities under
(Title VI-A-2). With respect to current
new authority, a state would be permitted Section 1003 for school improvement,
transferability authority, states may
to transfer up to 100% of funds al otted
under Section 1004 for state
transfer up to 50% of the
for state-level activities to carry out state-
administration, or under the Migrant
nonadministrative funds allotted to the
level activities in any other ESEA state
Education program, the Neglected and
state for state-level activities to Title I,
formula grant program. However, states
Delinquent program, or the English
Teacher and Principal Training and
would be prohibited from transferring
Language Acquisition program to carry
Recruiting Fund, Ed Tech, Safe and Drug-
funds awarded under Titles I and III.
out any state activity authorized or
Free Schools and Communities, 21st
Similarly, LEAs would be permitted to
required under any of the aforementioned
Century Community Learning Centers
transfer up to 100% of funds allocated for
activities, as well as Special Programs and
(21st CCLC), and Innovative Programs.
local-level activities to any ESEA grant
Projects to Improve Educational
Most LEAs are also permitted to transfer
program under which grants are
Opportunities for Indian Children.
up to 50% of funds available for local
distributed by formula to LEAs. LEAs
Similarly, LEAs would be permitted to use
activities to all of the aforementioned
would be prohibited from transferring
any funds provided to carry out local
programs except 21st CCLC. LEAs that
funds awarded under Titles I, III, VII-A,
activities under the Migrant Education
have been identified for improvement may and VIII. A special provision would apply
program, the Neglected and Delinquent
only transfer 30% of their funds. LEAs in
to LEAs that receive assistance under
program, the English Language Acquisition
corrective action may not transfer any
REAP that would allow these LEAs to
program, or Indian Education Grants to
funds. All states and LEAs are prohibited
transfer ESEA funds from one formula
carry out any local activity authorized or
from transferring funds out of Title I-A. In
program to another but not out of Title I,
required by under section 1003 for
general, entities that meet the
III, VII-A, or VIII.
school improvement, Title I-A-1 Grants
requirements to use available flexibility
to LEAs, or any of the aforementioned
authority may do so without additional
programs from which funds could be
approval.
used.
CRS-47


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Other Program/Issue Areas Addressed by Current Law
Literacy
The Striving Readers program is currently
This bill would provide a specific
Would not retain the Striving Readers
the only federal funding stream devoted
authorization in Title IV for a literacy
program or authorize funding specifically
solely to literacy programs.l It is funded
program that would be titled Improving
for literacy. The aforementioned block
through demonstration authority. It
Literacy Instruction and Student
grant program could be used to support
provides funds for competitive grants to
Achievement. The program would fund
academic subject specific programs.
states, who then subgrant funds to eligible comprehensive literacy plans that provide
local entities. Funding supports initiatives
high quality literacy instruction for

to improve literacy instruction in high-
children from birth through grade 12. If
need schools. Prior to FY2010, the
funding were equal to or greater than
program was focused on adolescent
$500 million, the majority of funding
literacy; beginning with FY2010, Congress
would be al ocated by formula as
changed the program’s purposes through
implementation grants to states;
appropriations language to address
otherwise, these grants would be
comprehensive literacy for children from
awarded to states competitively. States
birth through grade 12.
would subgrant the majority of funding to
eligible local entities. Five percent of
program funding would be set aside for
competitive one-year state planning
grants, irrespective of the program’s
funding level.
School libraries
Title I-B, subpart 4 authorizes grants to
Would create a program in Title IV titled
Would not retain the Improving Literacy
LEAs to improve the services provided by
Improving Literacy and College and
through School Libraries program or
school libraries. If annual appropriations
Career Readiness Through Effective
authorize a new libraries program.
are less than $100 million, competitive
School Library Programs. This program
grants to LEAs are made directly by ED.
would be modeled on the school library
LEAs use these funds to acquire up-to-
program currently authorized under Title
date library resources, acquire and use
I-B.
technology and enhance internet linkages,
provide professional development, and
extend school library hours. This program
was most recently funded (at $19 million)
in FY2010.
CRS-48


