Order Code IB98047
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Elementary and Secondary Education:
Reconsideration of the Federal Role
by the 106th Congress
Updated June 8, 2000
Wayne Riddle, James Stedman and Paul Irwin
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Major Reauthorization Proposals
H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s
Students (Education OPTIONS) Act
S. 2, Educational Opportunities Act
H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act
H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000
P.L. 106-113, FY2000 Appropriations for ED
H.R. 2, Student Results Act
H.R. 2300, Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act)
H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act
Clinton Administration’s ESEA Reauthorization Proposal
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Elementary and Secondary Education: Reconsideration of the Federal Role
by the 106th Congress
The authorizations for most programs of
federal aid to elementary and secondary education, educational research, statistics, and
assessment are scheduled to expire during the
106th Congress. These include the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA); the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals
2000); the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act
(ERDDIA); and the National Education Statistics Act (NESA).
Legislation which would amend and
extend, or repeal, the ESEA and Goals 2000
has been reported by the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce and the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. The Senate has begun floor consideration of S. 2, which would amend the ESEA
and repeal Goals 2000 while renewing the
goals. House floor consideration may occur
shortly with respect to H.R. 4141, to amend
ESEA programs regarding Education Technology, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, the Education Block Grant, and 21st
Century Community Learning Centers; and
H.R. 3222, to amend the Even Start program.
The House has passed 4 bills dealing with
major portions of the ESEA – H.R. 2, H.R.
1995, H.R. 2300, and H.R. 3616.
The programs authorized by the ESEA,
Goals 2000, ERDDIA, and NESA may be
divided into four categories: (1) programs for
the education of disadvantaged children; (2)
Congressional Research Service
programs that help pay the costs of systemwide
support services or curricula in priority subject
areas; (3) programs that support the development and dissemination of educational innovations, research, technical assistance, and assessments; and (4) programs to help pay the
costs of educating pupils whose parents live or
work on federal property.
The legislation currently authorizing these
programs embodies a strategy emphasizing
curriculum content standards; assessments tied
to these; performance standards with sanctions
and rewards based thereupon; expanded technical assistance; increased flexibility; and
greater targeting on high poverty schools and
LEAs. This strategy has been implemented
only partially thus far. Curriculum standards
and assessments are being developed, although slowly. Flexibility has been expanded,
but allocation formula modifications intended
to target funds on high poverty LEAs have not
been implemented. Debate over legislation to
reauthorize these programs is focusing on
overarching questions concerning the primary
purposes of federal aid to elementary and
secondary education, its intended beneficiaries
and outcomes, and its effectiveness. More
specific issues being debated include expansion
of school choice options, creation of new
authority for state or local flexibility or consolidation of programs into block grants, steps to
improve teacher quality and quantity, and
support for standards-based reform.
˜ The Library of Congress
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On May 15, 2000, the House passed H.R. 3616, a bill to reauthorize the Impact Aid
program under Title VIII, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
On several dates between May 1 and May 9, 2000, the Senate debated on S. 2, the
Educational Opportunities Act, which was reported on April 12 by the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. It is not clear when floor debate on S. 2 will resume. This
bill would amend and extend the ESEA, and repeal the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
while renewing the goals, renaming them America’s Education Goals.
On April 13, 2000, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered to
be reported H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s
Students (Education OPTIONS) Act. This bill would amend and extend ESEA programs
regarding Education Technology (Title III), Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
(Title IV), and the Education Block Grant (Title VI). It would also allow states and local
educational agencies to transfer funds among many ESEA programs.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The authorizations of appropriations for most programs of federal aid to elementary and
secondary (grades K-12) education, plus federal support of educational research,
development, and assessment activities, are scheduled to expire during the 106th Congress.
This includes the authorizations for virtually all programs under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA); the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000); the
Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act (ERDDIA), which
provides for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) in the U.S.
Department of Education (ED); and the National Education Statistics Act (NESA), which
provides for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), including the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). As a result, the Congress is considering
whether, and in what form, to extend most federal aid to elementary-secondary education.
This issue brief provides an overview of legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, Goals
2000, ERDDIA, and NESA. Most of this issue brief will focus on the ESEA and Goals 2000,
as very little legislative action has been taken with respect to the ERDDIA or NESA. It will
be updated regularly, to reflect current legislative activity. Other issue briefs and reports,
listed at the end of this brief, provide more detailed information on individual programs or
types of proposals and analyses of the issues being debated with respect to them.
Major Reauthorization Proposals
The major reauthorization proposals introduced to date and acted upon are described
below. The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal is described at the end of this
section. Bills are listed in chronological order, based on the date of initial Committee
action, with the most recent actions listed first.
H.R. 4141, the Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s
Students (Education OPTIONS) Act.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century Community Schools. H.R. 4141 would
combine the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program of before- and after-school
services (ESEA Title X, Part I) and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
(ESEA Title IV) into an expanded ESEA Title IV, entitled the new Supporting Drug and
Violence Prevention and Education for Students and Communities Act. The measure would
emphasize drug and violence prevention but would eliminate funding for hate crime
prevention programs. It would not fund a separate Coordinator Initiative in middle schools,
but would authorize LEAs to hire and train such coordinators. Also, the measure would
authorize testing students for illegal drug use or conducting locker searches for drugs or drug
paraphernalia, and the expansion of school-based mental health services. Under national
programs, it would allow demonstrations and scientifically based evaluations of innovative
approaches to drug and violence prevention based on SEA and LEA needs. It would
incorporate the Gun-Free Schools Act into the ESEA; and would allow states to administer
and provide services through grants and contracts with charitable, religious, or private
organizations. Most of the activities now supported under the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers would be authorized uses of funds under the new program, at state and
LEA discretion. Finally, H.R. 4141 would provide that ESEA Title IV-supported instruction
may not denigrate the religion of pupils or their parents; and would allow parents to remove
their children from any ESEA Title IV-supported services other than classroom instruction.
