ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th
Congress: Selected Key Issues
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
February 23, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43916

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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 114th Congress, to date, the House
Education and the Workforce Committee has considered and ordered reported a bill that would
reauthorize the ESEA. More specifically, the Student Success Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported
on February 11, 2015, based on a strictly partisan vote of 21-16. No action on an ESEA
reauthorization bill has been taken this Congress in committee or on the floor in the Senate.
H.R. 5 would make several changes to the ESEA, most notably in five key areas that have
garnered substantial congressional interest:
1. Accountability for student achievement: 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. The bill
would continue to require that states have standards and assessments for reading,
mathematics, and science. H.R. 5 would require that state assessments measure
student academic achievement, but measuring student growth would be optional.
Similar to current law, H.R. 5 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. H.R. 5 would not
require that specific actions be taken to address issues in low-performing schools,
nor would it require that a certain number or percentage of schools be identified
as low performing.
2. Distribution of Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and
schools. H.R. 5 would establish a new option for distributing Title I-A funds to
LEAs and schools. The U.S. Department of Education would continue to
calculate grants to LEAs as it does under current law, but once the grant amounts
were provided to states, states would have the option to recalculate each LEA’s
grant amount based on the number of public school children in each LEA who
are from a family with an income below 100% of the poverty level based on the
most recent data available from the Department of Commerce. LEAs would then
distribute Title I-A funds to all public schools that enroll at least one child that
meets this criterion.
3. Maintenance of effort. H.R. 5 would eliminate maintenance of effort (MOE)
requirements from the ESEA. In order to receive funding under several ESEA
programs, including Title I-A, LEAs are required to provide, from state and local
sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) for public education in
the preceding year that is at least 90% of the amount provided in the second
preceding year. The intent for including MOE requirements in the ESEA since its
enactment in 1965 is for state and/or local effort to be substantially maintained so
that federal funds provide a net increase in overall educational spending. Without
these requirements, state and local funding for public education could be reduced
by more than 10% each year.
4. Teacher quality requirements: H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements
related to “teacher quality,” which focus largely on ensuring the equitable
Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

distribution of qualified teachers and that teachers possess a baccalaureate
degree, full state teaching certification, and demonstrated subject-matter
knowledge in the areas in which they teach. H.R. 5 would make the development
and implementation of teacher and school leader evaluation systems an optional
use of Title II-A funds and would not require these systems to include student
achievement data.
5. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of
a block grant: H.R. 5 would not retain numerous programs authorized under
current law and would greatly expand the use of block grant funding.

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
ESEA Flexibility Provided by the Administration ........................................................................... 2
Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in Key Areas ........................................................ 3
Accountability for Student Achievement................................................................................... 3
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 5
Distribution of Title I-A Grants to LEAs and Schools .............................................................. 6
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 7
Maintenance of Effort ................................................................................................................ 7
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 8
Teacher Quality Requirements .................................................................................................. 8
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 9
Targeted Support Versus Block Grant ..................................................................................... 10
H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 10
Structural Orientation of H.R. 5, as Reported, as Compared With Current Law ........................... 11
Comparison of ESEA Authorizations of Appropriations Under Current Law and H.R. 5............. 17

Tables
Table 1. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under H.R. 5 .................................................................................................... 12
Table 2. Specific Program Authorizations Under ESEA and Treatment Under H.R. 5 ................. 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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). Appropriations for most programs authorized by the
ESEA were authorized through FY2007.1 As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA,
appropriations for ESEA programs are currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the
programs continue to receive annual appropriations, appropriations are considered implicitly
authorized.
During the 114th Congress, to date, the House Education and the Workforce Committee has
considered and ordered reported a bill that would reauthorize the ESEA. More specifically, the
Student Success Act (H.R. 5) was ordered reported on February 11, 2015, based on a strictly
partisan vote of 21-16. No action on an ESEA reauthorization bill has been taken this Congress in
committee or on the floor in the Senate.
H.R. 5 would make several changes to current law, most notably in five key areas that have
garnered extensive congressional interest: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2)
distribution of Title I-A grants to LEAs and schools, (3) maintenance of effort, (4) teacher quality
requirements, and (5) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a
block grant. In addition, H.R. 5 would eliminate some existing programs, while creating new
programs.
This report examines major features of H.R. 5 with respect to current law. The report begins by
discussing the approach that H.R. 5 takes toward reshaping the ESEA in key areas. Next, the
report considers the ESEA by title and part to examine how the ESEA would be reconfigured
under H.R. 5. This is followed by an examination of proposed program authorizations included in
H.R. 5. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of H.R. 5 or of technical
changes that would be made by the 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
funds, uses of funds, or eligible recipients of funds). Programs included in H.R. 5 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 the bill. For
example, the Title II-A program is considered to be retained in H.R. 5, despite proposed changes
to the formula used to allocate funds to states and in the uses of funds. 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.