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Early childhood education
Under current law, preschool students
Similar to current law for those programs
Similar to current law for those programs
are eligible to be served under various
that would be retained. Would create a
that would be retained. The
ESEA programs, including Title I-A,
new program in Title I-A titled Centers of aforementioned block grant program
Striving Readers, and 21st Century
Excellence in Early Childhood. Subject to
could potential y be used to support early
Community Learning Centers.
the availability of appropriations, the
childhood education activities, depending
Secretary of ED and the Secretary of HHS on state law.
would jointly award bonus grants to early
childhood programs that are designated
as Centers of Excel ence. At least one
bonus grant would be awarded per state.
Bonus grants would be used to
disseminate best practices for achieving
early academic success and would support
a variety of additional activities to
improve early childhood education
programs and services.
Foster care
Children living in foster care are included
Would include a new provision
Similar to current law.
in the child counts used to determine LEA addressing services for foster children and
Title I-A grants. At the school level,
youth. The bill would create a new
children in foster care may benefit from
program in Title I-E to ensure that foster
Title I-A if they are enrol ed in a school
children and youth have improved access
that receives Title I-A funds.
to education and related services.m
School Dropout Prevention
Awards competitive grants to states and
Would replace this program with an
Would not be retained.
(Title I-H)
LEAs with above average dropout rates.
“Improving Secondary Schools” program
Funds may be used for dropout
that would award competitive grants to
prevention and school re-entry programs
LEAs with low graduation rates. Funds
at high schools and middle schools that
would be used to identify potential
feed into them.
dropouts, support credit recovery and
school re-entry, and provide professional
development for middle and high school
teachers and leaders.
CRS-49


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Promise Neighborhoods
Funded through demonstration authority.
Similar to current law.
Would not be retained.
Provides competitive grants to assist
distressed communities. Funds are used
to provide comprehensive services within
a geographic area to improve the
education and developmental outcomes
of children and youth.
School safety
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and
Would authorize a program titled
Would not retain the existing program or
Communities Act program authorizes
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students.
authorize funding specifically for school
funding for state formula grants and
(ESEA Title IV-D). The purpose of the
safety. The aforementioned block grant
competitive grants for national activities.
program would be to promote physical
program could be used to support school
It supports programs to prevent violence
and mental health, prevent school
safety activities.
in and around schools and to prevent or
violence and harassment, reduce
reduce drug and alcohol use. Since
substance abuse, and promote safe and
FY2010, appropriations have only been
supportive schools. Funding would be
provided for national activities.
used to provide grants to states. Funds
would be awarded by formula to states if
funding is $500 million or greater;
otherwise, funding would be awarded
competitively. Includes an increased
emphasis on access to mental health
services for students, and includes new
language defining harassment.
Student Non-discrimination
Not applicable.
Would add new provisions in Title IV
Not applicable.
Provisions
stating that perceived sexual orientation
or gender identity shall not cause any
student to “be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity if any part of the
program or activity received Federal
financial assistance.”
CRS-50


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Afterschool and before school
The 21st Century Community Learning
Would amend the allowable uses of
Would not retain the existing program
programs
Centers program (21st CCLCs; Title IV-A) program funds to include expanded
and would not include a separate program
provides formula grants to states; states
learning time programs. Includes more
that addresses before- and after-school or
then competitively subgrant funds to
detailed language on program
summer school programming. The
eligible local entities. Funds are to be used requirements. Would also expand the
aforementioned block grant program
for before- and after-school and summer
priorities states are to consider in
could be used for supplemental student
school programs that advance student
choosing local subgrant recipients.
support activities, including before, after,
academic achievement.
or summer school activities.
Wel -rounded education
Current law does not have a program
Would provide funds to SEAs working in
Would not include a separate program
dedicated to providing a “well-rounded
partnership with one of more other
focused on a well-rounded education. The
education” to students. Rather, there are
entities, such as an LEA or another SEA,
aforementioned block grant program
several programs included in the ESEA
to improve student achievement by
could be used to support academic
(but not necessarily funded) that address
“giving students increased access to high-
subject specific programs.
many of the same areas that the proposed quality instruction for a well-rounded
Wel -Rounded Education program under
education.” The “covered subjects” that
S. 1094 would address. For example, Title
could be addressed by the program would
V-D of current law includes the Arts in
include arts, civics and government,
Education program, Excel ence in
economics, environmental education,
Economic Education program, Foreign
financial literacy, foreign languages,
Language Assistance program, and Carol
geography, health education, history,
M. White Physical Education program.
music, physical education, and social
studies.
Financial literacy
Current law authorizes the Excel ence in
Would provide competitive grants to
Would not include a separate program
Economic Education program, which
SEAs to integrate financial literacy
focused on a financial literacy. The
provides a competitive grant to a national
education into all schools eligible to
aforementioned block grant program
nonprofit to improve student
receive Title I-A grants and to provide
could be used to support academic
understanding of personal finance and
professional development related to the
subject specific programs.
economics. The program was last funded
teaching of financial literacy in core
in FY2011.
academic subjects to secondary school
teachers who teach financial literacy or
entrepreneurship.
CRS-51