Educational Technology Programs. H.R. 4141 would consolidate several ESEA Title
III programs into a State and Local Technology for Success Grants program, with 50% of
funds allocated based on Title I, Part A grants and 50% based on population aged 5-17.
Within each state, at least 95% of funds would be distributed to LEAs (at least 80% through
a state-developed formula targeting high need districts, the remainder through competitive
grants). LEAs receiving formula grants must use at least 20% for professional development
of teachers in the integration of technology into the curriculum. Other allowable local
activities include using technology to increase academic achievement, expanding access, and
developing performance measurements. LEAs using funds to purchase computers to access
the Internet would be required to have filters to block material deemed harmful to minors.
H.R. 4141 would also authorize National Technology Initiatives providing technical
assistance, planning, conducting studies, and funding research-based educational technology
programs. H.R. 4141 would replace the Telecommunications Demonstration Project for
Mathematics (Title III, Part D, “Mathline”) with a new Telecommunications Program to
improve the teaching of all core academic subjects, and would eliminate the Elementary
Mathematics and Science Equipment Program (Title III, Part E).
Innovative Education Program Strategies. The authorized uses of funds by LEAs
under ESEA Title VI are modified to delete a general reference to school reform activities
and to add several new activities, including: professional development and hiring of teachers;
single gender schools and classrooms; community service programs; youth entrepreneurship
education; consumer, economic, and personal finance education; public school choice
programs; and school-based mental health services. In addition, 100% of all Title VI grants
to states in excess of the FY2000 level must be allocated to LEAs.
Transfer Authority. The bill also contains authority for states and LEAs to transfer
funds among selected ESEA programs. The programs affected by the authority are the ESEA
state-administered formula grant programs, except that funds may only be transferred into,
and not away from, ESEA Title I, Part A. States may transfer all of the program funds over
which they have authority, except for administrative funds. LEAs may transfer up to 35% of
funds they receive without obtaining state permission, and all funds under such programs if
their state approves.
Discipline Policies for Pupils with Disabilities. H.R. 4141 was amended in Committee
to add provisions requiring LEAs to have in effect a policy under which school personnel may
discipline children with disabilities in the same manner as children without disabilities
(including expulsion or suspension) if the child possesses a weapon or illegal drugs, or
commits an assault at school, on school premises, or at a school function.
Other ESEA Programs. H.R. 4141 would also amend and extend the Fund for the
Improvement of Education, or FIE (Title X-A), Public Charter Schools (Title X-C), Civic
Education (Title X-F), Ready to Learn Television (Title III-C) and Ellender Fellowships (Title
X-G) programs. The Arts Education program (Title X-D) would be amended to emphasize
that awards can go to states and LEAs, require coordination and consultation with State and
local arts agencies in designing model arts education programs, and eliminate the authority
for cultural partnerships for at-risk youth. In addition, the bill would: prohibit the use of FIE
funds to develop, test, or administer “any federally sponsored national test...unless specifically
and explicitly authorized by law;” would prohibit the use of any funds available to ED to
endorse any elementary-secondary school curriculum; and would require parental consent
before schools or LEAs can sell marketing information regarding pupils.
S. 2, Educational Opportunities Act.
ESEA Title I. Current Title I provisions regarding standards, assessments, and
corrective action would be continued and expanded under S. 2. Provisions regarding “school
performance profiles” would be expanded through requirements for annual performance
reports on each school and LEA receiving funds under Part A. Schools or LEAs identified
as needing improvement would be required to institute “research based instructional
strategies.” SEAs and LEAs would be required to take at least one of a series of corrective
actions with respect to schools or LEAs which do not improve after being identified as failing
to meet adequate yearly progress standards. In addition, assessments in reading must be in
English for pupils who have attended school in the United States for 3 or more years.
School Choice. LEAs would be required to offer public school choice options to pupils
attending Title I schools identified as needing improvement or corrective action, as well as
schools where violence has occurred. In addition, up to 10 states, plus up to 20 LEAs, would
be authorized to provide Title I aid to pupils in the form of portable grants. Title I funds,
including additional incentive grants, would be distributed on a per pupil basis. Parents of the
pupils would be allowed to choose to procure supplementary educational services at a public
school or a tutorial services provider. For details on this concept, see CRS Report RL30372,
ESEA Title I “Portable Grant” Proposals: Background and Issues.
Allocation Formulas. With respect to the share of Title I, Part A funds to be allocated
under each allocation formula, S. 2 provides that an amount equal to the FY2000
appropriation would be allocated under each of the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas,
and any increases over the FY2000 appropriation for Part A would be allocated under the
Targeted Grant formula. However, S. 2 also provides that 50% of any Part A appropriations
in excess of $8,076,000,000 would be reserved for a separate allocation to the states to be
used for program improvement and corrective action with respect to schools or LEAs not
meeting state standards of adequate yearly progress. S. 2 also provides that a hold harmless
rate of 85-95% of previous year grants would be applied to Concentration Grants to all
LEAs. The Education Finance Incentive Grant formula would be retained. As with H.R. 2,
the potential impact of these allocation formula changes would be small, and highly dependent
on assumptions made about the provisions of future appropriations legislation.
School Selection and Schoolwide Programs. S. 2 would allow LEAs to provide Title
I grants to schools which were eligible for, and received grants, in the preceding year, even
if they are not eligible in the current year. In addition S. 2 would reduce the eligibility
threshold for schoolwide programs from 50% in general to 40%.
