.

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the 114th
Congress: Selected Key Issues
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
May 14, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43916

c11173008

---

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

Summary
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 114th Congress, the House
Education and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would
provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently considered
on the House floor but consideration of the bill was not completed. Recently, the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of
2015 (ECAA; S. 1177), which would also provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the
ESEA. S. 1177 has not been considered on the Senate floor.
H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make several changes to the ESEA, most notably in six key areas that
have garnered substantial congressional interest.
1. Accountability for student achievement: Both bills would modify current
ESEA accountability requirements related to student achievement, by eliminating
the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the
requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to
failing schools and local educational agencies (LEAs). Both bills would continue
to require that states have standards and assessments for reading, mathematics,
and science. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would require that state assessments measure
student academic achievement, but measuring student growth would be optional.
H.R. 5 would require that reading and mathematics be included in each state’s
accountability system. S. 1177 would also include science in the state’s
accountability system. Under S. 1177, states would be required to annually
establish state-designed goals for all students and subgroups of students related to
student achievement and high school graduation rates. Both bills would require
states to identify the lowest performing schools but neither bill would require that
a certain number or percentage of schools be identified as low performing.
2. Distribution of Title I-A grants. The ESEA Title I-A grant program, which
provides supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and
other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with
relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families, is the largest
formula grant program in the ESEA. H.R. 5 would establish a new option for
distributing Title I-A funds to LEAs and schools (commonly referred to as
portability or the state option). S. 1177 would not include a Title I-A portability
option, but it would alter the criteria used to determine the rank order in which
public schools receive Title I-A funds.
3. Fiscal accountability. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would alter existing fiscal
accountability requirements. H.R. 5 would eliminate maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirements. S. 1177 would retain the MOE requirements with changes.
S. 1177 would also alter the supplement, not supplant requirements that apply to
Title I-A funds.
4. Educator quality, equity, and effectiveness: Both H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would
eliminate the current “highly qualified” teacher requirement. H.R. 5 would also
eliminate a provision to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at
higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
teachers. S. 1177 would retain this provision and replace the term “unqualified”
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

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

with “ineffective.” Both bills would allow certain federal funds to be used for the
development and implementation of teacher and school leader evaluation
systems. Such systems could include the use of student achievement data to
measure teacher and leader effectiveness.
5. Grants to states and LEAs to support teachers and leaders: Both H.R. 5 and
S. 1177 would amend the current Title II-A formula grant program that provides
funds to support the improvement of school teachers and principals. In addition
to changes in the activities supported, both bills would change current formula
factors that determine how funds are allocated to states and LEAs. S. 1177 would
also reauthorize the current Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which provides
support for performance-based compensation systems. H.R. 5 would allow for
TIF activities to continue under a new program.
6. Targeted support versus block grants: H.R. 5 would not retain numerous
existing programs and would greatly expand the use of block grant funding. S.
1177 would retain funding for most currently funded formula grant programs but
would not reauthorize several other programs. It would also create a new block
grant program.

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

.
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
S. 1177 ................................................................................................................................. 7
Distribution of Title I-A Grants to LEAs and Schools .............................................................. 9
H.R. 5 .................................................................................................................................. 9
S. 1177 ............................................................................................................................... 10
Fiscal Accountability ............................................................................................................... 10
Maintenance of Effort ....................................................................................................... 10
Supplement, Not Supplant ................................................................................................. 12
Educator Quality, Equity, and Effectiveness ........................................................................... 13
H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 14
S. 1177 ............................................................................................................................... 14
Grants to States and LEAs to Support Teachers and Leaders .................................................. 15
H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 15
S. 1177 ............................................................................................................................... 16
Targeted Support Versus Block Grant ..................................................................................... 17
H.R. 5 ................................................................................................................................ 17
S. 1177 ............................................................................................................................... 18
Structural Orientation of H.R. 5 and S. 1177, as Reported, as Compared With Current
Law ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Comparison of ESEA Authorizations of Appropriations Under Current Law, H.R. 5, and
S. 1177 ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Tables
Table 1. Percent of FY2001 Award Each State Would Receive under Title II-A as
Amended by S. 1177 ................................................................................................................... 16
Table 2. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177 ................................................................................ 20
Table 3. Specific Authorizations of Appropriations Under the ESEA and Treatment Under
H.R. 5 and S. 1177 ...................................................................................................................... 28

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

---

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

Introduction
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively 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 reported a bill that would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of 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. The bill was subsequently considered on the
House floor in March 2015 but consideration of the bill was not completed. The Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and subsequently reported the
Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177), which would also provide for a
comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. More specifically, the bill was ordered reported on
April 16, 2015, by a unanimous vote of 22-0. S. 1177 has not been considered on the Senate floor.
H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make several changes to current law, most notably in six key areas that
have garnered extensive congressional interest: (1) accountability for student achievement; (2)
distribution of Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools; (3) fiscal
accountability; (4) educator quality, equity, and effectiveness; (5) grants to states and LEAs to
support teachers and leaders; and (6) targeted support for elementary and secondary education
programs versus the use of a block grant. In addition, both bills would eliminate some existing
programs, while creating new programs.
This report examines major features of H.R. 5 and S. 1177 compared with current law. The report
begins by discussing the approach that each bill 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 each bill. This is followed by an examination of proposed program
authorizations included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177. The report does not aim to provide a
comprehensive summary of the bills or of technical changes that would be made by either 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 and S. 1177 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 and S. 1177,

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
c11173008

---

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

despite proposed changes in each bill to the formula used to allocate funds to states and in the
uses of funds. On the other hand, the block grant programs created under H.R. 5 and S. 1177 are
considered new programs, as they both differ 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 or S. 1177.
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 April 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 or S. 1177 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.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

---

.
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 and S. 1177 in
six key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement; (2) distribution of Title I-A grants to
LEAs and schools; (3) fiscal accountability; (4) educator quality, equity, and effectiveness; (5)
grants to states and LEAs to support teachers and leaders; and (6) targeted support for elementary
and secondary education programs versus the use of a block grant. For each of the six areas, a
brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under current law is included, followed by a
summary of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would address the issues.
Accountability for Student Achievement
Under NCLB, a series of comprehensive standards-based accountability requirements were
enacted. States, 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 and S. 1177 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). Student performance standards in these subjects
must include at least three performance levels: advanced, proficient, and basic.
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 for at least one grade in grades 10-12. In addition, each state must develop
and administer science assessments aligned with content and achievement
standards at least 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,5 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,6 and ensure

(...continued)
Skinner and Jody Feder.
5 Only mathematics and reading must be included for accountability purposes. A state may choose to include other
subjects as well.
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.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

---

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

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 was
required to 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: (1) 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; (2) 95% student participation rates in assessments
by all students and for any subgroup for which data are disaggregated for AYP
determinations; and (3) 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
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.

