Department of Education

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2014 Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations language..............................................................................................................E-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes ..........................................................................E-2

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers ...................................................................................E-3

Summary of Changes ..................................................................................................................E-4

Authorizing Legislation.................................................................................................................E-6

Appropriations History..................................................................................................................E-8

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports..................................................................E-9

Summary of Request .................................................................................................................E-10

Activities:

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy .............................................................................E-13

Ready-to-learn television ..................................................................................................E-16

Striving readers .................................................................................................................E-22

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education..............................................E-27

Arts in education ...............................................................................................................E-30

College pathways and accelerated learning .........................................................................E-37

High school graduation initiative .......................................................................................E-40

Advanced placement ........................................................................................................E-45

Assessing achievement.........................................................................................................E-51

Training and advisory services..............................................................................................E-57

Rural education .....................................................................................................................E-62

Supplemental education grants.............................................................................................E-72

Comprehensive centers ........................................................................................................E-75

Native Hawaiian student education.......................................................................................E-83

Alaska Native student education...........................................................................................E-86

State tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2013 allocations and 2014 estimates will be posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-1

Appropriations language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by section 203 of the Educational 

Technical Assistance Act of 2002; the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; 

and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $75,694,000, of which $51,113,000 shall be available to carry 

out section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002:1 Provided, That 

$17,619,000 shall be available to carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands:2 Provided further, That 

the Secretary of Education may reserve up to 5 percent of the amount referred to in the previous 

proviso to provide technical assistance in the implementation of the Supplemental Education 

Grants program.3

NOTES

No language is included for programs authorized under the expired Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 

when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is enacted, a budget request for 

these programs will be proposed.

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ...$51,113,000 shall be available to carry 

out section 203 of the Educational Technical 

Assistance Act of 2002:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program.

2 Provided, That $17,619,000 shall be 

available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands.

3 Provided further, That the Secretary of 

Education may reserve up to 5 percent of the 

amount referred to in the previous proviso to 

provide technical assistance in the 

implementation of the Supplemental 

Education Grants program.

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of their Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-3

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2012 2013 2014

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation............................................................ $4,550,018 $4,544,596 $1,075,559

Discretionary Across-the-board reduction (P.L. 112-74) ............... -5,422 0 0

Discretionary Across-the-board increase (P.L. 112-175) .............. 0 17,523 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation ......... 4,544,596 4,562,119 1,075,559

Discretionary Comparative transfer to:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity for:

Homeless children and youth education .............. -65,173 -65,173 0

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Improving teacher quality State grants ................. -2,466,567 -2,466,567 0

Mathematics and science partnerships ................ -149,716 -149,716 0

Supporting Student Success for:

21st century community learning centers ............. -1,151,673 -1,151,673 0

Discretionary Comparative transfer from:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity for:

High school graduation initiative ......................... 48,809 48,809 0

Striving readers ................................................... 159,698 159,698 0

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Advanced placement........................................... 30,055 30,055 0

Arts in education.................................................. 24,953 24,953 0

Ready-to-learn television..................................... 27,194 27,194 0

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation ................................................ 1,002,176 1,019,699 1,075,559

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year......................... -1,681,441 -1,681,441 0

Advance from prior year........................................... 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441

Total, budget authority......................................... 1,002,176 1,019,699 2,757,000

Comparative transfer to:

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Improving teacher quality State grants................

Advance for succeeding fiscal year..................... 1,681,441 1,681,441 0

Advance from prior year ...................................... -1,681,441 -1,681,441 -1,681,441

Total, comparable budget authority................ 1,002,176 1,019,699 1,075,559

NOTE: Amounts for transferred programs exclude the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by 

P.L. 112-175. The comparable total 0.612 percent across-the-board increase for the account is $6,133 thousand.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2012..................................................................................................... $1,002,176

2014..................................................................................................... 1,075,559

Net change .................................................................. +73,383

Increases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Initial funding for the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning: 

Literacy program to support State and local efforts aimed at 

implementing a comprehensive literacy strategy that provides 

high-quality literacy instruction and support to students from prekindergarten to grade 12. 0 +$186,892

Initial funding for the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning 

for a Well-Rounded Education to support State and local efforts 

to develop and expand innovative practices to improve teaching 

and learning in the arts, health education, foreign languages, 

civics and government, history, geography, environmental 

education, economics, financial literacy, and other subjects. 0 +75,000

Initial funding for the proposed College Pathways and 

Accelerated Learning to support programs that prepare students 

in high-need school districts to enter and succeed in college. 0 +102,200

Subtotal, increases +364,092

Decreases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for Striving Readers and Ready-to-Learn 

Television because these programs are proposed for 

consolidation into the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy 

program. $186,892 -$186,892

Eliminate funding for Arts in Education because it is proposed for 

consolidation into the Effective Teaching and Learning for a WellRounded Education. 24,953 -24,953
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-5

Decreases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Eliminate funding for the High School Graduation Initiative and 

Advanced Placement programs because these programs are 

proposed for consolidation into the proposed College Pathways 

and Accelerated Learning. $78,864 -$78,864

Subtotal, decreases -290,709

Net change +73,383
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-6

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013

Authorized

footnote

2013

Estimate

footnote

2014

Authorized footnote

2014

Request

footnote

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy:

ELTL Effective teaching and learning: Literacy (proposed legislation) -- --

To be 

determined $186,892

ELTL Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) 0 $27,194 01 0

ELTL Striving readers (ESEA I-E, section 1502) 0 159,698 01 0

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education:

ETLW Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education 

(proposed legislation) -- --

To be 

determined 75,000

ETLW Arts in education (ESEA V-D, subpart 15) 0 24,953 01 0

College pathways and accelerated learning:

CP College pathways and accelerated learning (proposed 

legislation) -- --

To be 

determined 102,200

CP High school graduation initiative (ESEA I-H) 0 48,809 01 0

CP Advanced Placement (ESEA I-G) 0 30,055 01 0

Assessing achievement (ESEA VI-A-1) 0 389,214

To be 

determined1 389,214

Training and advisory services (CRA IV) 0 6,962 0 6,962

Rural education (ESEA VI-B) 0 179,193

To be 

determined1,2 179,193

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association 

Act) $20,6673 17,619 $20,6673 17,619

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 0 51,113 04 51,113

Native Hawaiian student education (ESEA VII-B and HEA VIII-Z) 0 34,181

To be 

determined1 34,181
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued 

E-7

Activity

2013

Authorized

footnote

2013

Estimate

footnote

2014

Authorized footnote

2014

Request

footnote

Alaska Native student education (ESEA VII-C) 0 $33,185

To be 

determined1 $33,185

Unfunded authorizations

UA Early reading first (ESEA I-B-2) 0 0 0 0

UA Special education teacher training (ESEA, Section 2151(d)) 0 0 0 0

UA Early childhood educator professional development (ESEA, 

Section 2151(e)) 0 0 0 0

UA Teacher mobility (ESEA, Section 2151(f)) 0 0 0 0

UA Civic education (ESEA II-C-3) 0 0 0 0

UA Teaching American history (ESEA II-C-4) 0 0 0 0

UA State grants for innovative programs (ESEA V-A) 0 0 0 0

UA Foreign language assistance (ESEA V-D, Subpart 9) 0 0 0 0

UA Excellence in economic education (ESEA V-D, Subpart 13) 0 0 0 0

Total definite authorization.............................................................. $20,667 $20,667

Total appropriation .......................................................................... 1,002,176 1,075,559

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 686,886

Portion of request not authorized 364,092

Total appropriation including the 0.612 percent across-the-board 

increase ........................................................................................ 1,008,309

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 under new legislation. 2 The amount appropriated to carry out Title VI, Part B is to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2. 3 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing statute, which requires such adjustments 

through fiscal year 2023. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009. The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposes authorizing this program through appropriations 

language.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2005 $5,940,493 $5,661,401 $5,730,632 $5,619,657

(2005 Advance for 2006) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000)

2006 5,332,219 5,393,765 5,457,953 5,255,478

(2006 Advance for 2007) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000)

2007 4,973,158 N/A1 N/A1 5,255,478

(2007 Advance for 2008) (1,435,000) (1,435,000)

2008 4,698,276 5,693,668 5,198,525 5,289,076

(2008 Advance for 2009) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000)

Supp. (P.L. 110-329) 0 0 0 15,000

2009 4,566,323 5,399,6092 5,292,4222 5,362,016

(2009 Advance for 2010) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,681,441)

Recovery Act Supp. (P.L. 111-5) 0 1,066,000 1,070,000 720,000

2010 5,182,181 5,244,644 5,197,3163 5,228,444

(2010 Advance for 2011) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2011 1,890,779 5,221,4444 5,388,1733 4,593,8415

(2011 Advance for 2012) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (-3,178)

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1026 4,570,1456 4,544,596

(2012 Advance for 2013) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8807 4,544,5967 4,562,1198

(2013 Advance for 2014) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2014 1,075,559

1 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate allowances are 

shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3

 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4

 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5

 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 6

 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 7

 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 8

 The amount shown includes the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, in effect 

through March 27, 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-9E-9

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

Alaska Native Educational Equity

Senate: The Committee is aware that the ESEA includes a priority for funding under this 

program for applications from Alaska Native regional nonprofit organizations, or 

consortia that include at least one Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to distribute funding for new 

awards under this program based only on the priority authorized under part C of 

title VII of the ESEA.

