ESEA Reauthorization Proposals: Comparison of Major Features of the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 1

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals: Comparison of Major Features of the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 1

Order Code RL30921
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
ESEA Reauthorization Proposals:
Comparison of Major Features of the House and
Senate Versions of H.R. 1
Updated July 6, 2001
Coordinated by
Wayne Riddle
Specialist in Education Finance
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals: Comparison of
Major Features of the House and Senate Versions of
H.R. 1
Summary
The authorizations of appropriations for most programs of federal aid to
elementary and secondary (grades K-12) education, under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), expired at the end of FY2000. While the 106th
Congress extensively considered several bills which would have reauthorized and
amended most of these programs, only legislation extending the Impact Aid (ESEA
Title VIII) and Even Start Family Literacy (ESEA Title I, Part B) programs was
enacted. Selected other programs, such as the Class Size Reduction program, have
been initiated and continued solely through annual appropriations legislation.
The 107th Congress is considering proposals to amend and extend the ESEA.
On June 14, 2001, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 1, the “Better Education for
Students and Teachers (BEST) Act,” while the House passed its version of H.R. 1,
the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” on May 23. Conference committee
consideration of the differing versions of H.R. 1 is expected to begin shortly.
These two versions of H.R. 1 have several common characteristics. Both of
them would: expand upon the existing pupil outcome accountability requirements of
the ESEA Title I program for the education of disadvantaged pupils; require
participating states to assess pupil performance in each of grades 3-8 (contingent on
appropriation of minimum amounts for state assessment grants under the Senate bill),
and to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (or in the case
of the House bill, an alternative assessment); provide for public school choice and
supplemental services options for pupils attending unsuccessful schools; authorize
expanded programs intended to enhance teacher quality; require the publication of
“report cards” on the performance of schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and
states; and authorize bonuses for especially successful schools, LEAs, and/or states,
as well as sanctions for states which fail to meet their performance objectives. In
contrast, only the House passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to develop
plans providing that all public school teachers will be “fully qualified” by December
2005; significantly increase required qualifications for teacher aides hired with Title
I funds; authorize all states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected programs, and
authorize a broader program consolidation authority for up to 100 LEAs. Only the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to have a plan to ensure that all
core subject teachers in schools in which 50% or more of the students are low-income
be highly qualified; require states to adopt assessments in science and standards in
history; authorize up to seven states and 25 LEAs to eliminate a wide range of
program requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil
outcomes; and both authorize and appropriate increasing amounts for the non-ESEA
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, reaching an estimated “full funding” level
by FY2011.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
List of Tables
Table 1. Major Provisions of the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 1 . . . . . . . 3

ESEA Reauthorization Proposals:
Comparison of Major Features of the House
and Senate Versions of H.R. 1
Introduction
The authorizations of appropriations for most programs of federal aid to
elementary and secondary (grades K-12) education, under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), expired at the end of FY2000. While the 106th
Congress extensively considered several bills which would have reauthorized and
amended most of these programs, only legislation extending the Impact Aid (ESEA
Title VIII) and Even Start Family Literacy (ESEA Title I, Part B) programs was
enacted. Selected other programs, such as the Class Size Reduction program, have
been initiated and continued solely through annual appropriations legislation in recent
years.
The 107th Congress is considering proposals to amend and extend the ESEA.
On June 14, 2001, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 1, the “Better Education for
Students and Teachers (BEST) Act,” while the House passed its version of H.R. 1,
the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” on May 23. Conference committee
consideration of the differing versions of H.R. 1 is expected to begin shortly.
Only the most basic provisions of these four proposals are briefly described
herein. Other CRS Reports and Issue Briefs have been or will be revised, and
regularly updated, with more specific analyses of major provisions of these ESEA
reauthorization proposals as they move through the legislative process.1
These two versions of H.R. 1 have several common characteristics. Both of
them would: expand upon the existing pupil outcome accountability requirements of
the ESEA Title I program for the education of disadvantaged pupils; require
participating states to assess pupil performance in each of grades 3-8 (contingent on
appropriation of minimum amounts for state assessment grants under the Senate bill),
and to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (or in the case
of the House bill, an alternative assessment); provide for public school choice and
supplemental services options for pupils attending unsuccessful schools; authorize
expanded programs intended to enhance teacher quality; require the publication of
“report cards” on the performance of schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), and
states; and authorize bonuses for especially successful schools, LEAs, and/or states,
1For a current listing of these reports and issue briefs, see the “For Additional Reading”
section of CRS Issue Brief IB10066, Elementary and Secondary Education:
Reconsideration of the Federal Role by the 107th Congress, by Wayne Riddle.

CRS-2
as well as sanctions for states which fail to meet their performance objectives. In
contrast, only the House-passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to develop
plans providing that all public school teachers will be “fully qualified” by December
2005; significantly increase required qualifications for teacher aides hired with Title
I funds; authorize all states and LEAs to transfer funds among selected programs, and
authorize a broader program consolidation authority for up to 100 LEAs. Only the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 1 would require states to have a plan to ensure that all
core subject teachers in schools in which 50% or more of the students are low-income
be highly qualified; require states to adopt assessments in science and standards in
history; authorize up to seven states and 25 LEAs to eliminate a wide range of
program requirements in return for increased accountability in terms of pupil
outcomes; and both authorize and appropriate increasing amounts for the non-ESEA
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, reaching an estimated “full funding” level
by FY2011.
Major features of these ESEA reauthorization bills, as well as current law, are
compared in the following table.