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
College information
Not applicable.
Would create a new demonstration
Not applicable.
program to increase student awareness of
and access to postsecondary education by
providing cost-effective, semi-customized
information to all secondary students at
high-need schools.
Parent and family involvement
Current law includes numerous
Would require the development of a
Would eliminate most of the non-Title I-
provisions related to parent involvement,
parent and family engagement plan,
A programs that include a focus on parent
most notably those included in Section
including establishing quantifiable
involvement. Would create the Family
1118, which focuses specifically on parent
benchmarks for goals and an annual
Engagement in Education Programs, which
involvement and requires the
review of the benchmarks. Would require would provide technical assistance and
development of a school parental
that a needs assessment be conducted to
training to SEAs and LEAs in the
involvement policy, and Section 1116,
inform the development of the plan.
implementation of systematic and
which addresses parental notification
Would require an annual survey be
effective family engagement policies,
requirements. Under Section 1118, LEAs
conducted to determine the needs of
programs, and activities that lead to
receiving $500,000 or more under Title I-
parents and families, to identify strategies
improvements in student development
A are required to reserve 1% of their
to support school-family interactions,
and academic achievement. The
funds for parent involvement activities.
determine the level of parent and family
aforementioned block grant program
Other relevant provisions are included in
engagement in the school, determine the
could be used to support parent
Title I-A, such as requiring SEAs to collect level of school leader engagement with
engagement.
and disseminate information on effective
parents and families, identify barriers to
parent involvement practices and publish
engagement, and determine “perceptions
report cards that detail information on
about the school’s conditions for
student performance at the state, LEA,
learning.” Would require that an end-of-
and school levels. Other programs such
year survey be conducted to determine
as Even Start, 21st CCLCs, and Parental
whether the needs identified on the
Assistance and Local Family Information
aforementioned survey were met through
Centers (PIRCs, Title V-D-16) also
the parent and family engagement plan.
support parent involvement. The latter
Would increase the reservation for
provides training, information, and
parent involvement from 1% to 2% for
support to parents, teachers, principals,
LEAs that received at least $500,000 in
LEAs, and SEAs with respect to
Title I-A funding. Would retain the PIRCs
implementation of effective parental
program.
involvement policies, programs, and
activities that lead to improvements in
student academic achievement.
CRS-52


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Impact Aid
Impact Aid (ESEA Title VIII) compensates
Would retain all payments, but would
Would retain all payments, but would
LEAs for the “substantial and continuing
alter Section 8002 provisions related to
alter Section 8002 provisions related to
financial burden” resulting from federal
former LEAs and the calculation of
former LEAs. Would make substantial
activities. These activities include federal
foundation payments. Would make
changes to the formulas used to
ownership of certain lands, as wel as the
substantial changes to the formulas used
determine grants under Section 8003(b),
enrollment in LEAs of children of parents
to determine grants under Section
particularly related to heavily impacted
who work and/or live on federal land; for
8003(b), particularly related to heavily
LEAs. Would modify military housing
example, children of parents in the
impacted LEAs. Would modify military
provisions included in Section
military and children living on Indian lands. housing provisions included in Section
8003.Would change the eligibility
Under current law, the fol owing
8003.
requirements for receiving a grant under
payments are made: Payments for Federal
Section 8007.
Property (Section 8002), Basic Support
Payments (Section 8003(b)), Payments for
Children with Disabilities (Section
8003(d)), Construction (Section 8007),
and Facilities Maintenance (Section 8008).
Programs Currently Authorized Outside of the ESEA and Proposed for Inclusion in the ESEA
Race to the Top
The ESEA does not currently authorize
Would authorize RTTT as part of the
Would not authorize the RTTT program
the Race to the Top (RTTT) program.
ESEA. Program would be similar to the
as part of ESEA.
The RTTT program was established
current program. Competitive grants
under Section 14006 of the American
would be awarded to states and LEAs. In
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA;
addition to the four areas of education
P.L. 111-5). The program has been
reform targeted by the current program,
continued through appropriations acts.
the proposed program would include a
focus on creating, expanding, and
The RTTT program provides competitive
replicating high-performing public charter
grants to states to support education
schools; creating new, innovative, and
reform efforts in four areas: (1) standards
highly autonomous public schools;
and assessments; (2) data systems; (3)
providing more equitable state and local
recruiting, developing, rewarding, and
resources to high-poverty schools; and
retaining effective teachers and school
improving school readiness.
leaders; and (4) turning around low-
performing schools. Grants are also
available to LEAs to personalize
instruction for all students, focusing on
the relationship between teachers and
students.
CRS-53