Response: The Department understands the Committee’s views regarding the use of the 

statutory priority for this program, but also believes that the supplemental 

priorities used in the fiscal year 2012 competition were essential for ensuring not 

only that funds were awarded to certain types of entities, but also that applicants 

were encouraged to think carefully about using funds to support important 

education reforms aimed at improving student outcomes.

Rural Education

Senate: The Committee expects that rural education funding will be equally divided 

between the Small, Rural Schools Achievement Program, which provides funds 

to LEAs that serve a small number of students, and the Rural and Low-Income 

Schools Program, which provides funds to LEAs that serve concentrations of 

poor students, regardless of the number of students served.

Response: As called for in the authorizing legislation, the Department will continue to use half 

of the Rural Education Achievement program appropriation for the Small, Rural 

School Achievement program and half for the Rural and Low-Income School 

program.
ACCOUNT

E-10E-10

E-10

Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Education Improvement Programs

 1. Effective teaching and learning: Literacy: 

(a) Effective teaching and learning: Literacy (proposed legislation) D 0 0 186,892 186,892 ---

(b) Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) D 27,194 27,194 0 (27,194) -100.000%

(c) Striving readers (ESEA I-E, section 1502) D 159,698 159,698 0 (159,698) -100.000%

Subtotal 186,892 186,892 186,892 0 0.000%

2 Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education:

(a) Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education (proposed legislation) D 0 0 75,000 75,000 ---

(b) Arts in education (ESEA V-D, subpart 15) D 24,953 24,953 0 (24,953) -100.000%

Subtotal 24,953 24,953 75,000 50,047 200.565%

 3. College pathways and accelerated learning:

(a) College pathways and accelerated learning (proposed legislation) D 0 0 102,200 102,200 ---

(b) High school graduation initiative (ESEA I-H) D 48,809 48,809 0 (48,809) -100.000%

(c) Advanced placement (ESEA I-G) 1 D 30,055 30,055 0 (30,055) -100.000%

Subtotal 78,864 78,864 102,200 23,336 29.590%

 4. Assessing achievement (ESEA VI-A-1) D 389,214 389,214 389,214 0 0.000%

 5. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,962 6,962 6,962 0 0.000%

 6. Rural education (ESEA VI-B) D 179,193 179,193 179,193 0 0.000%

 7. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 17,619 17,619 17,619 0 0.000%

 8. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 51,113 51,113 51,113 0 0.000%

 9. Native Hawaiian student education (ESEA VII-B and HEA VIII-Z) D 34,181 34,181 34,181 0 0.000%

 10. Alaska Native student education (ESEA VII-C) D 33,185 33,185 33,185 0 0.000%

Total 1,002,176 1,002,176 1,075,559 73,383 7.322%

Across-the-board 0.612% increase applied to discretionary appropriation, provided in P.L. 112-175. 6,133

Total 1, 2 D 1,002,176 1,008,309 1,075,559 73,383 7.322%

NOTES: D = discretionary program, M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

- FY 2013 discretionary appropriation amounts are based on P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, that provided appropriations through March 27, 2013. FY 2013 mandatory amounts are 

either specifically authorized levels, or are based on FY 2013 President's Budget Policy, updated for more recent estimates of mandatory costs, or FY 2014 President's Budget Policy, as applicable.

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 are proposed under new authorizing legislation. 

- Multiple programs affected by the proposed ESEA reauthorization have been renamed and moved among accounts, some of which also have been renamed. 

- Account totals and programs shown within accounts in FY 2012 and FY 2013 have been adjusted for comparability with the FY 2014 President's Budget.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

1 Reflects a reprogramming to Advanced Placement in FY 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance and $200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants, appropriated to the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

2 Adjusted for comparability. Excludes $65,173 thousand in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for Homeless Children and Youth Education requested in the FY 2014 President's Budget under the Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring 

Equity account, and $2,466,567 thousand for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and $149,716 thousand for Mathematics and Science Partnerships requested in FY 2014 under the Innovation and 

Includes $30,055 thousand in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for Advanced Placement, $27,194 thousand for Ready-to-Learn Television, and $24,953 thousand for Arts in Education, appropriated to the Innovation and

Instructional Teams account. 

2014 President's Budget 

Compared to 2012 Appropriation
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-11

Summary of Request

The programs in the Education Improvement Programs (EIP) account support State and local 

efforts to implement the reforms and educational improvements called for in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). More specifically, the activities in this account provide flexible 

resources to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement across the core content 

areas; prepare students to enter and succeed in college; and pay the costs of developing and 

administering student achievement assessments. The account also includes a variety of smaller 

programs addressing particular educational needs or special populations.

The fiscal year 2014 appropriation would support the first year of a reauthorized ESEA. The 

Administration’s request for programs in the EIP account (except for three non-ESEA programs) 

is proposed for later transmittal pending the enactment of the reauthorization. The Administration

is requesting a total of approximately $1.1 billion for programs in this account. This request 

represents a strengthening and expansion of existing ESEA programs under three broad 

program authorities: Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy, Effective Teaching and 

Learning for a Well-Rounded Education, and College Pathways and Accelerated Learning. 

The budget also reallocates programs across budget accounts in order to better align the budget 

presentation with the structure of the ESEA as proposed for reauthorization.

The requested $187 million for Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy would support State 

and local efforts aimed at implementing and supporting a comprehensive literacy strategy that 

provides high-quality literacy instruction and support to students from pre-kindergarten through 

grade 12.

The Administration also requests $75 million for Effective Teaching and Learning for a WellRounded Education to support States and high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) in 

developing and expanding innovative practices that improve teaching and learning in the arts, 

health education, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, environmental 

education, economics, financial literacy, and other subjects.

The Administration also is proposing a new $102 million College Pathways and Accelerated 

Learning program to support competitive grants to States and LEAs for expansion of such 

activities as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual high school/college 

enrollment, and “early college high schools” in order to prepare more students for high school 

graduation and success in college.

The Administration requests $389 million for Assessing Achievement (State Assessments

under current law) to assist States and other entities in developing and implementing 

assessments that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards. Formula funds would 

support States’ implementation of the assessments currently required under Title I of the ESEA 

while they transition to new college- and career-ready standards and assessments that capture 

a fuller picture of what students know and are able to do. Funds also may be used to acquire, 

and to train teachers and other staff to use, the educational technology needed to implement 

new, computer-based assessments. Funds for competitive grants would also support targeted 

projects to advance States’ and other entities’ efforts to implement new assessment 

requirements of the reauthorized Title I and to develop additional assessments that support the 

improvement of teaching and learning. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2014 would support 

a grant competition to assist consortia of States in developing high-quality assessments in areas 

of common need.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-12E-12

The 2014 request also includes:

• $7 million for Training and Advisory Services to support regional equity assistance 

centers that provide technical assistance to school districts in addressing educational 

equity related to issues of race, gender, and national origin;

• $179 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that 

often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA;

• $18 million for Supplemental Education Grants program to provide support to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and to the Republic of the Marshall Islands in place of 

grant programs in which those Freely Associated States no longer participate pursuant to 

the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003;

• $51 million for Comprehensive Centers to provide comprehensive technical assistance 

to grantees under the Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002;

• $34 million for Native Hawaiian Student Education to provide supplemental education 

programs and services to Native Hawaiian children and adults, in such areas as teacher 

training, family-based education, gifted and talented education, special education, higher 

education, and community-based education learning centers; and

• $33 million for Alaska Native Student Education to support the development and 

operation of supplemental education programs and services for Alaska Native children 

and adults.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-13

Activities:

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

0 0 $186,892 +$186,892

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program would provide competitive grants to 

State educational agencies (SEAs), or SEAs in partnership with appropriate outside entities, to 

support the development and implementation of comprehensive, evidence-based State and local 

efforts to provide high-quality literacy programs aligned with college- and career-ready Englishlanguage arts standards. These programs would be designed to strengthen and support 

instruction and increase student achievement in high-need LEAs and schools, with flexibility for 

LEAs to focus funds on the areas of their greatest need from preschool through grade 12.