Services to Private School Pupils. The Title I, Part A provisions for services to eligible
private school pupils would be revised to increase requirements for consultation between
public and private school authorities, and to authorize the Secretary of Education to take into
consideration the “quality, size, scope, or location” of Title I services provided to private
school pupils when deciding whether to institute a “by-pass” to provide these services.
Even Start. S. 2 would: (a) permit Even Start programs to serve children aged 8 or
older in collaboration with ESEA Title I, Part A programs; (b) authorize states to use a share
of their grants to improve the quality of services provided by local grantees; (c) require the
use of instructional methods “based on scientifically based reading research” for children and,
if possible, for adults; (d) reserve up to 3% of funds for technical assistance and an
independent evaluation; (e) increase the funds reserved for migrants, outlying areas and
Indians from 5% to 6%, if appropriations exceed $250 million; and (f) require each state that
wishes to receive an Even Start grant to submit a plan specifying indicators of program
quality and the state’s plan for using these indicators to monitor projects.
Other S. 2 Provisions Regarding Title I. The Comprehensive School Reform Program
would be authorized as Title I, Part E. Title I provisions for services to prekindergarten age
children, including cooperation with Head Start, Even Start, or state preschool programs,
would be expanded under S. 2. The Parental Information and Resource Center Program,
authorized previously under Title IV of Goals 2000, would be added to Title I as Part D.
Teacher Programs. A revised ESEA Title II would replace the Eisenhower Professional
Development program and the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program (S. 2 antecedent
programs). The broad outlines of this program are similar to the Teacher Empowerment Act
in H.R. 1995, though it differs in several substantive ways (see H.R. 1995 description below).
The Senate program is a state formula grant with allocation within states by formula to LEAs
and by competition to partnerships. States receive the same amount as the FY2000 funds
under the S. 2 antecedent programs; excess appropriations are distributed by formula. LEAs
are not assured continued receipt of any prior level of funding.
LEAs would be required to use unspecified portions of their allocation on professional
development for math and science and on professional development in general. Among other
activities, funds may be used for teacher hiring to reduce class size; hiring of special education
teachers; recruitment of highly qualified teachers; activities to retain teachers and principals;
and teacher opportunity payments, under which teachers could select their own professional
development (failure to meet professional development standards may require districts to
provide such payments). Authorized state activities include certification reform; teacher
induction; alternative certification; recruitment of highly qualified teachers and principals;
assistance for delivery of intensive professional development; and support for teachers seeking
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification.
Funded states would be required to measure the progress of LEAs and schools with
respect to changes in student achievement, the achievement gaps between different groups
of students, and improvement of professional development. Each LEA and school receiving
funds would have to publicly report progress in the areas cited above; and states would have
to hold districts and schools accountable for making progress. States would not be required
to have a plan ensuring that all teachers have certain qualifications as of a specific date.
Funded partnerships would support professional development in core subject areas and
assist districts and staff. A partnership must include a high need district, an institution
preparing teachers, and a higher education school of arts and sciences.
Among other provisions, S. 2 authorizes grants to the NBPTS for FY2001 to complete
its system of national certification, support for teacher excellence academies, a new program
to improve the skills of school leaders, continuation of the Troops to Teachers program
(support for former military personnel entering teaching), and continuation of the Eisenhower
Clearinghouse. The bill prohibits use of federal funds for a mandatory teacher test or
mandatory certification. It would move the Telecommunications Demonstration Program for
Mathematics (ESEA Title III, Part D) to Title II and expand the purposes of the program to
include all core curriculum areas. S.2 would also authorize a competitive grant program to
develop, produce, and distribute educational and instructional video programming designed
for K-12 schools.
Assistance to Address School Dropout Problems. S.2 would establish a national
coordination strategy for addressing school dropouts, and authorize a new dropout prevention
grant program. Funds would be allocated to states in proportion to ESEA Title I grants;
within states, 3-year grants would be made to middle and high schools with high dropout
rates and high percentages of pupils from low-income families. The grants would be used for
“effective, sustainable, coordinated, and whole school dropout prevention programs,” that are
“research-based, sustainable, and widely replicated, strategies for dropout prevention and
reentry.” Schools would be eligible to receive a 10% bonus if they create “smaller learning
communities.” In addition, a capacity building initiative would support the development and
dissemination of model reform strategies for dropout prevention.
Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. S. 2 would amend ESEA
Title X, Part B to provide for a transition to formula grants (based on school-age population)
to states (with competitive grants to LEAs) when the appropriation is $50 million or more.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. The Coordinator Initiative in middle
schools would become a National Coordinator Program allowing LEAs to hire drug
prevention and school safety program coordinators in schools with significant drug and
violence problems. Five major factors in S. 2 would differ from current law — (1)
accountability through the Principles of Effectiveness would be stressed requiring schools to
assess drug and violence problems, set measurable goals, use a researched-based prevention
framework for programs, and conduct evaluations; (2) funds for National Programs could not
increase unless state grant funding was at least 10% greater than in the previous year; (3) a
SDFSC Advisory Committee would be created at the national level to review regulations and
standards, and SEAs and Governors (as do LEAs under current law) would be required to
consult, when developing SDFSC applications, with advisory councils established at the state
and local levels; (4) the Gun-Free Schools Act, ESEA Title XIV-F, would be transferred to
the SDFSC requiring states to have laws mandating that LEAs expel from school for 1 year
any student who brought a weapon to school; and (5) a tobacco smoke free environment,
required in Part C, Title X of Goals 2000, would be transferred to the SDFSC forbidding
tobacco use within any indoor facility used for providing education or related services.