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Investing in Innovation
The ESEA does not currently authorize
Would authorize i3 as part of the ESEA.
Would not authorize the i3 program as
the Investing in Innovation program (i3).
Program would be similar to current law.
part of ESEA.
The i3 program was established under
Would also al ow the Secretary to
Section 14007 of the ARRA. The program reserve funds appropriated for the i3
has been continued through
program to carry out activities of the
appropriations acts.
Advanced Research Projects Agency –
Education (ARPA-ED).
The i3 program provides competitive
grants to LEAs and eligible partnerships
for the purpose of promoting innovative
practices that may improve student
achievement, close achievement gaps,
decrease dropout rates, increase
graduation rates, or increase college
enrol ment and completion rates.
General Provisions
Maintenance of effort (MOE)
Permits an LEA to receive funding under
Same as current law.
Would eliminate all MOE requirements.
several ESEA programs for any fiscal year
only if the SEA finds that either the
combined fiscal effort per student or the
aggregate expenditures of the LEA and
state with respect to the provision of free
public education by the LEA for the
preceding year was not less than 90% of
the combined fiscal effort or aggregate
expenditures of the second preceding
fiscal year.
CRS-54


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Secretarial waiver authority
Section 9401 grants the Secretary the
Same as current law.
Would modify current secretarial waiver
discretion to issue waivers of any
authority in several ways, including: (1)
statutory or regulatory requirement of
requiring the Secretary to grant
the ESEA at the request of an SEA, LEA,
requested waivers, if certain requirements
Indian tribe, or school (through an LEA)
are met (e.g., the waiver request includes
that receives funds under an ESEA
a plan that “reasonably demonstrates”
program, provided certain conditions are
that the waiver will improve instruction
met. There are some restrictions on the
and academic achievement); (2) requiring
provisions that may be waived. For
the Secretary to use a peer review
example, the Secretary may not waive
process prior to denying a waiver
fiscal accountability requirements or
request; and (3) requiring the Secretary
parental participation requirements.
to approve a waiver not more than 60
days after the waiver was requested,
unless: (i) the Secretary determines and
demonstrates that the waiver request
does not meet the requirements of this
section, (ii) the requester asks for a
waiver of provisions over which the
Secretary does not have waiver authority,
(ii ) the request fails to demonstrate that
student academic achievement would be
enhanced, or (iv) the request does not
provide for adequate evaluation of the
waiver implementation. Would prohibit
the Secretary from requiring or imposing
new or additional requirements that are
not specified in the act in exchange for
receipt of a waiver.
CRS-55


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Prohibitions
Section 9526 includes general prohibitions Same as current law.
Would add three additional prohibitions
on the use of funds provided under the
on the use of ESEA funds: (1) funds could
ESEA related to developing or distributing
not be used for construction, renovation,
materials, programs, or courses of
or repair of any school facility, unless
instruction that promote or encourage
authorized under the act; (2) funds could
sexual activity; distributing or aiding in the
not be used for medical services, drug
distribution of obscene materials to
treatment, or rehabilitation except under
minors; providing sex education or HIV-
specific circumstances; and (3) funds could
education, unless the instruction is age
not be used for transportation, unless
appropriate and includes the health
authorized under the act.
benefits of abstinence; and operating a
contraceptive distribution program in
Would add new prohibitions against
schools.
federal mandates, direction, or control,
including any requirement, direction, or
Current law also includes other
mandate to adopt the Common Core
prohibitions such as a prohibition against
State Standards or any other academic
an officer or employee of the federal
standards common to a “significant
government mandating, directing, or
number” of states. Would modify existing
controlling a state’s, LEA’s, or school’s
prohibitions in various ways, including by
curriculum, program of instruction, or
adding prohibitions related to the
allocation of state or local resources, or
Common Core State Standards.
mandating the spending of funds or
incurring of costs not covered under the

ESEA. There is also a prohibition against
the federal government endorsing,
approving, or sanctioning any curriculum
and a prohibition related to federal
approval of academic content or
achievement standards with the exception
of Title I-A provisions. Other prohibitions
address, for example, federally sponsored
testing, national testing or certification for
teachers, building standards, and the
development of a nationwide database of
personally identifiable information on
individuals involved in ESEA data
collections or studies.
CRS-56


Provision
Current Law
S. 1094
H.R. 5
Reduction in ED staff
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Would require the Secretary to identify
the number of ED employees who work
on or administer each ED program or
project as it was in effect prior to the
enactment of H.R. 5 Would require the
Secretary to identify the number of ful -
time equivalent (FTE) employees who
work on or administer programs that
were eliminated or consolidated since the
date of enactment of H.R. 5. Would
require the Secretary to reduce ED staff
by the number of FTE employees that
were determined to work on or
administer programs that were eliminated
or consolidated since the date of
enactment of H.R. 5 within one year of
such enactment date.
Key Changes Included in ESEA Reauthorization Bills to Non-ESEA Programs/Acts
Homeless Education
The Education for Homeless Children and Would eliminate the exemptions in
Similar to current law.
Youth Program provides formula grants
current law to the prohibition against

to states to help ensure that all homeless
segregating homeless students in separate
children and youth have equal access to
schools or separate locations within
the same free appropriate public
schools. Would increase the minimum
education that is provided to other
formula allocation to states from
children and youth. Al ows ESEA Title I-A
$150,000 to $300,000. Would change the
funds to be used for transportation only
program’s definition of homeless by
in very limited circumstances for formerly
removing “awaiting foster care” from the
homeless students.
definition, due to the creation of a new
foster care program under Title I-E that
would improve access to education and
related services for foster children and
youth. Would expand the al owable uses
of ESEA Title I-A funding for homeless
education to include transportation to the
school of origin and funding for local
liaisons.
CRS-57