In awarding State Literacy grants, the Department would give a priority to SEAs that have 

adopted and are implementing a set of high-quality college- and career-ready standards for 

English language arts that are common to a significant number of States. States would be 

permitted to reserve up to 20 percent of grant funds for State-level activities that support 

development and implementation of a comprehensive preschool-through-grade-12 State literacy 

plan. The Department could, at a State’s request, permit that State to use up to 20 percent of its 

grant to make subgrants to high-need LEAs and other entities for additional activities to provide 

high-quality literacy instruction. States would be required to use the remainder of their grant 

funds to make comprehensive literacy subgrants to high-need LEAs and other entities to 

implement a comprehensive high-quality literacy program, especially for projects in high-need 

schools. In making subgrants, States would be required to give priority to eligible entities that, 

among other things, propose projects supported by the strongest available evidence. The 

Department would be permitted to reserve up to 5 percent of the appropriation for competitive 

State Capacity-Building grants that support State efforts to strengthen their capacity to improve 

teaching and student achievement in literacy.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $186.9 million in fiscal year 2014 for Effective Teaching and 

Learning: Literacy, the same as the combined fiscal year 2012 level for Striving Readers and 

Ready to Learn Television. This request would support the first year of the program, which 

would address the need to strengthen and support instruction comprehensively and increase 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

E-14E-14

student achievement in literacy in high-need LEAs and schools. This new program would 

replace the Striving Readers and Ready to Learn Television programs (and other literacy-related 

programs currently authorized by the ESEA and funded in previous fiscal years) with a single 

comprehensive and coherent program that supports the improvement of education in reading, 

writing, and language arts while providing increased flexibility for States and LEAs to develop 

and implement strategies that best meet local needs. The Department believes that this 

approach would help ensure that States and high-need LEAs have in place a solid infrastructure 

across the grade levels to support high-need schools in implementing high-quality, 

developmentally appropriate, and systematic literacy instruction.

Research and assessment data provide strong justification for continued Federal investment in a 

large-scale, evidence-based literacy program targeted to high-need LEAs and schools. Findings 

released in July 2012 from the Department’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study indicate that, at 

kindergarten entry, children from low-income families have significantly lower reading scores 

than other children. These effects of socioeconomic status persist; on the 2011 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than half (53 percent) of fourth-grade 

students in high-poverty schools scored below the basic reading level, compared with only 

15 percent in low-poverty schools. Forty-three percent of eighth-grade students in high-poverty 

schools scored below the basic reading level, compared with only 12 percent in low-poverty 

schools.

The new program would build on recent Congressional action that changed the antecedent 

Striving Readers program from an adolescent literacy program to a comprehensive literacy 

development and education program that provides support for the improvement of literacy 

instruction for children from birth through grade 12. The Department would not continue the 

current practice of allocating funding by specific student age ranges because it believes that 

State and local educators should have the flexibility to serve those students with the greatest 

need for improved literacy instruction, regardless of their age ranges.

The Department would use 2014 funds primarily to pay continuation costs for grants made prior 

to ESEA reauthorization under Striving Readers and Ready-to-Learn Television.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

E-15E-15

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014

Amount for new awards $3,399

Number of new awards 2-5

Peer review of new award applications $500

Continuation awards for antecedent programs $182,993

Total, Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy $186,892

_________________

NOTE: Approximately $182,993 thousand ($157,811 thousand for Striving Readers and $25,182 thousand for 

Ready-to-Learn Television) would be provided in FY 2014 to fund continuation awards for grants made prior to 

enactment of the reauthorization. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-16

Ready-to-learn television

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part D, Subpart 3)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$27,194 $27,1942 0 -$27,194

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 

under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Ready-to-Learn (RTL) Television is designed to facilitate student academic achievement by 

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

and elementary school children and their parents, caregivers, and teachers. At least 60 percent 

of the funding must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children and 

the accompanying support materials and services that can be used to promote the effective 

use of such programming;

• Develop television programming (and digital content, such as applications and online 

educational games, containing RTL-based children’s programming) that is specifically 

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

channels and the Internet, along with accompanying resources for parents and caregivers; and

• Support contracts with public telecommunications and related entities to ensure that programs 

are widely distributed.

Remaining funds may be used to develop and disseminate education and training materials, 

including interactive programs that are designed to promote school readiness through the 

effective use of educational video programs.

Funds are awarded competitively, and only public telecommunications entities are eligible to 

receive awards. Applicants must have the capacity to: develop and distribute high-quality 

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

preschool and elementary school children; contract with the producers of children’s television 

programming; negotiate these contracts in a manner that returns to the grantee an appropriate 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-17E-17

share of income from sales of program-related products; and, target programming and materials 

to meet specific State and local needs, while providing educational outreach at the local level.

Grantees are required to consult with the Departments of Education and Health and Human 

Services on strategies for maximizing the use of quality educational programming for preschool 

and elementary school children. Grantees must also coordinate activities with other Federal 

programs that have major training components related to early childhood development. 

The Department awarded three 5-year grants in September 2010:

• Window to the World Communications, which will receive $32.5 million over the 5-year grant 

period, is partnering with DHX/Wildbrain Entertainment to develop Project UMIGO (“yoU Make 

It GO”), which is being designed to help children age 2 through 8 learn mathematics. Project 

UMIGO will use multiple platforms (including the Internet, cell phones, handheld gaming 

devices, television, DVDs, and books) and a media-based mathematics curriculum to offer 

child-initiated and creative play opportunities (e.g., digital paint, glue, and blocks) that support 

mathematics learning, as well as related support materials and digital resources for parents, 

caregivers, and teachers. The goal is to ensure that children learn the basic principles of 

mathematics and to think creatively, invent, and work collaboratively. (See http://umigo.info/)

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in partnership with the Public Broadcasting Service 

(PBS), will receive $71.1 million over the life of the grant to develop a “transmedia” collection 

(video content, interactive games, mobile apps, and white board applications) designed to 

raise the achievement of children ages 2 to 8 in high-needs communities. Project content will 

be aligned with rigorous mathematics and literacy academic standards, and a progress 

tracking system will provide feedback on student progress to parents and teachers. (See 

http://pbskids.org/readytolearn/commitment.html)

• The Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, which will receive $30 million 

over 5 years, has partnered with Zinkia, Inc., the creators of Pocoyo, to form the Ready to 

Learn Early Learning Collaboration (ELC), which will develop transmedia learning applications 

that promote the acquisition of essential literacy and mathematics skills by 3-to-8 year olds.

Each project will include multiple platforms, including mobile device and phone applications, 

interactive websites, and television, and will include training materials for families, caregivers, 

and educators. (See http://www.hitn.tv/node/380)

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$25,416

2010................................................................27,300

2011................................................................27,245

2012................................................................27,194

2013................................................................27,1941

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-18E-18

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Ready-to-Learn Television (RTL) 

program for fiscal year 2014. In place of this and several other narrowly targeted programs that 

seek to promote improvement of instruction for students of various grade spans, the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) would create a new broader authority, Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete 

Education, that would address the need to comprehensively strengthen instruction and increase 

student achievement in a wide range of core academic subjects in high-need local educational 

agencies (LEAs) and schools. This new authority also would allow the Department to reserve 

funds to support a range of national activities, including research, developing high-quality 

educational and professional-development content, technical assistance, and identifying and 

disseminating information on effective programs and best practices. Public telecommunications 

entities—such as the Public Broadcasting Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and 

similar organizations—would be able to compete for this national activities funding to create 

high-quality educational content for children. 