1 The 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.
Congressional Research Service
1

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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 of Education (hereinafter referred to as 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.2 However, in order to receive the 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.
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 February 2015, ED had approved ESEA flexibility
package applications for 42 states and the District of Columbia and was reviewing applications
from other states.3 If Congress continues to work on ESEA reauthorization during the 114th
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 with the provisions included in the ESEA flexibility package.4

2 Since the announcement of the ESEA flexibility package, ED has made additional waivers available to states. For
example, 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. 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.
3 ED is currently reviewing applications for Iowa and Wyoming. Washington had an approved ESEA flexibility
package but lost its approval in 2014 for failure to meet the second of the four principles established by ED. (See
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/secretary-letters/wad6.html for more information.) Approved state applications and
pending applications are available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.
4 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
2

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in
Key Areas
This section of the report examines the reauthorization approaches taken by H.R. 5 in five key
areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) distribution of Title I-A grants to LEAs and
schools, (3) maintenance of effort, (4) teacher quality requirements, and (5) targeted support for
elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant. For each of the five areas, a
brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under current law is included, followed by a
summary of how 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 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,
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 apply to the “all
students group” and each subgroup for which data are disaggregated,5 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.

5 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.
Congressional Research Service
3

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

• 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 for AYP
determinations; 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.6 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
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.
• Limited English proficient (LEP) students.7 In addition to the aforementioned
requirements, all LEP students must be annually assessed to determine their level
of English proficiency with respect to reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
• Students with disabilities. Current law requires that students with disabilities be
included in the annual state assessments using reasonable adaptations and
accommodations. Through regulations, ED has established other options for
students with disabilities to participate in state assessments and accountability

6 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.
7 Current law uses the term “limited English proficient” students. H.R. 5 refers to these students as English learners.
Congressional Research Service
4

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

systems, most notably alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards (AA-AAS) and alternate assessment based on modified achievement
standards (AA-MAS). AA-AAS is intended to be used for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.8 While there are no restrictions on the number
of students who can participate in AA-AAS, there are restrictions placed on how
assessment results are included in a state’s accountability system. The number of
proficient and advanced scores derived from students participating in AA-AAS
cannot exceed 1% of all tested students at the LEA or state level. Students with
disabilities who are unlikely to reach grade-level proficiency within the current
school year may participate in AA-MAS. Similar to AA-AAS, there are no
restrictions on the number of students who may participate in AA-MAS, but the
number of proficient and advanced scores derived from students participating in
AA-MAS cannot exceed 2% of all tested students at the LEA or state level.9
H.R. 5
Similar to current law, states would be required to adopt content and achievement standards for
mathematics, reading, science, and any other subject as determined by the state. Assessments for
mathematics and reading would have to be aligned with these standards and be administered in
each of grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-12. Science assessments would have to be aligned with
state standards and would continue to be administered at least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.
States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple
assessments throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. Assessments
would have to provide data on student academic achievement. States would have the option of
also using assessments to measure student academic 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.
Each state would be required to implement a single, statewide accountability system to ensure
that all public school students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or
the workforce without the need for remediation. However, states would no longer be required to
establish AMOs or determine AYP. In addition, there would be no “ultimate goal” with associated
consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. H.R. 5 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 included for accountability purposes.10 The bill would require that
high school graduation rates be reported. The state accountability system would be required to
annually evaluate and identify the academic performance of each public school based on (1)
student academic achievement against the state standards, which may include measures of growth
toward meeting such standards, using the aforementioned required mathematics and reading