Educational Technology Programs. S.2 would amend ESEA Title III to increase
emphasis on professional development and parental involvement, and sets as a goal ensuring
that every child is computer literate by the end of the 8th grade. S. 2 would require ED to
update the national long range plan for technology. The bill would retain the Technology
Literacy Challenge Fund and Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, renaming them the
Technology Literacy Fund and Technology Innovation Grants, and would require ED to
submit an evaluation to Congress on outcomes of these programs. S.2 would eliminate the
Product Development and Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment programs.
Magnet Schools. S. 2 would authorize LEAs to use Magnet Schools Program funds
for capacity building, such as professional development, and the provide greater flexibility to
serve students in a school who are not in the magnet program in that school. It would
continue the authority for the Innovative Program in modified form.
Civic Education. S. 2 would authorize cooperative education exchange programs to
support economic and government education programs in Eastern and Central Europe plus
Ireland, similar to those currently authorized under Title VI of Goals 2000.
Innovative Education Program Strategies. The authorized uses of funds by LEAs
under ESEA Title VI are expanded to include: teaching improvement; parental and
community involvement; recruitment and training of certified teachers; same gender schools
and classrooms; service learning activities; and school safety programs. School reform and
charter schools are no longer included on the list of activities authorized for LEAs.
Rural Education. The Rural Education Initiative under S. 2 would be quite similar to
the H.R. 2 initiative, described below. There would be two programs — the first allowing
flexible use of formula grant funds and additional funding based on rural districts with
enrollments less than 600 students. The second program would focus on rural school districts
with poverty rates of at least 20%. A main difference between the S. 2 and H.R. 2 initiatives
is the use of different definitions of rural school districts.
Optional Performance Partnership/Grant Consolidation Provisions. S. 2 provides
two different authorities under which federal education program requirements may be
eliminated in return for outcome-based accountability. First, the bill includes a “Straight A’s”
authority which is essentially the same as that of H.R. 2300, as passed by the House (see
below), except that it would be available in up 15 states (rather than 10). Second, S. 2
includes a somewhat less flexible “Educational Performance Partnerships” optional grant
consolidation authority, which differs from that under H.R. 2300 (or the first authority in S.
2) in the following major respects: (a) there would be no limit on the number of states which
could participate; (b) current ESEA Title I, Part A allocation formulas would continue to be
applied in the distribution of these funds to LEAs; (c) the current statutory provisions would
generally apply in the allocation of Title I, Part A funds to schools within LEAs; (d) the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools program and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act would not be subject to consolidation; (e) all states would be eligible for bonus
awards, for which $2.5 billion would be authorized, and these awards would go to states
where the gap between the average scores of low-income and other students on NAEP tests
is reduced to a greater degree than for the nation; (f) all current law provisions for services
for pupils and staff of private schools would continue to apply, making it unlikely that funds
could be used for private school vouchers; (g) an illustrative list of purposes for which funds
may be used is provided, which includes “constructing schools” and “supporting special
education;” and (h) participating states would be required to comply with current
requirements regarding fiscal accountability and parental involvement.
Bilingual Education Act (BEA). S.2 would consolidate BEA Program Development
and Implementation plus Program Enhancement grants into a single Program Enhancement
competitive grant program. The Comprehensive School and Systemwide Improvement grants
would also be consolidated into a single program, with new requirements that students served
be assessed annually to determine their English proficiency, that projects be aligned with state
and local reform efforts, and that projects develop or improve accountability systems to
monitor the academic progress of English language learners. In addition, S.2 would eliminate
the 25% funding cap for special alternative programs under instructional services grants. The
bill would give priority to applicants: experiencing dramatic increases in limited English
proficient (LEP) students and that have limited or no experience in serving LEP children;
serving districts with less than 10,000 students; demonstrating success in assisting LEP
students learn English and achieve high standards; proposing programs to provide bilingual
proficiency for all project participants; and serving districts with large percentages of LEP
enrollment. S. 2 would also increase the minimum funding level for the SEA grant program
from $100,000 to $200,000.
Impact Aid. The provisions of S. 2 regarding ESEA Title VIII, Impact Aid, are similar
to those of H.R. 3616 (see below). In addition, S. 2 would modify the formula for payments
under Section 8003 to increase weights given to certain groups of federally connected
Native American Programs. S. 2 would reauthorize all existing programs of the Indian
Education Act (IEA) except appropriations for federal administration, and authorizes a new
demonstration program allowing each entity receiving an IEA formula grant (including BIAfunded schools) to consolidate all its federal Indian education assistance funds into a single
coordinated program. The current ESEA Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native programs
would be consolidated into single authorizations that allow funding for all the existing
programs plus family literacy services and research and evaluation activities.
General Provisions. S. 2 would include eight America’s Education Goals, the same as
the National Education Goals originally included in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,
which would be repealed, although the renamed goals would not set a date by which they are
to be achieved. The bill would also continue the authority for the National Education Goals
Panel, renaming it America’s Education Goals Panel.
Additional Provisions. In addition to those described above, S. 2 would authorize new
programs of grants for violence prevention and to increase the availability of Advanced
Placement courses in high poverty and/or rural high schools. It would establish mechanism
for parents to complain to ED about the content of textbooks purchased with federal aid
funds. Several additional current ESEA and related programs would be reauthorized under
S. 2 without major amendments; these include the National Writing Project, 21st Century
Community Learning Center, Migrant Education, Neglected & Delinquent, Inexpensive Book
Distribution, Public Charter Schools, Women’s Educational Equity, Fund for the
Improvement of Education, Allen H. Ellender Fellowship, Star Schools, Ready to Learn
Television, Regional Technical Support for Professional Development, Arts in Education,
Tobacco Free Schools, Emergency Immigrant Education, Foreign Language Assistance, and
McKinney homeless children and youth programs.