The fiscal year 2014 request for the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program would 

include funds to pay the 5th and final year of continuation costs for Ready-to-Learn Television 

grants originally made in 2010.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures: 2012 2013 2014

Number of continuation 

awards 3 3 0

Continuation award funding $27,159 $27,104 0

Evaluation (review of grant 

products) 35 90 0

Total 27,194 27,194 0

_________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

Continuation costs of approximately $25,182 thousand for projects awarded in fiscal year 2010 would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2014 request for Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

For the 2010 competition, the Department established two invitational priorities: (1) developing 

educational content in reading or mathematics that is designed to increase the literacy or 

numeracy skills of low-income children ages 2 to 8, delivering the content through coordinated 

use of multiple media platforms, and developing effective outreach strategies; and (2) providing 

for the development and dissemination of products and results through open educational 

resources and by making the products freely available through various media platforms. In 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-19E-19

addition, applicants could earn competitive-preference priority points for projects proposing a 

research plan that was based on rigorous scientifically based research methods to assess 

effectiveness. The Department made three awards, and the 2010 grantees will produce new 

materials and strategies that reflect changes in television distribution and production and the rise 

of new digital media platforms. Initially, the grantees will focus on the creation and launch of 

digital learning materials (including video), using these to stimulate interest among target 

children, and then later will pursue the more expensive production of television shows. 

Because of these changes, in 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the 

Ready to Learn program to better measure both Ready-to-Learn’s effectiveness in improving 

what children learn and the number of children Ready-to-Learn is reaching. The revised 

measures are: 

(1) the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills when RTL 

transmedia properties are compared to similar non-RTL-funded digital properties or to 

other more traditional educational materials; 

(2) the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary accompany 

supporting materials, that are deemed to be of high quality in promoting learning of math or 

literacy by an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

(3) the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, 

disaggregated by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard 

metrics or, when available, by tracking tools.

Performance Measures

The three 2010 grantees have planned a total of seven experimental or quasi-experimental 

research studies, to be conducted beginning in year three of the grant. The results of these 

studies will provide data on the first performance measure. The Department expects to have 

results from the first three studies available in fall 2013.

For the second performance measure, the Department asked expert panel members to review a 

random sample of current RTL transmedia products and provide a quality rating using criteria 

developed by the Department. The panel members rated products on a 5-point scale. In order 

for any particular product to achieve a rating of “high quality,” a product had to secure an 

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. Panel members reviewed three transmedia 

product suites submitted by two grantees. Of the three suites, reviewers’ scores determined that 

two were of high quality, receiving scores of 3.89 and 4.26. The third suite received a score of 

3.56. The third grantee will submit products for review in 2013.

Data on the third performance measure will be available in summer 2013.

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed a single efficiency measure for the RTL program: dollars leveraged 

from non-Federal sources over 5 years (the length of each grant award) per Federal dollar 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-20E-20

dedicated to core non-outreach program activities. Because high-quality children’s television 

programs are expensive to develop, produce, and distribute, Federal support for new 

programming through the RTL programs is typically used by grantees to attract additional 

revenue from the private sector. Program quality is directly affected by the extent to which 

grantees succeed in using Federal dollars to leverage additional funds from alternate sources. 

Therefore, the Department will use this measure to compare the relative success of RTL 

grantees in leveraging non-Federal investments for the development and production of new 

children’s television programs. 

Because the Department does not expect grantees to establish annual leveraging targets, and 

does not set a schedule for obtaining matching funds, the meaningful period of analysis for 

purposes of comparing grantee performance is the entire 5-year award period. During the 

5-year period comprising fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Department provided two grantees 

with $98.55 million in funding for programming. These two grantees together contributed a total 

of $66.15 million in non-Federal funding to programming activities, or $0.67 non-Federal dollars 

for every Federal dollar; the individual grantee amounts were $0.29 and $1.03. Initially, the 

Department had planned to use the $0.67 figure established by the 2005 grantees as the 

baseline against which to measure future efficiency. However, because of changes instituted to 

the program in 2010, grantees will be producing fewer television shows and instead will be 

focusing, at least initially, on the creation and distribution of digital media products such as 

applications and online educational games. This makes it easier and less expensive to release 

content and requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television production. In 

the first year of the 2010 grants, the three grantees leveraged $9.8 million of non-Federal 

support compared to $19.5 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.50 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar. Because of the decrease in leveraged funds needed, 

the Department is reexamining how to assess progress against the efficiency measure.

Other Performance Information

Both 2005 RTL programming grantees implemented multiple formative studies designed to 

improve their projects, as well as summative evaluations designed to provide evidence on the 

extent to which children’s television programming contributes to gains in early literacy. 

Formative studies of program content supported by RTL grantees generally analyze a wide 

range of issues, such as appeal, comprehension, age appropriateness, and integration of 

literacy- or math-based curricula – including whether materials effectively incorporate learning 

objectives, such as the extent to which they incorporate such pre-literacy learning objectives as 

letter recognition, differentiation of phonemes, and rhyming. Findings from the formative studies 

provide ongoing feedback to producers and developers as they develop new programming 

content. Research conducted on Ready to Learn outreach activities has examined how families 

interact with children to support their learning; what barriers impede effective engagement of 

children, families, and caregivers; how television programming can be used to meet some of the 

educational needs of low-income families; and the role various technology platforms may play in 

enhancing learning through targeted programming and outreach.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, with its partner the Public Broadcasting Service, 

published a summary report entitled Findings from Ready to Learn, 2005-2010, available online 

at http://www.hitn.tv/node/380, that provides a complete list of CPB/PBS television shows, 

materials, and resources as well as a bibliography of studies and other publications. Window to 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-21E-21

the World Communications will be producing a companion document that will not only provide a 

summary of its research, but will also frame issues for future academic research.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-22

Striving readers

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part E, Section 1502)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$159,698 $159,6982 0 -$159,698

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 

under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Striving Readers program provides grants to eligible entities to support efforts to improve 

literacy instruction in high-need schools. In fiscal year 2010, Congress enacted appropriations 

language that changed Striving Readers from an adolescent literacy program to a 

comprehensive literacy development and education program intended to advance the literacy 

skills, including pre-literacy, reading, and writing skills, of students from birth through grade 12. 

From the 2010 appropriation, the Department was required to reserve: (1) one-half of 1 percent 

for grants to the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and one-half of 1 percent 

for the Outlying Areas; and (2) $10 million for formula grants to States for the establishment or 

support of a State Literacy Team with expertise in literacy development and education for 

children from birth through grade 12 to assist the State in developing a comprehensive literacy 

plan. In addition, the Department had the authority to reserve up to 5 percent for national 

activities. The remaining funds were used to make competitive grants to States, which the 

Department awarded to six States. The fiscal year 2011 appropriations act did not include 

funding for the Striving Readers program. The fiscal year 2012 appropriations act continued the 

program but did not include State formula grant funding. 

Pursuant to the appropriations language for fiscal years 2010 and 2012, each State educational 

agency (SEA) that receives a competitive grant must award at least 95 percent of its allocation 

competitively to local educational agencies (LEAs) or, for the purposes of providing early literacy 

services, to LEAs or other nonprofit providers of early childhood education that partner with a 

public or private nonprofit organization or agency with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in

improving the early literacy development of children from birth through kindergarten entry and in 

providing professional development in early literacy. SEAs are required to: (1) give priority to 

such agencies or other entities serving greater numbers or percentages of disadvantaged 

children; and (2) ensure that at least 15 percent of the subgranted funds are used to serve 

children from birth through age 5, 40 percent to serve students in kindergarten through grade 5, 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-23E-23

and 40 percent to serve students in middle and high school. Further, States must equitably 

distribute funds between middle and high schools. 

An SEA may reserve up to 5 percent of its allocation for leadership activities, including technical 

assistance and training, data collection, reporting, and administration. Eligible entities receiving 

subgrants must use Striving Readers funds for services and activities that have the 

characteristics of effective literacy instruction; specific activities may include professional 

development, screening and assessment, targeted interventions for students reading below 

grade level, and other research-based methods of improving classroom instruction and practice.

From fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Striving Readers program supported competitive 

grants to improve middle- or high-school students’ literacy skills. In fiscal year 2005 conference 

report language, Congress directed the Department to “make competitive grants to develop, 

implement, evaluate, and bring to scale reading interventions for middle- or high-school students 

who are reading significantly below grade level, prioritizing services to those schools and 

districts with one or more high or middle schools that include a significant number of students 

reading below grade level.” In addition, Congress directed the Department to give competitive 

preference to schools that agreed to participate in randomized research studies and to balance 

grants between projects serving middle schools and projects serving high schools. 

The Department followed these directives in awarding grants to the first cohort of adolescent 

literacy grantees in 2006. The Department made 5-year awards to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) that were eligible to receive funds under Part A of Title I of the ESEA and that had one or 

more high schools or middle schools with significant numbers of students reading below grade 

level or at risk of not meeting Title I adequate yearly progress requirements. Eligible applicants 

included such LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher education and public or private 

(nonprofit or for-profit) organizations, and permitted State educational agencies (SEAs) to apply 

on behalf of eligible LEAs and in partnership with other entities. 

In conducting the second competition in 2009, the Department limited eligibility to SEAs applying 

on behalf of the SEA and one or more LEAs with governing authority over Title I-eligible schools 

that serve any of grades 6 through 12. Applicants were required to implement a supplemental 

literacy intervention (for students reading 2 or more years below grade level) during the second, 

third, and fourth years of the 4-year project period and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

intervention using an experimental research design.

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation from July 1 of the 

fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the 

following year.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-24E-24

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$35,371

2010..............................................................200,0001

2011.........................................................................0

2012..............................................................159,698

2013..............................................................159,6982

_________________

1 Reflects a rescission of $50,000 thousand under P.L. 111-226. 2 Excludes a 0.612 across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Striving Readers program for fiscal 

year 2014. In place of this program and other literacy-related programs currently authorized by 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Administration’s reauthorization 

proposal would create a new, more flexible Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program 

that would address the need to comprehensively strengthen instruction and increase student 

achievement in literacy in high-need LEAs and schools. 

Under the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program, the Department would provide 

competitive grants to States to support the development and implementation of comprehensive 

State and local efforts to provide high-quality literacy programs aligned with college- and careerready English language arts standards. These programs would be designed to increase student 

achievement in high-need LEAs and schools for students from preschool through grade 12. 

This approach would replace the patchwork of literacy funding streams in current law with a 

single comprehensive program that would provide increased flexibility for States and LEAs to 

develop and implement strategies that best meet local needs. The Administration believes that 

this new program would help ensure that States and high-need LEAs have in place a solid 

infrastructure across the grade levels to support high-need schools in implementing high-quality, 

developmentally appropriate, and systematic literacy instruction.

The new program would build on 2010 appropriations language that changed the Striving 

Readers program from an adolescent literacy program to a comprehensive literacy development 

and education program that provides support for the improvement of literacy instruction for 

children from birth through grade 12. This change also required the allocation of funding by 

specific age ranges of students, which limits State and local flexibility to invest Federal funds 

based on their needs within the framework of a comprehensive preschool-through-12th-grade 

literacy plan. 

The fiscal year 2014 request for Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy includes funds to pay 

2014 continuation costs for the Striving Readers grants made in previous years.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-25E-25

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Amount for competitive 

grants (continuations) $157,811 $158,102 0

Number of competitive 

grants 6 6 0

Amount for Bureau of 

Indian Education $798 $798 0

Amount for Outlying 

Areas $798 $798 0

National activities 

(including evaluation) $289 01 0

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

In fiscal year 2014, continuation costs of approximately $158,102 thousand would be provided from the 

appropriation for the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program.

1 Estimate. The Department may use up to $7,899 thousand for national activities.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

The Department established the following performance measures for the Striving Readers 

Comprehensive Literacy grant program: (1) the percentage of participating 4-year-old children 

who achieve significant gains in oral language skills; (2) the percentage of participating 5thgrade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments; 

(3) the percentage of participating 8th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State 

reading or language arts assessments; and (4) the percentage of participating high school 

students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments. 

All States are required to report on Performance Measure 1 above. States have the option of 

either reporting on Performance Measures 2, 3, and 4 above, or reporting proficiency rates for 

those same measures that include students who demonstrate adequate growth under the 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-26E-26

State’s Department-approved growth model and are counted as meeting or exceeding 

proficiency for purposes of accountability determinations. 

All of the performance measures described in this section will include data disaggregated for 

disadvantaged students, including limited-English-proficient students and students with 

disabilities. The Department expects to report baseline data on these measures in fall 2013.

Other Performance Information

All 16 Striving Readers adolescent literacy grantees conducted rigorous experimental 

evaluations of their supplemental literacy interventions for struggling readers. The eight 2006 

grantees also conducted experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of their whole-school 

literacy-throughout-the-curriculum models for all students. In fall 2011, the Department released 

the year-4 evaluation reports for the 2006 grantees, which provided results from 4 years of 

implementation, including impact findings. Five of the eight evaluations found that 1 year of a 

targeted intervention had statistically significant positive impacts on achievement for either 

middle or high school students. None of the four evaluations examining interventions that could 

serve struggling readers for up to 3 years found positive impacts after 2 or 3 years of the 

interventions. None of the five evaluations that examined the effectiveness of the whole-school 

models found a statistically significant impact on student reading achievement. The evaluation 

reports are available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/performance.html. 

In September 2012, the Department released the final year-5 evaluation reports covering all 

5 years of data collection and updated the cross-site summary tables and project profiles to 

include the final results of the evaluations of the 2006 grants. The Department also released the 

project profiles and summaries of evaluation reports from the 2009 grants. These materials are 

posted on the program’s Web site: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/performance.html. 

It is important to note that the Department originally planned 3 years of implementation for the 

2009 grants. However, the grants ended prematurely because the Department did not have the 

authority to use the fiscal year 2010 appropriation to continue support for the final year of that 

cohort of adolescent literacy grantees. As a result, the eight evaluations for that competition will 

be based on only 1 year of implementation and data collection, and will have samples smaller 

than originally planned. The relatively small samples will limit the studies’ ability to detect policy 

relevant impacts of the 2009 grants.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-27

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

0 0 $75,000 +$75,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education, part of the Administration’s 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal, would provide 

competitive grants to SEAs, high-need LEAs, and institutions of higher education or nonprofit 

organizations in partnership with high-need LEAs to support the development and expansion of 

innovative and evidence-based practices to improve teaching and learning across a wellrounded curriculum that includes the arts, health education, foreign languages, civics and 

government, history, geography, environmental education, economics and financial literacy, and 

other subjects as identified by the Department.

In awarding grants, the Department would be authorized to give priority to applicants that plan to 

(1) integrate teaching or learning in one or more of the above subjects with reading, Englishlanguage arts, or STEM instruction; (2) establish articulation agreements with postsecondary 

programs for the continuation of instruction in an academic subject; or (3) achieve statewide 

impact in one or more States. The Department might use the first of these priorities particularly 

to promote integration of opportunities for civic learning and engagement. The Department 

could also give priority to proposals that are supported by the strongest available evidence or 

that use technology to address student learning challenges and increase student engagement 

and achievement or teacher effectiveness.

The Department would be authorized to reserve up to 10 percent of program funds to support a 

range of national activities, including identification of effective programs and best practices, 

development of high-quality educational and professional-development content, technical 

assistance, and dissemination. 

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $75 million in fiscal year 2014 for the proposed Effective Teaching 

and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program. The request would support the first year 

of the program under a reauthorized ESEA.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

E-28E-28

The Administration believes that all students should receive high-quality instruction across the 

academic content areas. However, Federal programs that have focused on the teaching and 

learning of specific subjects have been too fragmented to provide State and local officials with 

the tools they need to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement in a 

comprehensive manner. Nor have those programs been well-structured to enable educators 

and policymakers to identify and expand the most effective and innovative practices. As a 

single, comprehensive program, Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education 

would address these problems by driving resources to where they are most needed and 

generating evidence of what works. This new program would also provide States and LEAs with 

the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of their students and teachers across a well-rounded 

curriculum while focusing funding on programs that improve student achievement, especially in 

high-need LEAs.