CRS-3
Table 1. Major Provisions of the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 1
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
Major forms of
The ESEA currently authorizes 57 funded
Authorizes 47 ESEA programs for FY2002
Authorizes 89 ESEA programs for FY2002
program
(in FY2001) and 24 unfunded programs in
in six programmatic titles: improving the
in nine programmatic titles: better results
consolidation
13 programmatic titles.
academic performance of the disadvantaged;
for disadvantaged children; teachers; moving
applicable to all
preparing, training, and recruiting quality
limited English proficient students to
states and local
teachers; education of limited English
English fluency; safe and drug-free schools
educational
proficient children/Indian and Alaska Native
and communities; public school choice and
agencies (LEAs)
education; promoting informed parental
flexibility; parental involvement and
choice and innovative programs; 21st century
accountability; Indian, Native Hawaiian,
schools; and Impact Aid.
and Alaska Native education; Impact Aid;
and education programs of national
significance.
Repeals (without elsewhere reauthorizing)
most programs currently authorized under
Repeals (without elsewhere reauthorizing)
ESEA Titles IX-B (Native Hawaiians), X
most programs currently authorized under
(Fund for the Improvement of Education and
ESEA Titles XI (Coordinated Services), XII
other Programs of National Significance —
(School Facilities Infrastructure), and XIII
except Charter Schools), XI (Coordinated
(Technical Assistance).
Services), and XII (School Facilities
Infrastructure).
Authorization and
FY2001 appropriations for ESEA programs
Authorizes a total of $22,866,500,000 for
Authorizes a total of $31,680,200,000 for
funding levels
are a total of $18,411,464,000.
ESEA programs for FY2002.
ESEA programs for FY2002.
Other major
Ed-Flex (P.L. 106-25) authorizes
In addition to current flexibility authorities,
In addition to current flexibility authorities,
flexibility
participating states to waive a wide range of
reduces Title I schoolwide program
reduces Title I schoolwide program
provisions
requirements for ESEA and certain other
eligibility threshold to 40%. Also contains
eligibility threshold to 40%. Also contains a
state-administered programs; ESEA Title I
an authority for states and LEAs to transfer
performance agreement authority under
schoolwide programs allow many require-
funds among several ESEA state-
which up to seven states, and up to 25 LEAs
ments under most federal programs to be
administered formula grant programs,
in other states, could eliminate a wide range
waived in schools where 50% or more of
except that funds could only be transferred
of program requirements under almost all of
pupils are from low-income families; and
into, and not away from, ESEA Title I.
the ESEA’s state-administered, formula
ESEA Title XIV authorizes the Secretary of
States may transfer up to 50% of the
grant programs in return for increased
Education to waive many ESEA
program funds over which they have
accountability in terms of pupil outcomes.
requirements on a case-by-case basis.
authority, except for administrative funds.
Participating states and LEAs must exceed
Most LEAs may transfer up to 50% of
AYP standards by a statistically significant
funds they receive under the affected
degree. States could reallocate funds among
programs; LEAs identified as needing
LEAs to a limited degree, with particular

CRS-4
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
improvement could transfer only up to 30%
constraints regarding Title I grants. Funds
of their grants under the affected programs,
could be used for any purpose authorized
and only if used for school/LEA
under the combined programs.
improvement. Also would authorize a local
flexibility demonstration under which 100
districts (two districts per state during the
first 3 years) would be permitted to
consolidate funds from a small group of
programs (teacher quality, technology,
innovative programs, and safe schools) and
use these funds for any educational purpose
authorized under the ESEA.
School choice
Under the ESEA, provision of choice to
Public school choice options, within the
Public school choice options, within the
attend other public schools is included
same LEA, must be offered to pupils of all
same LEA, must be offered to pupils
among actions which states and LEAs may
schools identified for corrective action under
attending public schools which fail to meet
take on behalf of pupils attending schools
Title I, unless prohibited by state law. The
AYP standards for 2 consecutive years,
which fail to meet ESEA Title I adequate
opportunity to use a share of Title I funds to
unless prohibited by state or local law or
yearly progress (AYP) standards. FY2001
obtain supplemental educational services
policy, or by capacity constraints. If a
appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-554)
from a provider of choice must be offered to
school fails to meet AYP requirements for 3
generally requires LEAs to offer to pupils
pupils from low-income families if a school
consecutive years after identification, public
attending public schools in need of
fails to meet AYP requirements after 2 years
school choice options must be offered with
improvement the option to enroll in different
in corrective action (1 year if no measurable
none of the constraints noted above, and all
public schools within the same LEA. In
progress is made). Transportation must be
pupils eligible to be served under Title I
addition, Title I funds may be used for
provided, and up to 15% of Title I funds
must also be offered the choice of obtaining
choice programs limited to other Title I
may be used for this purpose. Expands the
supplemental instructional services from a
schools (although no Title I funds may be
existing authority to use Title I funds for
provider other than their school.
used for transportation). The ESEA also
public school choice programs. Extends aid
Transportation must be provided, and up to
authorizes grants to magnet and charter
to magnet and charter schools. Requires
15% of Title I funds may be used for this
schools.
participating states to adopt policies under
purpose. Some of these requirements may
which pupils who are victims of violent
be waived for certain rural LEAs and/or if
crimes, or who attend “persistently
supplemental services providers are not
dangerous” public schools, must be given
“reasonably available geographically.”
the option to attend a safe public school.
Authorizes a new program of aid for public
school choice activities, and expands aid for
charter school facilities. Pupils from low-
income families attending a Title I school, or
all pupils who attend Title I schoolwide
program sites, and who are victims of

CRS-5
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
violent crimes, must be given the option of
transferring to other public schools, unless
prohibited by state or local law or policy.
Public school choice options may be offered
to pupils attending Title I schools deemed
unsafe. Extends aid to magnet and charter
schools.
Teacher programs
Provides aid through the Eisenhower
Consolidates the Eisenhower and CSR
Consolidates the Eisenhower and CSR
Professional Development (ESEA Title II)
programs into a new state formula grant
programs into a new state formula grant
and Class Size Reduction (CSR) programs.
program. Authorized activities are
program. Authorized activities are
substantively expanded beyond professional
substantively expanded beyond professional
development and class size reduction. Adds
development and class size reduction. Adds
new teacher quality accountability
new teacher quality accountability
requirements. Includes provisions to shield
requirements. Includes provisions to shield
school employees (including teachers,
school employees (including teachers,
administrators, and school board members)
administrators, and school board members)
from legal liability for actions taken in
from legal liability for actions taken in
official capacity to maintain school
official capacity to maintain school
discipline. Authorizes funding for math and
discipline. Authorizes funding for math and
science partnerships to support summer
science partnerships to support summer
professional development workshops for
professional development workshops for
teachers and recruitment, among other
teachers and recruitment, among other
activities.
activities.
Teacher quality
Teacher aides hired with ESEA Title I funds
Requires states receiving funds from the
Defines “highly qualified” teachers; requires
requirements
must generally have a high school diploma
Title I to ensure that all teachers are “fully
states to have a plan to ensure that all core
or equivalency within 2 years of being hired.
qualified” by December 31, 2005. Teacher
subject teachers in schools in which 50% or
There are no limits on the use of Title I
aides hired with Title I funds 1 year or more
more of the students are low-income be
funds to hire aides.
after enactment, and all aides by 3 years
highly qualified by the end of the fourth year
after enactment, must have a 2-year (or
of funding. Does not have provisions
higher) postsecondary degree or meet a
changing the required qualifications for
“rigorous standard of quality” (except those
teacher aides hired with Title I funds.
involved in translation or parent involvement
Information on teacher qualifications may be
activities). Allowable duties of aides are
included in school report cards (see separate
specified. A “freeze” would be placed on
entry) and parents would have a right of
the hiring of additional aides with Title I
access to this information concerning their
funds. Information on teacher qualifications
child’s teachers.
would be included in school report cards

CRS-6
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
(see separate entry) and parents would have
a right of access to this information
concerning their child’s teachers.
Testing and
Assessments under ESEA Title I (due to be
Expands current ESEA Title I assessment
Expands current ESEA Title I assessment
assessments
implemented in 2000-2001) must be adopted
requirements by requiring states to develop
requirements by requiring participating
in at least the subjects of mathematics and
standards (but not assessments) in science,
states to implement annual assessments in
reading/language arts; be aligned with state
and to assess all pupils in reading and
reading and mathematics for each pupil in
content and pupil performance standards; be
mathematics each year in grades 3-8.
grades 3-8, based on state content and pupil
administered annually to students in at least
Authorizes annual administration of
performance standards; to adopt standards
one of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12; include
National Assessment of Educational
and assessments at 3 grade levels in science;
all pupils in the grades being assessed who
Progress (NAEP) 4th and 8th grade reading
to adopt standards, but not assessments, in
have attended schools in the LEA for at least
and mathematics tests in every state, and
history; and to participate in annual
1 year; involve multiple approaches; assess
requires states to participate in these
administration of NAEP tests in 4th and 8th
higher order thinking skills; and produce
assessments or other independent
grade reading and mathematics (by 2005-
results disaggregated by gender, racial and
assessments meeting certain criteria (with
2006), except that the smallest (in
ethnic groups, English proficiency status,
costs paid by the federal government).
population) states would be required to
migrant status, disability status, and
Requires pupils who have been in U.S.
participate in NAEP tests only once every 2
economic disadvantage.
schools for at least 3 years to be tested (for
years. The expanded testing requirements
reading) in English, and requires states to
would apply only if the federal government
annually assess the English language
appropriates specified amounts for state test
proficiency of their limited English
development grants. It would require
proficient (LEP) pupils. Authorizes grants
assessments to be of “adequate technical
to states for assessment development and
quality,” and authorize awards to states
administration. Authorizes a study of the
which have developed high quality
effects of testing on students.
assessments. The General Accounting
Office would be directed to conduct a study
of the costs to states of complying with the
Title I assessment requirements. Requires
pupils who have been in U.S. schools for 3
years to be tested (for reading) in English,
and requires states to annually assess the
English language proficiency of their LEP
pupils. Authorizes a National Academy of
Sciences evaluation of the impact of high
stakes pupil tests. Also authorizes grants to
states and LEAs for development of
enhanced assessment instruments.

CRS-7
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
ESEA Title I
States select AYP standards and apply these
Increases the share of Title I funds which
Increases the share of Title I funds which
outcome
to participating LEAs and schools. Schools
may be reserved by states for program
may be reserved by states for program
accountability
and LEAs may limit focus to specific pupils
improvement from 0.5% to 2% (FY2002-
improvement from 0.5% to 3.5% (FY2002-
requirements
served by Title I. States are to identify
2003) and 3% (FY2004-2006). AYP
2003) and 5.0% (FY2004-2008). Also
LEAs, and LEAs are to identify schools,
standards must apply specifically to
separately authorizes additional funds for
which fail to meet AYP standards for 2
economically disadvantaged pupils, LEP
school improvement activities (in Title V-A-
consecutive years. Such schools and LEAs
pupils, pupils with disabilities, pupils in
3). AYP standards must be established for
are to receive technical assistance. After the
major racial and ethnic groups, as well as all
each school, LEA, and the state overall, and
third year following identification corrective
pupils, in each public school, LEA, and
must apply specifically to economically
actions — which may include loss of funds,
state. AYP standards must provide for each
disadvantaged pupils, LEP pupils, pupils
reconstitution of school staff, etc., — must
pupil in the state to reach at least the
with disabilities, migrant pupils, pupils in
be taken. Most corrective actions cannot be
proficient level of achievement by a target
major racial and ethnic groups, and pupils
taken until standards and assessments are
date of no more than 12 years after
by gender, as well as all pupils, in each
fully implemented. States may reserve up to
enactment. For a school to meet AYP
public school, LEA, and state, although
0.5% of grants for program improvement.
standards, 95%+ of relevant pupils must be
states may combine results for these groups
assessed.
into a single formula, and an alternative
form of AYP standard may be selected by
states. AYP standards must provide for
each pupil in the state to reach at least the
proficient level of achievement within 10
years. For a school to meet AYP standards,
95%+ of relevant pupils must be assessed.
LEAs are to identify schools which fail to
LEAs are to identify for school improvement
meet AYP standards for 1 year. Such
all schools which fail to meet AYP
schools and LEAs are to receive technical
standards for 1 year. Such schools are to
assistance. States and LEAs must adopt one
receive technical assistance. If an identified
or more of a limited number of corrective
school fails to meet the state’s AYP
actions if schools fail to improve 1 year
standards for a second consecutive year,
after being identified for program
pupils in the school are to be offered the
improvement. Public school choice options
choice to attend other public schools not so
must be offered to pupils of all schools
identified, unless such options are prohibited
identified for corrective action, unless
by state or local law, or there are capacity
prohibited by state law. If a school fails to
constraints. Public school choice options
meet AYP requirements after 2 years in
are also to be offered to Title I-eligible
corrective action (1 year if no measurable
pupils who are victims of violent crime or
progress is made), the school must undergo
attend schools which are unsafe. States and
“restructuring” — one of a limited number
LEAs must adopt corrective actions if

CRS-8
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
of actions must be taken, and pupils from
schools fail to improve 2 years after being
low-income families in the school must be
identified for program improvement. One of
given an opportunity to obtain supplemental
a limited number of actions (implementation
educational services from a provider of
of alternative governance mechanisms such
choice. Costs for supplemental services are
as reopening as a charter school,
limited to 40% of the school’s Title I grant
replacement of relevant school staff, or
per low-income pupil. Comparable
application of a new curriculum) must be
provisions apply to LEAs which fail to meet
taken with respect to schools identified for
AYP standards. States must establish a
corrective action. If such a school fails to
single accountability system for Title I and
meet AYP requirements for 3 consecutive
general purposes.
years after identification, public school
choice options must be offered with none of
the constraints noted above, and all pupils
eligible to be served under Title I pupils
must also be offered the choice of obtaining
supplemental instructional services from a
provider other than their school. Costs for
supplemental services are limited to the
school’s Title I grant per low-income pupil,
and no school may lose more than 15% of
its total Title I grant. If, during the year
following identification for corrective action,
a school still fails to meet AYP standards
overall, and specifically fails to make AYP
for economically disadvantaged students in
the same subject for each of the three years
preceding the school year for which the
school was identified, it would be
“reconstituted,” defined as replacement of
all school staff, reopening as a charter
school, or implementation of alternative
governance arrangements. Some of these
requirements may be waived for certain
rural LEAs and/or if supplemental services
providers are not “reasonably available
geographically.” Comparable provisions
apply to LEAs which fail to meet AYP
standards. States must establish a single

CRS-9
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
accountability system for Title I and general
purposes.
Report cards
Each school and LEA participating in ESEA
Establishes new or expanded requirements
Establishes new or expanded requirements
Title I is to be reviewed annually. When
for reporting to parents and the public on
for reporting to parents and the public on
standards and assessment systems are fully
state, LEA, and school performance and
state, LEA, and school performance and
implemented, “individual performance
teacher quality in schools.
teacher quality in schools.
profiles” are to be prepared and
disseminated by LEAs for each participating
school. “Statistically sound” achievement
data, disaggregated by pupil gender, race or
ethnicity, as well as LEP, migrant,
disability, and low-income status, are to be
reported for each school, LEA, and the state
overall.
Targeting of Title I
In the allocation of funds to LEAs, the
Current provisions are updated but generally
Current provisions are updated but generally
grants on high
ESEA statute provides that all funds above
unchanged. A hold harmless is added for
unchanged. A hold harmless provision
poverty areas and
the FY1995 level are to be allocated under
Concentration Grants, and the minimum
based on the grater of 100% of previous
schools
the Targeted Grant formula — however,
expenditure factor is increased for Puerto
year grants, or grants calculated without a
appropriations acts have prevented any
Rico.
hold harmless, is authorized. The state
funds from being used for this purpose.
minimum for Targeted Grants and
Within LEAs, funds are allocated to schools
Education Finance Incentive Grants is
primarily on their number of pupils from
increased from approximately 0.25% to
low-income families. In general, all schools
0.5%.
where 75% or more of pupils are from low-
income families must be served. Within
schools, services are focused on the lowest-
achieving pupils (targeted assistance
schools) or entire school if eligible for a
schoolwide program.
Education for
Provides competitive grants for the
Consolidates programs into a single formula
Consolidates BEA instructional services
limited English
education of LEP pupils under the Bilingual
grant to states based on LEP enrollment.
programs (four discretionary grants) into
proficient (LEP)
Education Act (BEA) and formula grants
Requires pupils who have been in U.S.
two types of discretionary grants. Eliminates
pupils
for the education of recent immigrant pupils
schools for at least 3 years to be tested (for
current requirement that funds be used to
under the Emergency Immigrant Education
reading) in English. Eliminates current
support specific instructional techniques.
Program (EIEP); limits use of BEA finds for
requirement that funds be used to support
Maintains current BEA professional
non-bilingual instructional approaches to
specific instructional techniques. Adds
development grants. Also extends the FLAP

CRS-10
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
25% of grants. Additional assistance is
accountability requirements related to the
and EIEP. If appropriation is above $700
available through Foreign Language
extent to which pupils become proficient in
million, a consolidated formula grant
Assistance Program (FLAP) grants for two-
English within 3 years. Does not include
program to states based on LEP (67%) and
way language programs that provide
FLAP.
immigrant (33%) enrollment replaces the
language instruction to native English
EIEP and BEA. FLAP would be unaffected
speakers and LEP pupils.
by the consolidation.
21st Century Com-
Provides competitive grants to LEAs for
Reauthorizes 21st CCLC and Safe and
Retains the 21st CCLC as a separate
munity Learning
academic and other after-school programs.
Drug-Free Schools within a new Title, with
program (ESEA Title I-F). Expands
Centers (21st
separate funding streams. Authorizes states
eligibility to include general purpose units of
CCLC)/After-
to carry out programs through grants and
local government, community-based
school programs
contracts with community-based
organizations, and other public or private
organizations, other public entities or private
entities experienced in providing after-school
organizations, as well as LEAs.
services. Gives priority to programs which
include academic enrichment activities.
School construction
Authorizes grants to high-need LEAs for
Repeals current ESEA Title XII authority.
Repeals current ESEA Title XII authority.
and renovation
school construction and renovation
Amends provisions for construction of
Authorizes aid for acquisition of facilities by
assistance under ESEA Title XII —
schools for Native American students in
charter schools. Authorizes use of
however, this program has never been
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools, and
Innovative Education Program Strategies
funded. FY2001 appropriations legislation
expands authority for construction of
funds for construction or renovation of
provides $1.2 billion for emergency school
schools to serve certain military families
schools with relatively small enrollments and
renovation of high-need schools, competitive
(see “Impact Aid” entry below).
small class sizes. Expands authority for
grants for poverty level and rural schools;
construction of schools to serve certain
schools composed of 50% or more Native
military families (see “Impact Aid” entry
American students; competitive grants for
below).
use under IDEA or school technology;
charter school demonstration, and for other
purposes under ESEA Title VI. The ESEA
also authorizes aid for construction of
schools for pupils in military families (under
ESEA Title VII, Impact Aid).
Educational
ESEA Title III authorizes a state formula
Consolidates most of the ESEA Title III
Consolidates several ESEA Title III
technology
grant plus several competitive/dis-cretionary
programs for telecommunications and
programs for telecommunications and
grant programs to expand access to, and
technology access into a single formula
technology into a single formula grant
effective use of, educational technology.
grant program and authorizes national
program. Authorizes Preparing
The E-Rate program (outside the ESEA)
technology activities. Reauthorizes Ready
Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology
uses telecommunications taxes to subsidize
to Learn and Teacherline (formerly
and Community Technology Centers

CRS-11
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
Internet access by schools, colleges, and
Mathline).
discretionary grants and reauthorizes Ready
public libraries.
to Learn, Ready to Teach (formerly
Mathline) and Star Schools. Authorizes a
new Rural Technology Education
Academies program.
School safety
ESEA Title IV authorizes state formula
Extends the ESEA school safety program in
Extends ESEA school safety program in
grants and competitive grants for school
somewhat modified form. Requires
somewhat modified form. Authorizes aid to
safety and anti-drug abuse programs.
programs to be consistent with “principles
reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools;
of effectiveness.” Requires states to
hire drug prevention and school safety
establish statewide policy providing public
program coordinators in schools; create new
school choice to students attending
competitive grant programs for combating
“persistently dangerous” schools or who are
the effects on students who witness or
victims of violent crimes on school grounds.
experience domestic violence, and for
Incorporates Gun Free Schools Act into this
suicide prevention programs. Establishes a
title. Requires districts to have a discipline
National Center for School and Youth
policy concerning specific kinds of
Safety jointly supported by ED and the
infractions (e.g., bringing a weapon to
Department of Justice for emergency
school) that would permit school personnel
responses and other school safety activities;
to treat disabled students in the same fashion
and allows confidential reporting of persons
as other students. Expands character
suspected of imminent school violence.
education program.
Requires participating schools to assess
drug and violence problems, set measurable
goals, use a research-based prevention
framework for programs, and conduct
evaluations. Expands the local uses of
funds to include drug testing and locker
searches, and nationwide background checks
of employees. Incorporates statutory
provisions into Title IV requiring states to
have laws mandating expulsion from school
for 1 year for any student bringing a weapon
to school, and forbidding tobacco use within
any indoor facility used for providing
education or related services. Expelled or
suspended students would be required to
perform community service during their time
away from school, and alternative programs
would be created to educate and discipline

CRS-12
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
chronically violent and disruptive students.
Performance
States are to identify especially successful
In addition to provisions specific to ESEA
In addition to provisions specific to ESEA
bonuses (not
“distinguished schools” and “distinguished
Titles I-III (see above), authorizes bonus
Titles I-III (see above), authorizes bonus
specific to
educators.” States may use ESEA Title I
payments to states which are especially
payments to states which are especially
individual
funds reserved for program improvement
successful in improving the academic
successful in improving the academic
programs)
(up to 0.5% of total grants) to support such
achievement of economically disadvantaged
achievement of economically disadvantaged
schools and educators. LEAs may also
pupils and pupils from racial and ethnic
pupils and pupils from racial and ethnic
provide nonfinancial rewards to them.
minority groups, as well as all pupils and
minority groups, as well as all pupils and
LEP pupils. States would distribute these
LEP pupils. States would distribute these
funds to schools on the basis of the same
funds to schools on the basis of the same
criteria. Also authorizes one-time bonus
criteria. Authorizes separate series of bonus
payments to states which adopt assessments
grants directly to schools which have made
in each of grades 3-8 more expeditiously
the greatest progress in the education of
than they are required to do so.
economically disadvantaged pupils, and
awards for other activities other than the
activities such as character education and
the identification and recognition of
exemplary schools and programs such as
Blue Ribbon Schools. Also authorizes one-
time bonus payments to states which adopt
assessments on schedule which are of high
quality.
Performance
The Secretary of Education is authorized to
In addition to provisions specific to ESEA
In addition to provisions specific to ESEA
sanctions (not
reduce administrative funds to states which
Titles I-III (see above), states in which
Titles I-III (see above), states which fail to
specific to
fail to establish standards and assessments
economically disadvantaged pupils and
meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive
individual
under ESEA Title I.
pupils from racial and ethnic minority
years, and in which economically
programs)
groups fail to meet the state AYP standards
disadvantaged pupils and pupils from racial
for 2 consecutive years and fail to make
and ethnic minority groups fail to make
measurable progress on NAEP or alternative
measurable progress on NAEP assessments,
independent assessments would ultimately
would ultimately lose up to 75% of their
lose up to 75% of their ESEA program
ESEA program administrative funds.
administrative funds. State administrative
funds would be reduced by an additional
20% in states where LEP pupils fail to meet
AYP requirements for 2 consecutive years.
Major new ESEA
Not applicable
Establishes new or expanded programs for
Establishes new or expanded programs for

CRS-13
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
programs
reading and reading readiness instruction in
reading and reading readiness instruction in
preschool and early elementary grades,
preschool and early elementary grades,
mentoring for students, assessment
assessment development and administration,
development and administration, aid and
dropout prevention, Careers to Classrooms,
expanded flexibility for small and/or high
online Advanced Placement courses, public
poverty rural school districts, school
school choice, charter school facilities, early
construction for pupils in Native American
childhood professional development, teacher
and military families, mathematics and
and principal recruitment, school libraries,
science education partnerships between K-
suicide prevention, domestic violence
12 schools and institutions of higher
witness, traditional American history,
education, and character education.
summer enrichment, economic education,
Explicitly authorizes the Comprehensive
school and mental health system integration,
School Reform program within ESEA Title
school security, alcohol abuse reduction,
I.
Healthy and High Performance Schools, and
mentoring for students. Explicitly
authorizes the Comprehensive School
Reform program within ESEA Title I.
Impact Aid
Authorizes modernization grants from 60%
Authorizes one funding stream for
Reserves amounts as follows for three types
Competitive
of funds provided for section. Eligible
emergency and other modernization grants,
of eligible LEAs requiring facilities
Facilities
LEAs must have little or no capacity to
with priority given to grants for LEAs with
modernization: 10% of funds provided for
Modernization
issue bonds or be defined as a ‘heavily
severe emergencies. LEAs are eligible for
this subsection are reserved for certain
Grants (8007(b))
impacted’ LEA under Section 8003(b)(2)
emergency grants if they (1) have a facility
LEAs receiving funds under Section
and qualify as certain LEAs receiving funds
emergency threatening student or staff
8002(a); 45% of such funds are reserved for
under Section 8002 (related to payments for
health or safety, (2) have children living on
LEAs having children living on Indian lands
federal ownership of land) — those with
Indian land or children of military parents
comprise at least 25% of total enrollment;
below state average assessed property value
comprising at least 50% of their total
and 45% of funds are served for LEAs
per student or have children living on Indian
enrollment, and (3) have minimal or no
having children of military parents comprise
land or children of military parents
capacity to issue bonds or are classified as
at least 25% of total enrollment. Regarding
comprising at least 50% of their total
“heavily impacted” LEAs under Section
the latter two reserves, 10% of funds in each
enrollment, and have a school facility
8003(b)(2). To be eligible for a
case are reserved for emergency grants.
emergency.
modernization grant, an LEA must (1) have
Would authorize ‘such sums’ through
facility modernization needs resulting from
FY2006. Authorizes three funding streams
federal activity (e.g., increased enrollment
based on eligible LEAs’s characteristics.
due to the influx of military families), (2)
qualify as certain LEAs receiving funds
under Section 8002, and (3) have minimal or
no capacity to issue bonds or be classified as
“heavily impacted” LEAs. Would provide

CRS-14
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
an initial authorization of $150 million
(more than 10 times current appropriations)
for FY2002 and “such sums” for the next 4
fiscal years.
Funding for
Authorizes “such sums as may be
No comparable provision
Authorizes and appropriates an additional
Individuals with
necessary;” the FY2001 appropriation level
$2.5 billion for each year between FY2002
Disabilities
is $6.3 billion
and FY2006. For FY2007-FY2011,
Education Act
authorizes and appropriates the lesser of the
(IDEA) Part B
total maximum amount for states or $21.1
grants to states
billion, $21.7 billion, $22.4 billion, $23.1
billion, and $23.8 billion respectively.
Thereafter authorizes “such sums as may be
necessary.”
Discipline
Currently, under IDEA, a child with a
Adds a Section 5155 to the ESEA providing
Adds a new subsection to IDEA that states
provisions for
disability is not immune from discipline but
that states receiving funds under the act
that notwithstanding any other provision of
children with
the procedures are not identical to those for
shall require each LEA to have in effect a
IDEA, a SEA or LEA may establish and
disabilities
a child without disabilities. If a child with a
policy allowing school personnel to
implement uniform policies regarding
disability commits an action that would be
discipline a child with a disability in the
discipline and order applicable to all
subject to discipline, school personnel have
same manner as a child without a disability
children in order to ensure the safety of such
the following options: 1) suspending the
is disciplined if the child with a disability (1)
children and an appropriate educational
child for up to ten days with no educational
carries or possesses a weapon to or at a
atmosphere. This broad grant of authority
services provided;
school, on school premises, or to or at a
is limited in situations where the behavior in
2) conducting a manifestation determination
school function, (2) knowingly possesses or
question is a manifestation of the child’s
review to determine whether there is a link
uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale
disability. In that situation, the child with a
between the child’s disability and the
of a controlled substance at school, on
disability who is removed from his or her
misbehavior. If the child’s behavior is not a
school premises or at a school function, or
regular education placement shall receive a
manifestation of a disability, long term
(3) commits an aggravated assault or battery
free appropriate public education which may
disciplinary action such as expulsion may
at a school, on school premises, or at a
be provided in an alternative educational
occur, except that educational services may
school function. The disciplinary action
setting. The manifestation determination is
not cease. If the child’s behavior is a
may include expulsion or suspension and
to be made no later than 10 school days
manifestation of the child’s disability, the
school personnel may modify the
after the school personnel decide to remove
school may review the child’s placement
disciplinary action on a case by case basis.
the child with a disability from the child’s
and, if appropriate, initiate a change in
The child with a disability who is disciplined
regular educational placement. If the
placement; 3) placing the child in an interim
may also assert a defense that the carrying
behavior is determined not to be a
alternative education setting for up to 45
of a weapon or the use, sale or solicitation
manifestation of the child’s behavior, the
days (which can be renewed) for situations
of an illegal drug was unintentional or
same disciplinary procedures may apply to
involving weapons or drugs; and 4) asking a
innocent. If the child with a disability is
the child as are applied to children without

CRS-15
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
hearing officer to order that a child be
suspended or expelled, he or she is not
disabilities.
placed in an interim alternative educational
entitled to receive educational services
setting for up to 45 days (which can be
although the LEA may choose to provide
The Senate amendment provides school
renewed) if it is demonstrated that the child
educational or mental health services. If
personnel with the discretion to consider all
is substantially likely to injure himself or
such services are provided they do not have
germane factors in each individual case and
others in his current placement. School
to be at any particular level and their
modify disciplinary action on a case-by-case
officials may also seek an injunction in court
location is at the discretion of the LEA. The
basis. The child with a disability may assert
if they are unable to reach agreement with a
amendment also contains definitions of
a defense that the alleged act was
student’s parents and they feel that the
“controlled substance,” “illegal drug,” and
unintentional or innocent. If the parents or
statutory provisions are not sufficient.
“weapon.”
the LEA disagree with a manifestation
determination, the parents or the agency may
request a review of the determination
through the current IDEA procedures for an
impartial due process hearing. During the
course of the review, the child with a
disability shall receive a free appropriate
public education which may be provided in
an alternative educational placement.
The last section of the Sessions’ amendment
allows a LEA, at the written request of a
parent, to transfer a child with a disability to
any accredited school that is specifically
designed to serve children with disabilities,
is selected by the child’s parents, agrees to
accept the child, and carries out a program
that the SEA or LEA determine will benefit
the child. Certain IDEA funds shall follow
the child to this new placement.
Education for
Title IX of ESEA authorizes grants for
Creates new program allowing recipient
Creates new program allowing recipient
Indians, Alaska
supplemental education programs to LEAs
LEAs and BIA-funded schools to commingle
LEAs and BIA-funded schools to commingle
Natives, and Native
and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)-funded
all federal funds received for Indian
all federal funds received for Indian
Hawaiians
schools, as well as to Native Hawaiian and
education. Eliminates all Native Hawaiian
education. Reauthorizes all programs,
Alaska Native educational organizations,
programs and some Indian programs
including those eliminated by the House.
and to a wider range of entities for
(student fellowships, gifted and talented,
Amends P.L. 95-561 to eliminate BIA
educational improvement for Indian children
tribal education departments, and adult
school standards, require accreditation for
and adults. The Education Amendments of
education). Amends P.L. 95-561 to allow
BIA-funded schools by tribal, state, or
1978 (P.L. 95-561), Title XI, Part B,
accreditation for BIA-funded schools by
regional entities, and set penalties if school