8 For more information about assessments for students with disabilities and ESEA requirements, see CRS Report
R42070, The Education of Students with Disabilities: Alignment Between the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Kyrie E. Dragoo.
9 The Secretary has proposed to amend current regulations to no longer authorize a state to implement AA-MAS. It is
unclear when the Secretary will take final action on the proposal. (For more information on the proposed changes, see
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ED-2012-OESE-0018-0001.) It should be noted that states that have
received approval for the ESEA flexibility package are no longer permitted to implement AA-MAS.
10 H.R. 5 would retain the same subgroups that are identified in current law for accountability purposes. H.R. 5 would
create a new subgroup for reporting purposes only. The new subgroup would include students with a parent who is an
active duty member of the Armed Forces.
Congressional Research Service
5

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

assessments and other valid and reliable academic indicators related to student achievement as
identified by the state; (2) the overall performance and achievement gaps as compared to the
performance of all students in the school for each subgroup for which data are disaggregated for
accountability purposes; and (3) other measures of school success.
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.
With respect to English learners, each state would be required to establish English language
proficiency (ELP) standards that are derived from the four recognized domains of reading,
writing, speaking, and listening. The ELP standards would have to be aligned with the state’s
academic content standards in reading.11 English learners would continue to be assessed annually
to determine their level of English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
H.R. 5 would continue to allow students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to
participate in AA-AAS. The bill does not provide for the continued student participation in AA-
MAS. With respect to student participation in AA-AAS, as under current law and regulations,
there would be no limit on the number of students who could participate in AA-AAS. However,
there would also be no limitations on how these students are included in the state accountability
system for accountability determinations. That is, there would be no caps on student participation
in AA-AAS related to accountability determinations at the LEA or state levels.
Distribution of Title I-A Grants to LEAs and Schools
In addition to the aforementioned accountability requirements associated with Title I-A, Title I-A
is also the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $14.4 billion in FY2015. Under current law,
ED determines Title I-A grants to LEAs based on four separate funding formulas.12 After
calculating grants, ED provides each state with information on the grants calculated for LEAs in
the state. The state then makes adjustments to the grant amounts, including reserving funds for
administration and school improvement. After making adjustments to the grant amounts
calculated by ED, the state then provides funds to the LEAs. The LEAs, in turn, distribute funds
to schools, often on the basis of the percentage of children in each school eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch.

11 Under Title III-A of current law, states are required to develop standards for English proficiency that are aligned with
the four recognized domains of reading, writing, speaking, and listening and that are also aligned with state academic
content and achievement standards under Title I-A.
12 The four funding formulas include Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance
Incentive Grants (EFIG). For more information about how grants are determined under Title I-A, see CRS Report
RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by Rebecca R.
Skinner.
Congressional Research Service
6

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

H.R. 5
Under H.R. 5, a new option for distributing funds from the state level to LEAs and from LEAs to
schools would be available. This option is often referred to as the “state option” or “Title I
portability.” Under the state option, Title I-A LEA grants would be calculated by ED using the
four formulas prescribed by current statute. However, once the grants were calculated, each state
would have the option to reallocate the total amount of Title I-A funds that were “earned” by the
LEAs in the state under the current law formulas using a new formula. States would be permitted
to redistribute all of the Title I-A funds received to LEAs based on each LEA’s share of enrolled
eligible children. An eligible child would be defined as a child from a family with an income
below 100% of the poverty level based on the most recent data available from the Department of
Commerce.13 LEAs would, in turn, distribute the funds received to individual public schools in
the LEA based on each school’s share of enrolled eligible children. That is, any LEA or any
public school that enrolled at least one eligible child would receive Title I-A funds under the state
option. This is significantly different than current law under which LEAs must meet various
criteria to receive a Title I-A grant and funds are generally provided to schools with relatively
high percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.14
It should be noted that if a state chose to implement the state option, the amount of funding
received by the state under Title I-A would not change. Rather, Title I-A funds would shift only
among the LEAs in a given state. As the state option would use different criteria for determining
LEA grant amounts than under current law, a given LEA could receive a substantial increase or
decrease in its grant amount in comparison to the amount the LEA would receive under current
law. Similarly, schools could also see changes in their grant amounts relative to what they may
receive under current law should a state choose to implement the state option.
Maintenance of Effort
Maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements have been included in the ESEA since its enactment
in 1965.15 Under current law, in order for LEAs to receive funds under Title I-A and several other
formula grant programs, they must meet MOE requirements. MOE requires that LEAs provide,
from state and local sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding
year that is at least 90% of the amount provided in the second preceding year for public
elementary and secondary education.
In general, the ESEA MOE requirements apply to LEAs, not states, and are enforced by state
educational agencies (SEAs).16 The requirement is based on a comparison of total (i.e., not
program-specific) state and local expenditures for public K-12 education in the preceding fiscal
year to those for the second preceding fiscal year. The requirement can be calculated on either an
aggregate or a per pupil basis, whichever is more favorable to the LEA.