Source: Table prepared by CRS based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most recently amended by P.L. 107-110), S. 1094, and H.R. 5.
Notes: An indication that a program would be retained does not mean that the program would not be modified or have its name changed. An indication that a program
would not be retained does not mean that al of the activities authorized under current law would be eliminated. They may be included in a different program.
a. The bill includes a single authorization for all of Impact Aid and five separate authorizations for each of the individual programs included under Impact Aid. Only the
five separate authorizations were included in the count of authorizations, as the overall authorization for the program is done “in accordance” with the five
individual authorizations.
b. With respect to student growth, the assessments would be required to determine the number of years of academic growth the student attains each year. It is
unclear how this requirement would be met at the high school level for reading and mathematics or for science when assessments are not required to be
administered annually.
c. It appears that S. 1094 may require two sets of standards to be developed for third grade.
d. Provided minimum group sizes are met, data must be disaggregated for economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students, students with
disabilities, and students in major racial and ethnic groups as determined by the state. These specified demographic groups are often referred to as subgroups. For
reporting purposes, if minimum group sizes are met, data must be disaggregated for the aforementioned subgroups, as well as by gender and migrant status.
e. Under growth models, the achievement of the same students is tracked from year to year. This type of model is not explicitly mentioned in the ESEA statute,
however, it is authorized in regulations promulgated by ED. Using waiver authority available to the Secretary under Section 9401, The Secretary is able to approve a
state’s use of growth models.
f.
Schools enter improvement status after they fail to make AYP for two consecutive years. Schools can exit improvement status by making AYP for two consecutive
years. If a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring makes AYP for one year, it remains at its current designation for improvement. If it
fails to make AYP the next year, it continues to move through the increasingly severe outcome accountability actions (e.g., moves from school improvement to
corrective action).
g. States may fund teacher and principal awards by reserving such sums as necessary from the amount received under ESEA Title II-A-1.
h. This could al ow schools, for example, to use their Title I-A funds for non-Title I-A purposes.
i.
Under current law, if appropriations for Title III are below $650 mil ion, Title III-B provides competitive grants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, and
community-based organizations to provide language instruction programs. Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110),
appropriations for Title III have never fallen below $650 million. Therefore, Title III-B has never been in effect. Both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would eliminate the current
Title III-B provisions.
j.
ARPA-ED would be modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which was proposed by the Eisenhower Administration and
established in February 1958 by P.L. 85-325.
k. All eligible entities that submit an application that meet the statutory requirements would receive a grant of at least $10,000.
l.
While no longer funded, the following literacy programs are included under current law: Reading First for students in grades K-3; Early Reading First for
preschoolers; Even Start Family Literacy program; and the Literacy through School Libraries program.
CRS-58


m. The bill would also change the definition of homeless in the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program by striking children who are “awaiting
foster care placement” from the definition of homeless. This would mean that children “awaiting foster care placement,” as defined by each state, would no longer
be eligible for services under EHCY.

CRS-59

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Appendix. Comparison of Program Authorizations
Included in ESEA Reauthorization Proposals with
Current Law

Table A-1 examines specific program authorizations included in current law18 compared with
those included in S. 1094 and H.R. 5. Overall, current law includes 46 specific authorizations
compared with 39 in S. 109419 and 12 in H.R. 5. It should be noted that a single authorization
may apply to more than one program. Table A-1 was designed to show the actual number of
explicit authorizations included in current law and each of the bills. In order to make this table
more useful, however, the table notes whether proposed statutory language indicated that certain
programs would receive a specific share of a given authorization. For example, H.R. 5 includes
only one authorization for Title I-A, but proposed statutory language would provide a specified
share of that authorization to multiple, individual programs.
A new program authorization under S. 1094 or H.R. 5 should not be interpreted to mean that the
program is not authorized under current law. For example, S. 1094 would include separate
authorizations for Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants and for Promise Neighborhoods. Both of
these programs are currently funded and were enacted through appropriations language using
general authority available to the Secretary under the Fund for the Improvement of Education
(FIE; Title V-D-1). Under current law, there is only one authorization for FIE that encompasses
21 subparts, including Title V-D-1, without specifying a share of the authorization for a given
subpart. Therefore, under current law, separate authorizations are not listed for the TIF or Promise
Neighborhoods program.
In general, all of the authorizations included in S. 1094 are for “such sums” for FY2014 and each
of the four succeeding fiscal years (i.e., through FY2018). For each authorization included in
H.R. 5, the same amount is authorized for FY2014 through FY2019. That is, the authorization
level is the same for FY2014 as it is for FY2019. It should be noted that the bills do not authorize
programs for the same period of time.
Given that most of the authorizations in current law and all of the authorizations in S. 1094 are
for “such sums as may be necessary,” it is not possible to calculate the total amount authorized
across current law and S. 1094. With that said, the total authorized level in H.R. 5 is $22.8 billion.
FY2013 appropriations for ESEA under current law are $22.1 billion.20 The total ESEA
authorization for the last year for which current law had authorizations specified was $28.9
billion. It should be noted that an authorization of an appropriation is only an authorization (i.e.,