Senate Floor Amendments to S. 2 (thus far). During Senate floor debate on S. 2
between May 1 and 9, four amendments were adopted. Two of these amendments relate
specifically to teachers. One adds tenure reform, merit pay for teachers, and teacher testing
to allowable uses of funds in the teacher programs authority. The other strengthens the local
accountability provisions in the teacher programs authority (ties local funding in the 4th year
to achievement of specific objectives), creates a new program for individuals entering teaching
through alternative certification routes, and provides liability protection for teachers
undertaking reasonable actions to maintain order and discipline. The other two amendments
to S. 2 would amend the “Straight A’s” performance agreement authority to exclude the
Perkins Act from that authority, require participating states to reduce achievement gaps
between the highest and lowest scoring pupil population groups by at least 10% and to use
funds to serve “disadvantaged schools and school districts,” and to minimize the possibility
that funds could be used for private school choice programs.
H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act. H.R. 3222 would authorize
$500 million in funding for Even Start (ESEA Title I-B) for FY2001, and would: (a) require
more stringent qualifications for staff paid from Even Start funds; (b) permit Even Start
programs to serve children aged 8 or older in collaboration with ESEA Title I, Part A
programs; (c) authorize states to use a share of their grants to improve the quality of services
provided by local grantees and provide technical assistance on funding sources; (d) require
use of instructional methods “based on scientifically based reading research” for children and,
if possible, for adults; (e) reserve up to 3% of funds for technical assistance and an
independent evaluation; (f) increase the funds reserved for migrants, outlying areas and
Indians from 5% to 6%, if appropriations exceed $200 million; (g) provide for a one-time
coordination grant for eligible states; (h) reserve the lesser of $12 million or 50% of the
increase in total Even Start appropriations each year for the National Institute for Literacy to
conduct “scientifically based reading research” on adult literacy and helping parents support
the literacy development of their children; (i) reauthorize the Inexpensive Book Distribution
program; and (j) specify that religious organizations are eligible for subgrants.
H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000. H.R. 3616 would amend
and reauthorize the Impact Aid program (ESEA Title VIII), which compensates LEAs for
taxes lost as a result of federal acquisition of land and for the costs of educating “federally
connected” children (e.g., children of parents in the military and children living on Indian
lands). The bill would revamp Section 8002 (payments in lieu of taxes for certain lands
acquired by the federal government after 1938), expedite payments to “heavily impacted”
LEAs (with high percentages of “federally connected” children), and authorize facilities
modernization grants for certain LEAs that are unable to issue bonds for capital expenditures.
H..R. 3616 would modify how Section 8002 payments are made by combining the
methodology for assessing land value that was in effect prior to the last Impact Aid
reauthorization and the methodology under current law.
P.L. 106-113, FY2000 Appropriations for ED. In addition to providing FY2000
appropriations for the programs discussed in this Issue Brief, P.L. 106-113 extends for an
additional year funding for the Class Size Reduction program; it repeals (at the end of
FY2000) the state grant and parental assistance programs under Titles III and IV of the Goals
2000: Educate America Act; and it requires LEAs to offer to pupils attending public schools
determined to be in need of improvement (under ESEA Title I, Part A) the option to enroll
in different public schools within the same LEA (unless it is not possible, consistent with state
and local law, to offer such choice options to all eligible pupils).
H.R. 2, Student Results Act.
ESEA Title I. Title I provisions regarding standards, assessments, and corrective
action would be expanded under H.R. 2. LEAs would be required to offer public school
choice options to pupils attending schools in need of improvement or who have been victims
of violent crime at school, and the publication of state and LEA “report cards” would be
required. H.R. 2 would require pupils who have been enrolled in U.S. schools for 3 years to
be assessed in the English language. States would be permitted to reserve up to 30% of
future increases in their Title I grants for performance bonuses to especially effective Title I
schools and teachers. Further, states would be required to adopt standards and assessments
in science, in addition to reading and mathematics.
Use of Title I Funds to Hire Teacher Aides. The requirements regarding use of Title I
funds to hire teacher aides would be modified to: (1) place a “freeze” on the number of aides
which LEAs could hire with Title I funds; (2) require aides to have completed at least 2 years
of higher education, or to “have met a rigorous standard of quality that demonstrates, through
a formal assessment, knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing,
and math;” and (3) specify the instructional and other services which aides hired with Title
I funds may provide. H.R. 2 would also require states to develop plans under which all public
school teachers must be “fully qualified” by December 31, 2003.
Allocation Formulas. H.R. 2 provides that an amount equal to the FY1999
appropriation plus 50% of future increases would be allocated under the Basic and
Concentration Grant formulas, and the other 50% of future increases would be allocated
under the Targeted Grant formula. A hold harmless of 85% of previous year grants would
be applied to Concentration Grants for all LEAs. The expenditure factor used in all formulas
would be increased for Puerto Rico to 85% of the minimum expenditure factor for the states.
H.R. 2 would delete provisions for the Education Finance Incentive Grant formula.
School Selection. In the selection of Title I schools, H.R. 2 would authorize LEAs to
place priority on elementary schools, even among schools in the highest poverty category.
The enrollment size threshold for the current exemption from Title I requirements regarding
school selection would be increased from the current 1,000 pupils to 1,500 pupils. The
poverty threshold for establishing schoolwide programs would be lowered from 50% to 40%.
Services to Private School Pupils. Increased consultation would be required between
public and private school authorities over issues including the selection of third party
contractors. H.R. 2 would clarify rules for determining the share of LEA funds to be used
to serve private school pupils, and authorize private schools to request from the Secretary of
Education a “by-pass” of the LEA if pupils in the private school who are served by Title I fail
to make “satisfactory progress.”
Other H.R. 2 Provisions Regarding Title I. H.R. 2 would authorize the Comprehensive
School Reform Program as Part E of Title I. H.R. 2 would require LEAs to obtain parental
consent to the instructional methods used to teach English to LEP pupils in Title I programs
(unless such instruction is “exclusively or almost exclusively” in English). The bill would
place a limit (4%) on the share of Title I grants which LEAs could use to pay administrative
costs, and would provide that any increases in Title I funds for state administration over the
FY1999 level must be provided through specific appropriations.
Bilingual and Immigrant Education. H.R. 2 would modify the ESEA Title VII, Part
A Bilingual Education Act, renaming it as the “English Language Proficiency and Academic
Achievement Act.” The bill would consolidate bilingual education instructional services
grants and provide for a transition to allocation of aid via formula grants to states (with
discretionary grants within states), rather than the current discretionary grants by ED, when
annual appropriations reach $220 million. After this transition, previous recipients of
discretionary grants would be guaranteed 1 year of funding from the state. Under the formula
grant program, states would be required to discontinue funding to LEAs where the majority
of students are not attaining English language fluency and reaching state standards after 3
years. LEP students who have attended U.S. schools for 3 consecutive years must be tested
in English for reading or language arts, unless a LEA provides a waiver (of up to 1 year) to
have the student tested in another language. The requirement that only 25% of funding may
be used for special alternative instruction (non-bilingual) programs would be eliminated. The
bill would require that LEAs obtain parental consent prior to placement of a limited English
proficient child in an English language instruction program. Bilingual education professional
development grants would be consolidated into a single program; and the authorization for
the Emergency Immigrant Education Program would be increased. The bill would eliminate
the Title VII, Part B, the Foreign Language Assistance Program; and it would create a new
Office of Educational Services for Limited English Proficient Children.
Magnet Schools Assistance Program/Public School Choice. H.R. 2 would amend the
Magnet Schools Assistance program to repeal of the Innovative Programs authority; require
instruction in funded courses to be provided by “fully qualified” teachers; provide that only
“fully qualified” teachers may be employed in aided schools; and expand allowable uses of
funds to include capacity building activities, such as professional development. H.R. 2 would
also authorize a Public School Choice Act of 1999, a competitive grant program for SEAs
and LEAs to support innovative approaches to public school choice.
Women’s Educational Equity. While the Committee-reported version of H.R. 2 would
not have reauthorized the Women’s Educational Equity Act (WEEA — ESEA Title V, Part
B), a provision to do so was added in House floor consideration of the bill.
Rural Education Assistance. The Rural Education Initiative Act of 1999 would benefit
two groups of rural LEAs: those with small enrollments (less than 600), and those with larger
enrollments but school age poverty rates of at least 20%. Benefits for the first group of
districts include a flexibility authority that permits them to consolidate and use the funds they
receive under various formula grant programs, such as the Eisenhower Professional
Development program, Class Size Reduction program, and Innovative Education Program
Strategies program, for activities they identify that support local or state education reform
efforts to improve academic achievement or instruction. In addition, these districts receive
funding based on their enrollment for these same uses. The latter group of rural districts,
which cannot include districts eligible to be in the first group, receives funds for several
specified uses, such as educational technology, professional development, and academic
enrichment. Funds for these districts are allocated among states by formula based on the
enrollment in all eligible districts. Substate allocations may be either competitive or by
formula based on enrollment in the state’s eligible districts.
Homeless Children and Youth. H.R. 2 would amend McKinney Homeless Children and
Youth program to prohibit segregation of pupils solely on the basis of their homeless status
(with an exception for separate schools for the homeless initiated earlier); require schools to
immediately enroll homeless pupils in most cases; and require LEAs seeking funds to conduct
an assessment of the educational and related needs of homeless pupils.
Native American Education Programs. The ESEA includes in Title IX various
programs for Native Americans (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians),
including supplemental elementary and secondary, pre-school, and post-secondary programs.
The House Committee’s bill reauthorizes the largest Title IX program (formula grants to
LEAs), deletes several Indian programs that have not been funded since FY1996, deletes
Native Hawaiian programs in Title IX, and consolidates the Alaska Native programs into a
single authorization. The bill also reauthorizes two major acts covering Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) education programs, while providing for increased tribal control, more choice
among BIA-funded schools, and more information on education funding needs.
Gifted and Talented. H.R. 2 would amend the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act of 1994 (ESEA Title X, Part B) to authorize a state formula grant
program for teacher preparation and other services for the gifted to be initiated when the
annual appropriation first equals or exceeds $50 million.
Migrant Education. H.R. 2 amends the funding formula for migrant education. For
each year, states must receive at least what they received (or would have received) in
FY2000, but any additional funding must be distributed by formula. The formula for Puerto
Rico would be changed to increase the expenditure factor. In addition, H.R. 2 calls on the
Secretary of Education to: help states develop an effective method of transferring migrant
student records and determining the number of migrant children in each state; develop
minimum data elements that are to be maintained and transferred when migrant students
move; and encourage states to use electronic student records transfer systems.
H.R. 2300, Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act). On October 21,
1999, the House passed H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s
Act). This proposal, sometimes referred to as “Super Ed-Flex,” combines elements of
traditional block grants and the Ed-Flex program, under which SEAs may waive many
requirements under several federal education programs. Under H.R. 2300, up to 10 states
or individual LEAs in non-participating states (if the state does not object) may choose to
administer one or more specified federal education programs under a performance agreement,
whereby program requirements would no longer apply, except those related to civil rights,
participation of private school pupils and teachers, and certain fiscal accountability and ESEA
Title I, Part A requirements regarding curriculum content and pupil performance standards
plus assessments linked to these standards. Funds could be used for any educational purpose
authorized under state law.
Performance agreements under H.R. 2300 would cover a 5-year period, and would
include state-established student performance goals incorporating increased performance by
all pupil groups while reducing achievement gaps among pupils of different groups. State
total grants would be determined under current allocation formulas, but funds could be
allocated within states as determined by the state, except that if ESEA Title I, Part A is
included, LEAs may not experience a reduction in grants under that program. Requirements
regarding allocation of funds to schools within LEAs, such as the ESEA Title I requirements
to target funds on each LEA’s highest poverty schools, would no longer apply. States would
be allowed to use up to 3% of total grants for administrative purposes (1% of the total if
ESEA Title I, Part A is included). States and LEAs substantially meeting their performance
goals would be eligible for extension of their performance agreement; states failing to meet
at least 50% of their goals would be subject to a 50% reduction in their federal administrative
funds. States which succeed in reducing by 25% or more the gaps between their highest and
lowest scoring population groups in the percentage of pupils at the “proficient” level over the
5-year span of the performance agreement would be eligible for bonus funds.
H.R. 1995, Teacher Empowerment Act. H.R. 1995 would amend ESEA Title II as
a replacement for three programs — Eisenhower Professional Development, Goals 2000 state
grants, and the CSR program (H.R. 1995 antecedent programs). Each state would receive
the same amount as its FY1999 antecedent program funding, with any excess distributed by
formula. A portion of substate funds would be allocated to LEAs by formula and a portion
would be distributed competitively to LEAs and partnerships. LEAs’ formula allocations
could not be less than their FY1999 Eisenhower and CSR funding.
LEAs would have to use unspecified portions of these funds for professional
development in general and for reducing class size. A specific portion would have to support
math and science professional development. Funds may also be used for teacher recruitment,
retention and improvement. Funds may also support teacher opportunity payments (failure
to meet professional development standards may require such payments).
Funded partnerships would support professional development in core subjects and assist
districts and staff. A partnership must include an institution that prepares teachers, a high
need district, and a higher education school of arts and sciences. State activities would
include support for certification reform, induction improvement, alternative certification,
recruitment, tenure reform, procedures for the expeditious removal of incompetent teachers,
and assistance with professional development. States would be required to disseminate
widely information on such matters as the achievement gap between different groups of
students; districts and schools would be held accountable for progress toward performance
indicators they develop regarding student achievement and classes taught by fully qualified
teachers; states would also have to have a plan to ensure that, by December 31, 2003, all
teachers are fully qualified.
The Secretary of Education would be required to fund projects that provide professional
development for principals and could support such activities as teacher excellence academies,
the Troops to Teachers program, and the Eisenhower Clearinghouse. The Secretary could
not use federal funds for a mandatory national teacher test or certification.
Clinton Administration’s ESEA Reauthorization Proposal. The proposed
“Educational Excellence for All Children Act of 1999” (EEACA, H.R. 1960 and S. 1180)
would require participating states and LEAs to “end social promotion”; take corrective action
regarding low-performing schools; require at least 95% of public school teachers to be fully
certified; publish school, LEA, and state report cards; and adopt certain discipline policies.
For ESEA Title I, the EEACA would support continued implementation of the 1994
amendments regarding standards, assessments, and program improvement. In addition, it
would: (a) provide that at least 20% of Part A funds must be allocated under the Targeted
Grant formula; (b) require newly-hired Title I teachers to be fully certified within 3 years,
prohibit teacher aides with less than 2 years of postsecondary education from providing
instruction, require a minimum share of Title I grants to be reserved for professional
development, and expand comparability requirements to consider staff qualifications and
school conditions; (c) increase the authorized reservation of funds for program improvement
to 3.5%; (d) encourage increased use of comprehensive school reform and extended learning
time strategies; (e) require reading assessments to be in English for pupils who have been in
the United States for 3 years; and (f) extend the Reading Excellence Act in Title I.
A new ESEA Title II, Teaching to High Standards, would support professional
development services for teachers, with a continued priority on mathematics and science.
Assistance could also be used for recruiting teachers and improving the induction process for
new teachers, plus development of curriculum content and performance standards and
alignment of those standards with professional development and assessments. A modified
system of technical assistance would be authorized. The EEACA would authorize the
continuation and expansion of the Class Size Reduction program.
The Administration’s proposal would revise the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program
to encourage use of techniques which have been found to be effective and to better target aid
on high-need areas in the states; and authorization of a new School Emergency Response to
Violence (SERV) program of rapid assistance to schools affected by violence.
The EEACA would increase support for the Public Charter School and Magnet School
programs, and authorize a new program of aid to expand public school choice options. The
bill would consolidate several ESEA educational technology programs into a discretionary
Next Generation Grants program, and establish new Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use
Technology and Community Technology Centers grant programs. A new BEA program of
Academic Excellence Awards would be authorized to reward LEAs which effectively help
LEP students learn English and achieve academically; in addition, BEA grant recipients would
be required to submit data on student performance as a condition of continued funding. The
Emergency Immigrant Education Act would be revised to remove the 20% limit on the share
of funds which states may distribute on a competitive basis.
The EEACA would reaffirm the 8 National Education Goals, renaming them “America’s
Education Goals,” and extend the authorization for the Goals Panel. It would authorize
expansion of the 21st Century Community Learning Center program; limit payments under the
Impact Aid program to children of parents in the military who live on the base and children
residing on Indian lands; authorize increased support for foreign language instruction; simplify
the method of counting eligible children and youth under the Migrant Education Program;
authorize a new program supporting model high school reform strategies; and would
consolidate a number of programs for Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives into two
authorizations, one for each group.
P.L. 106-113, H.R. 3194 (Istook, et al.)
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000. Signed into law November 29, 1999.
P.L. 106-25, H.R. 800 (Castle, et al.)
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Signed into law April 29, 1999.
H.R. 2 (Goodling, et al.)
Student Results Act. Passed by House October 21, 1999.
H.R. 1995 (McKeon, et al.)
Teacher Empowerment Act. Passed by House July 20, 1999.
H.R. 2300 (Goodling, et al.)
Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act). Passed by House Oct. 21, 1999.
H.R. 3616 (Hayes, et al.)
Impact Aid Reauthorization Act of 2000. Passed by House on May 15, 2000.
H.R. 3222 (Goodling)
Literacy Involves Families Together Act. Reported by Committee on Education and the
Workforce February 29, 2000.
H.R. 4141 (Goodling, et al.)
Education Opportunities to Protect and Invest in Our Nation’s Students (Education
OPTIONS) Act. Reported by Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 4, 2000.
S. 2 (Jeffords, et al.)
Educational Opportunities Act. Reported by Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions April 12, 2000.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report RL30393, Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A’s Act) — Background
and Analysis, by Wayne Riddle
CRS Report RS20143, Arts in Education: Background and Reauthorization Issues, by
CRS Report 98-501, Bilingual Education: An Overview, by Patricia Osorio-O’Dea.
CRS Report RS20447, Class Size Reduction Program: Background and Status, by James
CRS Report RS20311, Comprehensive School Reform Program: Background and Issues,
by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30491, Education for the Disadvantaged: ESEA Title I Allocation Formula
Provisions, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30492, Education for the Disadvantaged: Allocation Formula Issues in
ESEA Title I Reauthorization Legislation, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Issue Brief IB10029, Education for the Disadvantaged: ESEA Title I Reauthorization
Issues, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Issue Brief IB98013, Elementary and Secondary Education Block Grant Proposals in
the 106th Congress, by Wayne Riddle and Paul Irwin.
CRS Report RS20156, Elementary and Secondary School Teachers: Action by the 106th
Congress, by James Stedman.
CRS Report RL30128, Elementary and Secondary School Teachers: Selected Federal
Programs and Issues, by James Stedman.
CRS Report 98-604, E-Rate for Schools: Background on Telecommunications Discounts
Through the Universal Service Fund, by James Stedman.
CRS Report RL30372, ESEA Title I “Portable Grant” Proposals: Background and Issues,
by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report 98-824, Even Start: Background and Issues, by Gail McCallion.
CRS Report 98-676, Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Programs: Ed-Flex and
Other Forms of Flexibility, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RS20042, The Federal Emergency Immigrant Education Program, by Patricia
CRS Report 98-945, The Federal Migrant Education Program: An Overview, by Patricia
CRS Report 95-344, Federal Support of School Choice: Background and Options, by
Wayne Riddle and James Stedman.
CRS Report 95-502, Goals 2000: Educate America Act Implementation Status and Issues,
by James Stedman and Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30568, Goals 2000: Implementation, Impact, and Action by the 106th
Congress, by James Stedman.
CRS Report RL30134, High School Dropouts: Current Federal Programs, by Patricia
CRS Report RL30075, Impact Aid: Overview and Reauthorization Issues, by Richard
CRS Report 94-872, Improving America’s Schools Act: An Overview of P.L. 103-382, by
James Stedman, et al.
CRS Report 96-178, Information Technology and Elementary and Secondary Education:
Current Status and Federal Support, by James Stedman.
CRS Report 98-909, The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program:
Background and Funding, by Susan Boren.
CRS Report 98-455, Magnet Schools Assistance Program: Overview and Status, by Carol
CRS Report 98-348, National Assessment of Educational Progress: Background and
Reauthorization Issues, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report 97-519, Public Charter Schools: State Developments and Federal Policy
Options, by Wayne Riddle and James Stedman.
CRS Report 97-972, Reading Excellence Act: Administration Proposal and Response by the
105th Congress, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RS20375, Rural Education: Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress, by
James B. Stedman and Richard N. Apling.
CRS Report RS20532, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act:
Reauthorization and Appropriations, by Edith Fairman Cooper.
CRS Report RL30482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program:
Background and Context, by Edith Fairman Cooper.
CRS Issue Brief IB98035, School Choice: Current Legislation, by Wayne Riddle and James
CRS Report RS20171, School Facilities Infrastructure: Background and Legislative
Proposals in the 106th Congress, by Susan Boren.
CRS Report RL30402, State Governance of Elementary and Secondary Education, by
Richard N. Apling.
CRS Report RS20434, “Student Results Act” (H.R. 2): Provisions for Limited-English
Proficient Students, by Patricia Osorio-O’Dea.
CRS Report 98-969, Technology Challenge Programs in the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, by Patricia Osorio-O’Dea.
CRS Report 96-380, Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Funding and
Implementation Issues, 1995-1999, by Wayne Riddle.
CRS Report RL30306, 21st Century Community Learning Centers: An Overview of the
Program and Analysis of Reauthorization Issues, by Gail McCallion.