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
c11173008

---

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

• Limited English proficient (LEP) students.8 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
systems, most notably alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards (AA-AAS) and alternate assessments based on modified achievement
standards (AA-MAS). AA-AAS is intended to be used for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.9 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.10
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

8 Current law uses the term “limited English proficient” students. H.R. 5 and S. 1177 refer to these students as English
learners.
9 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.
10 The Secretary has proposed amending 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.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

---

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

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.11 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
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. Similar to current law, only
mathematics and reading must be included in the accountability system.
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-A12 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. More specifically, states would be required to reserve 3% of the total amount
received by the state under Title I-A 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. The bill would not retain the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program but would
require states to reserve 7% (as opposed to 4% under current law) of their Title I-A funds for
school improvement activities provided that doing so does not result in any LEA receiving a
lower Title I-A grant than it did in the prior year.
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.13 English learners would continue to be assessed annually
to determine their levels 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.

11 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.
12 Under H.R. 5, Title I-A would become the Title I-A-1 program. For the purposes of this discussion, the report
continues to refer to the program as the Title I-A program.
13 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

---

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

S. 1177
Similar to current law, states would be required to adopt challenging academic content standards
and aligned academic achievement standards for mathematics, reading, and science, and any
other subject as determined by the state. The standards must include at least three levels of
achievement. The state is required to document that the standards are aligned with the following:
(1) entrance requirements, without the need for academic remediation, for the system of public
higher education in the state; (2) relevant state career and technical education standards; and (3)
relevant state early learning guidelines.14
Assessments for mathematics and reading would have to be aligned with these standards and be
administered in each of grades 3-8 and at least 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 statewide assessments throughout the school year that result in
a single summative score and valid and reliable information on individual student academic
achievement or growth. Assessments would have to provide data on student academic
achievement. States, however, would not be required to measure student academic growth. States
would also be permitted to use computer adaptive assessments provided that they meet the
requirements that apply to all reading, mathematics, and science assessments required under
Section 1111(b)(2)(B) and measure whether a student is performing above or below the student’s
grade level.
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 postsecondary remediation. States would no longer be
required to establish AMOs, determine AYP, or an “ultimate goal” with associated consequences
toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. The accountability system would be required
to establish annual state-designed goals for each student and subgroup of students that take into
account the progress necessary for all students and students in each of the subgroups to graduate
from high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for
postsecondary remediation for academic achievement on the state assessments (mathematics,
reading, and science), which may also include student growth, and high school graduation rates
based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (currently being used by all states) and at
the state’s discretion, the extended-year cohort graduation rate. In addition to setting these goals
and annually measuring and reporting on them, states would have to measure and report on (1) an
additional academic indicator for public schools that are not high schools, (2) the English
language proficiency of English learners, (3) any other valid and reliable indicator of school
quality, success, or student supports as determined by the state (e.g., student readiness to enter
postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for remediation, student attendance
rates). S. 1177 would require the state accountability system to measure the annual progress of
not less than 95% of all students and each of the subgroups of students15 who are enrolled in the

14 The early learning guidelines to which standards are aligned must be those required under Section 658E(c)(2)(T) of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant of 1990.
15 S. 1177 would retain the same subgroups that are identified in current law for accountability purposes. It would
create a new subgroup for reporting purposes only. The new subgroup would include students with a parent who serves
in the uniformed services.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

---

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

school and are required to take the assessments.16 The state must explain how this requirement
will be incorporated into the state-designed accountability system determinations.
The accountability system would also have to include a system of “annually identifying and
meaningfully differentiating among all public schools in the state.” The system would have to be
based on all the indicators included in the state’s accountability system with assessment results
and graduation rates included as “substantial” factors in the annual identification system. The
weight assigned to any individual indicator in the identification system would be determined by
the state. The state would be required to provide a clear and understandable explanation of how
schools are identified and differentiated. Based on this system of identification, each SEA would
be required to identify Title I-A participating schools that are in need of intervention or support
and that an “evidence-based intervention or support strategy” designed by the state or LEA is
implemented. Intervention and supports must be prioritized in the identified schools most in need
of such support. Among other things, the intervention and support strategies implemented in an
identified school must be implemented in a “manner that is proportional to the specific reasons
for identification,” and must distinguish between the lowest-performing schools and other schools
identified as being in need of intervention and support for other reasons, such as student
subgroups not meeting the annual state-designed goals. S. 1177 would not require the state to
identify a specific number or percentage of schools as low performing.
States would be able to reserve up to 4% of the Title I-A funds received by the state for school
improvement activities unless doing so would result in an LEA receiving a smaller Title I-A grant
than it did during the prior year. Under current law, states are required to reserve the full 4%
unless doing so would result in an LEA receiving a smaller Title I-A grant than it did during the
prior year. In addition, S. 1177 would retain a program that is similar to the current SIG program
that would provide formula grants to states to assist the lowest-performing schools. States would
then make competitive subgrants to LEAs serving identified schools.
With respect to English learners, each state would be required to demonstrate that it has adopted
English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the challenging state academic
standards for other subjects. English language proficiency assessments aligned with the English
proficiency standards would be used to assess English learners annually to determine their level
of English proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening.
Under S. 1177, states would continue to be permitted to develop alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. States would also have the
option of administering alternate assessments aligned with alternate academic achievement
standards to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (AA-AAS). However, the
total number of students assessed is a subject using such assessments could not exceed 1% of the
total number of all students in the state who are assessed in that subject. The continued
participation of students in AA-MAS would be prohibited.
S. 1177 would place numerous prohibitions and limitations on the Secretary’s ability to require
that state accountability systems, standards, or assessments meet requirements established by ED.
Some of these prohibitions are already included in current law. For example, no officer or
employee of the federal government may “mandate, direct, or control” a state, LEA, or school’s

16 As ordered reported, this provision appears to require states to assess not less than 95% of all students and not less
than 95% of the subgroups as opposed to students in the subgroups.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

