The Rural Education Achievement Program: Title V-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

July 26, 2017 – February 17, 2021 R44906

The Rural Education Achievement Program:
Title V-B of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act
Updated February 17, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44906

The Rural Education Achievement Program

Summary
The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) is authorized by Part B of Title V of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA, P.L. 114-95) in 2015. To compensate for the chal enges facing rural schools, REAP
awards two types of formula grants. The Smal , Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program
provides funds to rural local educational agencies (LEAs) that serve smal numbers of students.
The Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high
concentrations of low-income students, regardless of the LEA’s size.
The ESSA reauthorization of the REAP statute made several major changes to the way funds are
al ocated to rural LEAs. Most notably, ESSA amended the scheme used to identify rural LEAs
that may be eligible for REAP funds and gave dual-eligible LEAs the option to choose the
program from which to receive funds.
This report provides a detailed description of eligibility rules and formula al ocation procedures
for SRSA and RLIS and discusses an implementation issue that has arisen recently.

Congressional Research Service

The Rural Education Achievement Program

Introduction
The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) is authorized by Part B of Title V of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA, P.L. 114-95) in 2015.1 Congress created this program to address the unique
needs of rural schools that disadvantage them relative to non-rural schools. To compensate for the
chal enges facing rural schools, REAP awards two types of formula grants.
The Smal , Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program provides funds to rural local educational
agencies (LEAs) that serve smal numbers of students. The Rural and Low -Income School (RLIS)
program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of low -income students,
regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equal y between the
SRSA and RLIS programs.
The ESSA reauthorization of the REAP statute made major changes to the program by
1. updating the locale codes used for determining the eligibility of LEAs,
2. clarifying that LEAs within educational service agencies are to be considered for
SRSA eligibility,
3. extending to RLIS the alternative state certification option for meeting the rural
criterion that already existed for SRSA, and
4. giving LEAs the option to choose which program to receive funds under if
eligible for both SRSA and RLIS.
This report discusses the chal enges facing rural schools and the manner in which REAP attempts
to address these chal enges.
Strengths and Limitations of Rural Schools
According to their proponents, rural schools have some advantages over their urban and suburban
counterparts. Rural teachers are key members of the community and tend to know students and
their families wel . Rural schools often have less complex organizational structures with fewer
layers than non-rural school systems, and they may be able to adjust or adapt relatively quickly to
change. Additional y, the schools within rural communities are very visible and strongly
connected with the community.2
However, rural schools also confront significant chal enges. Many face fiscal limitations due to
tax base constraints. Resource shortages contribute to various perceived problems, including a
limited range of curricular options (such as a lack of advanced placement course offerings) and
difficulties providing competitive salaries to attract and retain highly qualified teachers. Rural
schools tend to have declining enrollment due to net out-migration and aging of the population.
Rural schools’ low population density can result in other problems, such as high transportation
costs and limited access to cultural and educational resources.3

1 T he REAP program was established under T itle IV-B of the ESEA by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L.
107-110). Further information on the ESSA amendments to the ESEA may be found in CRS Report R44297,
Reauthorization of the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act: Highlights of the Every Student Succeeds Act , by
Rebecca R. Skinner and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
2 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Summary of the Official Proceedings Wisconsin Rural Policy Network
Forum, January 2014, pp. 2-3, http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/rural/pdf/ri_sum.pdf.
3 Ibid., pp. 3-5.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 The Rural Education Achievement Program

In addition to these general chal enges, rural school districts may face particular problems
meeting ESEA requirements related to academic accountability and teacher quality. While ESSA
provided greater funding use flexibility, rural districts may find it difficult to implement ESEA’s
requirements for schools identified as being in need of improvement (such as providing public
school choice).4 Rural districts may also face difficulty in meeting the ESEA requirement that
students receive instruction in the core academic subjects from teachers who are fully certified by
the state and have demonstrated competency in the subjects they teach. Additional y, where ESEA
funds are concerned, rural LEAs may be at a relative disadvantage compared to non-rural LEAs
in both seeking competitive awards and utilizing smal formula grant amounts from varied
programs.
The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)
Congress created REAP to meet many of the chal enges facing rural schools. According to the
statute, the purpose of REAP is to address “the unique needs of rural school districts that
frequently (1) lack the personnel and resources needed to compete effectively for Federal
competitive grants; and (2) receive formula grant al ocations in amounts too small to be effective
in meeting their intended purposes.”5
REAP authorizes two rural education programs under ESEA Title V-B. Subpart 1 authorizes the
SRSA program, which focuses on LEAs with less than 600 students. Subpart 2 authorizes the
RLIS program, which focuses on larger rural LEAs with relatively high poverty rates (at least
20% of children from families below the poverty line). Recipients of grants from these programs
may use their funds to support a fairly broad set of educational programs and activities authorized
by several ESEA programs.
ESSA authorized REAP at $169,840,000 for the fiscal years 2017 through 2020, to be distributed
equal y between subparts 1 and 2.6 In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260),
Congress appropriated $187,840,000 for REAP. Table 1 shows the history of appropriations for
the program. Since FY2016, REAP appropriations have exceeded the authorized level.7
Table 1. Appropriations for REAP
Appropriation
% Change from
Fiscal Year
(rounded to nearest $000)
Prior Year
2002
$162,500,000