13 Currently, most schools do not have data available on the number of children from families with an income below
100% of the poverty level.
14 For more information on how Title I-A grants are made to schools, see CRS Report R40672, Education for the
Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
15 P.L. 89-10, Section 207(c)(2).
16 The one exception is the ESEA Title I-A Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocation formula, that has a
separate, state-level MOE requirement (Section 1125A(e)).
Congressional Research Service
7

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

If an LEA fails to meet the ESEA’s MOE requirement, it does not lose all eligibility for grants
under the affected ESEA programs, rather funding is to be reduced proportionally, based on the
extent to which the requirement is not met. For example, if state and local public K-12 education
expenditures in the preceding year are equal to 85.5% of the amount for the second preceding
year—i.e., 95% of the required 90% level—then the ESEA grant is to be reduced by 5%. When
this occurs, the required level of spending for the succeeding year’s calculation is based on the
full 90% level of expenditures, not the actual level of spending. Further, the ESEA’s MOE
requirement can be waived by the Secretary in cases of “(1) exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances, such as a natural disaster; or (2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of
the local educational agency.”17
Based on data provided by ED,18 since the enactment of NCLB in 2002, ED has received 778
requests from LEAs to waive MOE. Of these requests, 71% were approved.19 In addition, less
than 10% of the LEAs that requested a waiver or were approved for a waiver requested a second
waiver. According to ED, about 25% of the requests received since 2002 were from LEAs that did
not maintain effort in the July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, period, the first full MOE year after the
recession began in the fall of 2008. During the 2012-2013 school year (most recent data
available), there were over 18,000 LEAs in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.20 Based on
the data provided by ED, it appears that a relatively small proportion of these LEAs requested an
MOE waiver from 2002 through 2014.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would eliminate the MOE provisions included in the ESEA. This would allow states and
LEAs to receive ESEA funds without any requirements related to their level of spending for
public K-12 education. As states and LEAs currently are able to increase their spending by any
amount or decrease their spending by up to 10% each year, the one new option that the
elimination of MOE permits is for states and LEAs to decrease their spending for public
education by more than 10% each year. It is not possible to know how many states and LEAs
would choose to reduce their funding for public education by more than 10% each year.
Teacher Quality Requirements
With the enactment of NCLB, new requirements were included in Title I-A to ensure an equitable
distribution of highly qualified teachers 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
performance. These provisions are described below, followed by a discussion of how 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

17 Section 9521(c).
18 Unpublished data were provided to CRS in December 2014 and February 2015.
19 This is the number of MOE requests and percentage of MOE waivers granted as of November 18, 2014.
20 Data provided by ED, National Center for Education Statistics, Elementary/Secondary Information System.
Congressional Research Service
8

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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 subjects21 within the state met the
definition of an HQT.22 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.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would eliminate current requirements regarding the equitable distribution of highly
qualified teachers. H.R. 5 would allow states to provide technical assistance to LEAs that choose
to develop or implement evaluation systems for teachers or school leaders. LEAs would be
allowed to use Title II-A funds for the development and implementation of teacher or school
leader evaluation systems. Use of student achievement data in such systems is not required.
H.R. 5 would retain formula grant funding under Title II-A; however, the enrollment and poverty
elements used for determining allocations would be modified. The bill would eliminate the hold
harmless for state grants and for certain LEA grants. Specifically, the new enrollment and poverty
elements would only be used in a fiscal year in which the Secretary certified to Congress that
high poverty LEAs23 would not receive a smaller grant amount in such fiscal year than in