---

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

“specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessment, curriculum, or
program of instruction” is included in Section 1905 of current law.
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 grant program in the ESEA, funded at $14.4 billion in FY2015. It is designed to
provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students
attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of
students from low-income families. Under current law, ED determines Title I-A grants to LEAs
based on four separate funding formulas.17 After calculating grants, ED provides each state with
information on the grants calculated for LEAs in the state. The state then makes specific
adjustments to the grant amounts, including reserving funds for administration and school
improvement and determining grants for charter schools that are their own LEAs. 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.
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.18 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.19 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.20
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

17 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.
18 For a more detailed discussion of this option, see CRS Report R43929, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act: H.R. 5 and the State Option , by Rebecca R. Skinner.
19 Currently, most schools do not have data available on the number of children from families with an income below
100% of the poverty level.
20 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

---

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

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.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would not include a Title I-A portability option. However, S. 1177 would alter the process
by which schools are annually ranked to determine Title I-A grants. While there are several rules
related to Title I-A school selection, under current law, LEAs must generally rank their public
schools by their percentage of students from low-income families, and serve them in rank order.
This must be done without regard to grade span under current law for any eligible school
attendance area21 in which the concentration of children from low-income families exceeds 75%.
Below this point, an LEA can choose to serve schools in rank order at specific grade levels (e.g.,
only serve elementary schools in order of their percentage of children from low-income families).
Under S. 1177, LEAs would have to serve elementary and middle schools with more than 75% of
their children from low-income families and high schools with more than 50% of their children
from low-income families before choosing to serve schools in rank order by specific grade levels.
However, no LEA would be required to reduce the amount of funding provided to elementary and
middle schools below the level provided in the fiscal year prior to the enactment of S. 1177 in
order to comply with the proposed requirement related to serving high schools under Title I-A.
Fiscal Accountability
Both H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would make changes to existing fiscal accountability requirements,
including the maintenance of effort and supplement, not supplant requirements. This section
provides an overview of each fiscal accountability concept followed by a discussion of how H.R.
5 and S. 1177 would alter the relevant requirements.
Maintenance of Effort
Maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements have been included in the ESEA since its enactment
in 1965.22 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 other words, an LEA will not meet the MOE requirement
if it decreases education spending by more than 10% from year to year.
In general, the ESEA MOE requirements apply to LEAs, not states, and are enforced by state
educational agencies (SEAs).23 The requirement is based on a comparison of total (i.e., not

21 An eligible school attendance area is the geographical area in which the children who are normally served by a
particular school reside and in which the percentage of children from low-income families is at least as high as the
percentage of children from low-income families served by the LEA as a whole.
22 P.L. 89-10, Section 207(c)(2).
23 The one exception is the ESEA Title I-A Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocation formula, that has a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

---

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

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.
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.”24
Based on data provided by ED,25 since the enactment of NCLB in 2002, ED has received 778
requests from LEAs to waive MOE. Of these requests, 71% were approved.26 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.27 Thus,
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 would permit 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.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would retain all of the MOE provisions included in current law. However, if an LEA
failed to meet its MOE requirement but had met the requirement for the five immediately
preceding fiscal years, the LEA would not have its funding reduced. In addition, S. 1177 would
include “a change in the organizational structure of the local educational agency” as a second

(...continued)
separate, state-level MOE requirement (Section 1125A(e)) that mirrors the MOE requirement for LEAs.
24 Section 9521(c).
25 Unpublished data were provided to CRS in December 2014 and February 2015.
26 This is the number of MOE requests and percentage of MOE waivers granted as of November 18, 2014.
27 Data provided by ED, National Center for Education Statistics, Elementary/Secondary Information System.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

---

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

example of exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances for which the Secretary may grant a
waiver of the MOE requirements.28
Supplement, Not Supplant
Supplement, not supplant (SNS) provisions appear to have originated with the 1969 ESEA
amendments (P.L. 91-230). SNS provisions prohibit states and/or LEAs from using federal funds
to provide services or support activities that state and/or local funds provide or purchase currently
or which, in the absence of federal funds, they would provide or purchase.29 Further, no LEA is
required to provide services under Title I-A through a particular instructional method or in a
particular instructional setting in order to demonstrate compliance with the SNS provisions.
While SNS provisions apply to numerous ESEA programs (e.g., School Improvement Grants,
Migrant Education, English Language Acquisition), the focus of this discussion is on the SNS
provisions as they apply to Title I-A, as S. 1177 would specifically alter these provisions.
While MOE compliance is relatively easily defined and monitored, supplanting is arguably more
difficult to define operationally, in part because it may depend on knowing what states or LEAs
may have done in the absence of federal funding. According to ED policy guidance, “any
determination about supplanting is very case specific and it is difficult to provide general
guidelines without examining the details of a situation.”30 There are three conditions under which
it is generally presumed that SNS violations have occurred. These include situations in which:
1. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services that the LEA was required to
make available under federal, state, or local law.
2. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services that the LEA provided with non-
federal funds in the prior year(s).
3. An LEA used Title I-A funds to provide services for children participating in a
Title I program that the LEA provided with non-federal funds to children not
participating in Title I.
A second set of SNS provisions are included for Title I-A schools that operate schoolwide
programs.31,32 Schools operating schoolwide programs are required to use Title I-A funds to
supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of Title I-A funds, be made available
from non-federal sources for the school, including any funds needed to provide services that are
required by law to students with disabilities and English learners. According to guidance provided
by ED, it is generally an LEA’s responsibility, and not a school’s responsibility, to ensure the SNS

28 The MOE requirements that apply to states receiving EFIG would also be changed in similar ways.
29 When making SNS determinations, an LEA or SEA may exclude “State or local funds expended ... for programs that
meet the intent and purposes” of Title I-A. Thus, SNS test need not apply to state or local funds provided under
programs that are similar in nature to Title I-A itself.
30 U.S. Department of Education, Title I Fiscal Issues: Maintenance of Effort; Comparability; Supplement, Not
Supplant; Carryover; Consolidating Funds in Schoolwide Programs; and Grantback Requirements, February 2008,
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf.
31 Ibid.
32 Generally, schoolwide programs are operated in schools in which the percentage of children from low-income
families is at least 40%. During the 2012-2013 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, 74% of
all Title I-A schools operated schoolwide programs. (U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
Summary, 2015, p. 15.)
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