4 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10556, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Overview of Title I-A
Academ ic Accountability Provisions, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
5 ESEA, Section 5202.
6 Section 422 of General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provides for the automatic extension of program
authorizations for one year under the conditions specified in the section. In practice, this provision has been used to
extend education programs authorized by major pieces of legislat ion, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and Higher Education Act, by one year. More information on GEPA may be found in CRS Report R41119,
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA): Overview a nd Issues, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Jody Feder.
7 As expressed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), “there is no general requirement, either constitutional
or statutory, that an appropriation act be preceded by a specific authorization.” GAO, Principles of Federal
Appropriations Law, (4th ed., 2016), GAO-16-464SP, ch. 2, p. 2-55. From the perspective of congressional rules,
explicitly authorizing a specific dollar amount has the effect of placing a procedural limit on the amount that may be
appropriated, although Congress may later choose to set aside its rules and provide a greater amount. More information
on this issue may be found in CRS Report R44582, Overview of Funding Mechanism s in the Fed eral Budget Process,
and Selected Exam ples, by Jessica T ollestrup.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Rural Education Achievement Program

Appropriation
% Change from
Fiscal Year
(rounded to nearest $000)
Prior Year
2003
$167,653,000
3.2%
2004
$167,831,000
0.1%
2005
$170,624,000
1.7%
2006
$168,919,000
-1.0%
2007
$168,919,000
0.0%
2008
$171,854,000
1.7%
2009
$173,382,000
0.9%
2010
$174,882,000
0.9%
2011
$174,532,000
-0.2%
2012
$179,193,000
2.7%
2013
$169,840,000
-5.2%
2014
$169,840,000
0.0%
2015
$169,840,000
0.0%
2016
$175,840,000
3.5%
2017
$175,840,000
0.0%
2018
$180,840,000
2.8%
2019
$180,840,000
0.0%
2020
$185,840,000
2.7%
2021
$187,840,000
1.1%
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.
Program Eligibility
To be eligible for REAP funds, LEAs must be designated rural by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has devised a typology to
classify schools based on their geographic locations. Using Census Bureau geographic data,
NCES assigns “locale codes” to each school. Based on their proximity to urbanized areas and
urban clusters,8 schools are classified along a 12-point urban-to-rural scale as follows (locale
codes in parentheses):9
 Large City (11): Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city
with population of 250,000 or more.
 Midsize City (12): Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city
with population of less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.

8 T he Census Bureau delineates urban areas after each decennial census by applying specified criteria to decennial
census and other data. T he Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: (1) Urbanized Areas of 50,000 or more
people and (2) Urban Clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. “Rural” encompasses all population,
housing, and territory not included within an urban area. More information on urbanized areas and urban clusters may
be found at https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html.
9 NCES revised the locale code system from a prior system of eight classifications; more information on this topic may
be found at https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Rural Education Achievement Program

 Small City (13): Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city
with population of less than 100,000.
 Large Suburb (21): Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized
area with population of 250,000 or more.
 Midsize Suburb (22): Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized
area with population of less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.
 Small Suburb (23): Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized
area with population of less than 100,000.
 Fringe Town (31): Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to
10 miles from an urbanized area.
 Distant Town (32): Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles
and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area.
 Remote Town (33): Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles
from an urbanized area.
 Fringe Rural (41): Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5
miles from an urbanized area, as wel as rural territory that is less than or equal to
2.5 miles from an urban cluster.
 Distant Rural (42): Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but
less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as wel as rural territory
that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban
cluster.
 Remote Rural (43): Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles
from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.
Small Rural School Achievement Program Eligibility
An LEA is eligible for the SRSA program if all schools served by the LEA have a locale code of
41, 42, or 4310 and either its average daily attendance (ADA) is less than 600 or the county or
counties in which the LEA is located has a population density of fewer than 10 people per square
mile. The SRSA statute al ows the Secretary of Education to waive the locale code requirement
(but not the ADA or population density requirements) based on a state government agency’s
determination that the LEA is located in a rural area.11 LEAs that lost SRSA eligibility due to the
locale codes changes adopted under the ESSA amendments were provided a declining share of
prior grant amounts through FY2019 under a hold harmless provision.12 The ESSA amendments
also made eligible certain LEAs that are members of SRSA-ineligible educational service
agencies.13 Such LEAs may receive SRSA funds under limited circumstances. More importantly,