Ensuring access to a well-rounded education is critical to our efforts to help students graduate 

from high school prepared for college and careers. Research indicates that instruction in 

subjects supported under Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education is 

associated with improvements in overall achievement and attainment, including for students 

from low-income families. For instance, James Catterall et al found, in The Arts and 

Achievement in At-Risk Youth: Findings from Four Longitudinal Studies (2012), that students 

from low-income families who had arts-rich experiences in high school had higher GPAs and 

were more likely to enroll in, and three times more likely to complete, a bachelor’s degree 

program than their peers who had less involvement in the arts. In addition, annual reports from 

the College Board show a strong positive correlation between foreign language study and 

aptitude for college, with students who have had more years of foreign language study 

consistently outperforming their peers on each section of the SAT.

The Department would use a portion of the 2014 request for Effective Teaching and Learning for 

a Well-Rounded Education to pay fiscal year 2014 continuation costs for grants made prior to 

ESEA reauthorization under Arts in Education. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2014

Amount for new awards $55,528

Number of new awards 15-30

Peer review of new award applications $500

National activities $7,500

Continuation awards for grants under Arts in Education $11,472
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

E-29E-29

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of 

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-30

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 15)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$24,953 $24,9532 0 -$24,953

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 

under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership activities 

to encourage the integration of the arts into the school curriculum. Allowable activities include: 

(1) research on arts education; (2) development and dissemination of information about model 

school-based arts education programs; (3) development of model State arts education 

assessments based on State academic achievement standards; (4) development and 

implementation of curriculum frameworks in the arts; (5) development of model professional 

development programs in the arts for teachers and administrators; (6) support of collaborative 

activities with Federal agencies or institutions involved in arts education, arts educators, and 

organizations representing the arts, including State and local arts agencies involved in art 

education; and (7) support of model projects and programs to integrate arts education into the 

regular elementary school and secondary school curriculum. 

The Department supports a number of arts education activities through grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs), State educational agencies (SEAs), nonprofit organizations, 

institutions of higher education, organizations with expertise in the arts, and partnerships of 

these entities. Model Development and Dissemination grants support the development, 

documentation, evaluation, and dissemination of innovative models that seek to integrate and 

strengthen arts instruction in elementary and middle schools and improve students’ academic 

performance and achievement in the arts. Professional Development for Arts Education grants 

support the development of professional development programs for music, dance, drama, and 

visual arts educators. 

With the fiscal year 2011 appropriation, the Department did not make directed grants to VSA 

and the Kennedy Center and instead initiated a new National Arts in Education competition to 

make grants to one or more national nonprofit arts organizations to carry out high-quality arts 

education programs for children and youth, with particular emphasis on serving students from 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-31E-31

low-income families and students with disabilities. The Department conducted a second 

competition in fiscal year 2012.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$37,533

2010................................................................38,166

2011................................................................27,447

2012................................................................24,953

2013................................................................24,9531

_________________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Arts in Education program for fiscal 

year 2014. In place of this and other narrowly targeted programs focused on student 

achievement in specific subject areas, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act would create a broader program, Effective Teaching 

and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education, that would include grants to support arts in 

education programs. This new program would address the need to strengthen instruction and 

increase student achievement, especially in high-need LEAs, across a range of subjects that 

contribute to a well-rounded education, such as arts, health education, physical education, 

foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, environmental education, 

economics and financial literacy, and other subjects that may be identified by the Department.

The proposed Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program would 

make competitive awards to SEAs, high-need LEAs, and other entities to carry out such 

activities as development, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs; 

dissemination of evidence-based practices; and scaling up of effective programs. This approach 

would replace the patchwork of programs and funding streams in current law with a single 

comprehensive and coherent program that would allow States and LEAs to identify how best to 

meet the needs of their students and teachers across a well-rounded curriculum (which may 

include activities that support the improvement of student achievement or teacher effectiveness 

in the arts), and allow the Department to focus funding on programs that improve student 

achievement, especially in high-need LEAs. Eligible entities would include those eligible under 

the current Arts in Education program. 

The fiscal year 2014 request for Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education 

would include funds to pay 2014 continuation costs for Arts in Education grants made in 

previous years.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-32E-32

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

National Demonstration and Leadership Activities

Model Arts Program

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Total funds available $12,128 $12,359 0

Amount for new awards 0 $3,212 0

Number of new awards 0 8 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $11,778 $8,672 0

Number of continuation 

awards 38 34 0

Interagency transfer to 

support the Arts Education 

Partnership $350 $350 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $125 0

Professional Development for Arts Educators

Measures

Total funds available $5,683 $5,408 0

Amount for new awards $1,462 0 0

Number of new awards 5 0 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $4,221 $5.408 0

Number of continuation 

awards 15-16 14 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 01 0 0
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-33E-33

National Arts in Education Program

Measures

Total funds available $6,700 $6,700 0

Amount for new awards $6,633 0 0

Number of new awards 1 0 0

Amount for continuation 

awards 0 $6,700 0

Number of continuation 

awards 0 1 1

Peer review of new award 

applications $67 0 0

Evaluation $442 $486 0 _________________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

FY 2014 continuation costs of approximately $11,472 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for the 

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program.

1 The Department funded new applications in FY 2012 from the FY 2011 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To help ensure that all program participants meet challenging State academic 

content standards in the arts.

Objective: Activities supported with Federal funds will improve the quality of standards-based 

arts education for all participants.

Measure: The percentage of teachers participating in the Professional Development for Arts 

Educators program who receive professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Additional Information: This measure focuses on the Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE) program and examines the percentage of teachers who receive instruction 

that is “sustained and intensive”. In 2011, the Department defined sustained and intensive 

professional development for the PDAE program as completion of 40 or more of the professional 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-34E-34

development hours offered by the PDAE-funded project during the reporting period; completion 

of 75 percent of the total number of professional development hours offered by the PDAEfunded project during the reporting period; and completion of these professional development 

hours over at least a 6-month period during the reporting period. (Prior to 2011, PDAE grantees 

developed their own definitions of sustained and intensive professional development.) Data 

collected in 2011 represent the baseline for this indicator and are the basis for targets for 

subsequent years. The Department continues to work with grantees to ensure that the same 

definition of “sustained and intensive” is used consistently across projects. In 2011, 27 percent 

of teachers participating in PDAE received professional development that was sustained and 

intensive. The Department expects to have 2012 performance data, representing school year 

2011-2012, available in late 2013.

Beginning with the fiscal year 2011 cohort of grantees, the Department implemented a second 

performance measure for the PDAE program. The measure examines the percentage of PDAE 

projects in which teachers show a statistically significant increase in content knowledge in the 

arts. In implementing this measure, the Department requires that grantees administer a pre-test 

and a post-test of teacher content knowledge in the arts and include those data in their annual 

performance reports. In 2011, 100 percent of projects that submitted complete performance 

data had teachers who showed a statistically significant increase in arts content knowledge.

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Arts Models programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2009 67.0 60.0

2010 53.9 51.4

2011 53.7 48.4

2012 64.0 55.0

2013

2014

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Arts Models programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2009 63.0 41.0

2010 48.9 47.3

2011 47.7 42.2

2012 57.0 43.0

2013

2014

Additional Information: The Department developed two measures that focus on the Model 

Arts program and its impact on student achievement, specifically the percentage of Model Arts 

students who demonstrate proficient levels of achievement on State assessments in 

mathematics and in reading, compared to control or comparison groups. For the school year 

2008-2009, the students in the treatment groups performed better than those in the control 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-35E-35

groups on both reading and mathematics measures. Both the treatment and control groups 

showed declines in performance between school years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 (although the 

decline for the control group was very small in mathematics.) The Department expects to have 

finalized 2012 performance data, representing school year 2011-2012, available in late 2013.

The Department developed four measures for the Arts in Education National Program (AENP). 