---

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

requirement is met and that a school operating a schoolwide program receives all the state and
local funds it would receive if it were not a Title I-A schoolwide program. That is, an LEA cannot
reduce the amount of state or local funds received by a schoolwide program because the school
receives federal funds to operate the schoolwide program. In its guidance, ED states that an LEA
should be able to demonstrate through its regular procedures for distributing funds that state and
local funds are distributed “fairly and equitably” to all schools without regard to the receipt of
federal education funds.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would not alter the SNS provisions that currently apply to Title I-A.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would alter the current SNS provisions that apply to Title I-A. Essentially, S. 1177 would
eliminate the first set of SNS provisions that apply to non-schoolwide programs and apply SNS
provisions that are similar to those that currently apply to schoolwide programs to all Title I-A
schools.33 S. 1177 would also specify that an LEA must demonstrate that the methodology used to
allocate state and local funds to Title I-A schools ensures that the school receives all of the state
and local funds it would have received in the absence of Title I-A funds.34 The bill also specifies
that LEAs are not required to identify that an individual cost or services supported with Title I-A
funds is supplemental and would maintain the special rule that LEAs are not required to provide
services under Title I-A through a particular instructional method or in a particular instructional
setting to demonstrate the SNS is not being violated.
Educator Quality, Equity, and Effectiveness
With the enactment of NCLB, new provisions were included in the ESEA to establish minimum
professional standards for what constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher and ensure an equitable
distribution of teacher quality across schools. While the ESEA flexibility package waived some
aspects of these requirements, for states with approved ESEA flexibility package applications, it
imposed new obligations to reform systems used to evaluate teacher and leader effectiveness.
Similar reforms were subsequently required for grantees supported by the federal Teacher
Incentive Fund authorized under Title V of the ESEA. These provisions are described below,
followed by a discussion of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would amend them.
• Teacher quality. Current teacher quality provisions require that teachers possess
a baccalaureate degree, full state teaching certification, and demonstrated
subject-matter knowledge in the areas in which they teach. Each state receiving
Title I-A funds was required to have a plan to ensure that, by no later than the end

33 The SNS provisions that apply to schoolwide programs under current law are written to apply at the school level as
previously discussed. The SNS provisions included in S. 1177 are focused on state and LEA level and do not address
the use of funds at the school level. As ED noted in its guidance on the current SNS requirements that apply to schools,
however, it is generally the LEA’s responsibility, and not a school’s responsibility, to ensure that the SNS requirement
is met.
34 The Secretary would be prohibited from establishing “any criterion that specifies, defines, or prescribes the specific
methodology” an LEA uses to allocate state and local funds to Title I-A schools.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

---

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

of the 2005-2006 school year, all public school teachers teaching in core
academic subjects35 within the state met these requirements.36
• Equitable distribution. Current law requires that states ensure Title I-A 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.
• Evaluating teacher and leader effectiveness. LEAs in states that have approved
applications for the ESEA flexibility package as well as those receiving support
under the Teacher Incentive Fund must either adopt state-designed educator
evaluation systems or design and implement locally-developed evaluation
systems to identify effective teachers and leaders. These systems must consider
gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations
conducted multiple times during each school year and must be developed with
the input of teachers and school leaders.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would eliminate the current highly qualified teacher requirement as well as the provision
to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
H.R. 5 would allow states to use Title II-A funds 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.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would eliminate the current highly qualified teacher requirement and instead require state
plans to include an assurance that all teachers and paraprofessionals working in programs
supported by Title I-A funds meet applicable state certification and licensure requirements,
including alternative certification requirements. The bill would retain the current equitable
distribution provision, but would move it from the state plan to the LEA plan and replace the term
“unqualified” with “ineffective.”
S. 1177 would allow states to use Title II-A funds 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 that are based in part on evidence of student achievement which may
include student growth. S. 1177 would prohibit the Secretary or any other officer or employee of
the federal government from mandating, directing, or controlling any educator evaluation system,
or state or local definitions of effectiveness or professional standards.

35 Current law defines core academic subjects as English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.
36 These plans are available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

---

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

Grants to States and LEAs to Support Teachers and Leaders
NCLB authorized a new ESEA program under Title II-A to support efforts to meet the law’s
teacher quality requirements and provide for the training and recruitment of highly qualified
teachers, principals and assistant principals. NCLB also provided authority under Title V-D-1 for
the Secretary to support “nationally significant” programs, which was later used to establish the
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) in FY2006. The program supports pay-for-performance programs
and compensation system reforms.37
• Title II-A. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Fund (Title II-A)
provides formula grants to support state and local efforts to improve the quality
of school teachers, principals, and assistant principals through a variety of
activities. The Title II-A allocation formula provides each state with a base
guarantee of funding equal to the amount it received for FY2001 under three
antecedent programs.38 Thirty-five percent of any excess funding is allocated
according to each state’s share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 65% of
the excess is allocated according to each state’s share of the school-aged
population living in poverty. Each state is assured 0.5% of this excess. At the
state level, 95% of the state grant is to be distributed as subgrants to LEAs. Each
LEA gets a base guarantee of the FY2001 amounts and the remainder distributed
by formula. More specifically, 20% of the remainder is allocated according to
each LEA’s share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 80% is allocated
according to each LEA’s share of the school-aged population living in poverty.
• Teacher Incentive Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D-1) provides
competitive grants to LEAs, including charter schools that are LEAs, or states, or
partnerships between (1) a state and/or LEA and (2) at least one nonprofit
organization. TIF grantees are to develop and implement performance-based
teacher and principal compensation systems for high-need schools. These
systems must consider gains in student academic achievement and classroom
evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other
factors and provide educators incentives to take on additional responsibilities and
leadership roles.
H.R. 5
H.R. 5 would amend the Title II-A formula by eliminating the base guarantee for state and LEA
grants. The bill would amend the population and poverty factors so that each would have equal
weight in the allocation of funds. That is, half of the funds would be allocated according to shares
of the school-aged population (5-17) and half would be allocated according to shares of the
school-aged population living in poverty. However, the new population and poverty factors would
only be used in a fiscal year in which the Secretary certified to Congress that LEAs “that serve a
high percentage of students from families with incomes below the poverty line” would not

37 Congress enacted TIF through the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-149).
38 The antecedent programs include the Eisenhower Professional Development, Class Size Reduction, and Staff
Assistance programs.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