10 NCES also classifies LEAs based on the code or codes assigned to schools within their boundaries; however, this
classification system is different than that required under ESEA. Under the NCES system, an LEA is assigned the
locale code of the schools enrolling 50% or more of the LEA’s students. If no single code accounts for 50% or more of
an LEA’s students, the LEA is assigned the code of schools accounting for the highest percentage of its students.
11 U.S. Department of Education, “Guidance on the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP),” June 2003,
Appendix A-5 and Appendix A-6, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/reap03guidance.doc (hereinafter, ED REAP
Guidance). ED notes on their website that new ESSA-based guidance for REAP will be posted “ spring 2017 ,” however,
as of the date of this report, none has been made available.
12 Such LEAS received the following shares of what they received under SRSA in FY2015: 75% for FY2017, 50% for
FY2018, and 25% for FY2019.
13 Section 8101(18) of the ESEA defines an educational service agency as a “regional public multiservice agency
authorized by state statute to develop, manage, and provide services or programs to local educational agencies.”
Congressional Research Service

4

The Rural Education Achievement Program

these LEAs can take advantage of the REAP-Flex provisions made available to al SRSA-eligible
LEAs (these provisions are described below).
Rural Low -Income School Program Eligibility
An LEA is eligible for the RLIS program if all its schools have locale codes of 32, 33, 41, 42, or
43 and at least 20% of the children the LEA serves are from families below the poverty line. The
ESSA amendments provided the Secretary with waiver authority for the locale code requirement
based on state determination that the LEA is located in a rural area, which previously only existed
for the SRSA program. The law does not provide the Secretary waiver authority for the poverty
requirement.
Grant Determination
Amounts that LEAs receive and aggregate state amounts are determined differently under the
SRSA and RLIS programs. Under the SRSA program, an initial amount is calculated for each
eligible LEA and then funds are added based on enrollment and subtracted based on “offsetting”
amounts received from other ESEA programs. Under RLIS, grants are first made to states based
on a formula and then subgranted to LEAs on either a formula or competitive basis.
SRSA Grants
Congress intended the SRSA program to be a supplement to certain other ESEA grant funds.
Thus, an LEA’s final SRSA grant amount is based on adjusting its initial amount by the total
amount it received from other ESEA programs. The initial SRSA amount is equal to a base grant
of $20,000 plus an additional amount for LEAs with enrollments of more than 50 students. The
additional amount is equal to $100 for each student in excess of 50 students; however, general y,
no grant amount may exceed $60,000.14 The following are some examples of initial amount
calculations:
 LEAs with 50 students or fewer have initial grant amounts equal to the base
amount of $20,000.
 An LEA with 55 students has an initial amount of $20,500 (i.e., the base amount
of $20,000 plus $500, which is $100 times the five students in excess of 50
students).
 An LEA with 449 students has an initial amount of $59,900 (i.e., the base amount
of $20,000 plus $39,900, which is $100 times the 399 students in excess of 50
students).
 LEAs with between 450 and 599 students have initial amounts of $60,000 (e.g.,
the calculation for an LEA with 451 students would be the base amount of
$20,000 plus $40,100, which is $100 times the 401 students in excess of 50
students; since this exceeds the maximum amount of $60,000, the amount of the
initial award would be $60,000).
The final SRSA grant amount is equal to the initial award minus the amount an LEA received
from two ESEA grant programs in the prior fiscal year: (1) the Supporting Effective Instruction
program, Title II, Part A, and (2) the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, Title IV,
Part A. As a result of this offset provision, an LEA whose initial SRSA grant amount is less than

14 T he ESSA amendments added a special rule such that when REAP funding exceeds $200,000,000, the SRSA initial
amount is $25,000 and the maximum is $80,000.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Rural Education Achievement Program

what it received from these two ESEA programs in the prior fiscal year would not receive funds
under the SRSA program.
RLIS Grants
Unlike under the SRSA program, the Secretary must reserve funds from the total RLIS
appropriation for Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools (0.5%) and for outlying areas
(0.5%).15 The remainder is al otted to states based on each state’s share of students attending
schools in eligible LEAs nationwide. For example, a state with 2% of the national enrollment in
RLIS-eligible LEAs would receive 2% of funds remaining after reserving BIE and outlying area
funds.
States award subgrants to eligible LEAs either competitively or based on a formula selected by
the state, and approved by the Secretary.16 The ESSA amendments provide that LEAs in a state
that does not participate in the RLIS program may submit an application directly to the Secretary
as a “special y qualified agency.”
Use of Funds
Recipients of REAP grants may use funds for activities authorized by several ESEA programs:
 Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part
A);
 Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II, Part A);
 Language Instruction for English Learners and Immigrant Students (Title III);
and
 Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV, Part A).17
REAP-Flex
Under the “alternative use of funds authority” (commonly known as REAP-Flex), LEAs that are
eligible for SRSA grants (whether or not they receive any SRSA funds) have the flexibility to use
offsetting funds from ESEA Title II-A and Title IV-A programs for any activities authorized by the
SRSA program.18 For example, under REAP-Flex an LEA may use funds received under the