21 Current law defines core academic subjects as English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
22 All states established an HQT plan. These plans are available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/
hqtplans/index.html.
23 H.R. 5 does not define which LEAs would be classified as LEAs serving a high percentage of students with incomes
below the poverty line.
Congressional Research Service
9

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

FY2015. Without such certification, funds would be allocated according to current law. The bill
would also scale back allowable activities, while allowing funds to be used for 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 school 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.
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 $2.3 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 student engagement 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 grants24 to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs,
community-based organizations (CBOs), institutions of higher education (IHEs), business
entities, and nongovernmental entities.25 All partnerships would be required to include at least one
LEA. In addition, the state would be required to use not less than 8% of the funds received to
award competitive grants to nongovernment entities.26 States may reserve not more than 17% of
the funds received for state activities and administration. 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,

24 All eligible entities that submit an application that meets the statutory requirements would receive a grant of at least
$10,000.
25 A single LEA is not eligible to apply for a grant. An LEA must apply in partnership with a CBO, IHE, business
entity, or nongovernmental agency. A consortium of LEAs must also partner with at least one of the aforementioned
types of organizations. A CBO or IHE 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, IHE, or nongovernmental agency.
26 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 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

providing training and technical assistance, implementing statewide academic focused programs,
sharing evidence-based and other effective strategies, and awarding grants for blended learning
projects.
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. All eligible entities that submitted an application that meets the requirements of
the grant application process would receive a grant of at least $10,000. An LEA may only receive
one grant award per year, but the grant may support multiple projects.
Grants to nongovernmental entities must be used for a program or project to increase the
academic achievement of public school students attending a public elementary or secondary
school. Grantees must non-federal matching funds equal to not less than 50% of the grant
amount.
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.
Structural Orientation of H.R. 5, as Reported, as
Compared With Current Law
Table 1 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how H.R. 5 would modify
current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in appropriations
tables.27 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 FY2015. It also indicates where 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.

27 Table 1 also includes all 21 subparts of Title V-D, the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE).
Congressional Research Service
11

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

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 H.R. 5 would retain a state grant program focused
on teachers like Title II-A of the ESEA, the bill would modify the formula used to award grants
and would change the uses of funds.
Table 1. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under H.R. 5
Current Law
Treatment Under
Statutory
FY2015 Appropriation
H.R. 5, as Ordered
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Reported
School Improvement
Title I, Section 1003(g)
$505,756 Would not be retained
Grants (formula grant)
Title I-A Grants to Local
Title I-A
$14,409,802 Would be retained as Title
Educational Agencies
I-A-1
(LEAs; formula grant)
Reading First (formula
Title I-B-1
$0 Would not be retained
grant)
Early Reading First
Title I-B-2
$0 Would not be retained
Even Start (formula
Title I-B-3
$0 Would not be retained
grant)
Improving Literacy
Title I-B-4
$0 Would not be retained
through School Libraries
Migrant Education
Title I-C
$374,751 Would be retained as Title
Program (formula grant)
I-A-2
Neglected and
Title I-D
$47,614 Would be retained as Title
Delinquent (formula
I-A-3
grant)
National Assessment of
Title I-E (Section 1501)
$710 Would be retained as Title
Title I
I-B
Striving Readers
Title I-E (Section 1502)
$160,000 Would not be retained
Close Up Fel owships
Title I-E (Section 1504)
$0 Would not be retained
Comprehensive School
Title I-F
$0 Would not be retained
Reform
Advanced Placement
Title I-G
$28,483 Would not be retained
School Dropout
Title I-H
$0 Would not be retained
Preventiona
Teacher and Principal
Title II-A
$2,349,830 Would be retained as Title
Training and Recruiting
II-A (Supporting Effective
Fund (Grants to States,
Instruction)
LEAs, and Eligible
Partnerships; formula
grant)
School Leadership
Title II-A-5 (Section
$16,368 Would not be retained
2151(b))
Advanced Credentialing
Title II-A-5 (Section
$0 Would not be retained
2151(c))
Congressional Research Service
12