---

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

receive a smaller grant amount than in FY2015.39 Without such certification, funds would be
allocated according to current law. The bill would retain the current 0.5% small state minimum.
H.R. 5 would authorize, but not require, TIF-related activities in a new state formula grant
program under Part B of Title II. Each state would receive an amount equal to its share of the
school-aged population (5-17). No state would receive less than 1% of the amount available for
state grants. A state receiving funds would be required to subgrant 92% of its award to an eligible
entity which may be (1) an LEA or consortium of LEAs; (2) an institution of higher education or
consortium of such institutions in partnership with an LEA or consortium of LEAs; (3) a for-
profit organization, a nonprofit organization, or a consortium of for-profit or nonprofit
organizations in partnership with an LEA or consortium of LEAs. Grantees may use funds for
activities similar to TIF – such as differential pay, performance-based pay, and career ladders.
However, grantees may instead use Title II-B funds for other activities not related to TIF – such
as preparation academies, recruitment of mid-career non-teaching professionals, and professional
development.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would amend the base guarantee and formula factors in the Title II-A formula. The base
guarantee for state grants would be a declining fraction of the amount each state received in
FY2001. S. 1177 would eliminate the base guarantee for LEA grants. Table 1 displays the percent
of FY2001 awards each state would receive as its base guarantee under the bill.
Table 1. Percent of FY2001 Award Each State Would Receive under Title II-A as
Amended by S. 1177

Fiscal Year
Percentage of FY2001

Award
2016
85.71%
2017
71.42%
2018
57.13%
2019
42.84%
2020
28.55%
2021
14.26%
2022 and succeeding years
0.00%
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on an analysis of S. 1177 as reported.
The bill would amend the Title II-A state grant population and poverty factors to equal the current
factors for LEA grants. That is, 20% of the funds would be allocated according to each state’s
share of the school-aged population (5-17) and 80% would be allocated according to each state’s
share of the school-aged population living in poverty. The bill would retain the current 0.5%
small state minimum.

39 H.R. 5 does not define what is meant by a “high percentage” in this provision.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

---

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

S. 1177 would authorize the TIF program under Title II-B and retain the competitive grant
structure and eligible entities in current law. Unlike H.R. 5, S. 1177 would not allow Title II-B
funds to be used for non-TIF activities. Instead, grantees would be required to develop,
implement, improve, or expand performance-based compensation systems or human capital
management systems. As part of these systems, grantees may use funds to develop or improve
evaluation of teacher, principal, and school leader performance; conduct outreach to improve
support for evaluation; improve principal and school leader authority over human capital
decision-making; and provide differential pay and career ladders.
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). One formula grant program,
Innovative Programs, is authorized to provide block grants to states and LEAs to implement a
variety of activities. 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, charter schools, and magnet schools. As shown in Table 2, many of the competitive
grant programs and some of the formula grant programs included in the ESEA are no longer
funded in FY2015.
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 2). 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 grants40 to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs,
community-based organizations (CBOs), institutions of higher education (IHEs), business
entities, and nongovernmental entities.41 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

40 All eligible entities that submit an application that meets the statutory requirements would receive a grant of at least
$10,000.
41 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.
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

---

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

award competitive grants to nongovernment entities.42 Under H.R. 5, 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, 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 submit an application that meets the requirements of the
grant application process would receive a grant of at least $10,000. An LEA could only receive
one grant award per year, but the grant could support multiple projects.
Grants to nongovernmental entities would be required to be used for a program or project to
increase the academic achievement of public school students attending a public elementary or
secondary school. Grantees would be required to provide non-federal matching funds equal to or
not less than 50% of the grant amount.
It is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that are
currently permitted under the ESEA, 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.
S. 1177
S. 1177 would retain most formula grant programs that received funding in FY2015. At the same
time, it would eliminate several competitive grant programs (see Table 2). The bill would create a
block grant program under the Safe and Healthy Students program, which would be a new
program under Title IV-A. The block grant program would be designed to “improve students’
safety, health, and well-being, and academic achievement during and after the school day ... ”
Funds would be provided to states by formula, and states would subsequently make formula
grants to LEAs. LEAs would be required to conduct a needs assessment prior to applying for
funds that takes into account school-level data on indicators or measures of school quality,
climate and safety, and discipline, as well as risk factors in the community, school, family, or
“peer-individual domains” that are known to be predictive of various behaviors (e.g., violent
behavior) and that have an effect on the physical and mental health and well-being of youth in the
school and community.
Under this program, funds could be used in ways previously required or permitted by several
ESEA programs. For example, LEAs would be permitted to use funds under the program to foster

42 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
18
c11173008

---

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

safe and drug-free environments; provide extended learning opportunities, including before and
after school programs; provide school-based mental health services; provide school counseling
programs; provide structured physical education programs; and provide programs and activities
that offer a “well-rounded educational experience.” LEAs would also be permitted to use the
funds for other activities and programs identified as necessary based on the needs assessment
conducted by the LEA that “will increase student achievement and otherwise meet the purposes
of this part.”43
It is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that are
currently permitted under the ESEA, but which would no longer have a targeted funding stream
under S. 1177. 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 S. 1177 were retained.
Structural Orientation of H.R. 5 and S. 1177, as
Reported, as Compared With Current Law
Table 2 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how H.R. 5 and S. 1177 would
modify current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in
appropriations tables.44 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 and S.
1177 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 and S. 1177 would no longer
retain many of the currently authorized ESEA programs, both bills 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.
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 and S. 1177 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.

43 During Committee consideration of S. 1177 amendments were accepted that retained the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers program (retained as Title IV-B), which supports before and after school programs; an elementary
and secondary school counseling program (retained as Title IV-C), a physical education program (retained as Title IV-
D); and a literacy and arts program (retained as Title V-H). Many of the activities that would be authorized by these
programs duplicate those that would be allowable activities under Title IV.
44 Table 2 also includes all 21 subparts of Title V-D, the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE).
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008

