Introduction

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ). Most programs authorized by the ESEA were authorized through FY2007. As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA, appropriations for ESEA programs are currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the programs continue to receive annual appropriations, appropriations are considered implicitly authorized. 
During the 112 th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On October 20, 2011, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011 ( S. 3578 ; S.Rept. 112-221 ) by a bipartisan vote of 15-7. The House Education and Workforce Committee considered and ordered reported two bills that together would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA: (1) the Student Success Act ( H.R. 3989 , H.Rept. 112-458 ), and (2) the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act ( H.R. 3990 ; H.Rept. 112-459 Part 1). Both bills were ordered reported on February 28, 2012, on strictly partisan votes (23-16 in each case). It is unclear whether S. 3578 or H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 will be considered on the Senate or House floors, respectively.
S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant. In addition, both the HELP Committee and Education and Workforce Committee bills would eliminate existing programs, while creating new programs. 
This report examines major features of S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 with respect to current law. The report begins by discussing the approach that each bill takes toward reshaping the ESEA in key areas. Next, the report provides a structured orientation by ESEA title and part to how the ESEA would be reconfigured under each bill. Then it more thoroughly summarizes the major proposals in the aforementioned bills, focusing on those aspects of the bills that would fundamentally change a portion of current law. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of these bills or of technical changes that would be made by each measure. The report concludes with an appendix that examines the proposed program authorizations included in each bill. As H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would collectively provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA, beginning with the structured orientation to how the bills would change the ESEA, they are considered as if they are one bill.
For the purposes of this report, a program is considered to be a new program if the program is a newly proposed program or is a substantively changed or reconfigured existing program (e.g., changes multiple aspects of a program, such as the purpose of the program, distribution of funds, uses of funds, or eligible recipients of funds). Programs included in the ESEA reauthorization bills are considered to be similar to programs in current law if they are substantively similar in purpose, recipients, and activities. The tables in this report refer to these programs as being "retained" by a particular bill. For example, the Advanced Placement program is considered to be retained under S. 3578 , as the new program (Accelerated Learning) would be substantively similar to the program included in current law, despite the inclusion of new funding to support tests administered under the International Baccalaureate program. On the other hand, the block grant program created under H.R. 3990 is considered a new program, as it differs from the current Innovative Programs block grant program in numerous ways including program purposes, funding to subgrantees, and allowable activities. Concurrently, the current law block grant program is considered to be "not retained" under H.R. 3990 .
It should be noted that an indication that a particular program or activity would not be included in a particular bill does not mean that all of the activities authorized under current law for the program would be eliminated. The activities may be continued under a different program. For example, while H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would no longer retain many of the current ESEA programs, H.R. 3990 would include a block grant program under which funds could potentially be used for similar activities as were permitted or required under some programs that would not be retained. The uses of funds under the proposed block grant program are discussed in this report. Similarly, if an existing program or activity is not specifically mentioned as allowable under a new program, it should not be assumed that funds could not be used to support such programs or activities. It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss proposed programs or activities in great detail. At the same time, an indication that a program would be "similar to current law" does not mean that it would be retained without changes. As previously discussed, this report focuses on major changes that would be made to current law, so there may be additional changes made to a program or activity that are not highlighted in this report. 

	Brief Summary of Reauthorization Approaches in Key Areas

This section of the report examines the reauthorization approaches taken by S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 in three key areas: (1) accountability for student achievement, (2) teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness, and (3) targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant. For each of the three areas, a brief discussion of the treatment of the issue under current law is included, followed by a summary of how S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 would address the issues.