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law
Treatment Under
Statutory
FY2015 Appropriation
H.R. 5, as Ordered
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Reported
Impact Aid, Payments
Title VIII (Section 8002)
$66,813 Would be retained as Title
Relating to Federal
IV, Section 4002
Acquisition of Real
Property (formula grant)
Impact Aid, Payments for Title VIII (Section 8003(b))
$1,151,233 Would be retained as Title
Eligible Federally
IV, Section 4003(b)
Connected Children
(Basic Support Payments;
formula grant)
Impact Aid, Payments for Title VIII (Section 8003(d))
$48,316 Would be retained as Title
Eligible Federally
IV, Section 4003(d)
Connected Children
(Payments for Children
with Disabilities; formula
grant)
Construction (formula
Title VIII (Section 8007)
$17,406 Would be retained as Title
and competitive grant)h
IV, Section 4007
Facilities Maintenance
Title VIII (Section 8008)
$4,835 Would be retained as Title
IV, Section 4008
New Programs Included in H.R. 5
Teacher and School
na
na
Would be included as Title
Leader Flexible Grant
II-B
Family Engagement in
na
na
Would be included as Title
Education Programs
III-A-3
Local Academic Flexible
na
na
Would be included as Title
Grant (block grant)
III-B
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most
recently amended by P.L. 107-110) and H.R. 5. FY2015 appropriations information for al was provided by 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. This program is also referred to as the High School Graduation Initiative.
b. This is a formula grant program when appropriations equal or exceed $100 million. Otherwise, competitive
grants are made to eligible partnerships.
c. H.R. 5 would create a new block grant program.
d. The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) required that up to
$11,000,000 of the amount appropriated for the Charter School Program be used for Charter School
Facilities Incentive Grants and at least $13,000,000 be used for Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist
Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation.
e. This program was enacted through appropriations language using authority available to the Secretary under
ESEA Title V-D-1.
f.
H.R. 5 would create a new program focused on family engagement in education.
g. 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.
Congressional Research Service
16

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

h. 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.
Comparison of ESEA Authorizations of
Appropriations Under Current Law and H.R. 5
Table 2 examines specific ESEA program authorizations included in current law28 compared with
those included in H.R. 5.29 Overall, current law includes 46 specific authorizations compared with
16 in H.R. 5. It should be noted that a single authorization may apply to more than one program.
Table 2 was designed to show the actual number of explicit ESEA program authorizations
included in current law and H.R. 5. 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.
For each authorization included in H.R. 5, the same amount is authorized for each fiscal year
from FY2016 through FY2021. That is, the authorization level is the same for FY2016 as it is for
FY2021.
The total authorized level in H.R. 5 for the ESEA is $23.2 billion. FY2015 appropriations for
ESEA under current law are $23.1 billion. 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., authority to appropriate). Congress
can and does enact appropriations at funding levels that differ from authorization levels.
Table 2. Specific Program Authorizations Under ESEA and Treatment Under H.R. 5
Current Law
Authorization Under
H.R. 5, as Reported, for
Statutory Citation for
FY2016 through
Program
Program
FY2007 Authorizationb
FY2021a
School Improvement
Title I, Section 1003(g)
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Grants
Title I-A Grants to Local
Title I-A
$25,000,000,000 (for al
Would receive 91.44%
Educational Agencies
four grants, including
($14,854,577,047) of a
(LEAs)c: Basic Grants,
Education Finance Incentive single authorization for
Concentration Grants,
Grants, see below)
programs serving special
and Targeted Grants
populations under Title I-
Ac

28 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.
29 H.R. 5 also includes an authorization of appropriations for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education program. The
authorization would be for $65,042,000 for each of FY2016 through FY2021. These authorizations of appropriations
are not included in the discussion of ESEA authorizations of appropriations, as the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education program is not an ESEA program.
Congressional Research Service
17