CRS-16
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
authorizes standards, distribution formulas,
tribal, state, or regional entities. Increases
fails to be accredited (but allows use of
administrative grants, and other programs
local school board and tribal control over
current BIA standards). Increases local
for BIA-funded schools. The Tribally
education funding and personnel.
school board and tribal control over
Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-
Reauthorizes Tribally Controlled Schools
education funding and personnel.
297) authorizes tribes and tribal school
Act and allows grant schools to establish
Reauthorizes Tribally Controlled Schools
boards operating BIA-funded schools to
endowment programs.
Act, allows grant schools to establish
receive BIA grants, instead of contracts, for
endowment programs, and forbids states
educational operations.
from taking BIA grants into account when
awarding state funds to eligible BIA-funded
schools.
Education for
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Extends the authorization of the program
Extends the authorization of the program
Homeless Children
Act (P.L. 100-77) authorizes the Education
through FY2006, continues most major
through FY2008, and continues its major
and Youth
for Homeless Children and Youth program
provisions, and makes a few major
provisions with fewer modifications than the
under Title VII-B. Formula grants are made
modifications concerning separate schools
House proposes, but it does make the same
to states in proportion to ESEA Title I-A
and enrollment assurances. The revised
revision to the statement of policy
grants to LEAs. States must use funds
statement of policy says that
concerning separate schools and programs
according to a state plan to ensure that
“... homelessness alone is not a sufficient
for homeless children and youth. The
homeless children and youth have equal
reason to separate students from the
prohibition on the use of funds for separate
access to a free, appropriate education that
mainstream school environment ...” With
schools and programs is also similar;
is provided to other children and to remove
certain exceptions, states are prohibited
however, the “grandfather” clause differs
existing barriers to enrollment and
from using funds for homeless children and
significantly in that it applies only to
educational services for homeless children
youth for either a separate school or
separate schools in operation during
and youth. The statement of policy says
separate program within a school, based on
FY2000, and only those located in four
that “... homelessness alone should not be a
homelessness alone; however, any separate
specific counties — San Joaquin, Orange,
sufficient reason to separate students from
homeless school in operation at the date of
and San Diego Counties in California, and
the mainstream school environment ...”
enactment may continue to receive support
Maricopa County in Arizona. For the most
LEAs must use funds to provide services to
under this program. The House bill also
part, the Senate bill does not contain the
homeless children and youth that are
strengthens provisions assuring that
revisions in the House bill for assuring
comparable to services provided to other
homeless children and youth, including
school choice and comparable services for
children, and, “to the maximum extent
unaccompanied youth, enroll and obtain
homeless children and youth, nor does it
possible,” through existing programs and
services at the school of their choice, and
include proposed House provisions for
mechanisms that integrate homeless and
obtain comparable services, including
unaccompanied youth. For the substate
nonhomeless students. Each state must
transportation. In distributing funds within
distribution of funds, the Senate bill
distribute at least 95% of its federal grant to
states, at least 75% of each state grant must
maintains current requirements for the
LEAs, except that it can retain at the state
be allocated to LEAs, with an exception that
allocation of federal funds to LEAs.
level up to 100% of the amount it received
at least 50% must be allocated to LEAs in
under the program in FY1990.
states receiving minimum grant amounts.

CRS-17
Provision
Current law
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Housea
H.R. 1, as Passed by the Senateb
Other major non-
Not applicable
Prohibits the use of federal funds by any
Prohibits the use of federal funds by any
ESEA provisions
state or local educational agency or school
state or local educational agency or school
(not described
that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of
that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of
above)
America in providing equal access to school
America in providing equal access to school
premises or facilities. Also authorizes or
premises or facilities; and it would
expands non-ESEA program of aid to Boys
separately provide that no public school,
and Girls Clubs.
LEA, or SEA may deny equal access to
meet after school in a designated open forum
to any youth group listed in Title 36 of the
U.S. Code as a patriotic society, including
the Boy Scouts of America, based on that
group’s favorable or unfavorable position
concerning sexual orientation. Also
authorizes or expands non-ESEA programs
of aid to environmental education, school
resource officers, school environment
protection, Troops-to-Teachers, and Boys
and Girls Clubs.
aBased on the text of H.R. 1, as passed by the House.
bBased on the text of H.R. 1, as passed by the Senate