These measures are: (1) The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee; (2) the number of teachers participating in the grantee's 

program who receive professional development that is sustained and intensive; (3) the total 

number of students from low-income families who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee; and (4) the total number of students with disabilities who participate in 

standards-based arts education sponsored by the grantee. The Department expects to have 

performance data for the 2011 grantee available in winter 2013. The Department expects to 

have baseline performance data for the 2012 grantee available in fall 2013 and data on the 

impact of implementation available in fall 2014.

Other Performance Information

The fiscal year 2008 appropriation for Arts in Education included funding for a National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) survey on arts education in public elementary and secondary 

schools. NCES collected principal and teacher survey data nationwide during school year (SY) 

2009-10 using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). 

The report found that in school year (SY) 2009-10, 94 percent of elementary schools offered 

instruction in music, with 93 percent of those schools offering music instruction at least once a 

week and 91 percent employing arts specialists to teach the subject. On average, full-time 

music specialists reported spending 22 hours per week teaching 25 different music classes 

(i.e., different groups of students), with an average class size of 19 students.

In addition, NCES reported that 83 percent of elementary schools offered instruction specifically 

in visual arts, with 85 percent of those schools offering visual arts instruction at least once a 

week and 84 percent employing arts specialists to teach it. On average, full-time visual arts 

specialists reported spending 22 hours per week teaching 24 different visual arts classes, with 

an average class size of 22 students.

Only 3 percent of elementary schools offered instruction specifically in dance (53 percent of 

those schools offered dance instruction at least once a week and 57 percent employed arts 

specialists to teach it) and 4 percent of elementary schools offered drama or theater (58 percent 

of those schools offered instruction in it at least once a week and 42 percent had arts specialists 

teaching the subject).

Finally, the report noted that 88 percent of classroom teachers (i.e., teachers of self-contained 

classrooms) in elementary schools indicated that they included arts instruction in some aspect of 

their classroom instructional programs in 2009-10. Of these teachers, 6 percent taught music as 

a separate subject, 14 percent taught visual arts as a separate subject, 3 percent taught dance 

as a separate subject, and 8 percent taught drama or theater as a separate subject. In addition, 

of the classroom teachers who included arts instruction in their classroom instructional 

programs, 92 percent incorporated music instruction in other subject areas, 97 percent 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-36E-36

incorporated visual arts instruction in other subject areas, 87 percent incorporated dance 

instruction in other subject areas, and 53 percent incorporated drama or theater instruction in 

other subject areas.

NCES also looked at secondary schools and teachers, using data from SY 2008-09. Ninety-one 

percent of public secondary schools reported offering music in that year. On average, full-time 

music specialists spent 22 hours per week teaching 8 different music classes with a class size of 

24 students. In addition, 89 percent of secondary schools reported offering instruction in visual 

arts. Full-time visual arts specialists spent, on average, 23 hours per week teaching 7 different 

visual arts classes with a class size of 22 students. The report also found that 12 percent of 

secondary schools offered dance and 45 percent offered drama or theater. Public secondary 

schools reported that arts specialists accounted for 97 percent of the teachers who taught 

music, 94 percent of the teachers who taught visual arts, 69 percent of the teachers who taught 

dance, and 73 percent of the teachers who taught drama or theater.

A second report will present findings on a broader set of indicators on the status of arts 

education in 2009–10. The results from this report are expected in spring 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-37

College pathways and accelerated learning

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

0 0 $102,200 +$102,200

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program would support efforts to increase high 

school graduation rates and preparation for college matriculation and success by providing 

college-level and other accelerated courses and instruction in high-poverty middle and high 

schools and in high schools with low graduation rates. Grants would support the expansion of: 

(1) accelerated learning options such as Advanced Placement (AP) and International 

Baccalaureate (IB) courses; (2) dual-enrollment programs that allow students to take collegelevel courses (including courses in career and technical education) and earn college credit while 

in high school; and (3) “early college high schools” that allow students to earn a high school 

degree and an associate’s degree or 2 years of college credit simultaneously. Grants would 

also support projects that re-engage out-of-school youth or students who are not on track to 

graduate, as well as accelerated learning opportunities for students across the performance 

spectrum, including those who exceed proficiency standards, in high-poverty elementary 

schools.

States and local educational agencies (LEAs) would be eligible to apply for competitive grants 

individually, in consortia, or in partnership with other entities. In order to receive a grant, an 

applicant would be required to demonstrate how it will use evidence to design, implement, and 

continuously improve proposed project activities.

The Department would be authorized to reserve up to 5 percent of program funds to carry out 

national activities, including research on promising accelerated learning models. In addition, the 

Department would reserve funds to make grants to States to pay for the cost of advanced test 

fees for students from low-income families.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $102.2 million in fiscal year 2014 for the proposed College 

Pathways and Accelerated Learning program, which would be created through the 

Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal and

would replace, with a more comprehensive and flexible program, several, sometimes narrowly 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

College pathways and accelerated learning

E-38E-38

targeted, programs that offer accelerated learning opportunities or that seek to prevent students 

from dropping out of school.

Although students who drop out, or are at risk of dropping out, are often thought of as low 

achievers who need a watered-down curriculum to keep them in school, educators find that 

often the opposite is the case. Efforts to introduce AP, IB, and other accelerated curricula in 

schools with concentrations of at-risk students recently have shown strong success, as 

demonstrated by the increasing numbers of students from low-income families taking and 

passing AP tests. Further, research shows that students who participate in an accelerated high 

school curriculum have a high probability of enrolling in higher education. According to the 

Department’s 2000 follow-up of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 

88/2000), 96 percent of students in the lowest socio-economic status quintile who participated in 

AP courses enrolled in postsecondary education programs, compared to 39 percent of those 

who did not participate. Clifford Adelman’s 2006 study The Toolbox Revisited confirms the 

significance of those data. Adelman found that participation in a challenging curriculum, 

including programs such as AP and IB, is a key factor associated with a student’s completion of 

a bachelor’s degree and has a stronger correlation with degree completion than do high school 

test scores, class rank, or grade point average. The same study concluded that the impact of a 

challenging curriculum on rates of completion of a bachelor’s degree is even higher for AfricanAmerican and Hispanic students than it is for White students. These data strongly suggest that 

by promoting accelerated learning opportunities in high-poverty schools, the College Pathways 

and Accelerated Learning program would help address the needs of students at risk of dropping 

out, not just those who are already high achievers.

Dual-enrollment programs can be similarly effective in increasing student achievement and 

college preparedness in low-performing schools. A Department-funded 2007 report by the 

Community College Research Center found that dual-enrollment participants had more positive 

outcomes on a range of short- and long-term measures than did similar non-participants. 

Moreover, students from groups underrepresented in higher education, such as males and those 

from low-income families, appeared to benefit from dual-enrollment participation to a greater 

degree than other participants. Besides introducing “college culture” to secondary school 

students whose parents generally did not receive a college degree, dual-enrollment schools 

allow students from low-income families to reduce costs by avoiding remedial courses and 

graduating from college early or on time.

Early college high schools go a step further than dual-enrollment and AP or IB programs by 

providing students from low-income families with the course instruction and support they need to 

graduate from high school with 2 years of college credit already earned. A 2008 Early College 

High School Initiative report funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that early 

college high school students scored significantly higher than comparable high school students 

on State assessments and that early college high school classes often demonstrate higher 

levels of rigor than their college equivalents.

The College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program would also support other efforts to 

prevent students from dropping out and to re-engage out-of-school youth, including early 

warning systems and comprehensive dropout prevention and reentry plans. Early warning 

systems would seek to identify effectively those students at risk of not graduating on time and 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

College pathways and accelerated learning

E-39E-39

would provide schools and LEAs with the information necessary to target interventions of the 

type and level necessary to support students’ on-time graduation.

In fiscal year 2014, the Department would use College Pathways and Accelerated Learning 

funds to pay continuation costs for grants made prior to ESEA reauthorization under High School 

Graduation Initiative and to meet, in full, States’ requests for grants for advanced course test fee 

costs (including by providing supplemental grants to make up for anticipated shortfalls in test fee 

funding in fiscal year 2013). The Department would not make new grants under the new 

authority until fiscal year 2015.