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law
Authorization Under
H.R. 5, as Reported, for
Statutory Citation for
FY2016 through
Program
Program FY2007
Authorizationb
FY2021a
Title I-A Grants to LEAs: Title I-A
Such sums (but included in
Would be included in the
Education Finance
total authorization amount
authorization for the other
Incentive Grants (EFIG)
for Title I-A as well, see
Title I-A Grants to LEAs
above)
(see above)
Reading First
Title I-B-1
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Early Reading First
Title I-B-2
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Even Start
Title I-B-3
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Literacy Through School
Title I-B-4
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Libraries
Migrant Education
Title I-C
Such sums
Would receive 2.45%
($398,006,494) of a single
authorization for programs
serving special populations
under Title I-Ac
Neglected and
Title I-D
Such sums
Would receive 0.31%
Delinquent
($50,360,005) of a single
authorization for programs
serving special populations
under Title I-Ac
Evaluation and
Title I-E, Section 1501 and
Such sums
National Assessment would
Demonstration
1502
be authorized at $710,000
Close Up Fel owships
Title I-E, Section 1504
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Comprehensive School
Title I-F
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Reform
Advanced Placement
Title I-G
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Dropout Prevention
Title I-H
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Teacher Quality State
Title II-A
Such sums
Would receive 75%
Grants
($2,091,267,000) of a single
authorization for teacher
and principal programs
under Title IId
Teacher Quality
Title II-A
Such sums
Would not be authorized
National Programs
Mathematics and Science Title II-B
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Partnerships
Transitions to Teaching
Title II-C-1
Such sums
Would not be authorized
National Writing Project Title II-C-2
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Civic Education
Title II-C-3
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Teaching of Traditional
Title II-C-4
Such sums
Would not be authorized
American History
Education Technology
Title II-D-1 and 2
Such sums
Would not be authorized
Congressional Research Service
18

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

Current Law
Authorization Under
H.R. 5, as Reported, for
Statutory Citation for
FY2016 through
Program
Program FY2007
Authorizationb
FY2021a
Indian Education Special
Title VII-A-2 and 3
Such sums
$24,858,000
Programs and National
Activities
Education for Native
Title VII-B
Such sums
$34,181,000
Hawaiians
Alaska Native Education
Title VII-C
Such sums
$33,185,000
Impact Aid Federal
Title VIII, Section 8002
Such sums
$63,813,000
Property
Impact Aid Basic Support Title VIII, Section 80003(b)
Such sums
$1,151,233,000
Payments
Impact Aid Children
Title VIII, Section 8003(d)
Such sums
$48,316,000
with Disabilities
Impact Aid Construction Title VIII, Section 8007
Such sums
$17,406,000
Impact Aid Facilities
Title VIII, Section 8008
Such sums
$4,835,000
Maintenance
New Authorizations Included in H.R. 5
Teacher and School
na na Would
receive
25%
Leader Flexible Grant
($697,089,000) of a single
authorization for teacher
and principal programs
under Title IId
Family Engagement in
na na $25,000,000
Education
Local Academic Flexible
na na $2,302,287,000
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) 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. “Such sums” means “such sums as may be
necessary.” It should be noted that H.R. 5 would authorize appropriations for the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Education program. This authorization of appropriations of $65,042,000 is not discussed in this report, as this
program is not part of the ESEA.
na: Not applicable.
a. The same amount is authorized for each program for FY2016 through FY2021.
b. 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.
c. Under H.R. 5, five programs would share a single authorization. These programs include Improving Basic
Programs Operated by LEAs, Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent, English Language Acquisition,
and Rural Education. The total authorization of appropriations for each of FY2016 through FY2021 would
be for $16,245,163,000. Each of the five programs would receive a share of the overall, single authorization.
The individual shares are noted in the table.
Congressional Research Service
20

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues

d. 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.
e. H.R. 5 would authorize a new block grant program.
f.
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.
g. 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-1 provides the Secretary with the authority to support “national y significant
programs.”
h. NAEP is not an ESEA program; rather, it is authorized under the National Assessment of Educational
Progress Authorization 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. 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.
i.
The Small, Rural School Achievement Program would receive 0.6% ($97,470,978) of the total amount
authorized for Title I-A. The Rural and Low-Income School Program would also receive 0.6% ($97,470,978)
of the total amount authorized for Title I-A. Under current law, appropriations provided for rural education
are divided evenly between these two programs per Section 6234.

Author Contact Information

Rebecca R. Skinner
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
Specialist in Education Policy
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
jkuenzi@crs.loc.gov, 7-8645

Congressional Research Service
21