		Accountability for Student Achievement

Under NCLB, a series of comprehensive standards-based accountability requirements were enacted. States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools must comply with these requirements in order to receive Title I-A funds. The key features of these requirements are discussed below. This is followed by a brief discussion of how S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 would treat each of these requirements.
Standards. At a minimum, each state must adopt challenging academic content and challenging student academic achievement standards in mathematics and reading/language arts (hereinafter referred to as reading) for each of grades 3-8 and for one grade in grades 10-12. States must also adopt content and achievement standards for science for at least three grade levels (grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12). States may choose to adopt standards for other subject areas. Assessments. All states must develop and implement yearly assessments aligned with content and achievement standards in reading and mathematics for grades 3-8 and one grade in grades 10-12. In addition, the state must develop and administer science assessments aligned with content and achievement standards once in grades 3-5, grades 6-9, and grades 10-12 Annual measurable objectives (AMOs). States must develop AMOs that are established separately for reading and mathematics assessments, are the same for all schools and LEAs, identify a single minimum percentage of students who must meet or exceed the proficient level on the assessments that applies to the all students group and each subgroup for which data are disaggregated, and must ensure that all students will meet or exceed the state's proficient level of achievement on the assessments based on a timeline established by the state. The timeline must incorporate concrete movement toward meeting an "ultimate goal" of all students reaching a proficient or higher level of achievement by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP is determined based on three components: student academic achievement on the required state reading and mathematics assessments, with a focus on the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or higher; 95% student participation rates in assessments by all students and for any subgroup for which data are disaggregated; and performance on another academic indicator, which must be graduation rates for high schools. Schools or LEAs meet AYP standards only if they meet the required threshold levels of performance on all three indicators for the all students group and any subgroup for which data are disaggregated. AYP must be determined separately and specifically not only for all students but also for all subgroups for which data must be disaggregated within each school, LEA, and state. Consequences based on performance. States are required to identify LEAs, and LEAs are required to identify schools, for program improvement if the LEA or school failed to meet the state AYP standards for two consecutive years. LEAs or schools that fail to meet AYP standards for additional years are required to take a variety of actions. For example, schools that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years are identified for school improvement and must offer public school choice to students, develop a school improvement plan, and use Title I-A funds for professional development. Failure to make AYP for an additional year results in a school also having to offer supplemental educational services (SES). LEAs are required to reserve 20% of their Title I-A funds for transportation for public school choice and for SES. Schools that fail to make AYP for an additional year continue to do all of the aforementioned activities and enter into corrective action. Under corrective action, they are required to take one of several statutorily specified actions, including replacing school staff, changing the curriculum, extending the school year or school day, or working with an outside expert. Subsequent failure to make AYP requires a school to plan for and, ultimately, implement restructuring. Restructuring involves the continuation of the aforementioned activities and implementation of an alternative governance structure, such as converting to a charter school. It should be noted that these consequences are applied regardless of the extent to which a school failed to make AYP in a given year but consequences need only be applied to schools receiving Title I-A funds. 

			S. 3578

S. 3578 would retain similar requirements related to standards and assessments; however, all states would be required to develop college and career ready standards in reading and mathematics, and assessments would have to be aligned with these new standards. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple assessments administered throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. They would no longer be required to establish AMOs, but they would be required to determine whether students were on-track to being college- and career-ready by the time they graduated from high school. The bill would also eliminate the concept of AYP. It would require that assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and not less than 95% of the members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated. The bill would also require that high school graduation rates be reported. While no specific consequences are associated with failing to meet the participation rate requirement, schools with relatively low graduation rates may be subject to interventions. In addition, while states would be required to determine whether students are on-track to being college- and career-ready, there would be no "ultimate goal" with associated consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. 
With respect to "consequences," states would be required to identify "persistently low-achieving schools," which would include the lowest performing 5% of elementary and secondary schools (not including high schools) based on assessment results, the lowest 5% of high schools based on graduation rates and assessment results, and all other high schools with less than a 60% graduation rate. These schools would be required to implement a transformation, strategic staffing, turnaround, whole school reform, restart, or closure model, or other strategies approved by the Secretary. The bill would require that public school choice be offered to students attending these schools. There would be no requirement to offer SES. The bill would also require states to identify "achievement gap schools." These would be the 5% of elementary and secondary schools (not including high schools) and 5% of high schools that are not identified as persistently low achieving but have the largest achievement gap among subgroups or the lowest performance by subgroup with respect to being college and career ready or graduation rates. LEAs would be required to develop an intervention plan for these schools.

			H.R. 3989

Under H.R. 3989 , states would be required to adopt content and achievement standards for mathematics and reading and any other subject as determined by the state. Assessments would have to be aligned with these standards and be administered in each of grades 3-8 and once in grades 9-12. The state would no longer be required to have science standards or aligned assessments. States would have the discretion to administer a single annual summative assessment or multiple assessments administered throughout the school year that result in a single summative score. States would no longer be required to establish AMOs. The bill would also eliminate the concept of AYP. It would require that assessments be administered to not less than 95% of all students and not less than 95% of the members of each subgroup for which data are disaggregated. The bill would also require that high school graduation rates be reported. In addition, there would be no "ultimate goal" with associated consequences toward which states, LEAs, and schools must work. 
The bill would eliminate current outcome accountability requirements. States would be required to include a system for school improvement for public schools receiving Title I-A-1 funds that would be implemented by LEAs and includes implementing interventions that are designed to address such schools' weaknesses. While public school choice and SES would no longer be required, the bill would create a new reservation of funds, however, for direct services to students under Section 1003A. States would be required to reserve 3% of the total amount received by the state under Title I-A-1 (Grants to LEAs) to make competitive grants to LEAs to provide public school choice or high-quality academic tutoring that is designed to help increase student academic achievement.