---

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

Table 2. ESEA Programs Included in Line-Item Appropriations Tables and
Their Treatment Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177
Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
School
Title I, Section
$505,756 Would not be
Would be retained
Improvement
1003(g)
retained
as Section 1114(c)
Grants (formula
grant)
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
$14,409,802 Would be retained
Would be retained
Local Educational
as Title I-A-1
as Title I-A
Agencies (LEAs;
formula grant)
Reading First
Title I-B-1
$0 Would not be
Would not be
(formula grant)
retained
retained
Early Reading First
Title I-B-2
$0 Would not be
Would not be
retained
retained
Even Start (formula Title I-B-3
$0 Would not be
Would not be
grant)
retained
retained
Improving Literacy
Title I-B-4
$0 Would not be
Would not be
through School
retained
retained
Libraries
Migrant Education
Title I-C
$374,751 Would be retained
Would be retained
Program (formula
as Title I-A-2
as Title I-C
grant)
Neglected and
Title I-D
$47,614 Would be retained
Would be retained
Delinquent
as Title I-A-3
as Title I-D
(formula grant)
National
Title I-E (Section
$710 Would be retained
Would be retained
Assessment of
1501)
as Title I-B
as Section 9601(b)a
Title I
Striving Readers
Title I-E (Section
$160,000 Would not be
Would be retained
1502)
retained
as Title II-D
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 not be
Would be retained
Placement
retained
as Title II-E
School Dropout
Title I-H
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Preventionb
retained
retained
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
Teacher and
Title II-A
$2,349,830 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)
School Leadership
Title II-A-5 (Section
$16,368 Would not be
Would not be
2151(b))
retained
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
$152,717 Would not be
Would not be
Partnerships
retained
retained
(formula grant)c
Transition to
Title II-C-1-B
$13,700 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 be retained
Traditional
retained
as Title II-C, Section
American History
2302
Educational
Title II-D
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Technology
retained
retainedd
Ready to Learn
Title II-D-3
$25,741 Would not be
Would be retained
Television
retained
as Title II-E
English Language
Title III-A
$737,400 Would be retained
Would be retained
Acquisition
as Title I-A-4
as Title III
(formula grant)
Safe and Drug
Title IV-A-1
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Free, State Grants
retained
retained
(formula grant)
Safe and Drug
Title IV-A-2
$70,000 Would not be
Would not be
Free, National
retained
retained
Programs
Alcohol Abuse
Title IV-A-2 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Reduction
4129)
retained
retained
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
Mentoring
Title IV-A-2 (Section
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Programs
4130)
retained
retained
21st Century
Title IV-B
$1,151,673 Would not be
Would be retained
Community
retained
as Title IV-Be
Learning Centers
(formula grant)
Innovative
Title V-A
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Programs (block
retainedf
retainedg
grant, formula
grant)
Charter School
Title V-B-1
$253,172h Would be retained
Would be retained
Grants
as Title III-A-1
as Title V-A
Charter School
Title V-B-1 (Section
(included in Charter Would be retained
Would be retained
Facilities Incentive
5205(b))
School Grants) as Title III-A-1
as Title V-A
Grants
Credit
Title V-B-2
(included in Charter Would be retained
Would be retained
Enhancement
School Grants) as Title III-A-1
as Title V-A
Initiatives to Assist
Charter School
Facility Acquisition,
Construction, and
Renovation
Voluntary Public
Title V-B-3
$0 Would not be
Would not be
School Choice
retained
retained
Magnet Schools
Title V-C
$91,647 Would be retained
Would be retained
Assistance
as Title III-A-2
as Title V-B
Fund for the
Title V-D-1
$38,000 Would not be
Would not be
Improvement of
retained
retainedi
Education,
National Programs
Teacher Incentive
Title V-D-1
$230,000 Would not be
Would be retained
Fundj
retainedk
as Title II-B
Preschool
Title V-D-1
$250,000 Would not be
Would not be
Development
retained
retained
Grants
Promise
Title V-D-1
$56,754 Would not be
Would not be
Neighborhoodsj
retained
retained
Academies for
Title V-D-1
$0 Would not be
Would be retained
American History
retained
as Title II-C, Section
and Civics
2303
Elementary and
Title V-D-2
$49,561 Would not be
Would be retained
Secondary School
retained
as Title IV-C
Counseling
Character
Title V-D-3
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Education
retained
retained
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
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
$10,000 Would not be
Would be retained
Talented
retained
as Title II-E
Star Schools
Title V-D-7
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Program
retained
retained
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
$47,000 Would not be
Would be retained
Physical Education
retained
as Title IV-C
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
$25,000 Would not be
Would not be
retained
retainedl
Parental Assistance Title V-D-16
$0 Would not be
Would not be
and Local Family
retainedm
retained
Information
Centers
Combating
Title V-D-17
$0 Would not be
Would not be
Domestic Violence
retained
retained
Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
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
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
$378,000 Would not be
Would be retained
Assessments and
6111)
retained
as Title I-B
Enhanced
Assessment
Instruments
(formula and
competitive
grants)n
Small, Rural School
Title VI-B-1
$84,920 Would be retained
Would be retained
Achievement
as Title I-A-5-A
as Title VI-B-1
Program (formula
grant)
Rural and Low-
Title VI-B-2
$84,920 Would be retained
Would be retained
Income School
as Title I-A-5-B
as Title VI-B-2
Program (formula
grant)
Indian Education,
Title VII-A-1
$100,381 Would be retained
Would be retained
Grants to LEAs
as Title V-A-1
as Title VII-A-1
(formula grant)
Special Programs
Title VII-A-2
$17,993 Would be retained
Would be retained
and Projects to
as Title V-A-2
as Title VII-A-2
Improve
Educational
Opportunities for
Indian Children
Indian Education,
Title VII-A-3
$5,565 Would be retained
Would be retained
National Activities
as Title V-A-3
as Title VII-A-3
Native Hawaiian
Title VII-B
$32,397 Would be retained
Would be retained
Student Education
as Title V-C
as Title VII-B
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
Alaska Native
Title VII-C
$31,453 Would be retained
Would be retained
Student Education
as Title V-B
as Title VII-C
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$66,813 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments Relating
8002)
as Title IV, Section
as Title VIII, Section
to Federal
4002
8002
Acquisition of Real
Property (formula
grant)
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$1,151,233 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments for
8003(b))
as Title IV, Section
as Title VIII, Section
Eligible Federally
4003(b)
8003(b)
Connected
Children (Basic
Support Payments;
formula grant)
Impact Aid,
Title VIII (Section
$48,316 Would be retained
Would be retained
Payments for
8003(d))
as Title IV, Section
as Title VIII, Section
Eligible Federally
4003(d)
8003(d)
Connected
Children
(Payments for
Children with
Disabilities;
formula grant)
Construction
Title VIII (Section
$17,406 Would be retained
Would be retained
(formula and
8007)
as Title IV, Section
as Title VIII, Section
competitive grant)o
4007
8007
Facilities
Title VIII (Section
$4,835 Would be retained
Would be retained
Maintenance
8008)
as Title IV, Section
as Title VIII, Section
4008
8008
New Programs Included in H.R. 5
Teacher and
na
na
Would be included
na
School Leader
as Title II-B
Flexible Grant
Family Engagement
na
na
Would be included
na
in Education
as Title III-A-3
Programs
Local Academic
na
na
Would be included
na
Flexible Grant
as Title III-B
(block grant)
New Programs Included in S. 1177
Improving Science,
na na na Would
be
included
Technology,
as Title II-E
Engineering, and
Mathematics
(STEM) Instruction
and Achievement
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
FY2015
Treatment Under
Treatment Under
Statutory
Appropriation
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Program
Citation
($ in thousands)
Ordered Reported
Reported
Safe and Healthy
na na na Would
be
included
Students: Grants
as Title IV-A
to States and Local
Educational
Agencies (block
grant)
Grants for
na na na Would
be
included
Education
as Title V-C
Innovation and
Research
Innovative
na na na Would
be
included
Technology
as Title V-G
Expands Children’s
Horizons (I-TECH)
Literacy and Arts
na na na Would
be
included
Education
as Title V-H
Early Learning
na na na Would
be
included
Alignment and
as Title V-I
Improvement
Grants
Native American
na na na Would
be
included
and Alaska Native
as Title VII-D
Language
Immersion Schools
and Programs
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most
recently amended by P.L. 107-110), H.R. 5, and S. 1177. FY2015 appropriations data for al programs 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. S. 1177 would continue to provide for the evaluation of Title I programs. Unlike current law, however, S.
1177 would not specify issues to be examined.
b. This program is also referred to as the High School Graduation Initiative.
c. This is a formula grant program when appropriations equal or exceed $100 million. Otherwise, competitive
grants are made to eligible partnerships.
d. S. 1177 would create a new program focused on education technology.
e. Under S. 1177, using funds for extended learning time would be added as an al owable use of funds. States
can currently use 21st Century Community Learning Centers program funds for this purpose under the
ESEA flexibility package.
f.
H.R. 5 would create a new block grant program.
g. S. 1177 would create a new block grant program.
h. 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
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008

---

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

Facilities Incentive Grants and at least $13,000,000 be used for Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist
Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation.
i.
The Title V-D-1 authority under current law is used to authorize several programs including the Teacher
Incentive Fund and Promise Neighborhoods. Several programs authorized under this authority are not
included as line items on appropriations tables. Rather, they general y appear in the explanatory statement
that accompanies the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies annual
appropriations act. For FY2015 appropriations, the explanatory statement indicated that funds should be
provided for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy program. This program would be retained through the
new Literacy and Arts Education program created under S. 1177.
j.
This program was enacted through appropriations language using authority available to the Secretary under
ESEA Title V-D-1.
k. While H.R. 5 would not retain the Teacher Incentive Fund program, funds under the Title II-B program that
would be created under H.R. 5 could be used for similar activities.
l.
S. 1177 would create a new arts education program.
m. H.R. 5 would create a new program focused on family engagement in education.
n. 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.
o. 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, H.R. 5,
and S. 1177
Table 3 examines specific ESEA program authorizations of appropriations included in current
law45 compared with those included in H.R. 5 and S. 1177.46 Overall, current law includes 46
specific authorizations of appropriations compared with 16 in H.R. 5 and 38 in S. 1177. It should
be noted that a single authorization of appropriations may apply to more than one program. Table
3 was designed to show the actual number of explicit ESEA program authorizations of
appropriations included in current law, H.R. 5, and S. 1177. 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 of appropriations. For example,
H.R. 5 includes only one authorization of appropriations for Title I-A, but proposed statutory
language would provide a specified share of that authorization of appropriations to multiple,
individual programs.

45 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.
46 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. S. 1177 provides an authorization of
appropriations for this program of “such sums as may be necessary.” 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
27
c11173008

---

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

For each authorization of appropriations included in H.R. 5, the same amount is authorized for
each fiscal year from FY2016 through FY2021. That is, the authorization of appropriations level
is the same for FY2016 as it is for FY2021.
For S. 1177, all authorizations of appropriations are “such sums as may be necessary” and most
programs have authorizations of appropriations for FY2016 through FY2021.47 That is, no
specific dollar amounts have been specified for any of the programs that would be authorized by
S. 1177.
The total authorized level of appropriations in H.R. 5 for the ESEA is $23.2 billion. FY2015
appropriations for the ESEA under current law are $23.1 billion. The total ESEA authorization for
the last year for which current law had authorizations (FY2007) 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 3. Specific Authorizations of Appropriations Under the ESEA and Treatment
Under H.R. 5 and S. 1177
Current Law
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Reported, for
Reported for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2016 through
FY2016 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2021a
FY2021b
School
Title I, Section
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
Improvement
1003(g)
authorized
Grants
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
$25,000,000,000 (for
Would receive
Such sums
Local Educational
all four grants,
91.44%
Agencies (LEAs)d:
including Education
($14,854,577,047) of
Basic Grants,
Finance Incentive
a single authorization
Concentration
Grants, see below)
for programs serving
Grants, and
special populations
Targeted Grants
under Title I-Ad
Title I-A Grants to
Title I-A
Such sums (but
Would be included in Would be included
LEAs: Education
included in total
the authorization for
in the authorization
Finance Incentive
authorization amount the other Title I-A
for the other Title I-
Grants (EFIG)
for Title I-A as well,
Grants to LEAs (see
A Grants to LEAs
see above)
above)
(see above)
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 not be
Would not be
School Libraries
authorized
authorized