18 FY2007 was the last year for which ESEA programs had authorizations included in statutory language. While ESEA
programs are no longer authorized, they continue to receive annual appropriations. This is considered an implicit
authorization of the programs.
19 The bill includes a single authorization for all of Impact Aid and five separate authorizations for each of the
individual programs included under Impact Aid. It is unclear why the general authorization is needed if each of the
individual programs has its own authorization.
20 The ESEA total does not include funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program for FY2013, as no data were readily
available from the Department of Defense on the final FY2013 appropriations amount for the program. The Race to the
Top and Investing in Innovation programs would be incorporated into the ESEA under S. 1094 but not under H.R. 5. If
FY2013 appropriations for these programs were added to FY2013 ESEA appropriations, the combined appropriations
level would be $22.8 billion.
Congressional Research Service
60

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

authority to appropriate). Congress can and does enact appropriations at funding levels that differ
from authorization levels.
Table A-1. Specific Program Authorizations Under ESEA and Treatment Under
S. 1094 and H.R. 5
Current law
Authorization
Authorization
under S. 1094 for
under H.R. 5 for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2014 through
FY2014 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2018a
FY2019a,b
School
Title I, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Improvement
1003(g)
at such sumsd
authorized
Grants
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
$25,000,000,000 (for
Would be authorized Would receive
Local Educational
all four grants,
at such sums
91.055%
Agencies (LEAs)e:
including Education
($15,162,266,442) of
Basic Grants,
Finance Incentive
a single authorization
Concentration
Grants, see below)
for programs serving
Grants, and
special populations
Targeted Grants
under Title I-Ae
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
Such sums (but
Would be authorized Would be included
LEAs: Education
included in total
at such sums
in the authorization
Finance Incentive
authorization amount
for the other Title I-
Grants (EFIG)
for Title I-A as well,
A Grants to LEAs
see above)
(see above)e
Reading First
Title I-B-1
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
authorized
authorized
Early Reading First Title I-B-2
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
authorized
authorized
Even Start
Title I-B-3
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
authorized
authorized
Literacy Through
Title I-B-4
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
School Libraries
at such sums
authorized
Migrant Educatione
Title I-C
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive 2.37%
at such sums
($394,646,878) of a
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ae
Neglected and
Title I-D
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive
Delinquente
at such sums
0.305%
($50,787,889) of a
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ae
Evaluation and
Title I-E, Section
Such sums
Would not be
National Assessment
Demonstration
1501 and 1502
authorizedf
would be authorized
at $3,028,000
Close Up
Title I-E, Section
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Fel owships
1504
authorized
authorized
Congressional Research Service
61

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current law
Authorization
Authorization
under S. 1094 for
under H.R. 5 for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2014 through
FY2014 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2018a
FY2019a,b
Comprehensive
Title I-F
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
School Reform
authorized
authorized
Advanced
Title I-G
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Placement
at such sumsg
authorized
Dropout
Title I-H
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Prevention
authorizedh
authorized
Teacher Quality
Title II-A
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive 75%
State Grants
at such sums
($1,831,161,750) of a
single authorization
for teacher and
principal programs
under Title IIi
Teacher Quality
Title II-A
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
National Programs
at such sums as part
authorized
of the authorization
for Title II-Aj
Mathematics and
Title II-B
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Science
authorized
authorized
Partnerships
Transitions to
Title II-C-1
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Teaching
authorized
authorized
National Writing
Title II-C-2
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Project
authorized
authorized
Civic Education
Title II-C-3
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
authorized
authorized
Teaching of
Title II-C-4
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Traditional
authorized
authorized
American History
Education
Title II-D-1 and 2
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Technology
at such sums
authorized
Ready-to-Learn
Title II-D-3
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Television
at such sums
authorized
English Language
Title III-A and B
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive 4.4%
Acquisition and
at such sums
($732,677,748) of a
Instructione
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-A
Emergency
Title III-B-4
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Immigrant
authorized
authorized
Education
Safe and Drug-Free Title IV-A-1
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Schools and
authorized
authorized
Communities State
Grants
Congressional Research Service
62