		Teacher Quality and Performance

With the enactment of NCLB, new requirements were included in Title I-A to ensure an equitable distribution of highly qualified instruction across schools and establish minimum professional standards for what constitutes a highly qualified teacher. NCLB also authorized programs to support efforts to meet the teacher quality requirements as well as systems that reward teacher performance. These provisions are described below followed by a discussion of how S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 would amend them. 
Distribution. Current law requires that states ensure Title I schools provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff and take specific steps to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. Newly hired teachers. Each LEA receiving Title I-A funds must ensure that all newly hired teachers teaching in a program supported by such funds be highly qualified. Highly qualified teacher (HQT). The definition of an HQT has two basic components involving professional credentials and subject-matter knowledge. First, to be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must possess a baccalaureate degree and full state teaching certification. Second, a teacher must demonstrate subject-matter knowledge in the areas that she or he teaches. The manner in which teachers satisfy the second component depends on the extent of their teaching experience and the educational level at which they teach. Deadline. Each state receiving Title I-A funds was required to have a plan to ensure that, by no later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year, all public school teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the state met the definition of an HQT. The plan was required to set annual measurable objectives to meet this deadline. Support. The Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment Fund (Title II-A) provides formula grants to support state and local efforts to meet ESEA teacher quality requirements. Performance. The Teacher Incentive Fund (Title V-D) supports competitive grants for high-need schools to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems that must consider gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other factors. 

			S. 3578

S. 3578 would retain similar requirements to those in current law regarding the equitable distribution of teachers with some adjustments in determining whether teachers are equally distributed. Most notably, states would be required to use at least two of five measures of teacher quality and performance including the percentage and distribution of teachers who (1) are HQT, (2) are inexperienced, (3) have not completed a preparation program, (4) are teaching out-of-field, or (5) are rated in the highest and lowest categories under an approved teacher evaluation system. The bill would also retain a similar definition of HQT and require each LEA receiving Title I-A funds to meet the requirement for all teachers in core academic subjects as defined in current law. 
The bill would provide an exception to the HQT requirement for LEAs in a state that has fully implemented an approved teacher evaluation system. Such LEAs would be required to meet the HQT requirement with respect to new core subject matter teachers only. An approved teacher evaluation system is defined in a manner that is similar to the definition currently used in the Teacher Incentive Fund. An approved evaluation system must be based "in significant part" on student academic achievement, involve classroom observations, provide meaningful feedback, establish multiple performance categories, use multiple measures, inform professional development, and include training for evaluators. The bill would retain the Title II-A formula grant program with modest amendments.

			H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990

H.R. 3989 would eliminate current requirements regarding the equitable distribution of instructional quality and highly qualified teachers. In addition, under H.R. 3990 , as a condition of receiving Title II-A funds, LEAs would be required to have a teacher evaluation system in place that uses student achievement as a "significant factor," is based on multiple measures, involves more than two performance categories, and is used to make personnel decisions within three years of enactment. 
H.R. 3990 would retain formula grant funding under Title II-A; however, the enrollment and poverty elements used for allocation would be modified. The bill would also curtail allowable activities largely to those that support the development and implementation of state and local evaluation systems for teachers. 

		Targeted Support Versus Block Grant

Under current law, the ESEA includes several formula grant programs that provide grants to states, LEAs, or other entities (e.g., Indian tribes). These programs provide aid to support specific student populations (e.g., disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students), provide additional aid to entities based on their location (i.e., rural LEAs), or provide funds for a specific set of activities (e.g., those related to literacy or school safety). The ESEA also contains numerous competitive grant programs, which generally receive less funding than formula grant programs. The competitive grant programs included in the ESEA address issues such as counseling, arts education, physical education, and magnet schools. As shown in Table 1 , many of the competitive grant programs and some of the formula grant programs included in the ESEA are no longer funded. 
The HELP Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee have proposed fundamentally different approaches with respect to how to continue to provide funding through the ESEA. In general, S. 3578 would retain several competitive grant programs and create new programs to support activities that are currently supported under either formula or competitive grant programs that would otherwise be eliminated. H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would eliminate some formula grant programs and most competitive grant programs included in current law but would include a block grant program whose funding could potentially be used to support similar activities to those that are supported under programs slated for elimination. The divergent approaches taken by these bills with respect to targeted support and block grants are discussed in more detail below.