15 T he outlying areas receiving RLIS grants are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin
Islands. Puerto Rico is considered a state under the REAP programs.
16 A state may use a formula based on t he proportion of students in average daily attendance in eligible LEAs or an
alternative formula, as approved by the Secretary, that results in serving “equal or greater concentrations of children
from families with incomes below the poverty line, relative to the concentrations that would be served” if the AD A
formula were used (§5221(b)((3)(C)).
17 SRSA grantees may also use these funds for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (T itle IV, Part B). RLIS
grantees may also use these funds for “ parental involvement activities.”
18 ESEA Section 5211. In its guidance on REAP, ED refers to alternative use of funds as “REAP -Flex” and
differentiates this flexibility from other ESEA flexibility as follows:
REAP-Flex does not involve a transfer of funds from one program to another. Rather, REAP -Flex
gives an LEA broader authority in spending “applicable funding” for alternative uses under
selected federal programs. On the other hand, when an LEA transfers funds from one progra m to
another under the transferability authority in section 6123, the transferred funds increase the
allocation of the receiving program and are subject to all of the rules and requirements of the
receiving program. (ED REAP Guidance, Section II-B-1).
Congressional Research Service

6

The Rural Education Achievement Program

Supporting Effective Instruction program (Title II-A) to provide language acquisition and
services to immigrant students authorized under the Language Instruction for English Learners
and Immigrant Students Program (Title III).
Implementation Issue
An ED review of formula grant al ocation procedures revealed an implementation issue
concerning the poverty data used to determine RLIS eligibility. To identify LEAs serving low-
income students, ESEA grant programs typical y use data from the Smal Area Income and
Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program, administered by the U.S. Census Bureau.19 Unlike some
other ESEA programs, the RLIS statute does not provide the Secretary authority to waive the
required use of SAIPE data to meet the poverty rule and instead use alternative poverty data
(APD).20
Despite these restrictions, to determine RLIS eligibility prior to FY2020, operational y, ED had
al owed the use of APD supplied by states under provisions in Title I of ESEA (§1124). The use
of APD for these purposes began for those LEAs that lacked SAIPE data; however, over time this
practice was adopted in certain instances where both SAIPE and APD were available. In an April
30, 2020, letter to Chief State School Officers, the Secretary stated that a review of ED’s
processes for awarding RLIS funds
discovered that some LEAs had been erroneously determined to be eligible for RLIS
funding on the basis of alternative poverty measures instead of data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), as required in section
5221(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA).
The Department subsequently took action to notify States of the data required to determine
future RLIS eligibility and indicated that only SAIPE data would be used to determine
eligibility for RLIS in FY 2020. Nevertheless, given seven States in FY 2019 relied on the
Department’s past acceptance of alternative poverty data in place of SAIPE data, we have
concluded that the Department has a reasoned basis not to make changes to the
Department’s processes for determining RLIS eligibility for FY 2020 funds.21
On December 27, 2020, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L.
116-260). The act clarified that APD are only to be used when SAIPE data are not available. The
act provided a temporary remedy for LEAs impacted by ED’s decision to disal ow APD for RLIS
al ocations. For FY2021 and FY2022, such LEAs wil receive their FY2019 award amount.
Thereafter, these LEAs wil receive a declining portion of what they received in FY2019 in the
following manner:
 for FY2023, 83.33% of the amount such local educational agency received for
FY2019;
 for FY2024, 66.67% of the amount such local educational agency received for
FY2019;

19 More information on SAIPE data may be found in CRS Report R46600, ESEA: Title I-A Poverty Measures and
Grants to Local Education Agencies and Schools, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
20 T he RLIS provisions provide the Secretary waiver authority in determining rural eligibility, but not low-income
eligibility.
21 ED’s letter to Chief State School Officers, April 30, 2020, available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/FY-2020-
RLIS-Eligibility_CSSO_4.30.20.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

7

The Rural Education Achievement Program

 for FY2025, 50.00% of the amount such local educational agency received for
FY2019;
 for FY2026, 33.33% of the amount such local educational agency received for
FY2019; and
 for FY2027, 16.67% of the amount such local educational agency received for
FY2019.

Author Information

Jeffrey J. Kuenzi

Specialist in Education Policy

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 n ot 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.

Congressional Research Service
R44906 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
8

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 17, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jul. 26, 2017

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Education Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON