The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and ESEA Reauthorization: Summary of Selected Key Issues
December 7, 2015
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and ESEA
Reauthorization: Summary of Selected Key Issues
Congress has actively considered reauthorization of the
with the standards in science once in grades 3-5, grades 6-9,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) during
and grades 10-12.
the 114th Congress, passing comprehensive ESEA
reauthorization bills in both the House (Student Success
The ESSA would substantially change the accountability
Act; H.R. 5) and the Senate (Every Child Achieves Act of
system that states would be required to implement to gauge
2015; S. 1177). Both chambers agreed to a conference to
student performance. Of note, states would have greater
resolve their differences. On November 19, 2015, the
latitude in establishing systems for performance goals,
conference committee agreed to file the conference report
measures of progress, and consequences that would be
of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) by a vote of 39-
applied to schools for low performance. It is likely that a
1. On December 2, 2015, the House agreed to the
much smaller group of schools would be subject to
conference report based on a bipartisan vote of 359-64. The
accountability consequences under the ESSA than under
ESEA was last comprehensively reauthorized by the No
current law.
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110).
Under current law, states are required to develop annual
The ESSA would provide for a comprehensive
measurable objectives (i.e., performance goals) for student
reauthorization of the ESEA. This In Focus is intended to
performance on reading and mathematics assessments,
provide basic information about some of the issues that
leading to the statutory requirement that all students be
have drawn substantial congressional interest during the
proficient in reading and mathematics by the end of the
reauthorization process.
2013-2014 school year. These proficiency goals are used in
the determination of adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP
Title I-A Grant Allocation Formulas
is determined based on three components: (i) student
Title I-A authorizes federal aid to local educational
academic achievement on the required state reading and
agencies (LEAs) and states for the education of
mathematics assessments; (ii) 95% student participation
disadvantaged students. The Title I-A grant program is the
rates in assessments by all students and for any subgroup
largest grant program in the ESEA. One notable change to
for which data are disaggregated (economically
the Title I-A formulas that the ESSA would make is to
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
increase the set-aside for the Bureau of Indian Education
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with
(BIE) and Outlying Areas from 1.0% to 1.1%. This change
limited English proficiency); and (iii) performance on
would only be implemented if the total amount of funds
another academic indicator, which must be graduation rates
available to make grants to states would be at least as much
for high schools. Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards
as the total amount of funds available to make grants to
only if they meet the required threshold levels of
states in FY2016. While H.R. 5 would have allowed states
performance on all three indicators for all students and each
to change the distribution of funds at the LEA and school
subgroup for which data are disaggregated, assuming a
level to provide funds to every LEA and public school with
minimum group size is met. Schools and LEAs that fail to
a child living in a family with income below the federal
make AYP for two consecutive years or more are required
poverty line, commonly referred to as the portability of
to take a variety of actions (school improvement, corrective
Title I-A funds, the ESSA would not include a provision
action, restructuring). The consequences are the same for
providing for the portability of Title I-A funds.
each school regardless of the extent to which the school
failed to make AYP in a given year, but the consequences
Accountability
need only be applied to a school receiving Title I-A funds.
Similar to current law, under ESSA provisions, states
Under the ESSA, the AYP system would be replaced.
receiving Title I-A funds would still be required to have
States would be required to establish long-term goals,
academic standards in reading/language arts (hereafter
including measures of interim progress toward those goals,
referred to as reading), mathematics, and science. Unlike
for performance on the reading and mathematics
current law, states would be required to demonstrate that
assessments, high school graduation rates, and the
these standards are aligned with entrance requirements for
percentage of English learners achieving English language
credit-bearing coursework in the state’s system of public
proficiency. States would then be required to annually
higher education and relevant state career and technical
measure the performance of all students and each subgroup
education standards. States would continue to be required to
of students in schools based on the aforementioned
administer assessments aligned with the standards in
measures and at least one other measure for elementary and
reading and mathematics in each of grades 3-8 and once
secondary schools that are not high schools and at least one
during high school and to administer assessments aligned
indicator of school quality or student success.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and ESEA Reauthorization: Summary of Selected Key Issues
State identification of schools for comprehensive support
Block Grant
and improvement would be based on the meaningful
The ESSA would no longer authorize several programs
differentiation of schools’ performance using all of the
authorized under current law. However, it would authorize
required indicators. States would be required to identify (i)
a new block grant program, Student Support and Academic
at least the lowest-performing 5% of all schools receiving
Enrichment Grants, which could be used to support
Title I-A funds, (ii) all public high schools failing to
activities that were supported by some of the eliminated
graduate one-third or more of their students, (iii) schools
programs, such as counseling, physical education, and
required to implement additional targeted support (see
educational technology. The purpose of the new block grant
below) that have not improved in a state-determined
program would be to provide all students with access to a
number of years, and (iv) additional statewide categories of
well-rounded education, to improve school conditions for
schools, at the state’s discretion. The LEAs in which
student learning, and to improve the use of technology in
schools are identified for comprehensive support and
order to improve the academic achievement and digital
improvement would be required to work with stakeholders
learning of all students. Formula grants would be made to
to develop a plan to improve school outcomes that, among
states, and states would subsequently make formula grants
other requirements, must include evidence-based
to LEAs. Each LEA would receive a minimum grant
interventions. If a school does not improve within a state-
amount of $10,000.
determined number of years (no more than four years), the
school would be subject to more rigorous state-determined
Common Core State Standards
actions.
Current law does not include any provisions requiring or
incentivizing states to implement the Common Core State
States would be required to identify, for targeted support
Standards. However, many states are currently
and improvement, any school in which a subgroup of
implementing these standards, and some agreed to
students is consistently underperforming. Each of these
implement them as a way to gain eligibility for Race to the
schools would be required to develop and implement a plan
Top Grant funds or to receive approval for the ESEA
to improve student outcomes. Schools in which one or more
flexibility package, which provided waivers of many of the
subgroups was performing at the same level as schools
educational accountability requirements in current law in
identified for comprehensive support and improvement
exchange for states meeting principles established by the
would be identified for additional targeted support and
Administration. The ESSA would include multiple
improvement activities. If a school that is required to do the
provisions that prohibit the Secretary from influencing,
latter does not improve within a state-determined number of
incentivizing, or coercing states to adopt the Common Core
years, the state would be required to identify the school for
State Standards.
comprehensive support and improvement.
Title II-A Grant Allocation Formula
Authorization of Appropriations
The ESSA would include 25 authorizations of
The Title II-A program provides formula grants to states
appropriations each year for FY2017 through FY2020 for
that may be used for a variety of purposes related to the
ESEA programs. In some cases, multiple programs would
recruitment, retention, and professional development of K-
share a single authorization of appropriations. The total
12 teachers and school leaders. Under current law, state
authorization of appropriations for ESEA programs would
grants are determined based primarily on the amount of
be $24.2 billion in FY2017, $24.7 billion in FY2018, $25.2
funding each state received in FY2001 under three
billion in FY2019, and $25.7 billion in FY2020.
antecedent programs. This is commonly referred to as the
base guarantee. Any excess funding is then allocated by
formula among the states based on each state’s share of the
Related CRS Reports
total school-age population (age 5 to 17) and the school-age
CRS Report R44297, Reauthorization of the Elementary
population living in poverty. These populations account for
and Secondary Education Act: Highlights of the Every
35% and 65% of the formula, respectively. The ESSA
Student Succeeds Act, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Jeffrey J.
would reduce each state’s base guarantee by 14.29
Kuenzi
percentage points each year from FY2017 through FY2022,
resulting in the elimination of the base guarantee beginning
CRS Report R43916, ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in
in FY2023. The ESSA would also shift the percentage of
the 114th Congress: Selected Key Issues, by Rebecca R.
funds allocated by population and poverty from 35% and
Skinner and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
65%, respectively, to 20% and 80%, respectively, by
FY2020.
Other Teacher-Related Issues
The ESSA would eliminate the requirement that teachers be
“highly qualified,” requiring instead that they meet
Rebecca R. Skinner, Specialist in Education Policy
applicable state certification and licensure requirements. In
IF10333
addition, the ESSA would continue to support competitive
grants to states and LEAs to develop and implement
performance-based teacher and principal compensation
systems that take into account gains in student academic
achievement for staff working in high-need schools.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and ESEA Reauthorization: Summary of Selected Key Issues
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10333 · VERSION 2 · NEW