			S. 3578

S. 3578 would retain most of the current formula grant programs, while eliminating several competitive grant programs (see Table 1 ). It would add several targeted grant programs that would broadly support similar activities as those supported under programs being eliminated. For example, the bill would add a new literacy program; a new science, technology, engineering, and mathematics program; a program to support a well-rounded education which would fund subject-matter specific activities (e.g., arts, economics); and a program focused on student well-being. The bill would not include a block grant program.

			H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990

H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would retain some, but not all, of the existing formula grant programs and would eliminate most competitive grant programs (see Table 1 ). However, H.R. 3990 includes a new block grant program (the Local Academic Flexible grant) that would be authorized at $2.7 billion and would provide formula grants to states. In contrast, the Innovative Programs grant program, the block grant included under current law, was last authorized at $600 million and last funded at $99 million in FY2007. The new block grant program would afford states considerable flexibility in how funds are used.
Under the new block grant program, states would be required to use at least 75% of the funds received to award competitive grants to eligible entities which include partnerships of LEAs, community-based organizations (CBOs), business entities, and nongovernmental entities. All partnerships are required to include at least one LEA. In addition, the state would be required to use not less than 10% to award competitive grants to nongovernment entities. States could use funds for state level activities as well. For instance, SEAs could use funds to develop standards and assessments, to administer assessments, to monitor and evaluate programs and activities receiving funding, to provide training and technical assistance, for statewide academic focused programs, to share evidence-based and other effective strategies, and for administrative costs. Grants to LEAs and other eligible entities could be used for either (1) supplemental student support activities (e.g., before or after school activities, tutoring, expanded learning time) but not in-school learning activities; and (2) activities to support students (e.g., academic subject specific programs, extended learning time programs, parent engagement) but not class-size reduction, construction, or staff compensation. Nongovernmental entities must use funds for a program or project to increase the academic achievement of public school students attending a public elementary or secondary school. Thus, it is possible that funds provided under this program could be used to support activities that previously received ESEA support, but which would no longer have a targeted funding stream under H.R. 3989 or H.R. 3990 . However, there is no way to know whether a state or an LEA would receive the same amount of funding, less funding, or more funding under the proposed block grant program as it would if programs that would be eliminated under H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 were retained. 

	Structural Orientation of the ESEA Reauthorization Proposals

Table 1 provides a structural orientation by ESEA title and part of how S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 would modify current law based primarily on line-item amounts for ESEA programs included in appropriations tables, as well as the individual programs included under the Fund for the Improvement of Education. This list of "programs" does not take into account the number of programs, projects, or activities that may be funded under a single line-item appropriation, so the actual number of ESEA programs, projects, or activities being supported through appropriations is not shown. Current ESEA programs under which the federal government provides grants to the initial grantee (as opposed to a subgrantee) by formula are noted on the table.
The table provides appropriations information for FY2012. It also indicates where S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 would place a given program in a reauthorized ESEA if the program is retained. It should be noted that an indication that a program would not be retained does not mean that all of the activities authorized under current law for the program would be eliminated. The activities may be continued under a different program. For example, while H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would no longer retain many of the current ESEA programs, H.R. 3990 would include a block grant program under which funds could potentially be used for similar activities as were permitted or required under some programs that would not be retained. In addition, if an existing ESEA program would not be retained but a new, targeted program would address similar broad purposes (e.g., literacy, dropout prevention), this has been noted in the table. 
At the same time, an indication that a program would be retained does not mean that it would be retained without changes. For example, while both S. 3578 and H.R. 3990 would retain a state grant program focused on teachers like Title II-A of the ESEA, both bills would modify the formula used to award grants and would change the uses of funds. In addition, an indication that a program would be retained does not mean that it would be retained under the same name. For example, the Advanced Placement program in current law would be retained as the Accelerated Learning program under S. 3578 . The program would be expanded to include International Baccalaureate programs and exams.