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current law
Authorization
Authorization
under S. 1094 for
under H.R. 5 for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2014 through
FY2014 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2018a
FY2019a,b
Safe and Drug-Free Title IV-A-2
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Schools and
authorized
authorized
Communities
National Programs
21st Century
Title IV-B
$2,500,000,000
Would be authorized Would not be
Community
at such sums
authorized
Learning Centers
Innovative
Title V-A
$600,000,000
Would not be
Would not be
Programs (block
authorized
authorizedk
grant)
Charter Schools
Title V-B-1
Such sums
Would be authorized $300,000,000
at such sums
Credit
Title V-B-2
No authorizationl
Would be authorized Would be authorized
Enhancement
at such sums as part
as part of the
Initiatives to Assist
of the Public Charter
authorization for the
Charter School
Schools
Charter Schools
Facility Acquisition,
authorization
program (see above)
Construction, and
Renovation
Voluntary Public
Title V-B-3
$100,000,000
Would be authorized Would not be
School Choice
at such sums
authorized
Magnet Schools
Title V-C
Such sums
Would be authorized $91,647,000
at such sums
Fund for the
Title V-D
$675,000,000
Would not be
Would not be
Improvement of
authorizedm
authorized
Education
National
nan
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Assessment of
at such sums
authorized
Educational
Progressn
State Assessments
Title VI-A-1
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
at such sums
authorized
Rural Education
Title VI-B
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive 1.08%
Achievement
at such sums
($179,839,084) of a
Programe
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ae
Indian Education
Title VII-A-1
Such sums
Would be authorized Would receive 0.59%
Grants to LEAse
at such sums under a
($98,245,425) of a
single authorization
single authorization
for Title VII-A and
for programs serving
Title VII-B-1
special populations
under Title I-Ae
Congressional Research Service
63

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current law
Authorization
Authorization
under S. 1094 for
under H.R. 5 for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2014 through
FY2014 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2018a
FY2019a,b
Indian Education
Title VII-A-2 and 3
Such sums
Would be authorized Special Programs
Special Programs
at such sums under a
would receive 0.2%
and National
single authorization
($33,303,534) of a
Activitiese
for Title VII-A and
single authorization
Title VII-B-1
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ao
Education for
Title VII-B
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Native Hawaiians
at such sums under a
authorized
single authorization
for Title VII-A and
Title VII-B-1
Alaska Native
Title VII-C
Such sums
Would be authorized Would not be
Education
at such sums
authorized
Impact Aid Federal
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized $63,445,000
Property
8002
at such sums
Impact Aid Basic
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized $1,093,203,000
Support Payments
80003(b)
at such sums
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized $45,881,000
Children with
8003(d)
at such sums
Disabilities
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized $16,529,000
Construction
8007
at such sums
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
Would be authorized $4,591,000
Facilities
8008
at such sums
Maintenance
New Authorizations Included in S. 1094
Centers of
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Excel ence in Early
at such sums
Childhood
Pathways to
na
na
Would be authorized
na
College
at such sums
Teacher Pathways
na
na
Would be authorized
na
to the Classroom
at such sums
Teacher Incentive
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Fundp
at such sums
Improving Literacy
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Instruction
at such sums
Improving Science,
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Technology,
at such sums
Engineering, and
Mathematics
Instruction and
Student
Achievement
Congressional Research Service
64

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

Current law
Authorization
Authorization
under S. 1094 for
under H.R. 5 for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2014 through
FY2014 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2018a
FY2019a,b
Increasing Access
na
na
Would be authorized
na
to a Well-Rounded
at such sums
Education and
Financial Literacy
Successful, Safe,
na
na
Would be authorized
na
and Healthy
at such sums
Students
Promise
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Neighborhoodsp
at such sums
Parent and Family
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Information
at such sums
Resource Centers
(PIRCs)q
Programs of
na
na
Would be authorized
na
National
at such sums
Significancem
Race to the Top
na
na
Would be authorized
na
at such sums
Investing in
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Innovation
at such sums
College
na
na
Would be authorized
na
Information
at such sums
Demonstration
Program
New Authorizations Included in H.R. 5
Teacher and
na
na
na
Would receive 25%
School Leader
($610,387,250) of a
Flexible Grant
single authorization
for teacher and
principal programs
under Title IIi
Family Engagement
na na na
$25,000,000
in Education
Local Academic
na na na
$2,055,709,000
Flexible Grant
(block grant)
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most
recently amended by P.L. 107-110), S. 1094 and H.R. 5.
Notes: Proposed authorizations were aligned with authorizations included in current law if the proposed
authorizations would authorize programs that are similar to those included in current law. It should be noted
that the lack of a proposed authorization for a particular program does not necessarily mean that required or
al owable activities under that program may no longer be supported. In addition, a new authorization for a
program does not necessarily mean that the program does not exist under current law. It is possible that a
program may be authorized under current law under a broad authorization (e.g., Fund for the Improvement of
Education) and would have a program specific authorization under an ESEA reauthorization bill. “Such sums”
means “such sums as may be necessary.” It should be noted that both S. 1094 and H.R. 5 would authorize
Congressional Research Service
65