47 The Innovative Technology Expands Children’s Horizons program does not have years specified for the
authorization of appropriations. The program has a permanent authorization of appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Reported, for
Reported for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2016 through
FY2016 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2021a
FY2021b
Migrant Education
Title I-C
Such sums
Would receive 2.45% Such sums
($398,006,494) of a
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ad
Neglected and
Title I-D
Such sums
Would receive 0.31% Such sums
Delinquent
($50,360,005) of a
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ad
Evaluation and
Title I-E, Section
Such sums
National Assessment
Such sums (two
Demonstration
1501 and 1502
would be authorized
authorizations of
at $710,000
appropriations)e
Close Up
Title I-E, Section
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Fel owships
1504
authorized
authorized
Comprehensive
Title I-F
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
School Reform
authorized
authorized
Advanced
Title I-G
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
Placement
authorized
Dropout
Title I-H
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Prevention
authorized
authorized
Teacher Quality
Title II-A
Such sums
Would receive 75%
Such sums
State Grants
($2,091,267,000) of a
single authorization
for teacher and
principal programs
under Title IIf
Teacher Quality
Title II-A
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
National Programs
authorized
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
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Reported, for
Reported for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2016 through
FY2016 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2021a
FY2021b
Teaching of
Title II-C-4
Such sums
Would not be
Would share an
Traditional
authorized
authorization of
American History
appropriations with
the Presidential and
Congressional
Academies for
American History
and Civics under
Title II-C
Education
Title II-D-1 and 2
Such sums
Would not be
Would not be
Technology
authorized
authorizedg
Ready-to-Learn
Title II-D-3
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
Television
authorized
English Language
Title III-A and B
Such sums
Would receive 4.6%
Such sums
Acquisition and
($747,277,498) of a
Instruction
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ad
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
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 not be
Such sums
Community
authorized
Learning Centers
Innovative
Title V-A
$600,000,000
Would not be
Would not be
Programs (block
authorizedh
authorizedi
grant)
Charter Schools
Title V-B-1
Such sums
$300,000,000
Such sums
Credit
Title V-B-2
No authorizationj
Would be authorized Would be authorized
Enhancement
as part of the
as part of the
Initiatives to Assist
authorization for the
authorization for the
Charter School
Charter Schools
Charter Schools
Facility Acquisition,
program (see above)
program (see above)
Construction, and
Renovation
Voluntary Public
Title V-B-3
$100,000,000
Would not be
Would not be
School Choice
authorized
authorized
Magnet Schools
Title V-C
Such sums
$91,647,000
Such sums
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Reported, for
Reported for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2016 through
FY2016 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2021a
FY2021b
Fund for the
Title V-Dk
$675,000,000
Would not be
Such sums (five
Improvement of
authorized
authorizations of
Education
appropriations)l
National
nam
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
Assessment of
authorized
Educational
Progress
State Assessments
Title VI-A-1
Such sums
Would not be
Such sums
authorized
Rural Education
Title VI-B
Such sums
Would receive 1.2%n
Such sums
Achievement
($194,941,956) of a
Program
single authorization
for programs serving
special populations
under Title I-Ad
Indian Education
Title VII-A-1
Such sums
$105,921,000
Such sums
Grants to LEAs
Indian Education
Title VII-A-2 and 3
Such sums
$24,858,000
Such sums
Special Programs
and National
Activities
Education for
Title VII-B
Such sums
$34,181,000
Such sums
Native Hawaiians
Alaska Native
Title VII-C
Such sums
$33,185,000
Such sums
Education
Impact Aid Federal
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
$63,813,000
Such sums
Property
8002
Impact Aid Basic
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
$1,151,233,000
Such sums
Support Payments
80003(b)
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
$48,316,000
Such sums
Children with
8003(d)
Disabilities
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
$17,406,000
Such sums
Construction
8007
Impact Aid
Title VIII, Section
Such sums
$4,835,000
Such sums
Facilities
8008
Maintenance
New Authorizations of Appropriations Included in H.R. 5

Teacher and
na
na
Would receive 25%
na
School Leader
($697,089,000) of a
Flexible Grant
single authorization
for teacher and
principal programs
under Title IIf
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008

---

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

Current Law
H.R. 5, as
S. 1177, as
Reported, for
Reported for
Statutory Citation
FY2007
FY2016 through
FY2016 through
Program
for Program
Authorizationc
FY2021a
FY2021b
Family Engagement
na na $25,000,000
na
in Education
Local Academic
na na $2,302,287,000
na
Flexible Grant
(block grant)
New Authorizations of Appropriations Included in H.R. 5
Improving Science,
na na na Such
sums
Technology,
Engineering, and
Mathematics
(STEM) Instruction
and Achievement
Safe and Healthy
na na na Such
sums
Students: Grants
to States and Local
Educational
Agencies (block
grant)
Grants for
na na na Such
sums
Education
Innovation and
Research
Innovative
na na na Such
sums
Technology
Expands Children’s
Horizons (I-TECH)
Literacy and Arts
na na na Such
sums
Education
Early Learning
na na na Such
sums
Alignment and
Improvement
Grants
Native American
na na na Such
sums
and Alaska Native
Language
Immersion Schools
and Programs
Source: Table prepared by CRS, based on CRS analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (most
recently amended by P.L. 107-110), H.R. 5, and S. 1177.
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 at $65,042,000. S. 1177 provides an authorization of appropriations for this program of “such
sums as may be necessary.” The authorizations of appropriations for this program are not discussed in this
report, as this program is not part of the ESEA.
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008

---

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

na: Not applicable.
a. The same amount is authorized for each program for FY2016 through FY2021.
b. The Innovative Technology Expands Children’s Horizons program does not have years specified for the
authorization of appropriations. The program has a permanent authorization of appropriations.
c. FY2007 was the last year for which ESEA programs had authorizations of appropriations 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. Under H.R. 5, five programs would share a single authorization of appropriations. 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 year from
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.
e. S. 1177 includes a specific authorization of appropriations for conducting evaluations of Title I programs
(Section 1002(e)) and for the Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (Section 2003(e)), which is
similar to the current Striving Readers program. Both the evaluation of Title I programs and the Striving
Readers program currently share a single authorization of appropriations under current law.
f.
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.
g. S. 1177 would create a new program focused on education technology.
h. H.R. 5 would provide an authorization of appropriations for a new block grant program.
i.
S. 1177 would provide an authorization of appropriations for a new block grant program.
j.
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.
k. 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 “nationally significant
programs.”
l.
Under current law, a single authorization under Title V-D covers programs included in Title V-D-1 through
Title V-D-21. S. 1177 would retain five programs currently authorized under Title V-D and provide each
program with its own authorization of appropriations: (1) Teacher Incentive Fund (Section 2003(c)); (2)
Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics (Section 2003(d), which would
share an authorization of appropriations with the Teacher of Traditional American History program; (3)
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling (Section 4301(h)); (4) Physical Education Program (Section
4407); and (5) Javits Gifted and Talented Education program (Section 5307).
m. 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.
n. 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.



Congressional Research Service
33
c11173008

---

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

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
34
c11173008

---