	Comparison of Key Features of ESEA Reauthorization Proposals with Current Law

Table 2 compares S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 to current law. It provides a more detailed description of specific features of each bill. It is arranged thematically, focusing on key issues that have arisen during the reauthorization process. The themes are as follows:
Overall structural and funding issues Accountability Title I-A Other issues related to special populations/areas Teachers, principals, and school leadership Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education Flexibility and choice Other program areas addressed by current law Programs currently authorized outside of the ESEA and proposed for inclusion in the ESEA General provisions Key changes included in ESEA reauthorization bills to non-ESEA programs/acts
No attempts were made to provide a comprehensive analysis of each of the bills or to compare S. 3578 with H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 . 

		Appendix. Comparison of Program Authorizations Included in ESEA Reauthorization Proposals with Current Law

Table A-1 examines specific program authorizations included in current law compared with those included in S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , and H.R. 3990 . Overall, current law included 46 specific authorizations compared with 36 in S. 3578 and 12 in H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 . It should be noted that a single authorization may apply to more than one program. Table A-1 was designed to show the actual number of explicit authorizations included in current law and each of the bills. In order to make this table more useful, however, if proposed statutory language indicated that certain programs receive a specific share of a given authorization, this has been indicated on the table as well. For example, H.R. 3989 includes only two authorizations, but proposed statutory language would provide a specified share of one of those authorizations to multiple, individual programs.
A new program authorization under S. 3578 , H.R. 3989 , or H.R. 3990 should not be interpreted to mean that the program was not authorized under current law. For example, S. 3578 would include separate authorizations for Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grants and for Promise Neighborhoods. Both of these programs are currently funded and were enacted through appropriations language using general authority available to the Secretary under the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE; Title V-D-1). Under current law, there is only one authorization for FIE that encompasses 21 subparts, including Title V-D-1, without specifying a share of the authorization for a given subpart. Therefore, under current law, separate authorizations are not listed for the TIF or Promise Neighborhoods program.
In general, all of the authorizations included in S. 3578 are for "such sums" for FY2012 and each of the four succeeding fiscal years (i.e., through FY2016). H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 specify authorization amounts for FY2013 only. The amounts authorized for FY2014 through FY2018 would be determined by increasing the FY2013 authorization amount by a percentage equal to the percentage of inflation as determined by the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of that fiscal year. 
Given that most of the authorizations in current law and all of the authorizations in S. 3578 are for "such sums as may be necessary," it is not possible to calculate the total amount authorized across current law and the ESEA reauthorization bills. With that said, the total authorized level in H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 is $24.0 billion. FY2012 appropriations for ESEA under current law are $23.3 billion. It should be noted that an authorization of an appropriation is only an authorization. Congress can and does enact appropriations at funding levels that differ from authorization levels.

Summary:
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 112th Congress, both the House and Senate have considered legislation to reauthorize the ESEA. On October 20, 2011, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee considered and ordered reported the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 3578; S.Rept. 112-221) by a bipartisan vote of 15-7. The House Education and Workforce Committee considered and ordered reported two bills that together would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA: (1) the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989, H.Rept. 112-458), and (2) the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R. 3990; H.Rept. 112-459 Part 1). Both bills were ordered reported on February 28, 2012, on strictly partisan votes (23-16 in each case). It is unclear whether S. 3578 or H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 will be considered on the Senate or House floors, respectively.
S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would take different approaches to reauthorizing the ESEA, most notably in three key areas:
1. Accountability for student achievement: Both S. 3578 and H.R. 3989 would modify current accountability requirements related to student achievement, including eliminating the requirement to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the requirement to apply a specified set of outcome accountability provisions to all schools, regardless of the extent to which they failed to make AYP. While both bills would continue to require that states have standards for, and assess students annually in, reading and mathematics, only S. 3578 would continue to require states to have standards and assessments in science. S. 3578 would require various interventions to be implemented in certain low achieving schools, while H.R. 3989 would not require specific actions to be taken in low performing schools.
2. Teacher quality versus teacher effectiveness: S. 3578 would retain requirements related to "teacher quality" unless a state met several requirements related to teacher performance evaluation, including using student achievement as part of the teacher evaluation process. H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would eliminate current "teacher quality" requirements but would require local educational agencies to implement teacher performance evaluation systems based, in part, on student achievement.
3. Targeted support for elementary and secondary education versus the use of a block grant: Each bill would consolidate some existing competitive grant programs, but H.R. 3989 and H.R. 3990 would consolidate a greater number of programs than S. 3578. At the same time, S. 3578 would create several new targeted grant programs, while H.R. 3990 would greatly expand the use of block grant funding.