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

appropriations for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education program. These authorizations are not discussed in
this report, as this program is not part of the ESEA.
na: Not applicable.
a. It should be noted that S. 1094 and H.R. 5 do not authorize programs for the same period of time.
b. The same amount is authorized for each program for FY2014 through FY2019.
c. FY2007 was the last year for which ESEA programs had authorizations included in statutory language. While
ESEA programs are no longer authorized, they continue to receive annual appropriations. This is considered
an implicit authorization of the programs.
d. S. 1094 would include a School Improvement Fund program which would be similar to the School
Improvement Grant program in terms of providing formula grants to states who would subsequently
provide competitive grants to local entities for school improvement activities. However, the formula used
to award grants to states, the local entities that could receive grants, and the specific school improvement
activities for which funds could be used would be modified.
e. Under H.R. 5, six programs would share a single authorization. These programs include Improving Basic
Programs Operated by LEAs, Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent, English Language Acquisition,
Rural Education, and Indian Education. The total authorization for FY2013 would be for $16,651,767,000.
Each of the six programs would receive a share of the overall, single authorization. The individual shares are
noted in the table.
f.
Section 9601 would permit the Secretary to reserve funds appropriated for each categorical program and
demonstration project for evaluation purposes.
g. The program would be expanded to include funding for similar activities related to the International
Baccalaureate program.
h. S. 1094 would authorize a new program that focuses on secondary school reform that would address issues
related to high school dropouts.
i.
Under H.R. 5, the Teacher Quality State Grants program and the Teacher Preparation and Effectiveness
program would share a single authorization. The total authorization for FY2013 would be $2,441,549,000.
j.
The Principal Recruitment and Training Program that would be included in S. 1094 is similar to the School
Leadership authorized under national activities. However, S. 1094 would not continue to authorize any of
the other national activities currently authorized under current law. S. 1094 would authorize other national
activities but these activities would be authorized under the authorization for Title II-A, subparts 1, 2, 3, and
4.
k. H.R. 5 would authorize a new block grant program.
l.
The Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and
Renovation program had a separate authorization for FY2002 and FY2003 only. It has continued to receive
appropriations each fiscal year.
m. Under current law, a single authorization under Title V-D covers programs included in Title V-D-1 through
Title V-D-21. Title V-D-1provides the Secretary with the authority to support “national y significant
programs.” S. 1094 would continue to provide similar authority to the Secretary through the Programs of
National Significance program. In addition, the Teacher Incentive Fund and Promise Neighborhoods, two
programs that are currently authorized based on Title V-D-1 authority, would receive their own
authorizations in S. 1094. In addition, Parental Assistance and Local Family Information Centers (Title V-D-
16) would also have a separate authorization under S. 1094.
n. NAEP is not an ESEA program; rather, it is a program included in the Education Sciences Reform Act.
However, as participation in NAEP is a requirement for states to receive funding under ESEA Title I-A if the
Secretary pays for the test administration, current law included an authorization of funds for NAEP. S. 1094
would include an authorization for NAEP. H.R. 5, while still requiring states to participate in NAEP if the
Secretary pays for the test administration in order to receive funds under Title I-A-1, does not include an
authorization of funds for NAEP.
o. No funds would be authorized for National Activities.
Congressional Research Service
66

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 113th Congress: Comparison of Major Features

p. This program was enacted through appropriations language using authority available to the Secretary under
ESEA Title V-D-1. Current law contains a single authorization for al of Title V-D, which includes numerous
programs. None of the programs has a separate authorization.
q. Under current law, this program does not have its own authorization. Rather, it is authorized under the
authorization for the Fund for the Improvement of Education.



Author Contact Information

Rebecca R. Skinner
Cassandria Dortch
Specialist in Education Policy
Analyst in Education Policy
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
cdortch@crs.loc.gov, 7-0376
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Education Policy
Specialist in Social Policy
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645
gmccallion@crs.loc.gov, 7-7758


Congressional Research Service
67