Separately, the Administration is proposing to use $42 million in fiscal year 2014 funds from 

Career and Technical Education: National Programs ($10 million) and GPRA Data/HEA 

Program Evaluation ($32 million) to help establish or expand dual-enrollment programs that 

target local workforce needs and to evaluate those programs. College Pathways and 

Accelerated Learning would also complement Administration efforts to redesign high schools 

through the proposed High School Redesign program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2014

Continuation awards for grants under High School Graduation Initiative $49,000

Grants for advanced course test fee costs $53,200
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-40

High school graduation initiative

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part H)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$48,809 $48,8092 0 -$48,809

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2014 under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The High School Graduation Initiative provides competitive grants to State educational agencies 

and local educational agencies to support the implementation of effective, sustainable, and 

coordinated dropout prevention and re-entry programs in high schools with annual dropout rates 

that exceed their State average annual dropout rate. Funds may also be used to support 

activities at middle schools that feed into such high schools. Grants are awarded for up to 

5 years and may be used for activities such as early identification of students who are at risk of 

not graduating; services for at-risk students designed to keep them in school and on track to 

graduate, including counseling and mentoring; programs to identify youth who have left school 

without graduating and assist them in reentering and graduating, including through remedial 

education; and other comprehensive dropout prevention approaches.

The Department is required to use 10 percent of program funds for national activities, including 

technical assistance, data collection, evaluation, and information dissemination.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009.........................................................................0

2010..............................................................$50,000

2011................................................................48,902

2012................................................................48,809 

2013................................................................48,8091

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-41E-41

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate fiscal year 2014 funding for the High School 

Graduation Initiative, which under current law is in the Education for the Disadvantaged 

account. In place of this and other narrowly targeted programs that seek to improve student 

achievement in high school or provide an accelerated curriculum, the Administration has 

proposed to create, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

reauthorization, a broader program, College Pathways and Accelerated Learning. This program 

would support efforts to increase high school graduation rates and preparation for college 

matriculation and success by providing college-level and other accelerated courses and 

instruction to students in high-poverty middle and high schools and in high schools with low 

graduation rates. The program would also support projects that re-engage out-of-school youth or 

students who are not on track to graduate.

Students at risk of dropping out would be a critical target population for the new program. 

Educators find that giving such students the opportunity to enroll and succeed in demanding 

courses can be an effective approach to dropout prevention, as many students lose interest in 

and subsequently leave school because they are unchallenged by the standard curriculum. 

Further, research shows that students who participate in an accelerated high school curriculum 

are more likely to enroll in higher education. According to the Department’s 2000 follow-up of 

the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88/2000), 96 percent of students in 

the lowest socio-economic status quintile who participated in AP courses enrolled in 

postsecondary education programs, compared to 39 percent of those who did not participate.

The Department would also continue to provide significant assistance to high schools with low 

graduation rates through the School Turnaround Grants (formerly School Improvement Grants) 

program, which under the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would serve Title I 

secondary schools with a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years.

Under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, fiscal year 2014 High School Graduation 

Initiative continuation grant costs would be funded from the appropriation for the new College 

Pathways and Accelerated Learning program.

If the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to enactment of fiscal year 2014 

appropriations, the Administration will request authority to use funds from the required 

10 percent set-aside for national activities under High School Graduation Initiative to make 

grants for activities to improve school dropout prevention and reentry.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-42E-42

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Amount for continuation awards $43,928 $43,928 0

Number of continuation awards 29 29 0

National activities $4,881 $4,881 0

_________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

Continuation costs of approximately $49,000 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for College 

Pathways and Accelerated Learning in fiscal year 2014.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

In 2011, the Department established performance measures for the fiscal year 2010 grantee 

cohort. The 2011 data are used as the baseline for the targets in subsequent years.

Goal: To increase the number of students who graduate from high school with a regular 

high school diploma.

Objective: To increase the average daily attendance of returning high school dropouts.

Measure: The average daily attendance of students served by the program who had not 

attended school for 60 or more instructional days immediately prior to their participation in the 

program.

Year Target Actual

2011 67.6

2012 69.0 77.0

2013 70.3

2014 71.7

Additional Information: Data for this measure represent the average daily rate of school 

attendance by applicable students. The 2012 data for this measure are reported for 21 of the 29 

fiscal year 2010 grantees.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-43E-43

Objective: To accelerate the credit accumulation of under-credited high school students.

Measure: The percentage of participating students who were two or more years behind their 

expected age and credit accumulation in high school who earned one half or more of the credits 

they needed to graduate with a regular diploma.

Year Target Actual

2011 24.3

2012 24.8 28.0

2013 25.3

2014 25.8

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 21 of 29 grantees.

Objective: To increase the on-time graduation rate of high schools. 

Measure: The percentage of high school students served by the program who, during the most 

recent school year, earned one quarter of the credits necessary to graduate from high school 

with a regular diploma.

Year Target Actual

2011 47.6

2012 48.6 51.1

2013 49.5

2014 50.5

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 23 of 29 grantees.

Measure: The average on-time graduation rate of high schools served by the program.

Year Target Actual

2011 58.4

2012 59.6 61.3

2013 60.8

2014 62.0

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 22 of 29 grantees.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-44E-44

Objective: To increase the percentage of eighth grade students who transition successfully to 

high school.

Measure: The average daily attendance of schools served by the program that include an 

eighth grade.

Year Target Actual

2011 92.9

2012 93.4 93.2

2013 93.8

2014 94.3

Additional Information: Data for this measure are reported for each of the 14 fiscal year 

2010 grantees that serve middle schools and represent the average daily rate of attendance of 

students enrolled in the applicable school.

Measure: The percentage of eighth grade students attending schools served by the project who 

enrolled in ninth grade at the start of the following school year.

Year Target Actual

2011 91.6

2012 92.1 93.2

2013 92.5

2014 93.0

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 11 of the 14 grantees that serve middle 

schools.

Other Performance Information

Reviews of rigorous research conducted for the Department’s What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) show variation in the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions. Since January 

2008, reports on nine dropout prevention interventions have been published on the WWC 

website that include reviews of studies meeting WWC evidence standards with or without 

reservations. Of those nine interventions, four were found to have positive or potentially positive 

effects on students’ staying in school, progressing in school, or completing school; four were 

determined to have no discernible effects in these areas; and one was found to have no 

discernible effects on progressing in school but potentially positive effects on completing school.

In October 2008, the Department issued a regulation that established a uniform measure for 

calculating high school graduation rates that must be used by all States for accountability 

purposes under ESEA Title I, Part A. Preliminary data for the 2010-2011 school year, the first 

year for which data are available using the uniform measure, indicate that the graduation rate for 

all students in a State ranged from 59 percent to 88 percent. For all economically 

disadvantaged students in a State, the graduation rate ranged from 53 to 86 percent.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-45

Advanced placement

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part G)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012

fn

2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$30,0552 $30,0553 0 -$30,055

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2014 under new legislation.

2 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance and 

$200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced Placement to help address a funding shortfall in the Test 

Fee program.

3 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes two 

programs: the Advanced Placement Test Fee program and the Advanced Placement Incentive 

program. The purpose of both programs is to support State and local efforts to increase access 

to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and other approved advanced 

courses and tests (collectively referred to as “advanced placement courses and tests”) for 

students from low-income families. The statute requires the Department to give priority to 

funding the Advanced Placement Test Fee program, with remaining funds allocated to 

Advanced Placement Incentive grants.

Advanced Placement Test Fee Program: The Department makes 1-year noncompetitive awards 

to State educational agencies to enable them to cover all or part of the cost of test fees for 

students from low-income families who are enrolled in an advanced placement course and plan 

to take an advanced placement test. By subsidizing test fees, the program encourages students 

from low-income families to take advanced placement tests and obtain college credit for their 

courses, thereby reducing the time and cost required to complete a postsecondary degree.

Advanced Placement Incentive Program: The Department makes 3-year competitive awards to 

State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and national nonprofit educational 

entities with expertise in providing advanced placement services. Grants must be used to 

expand access for students from low-income families to advanced placement courses and 

programs. Authorized activities include, but are not limited to, teacher training, development of 

pre-advanced placement courses, activities to enhance coordination and articulation between 

grade levels in order to prepare students for academic achievement in advanced placement 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-46E-46

courses, the purchase of books and supplies, and activities to enhance the availability of and 

expand participation in online advanced placement courses. 

For fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated $27 million for Advanced Placement and stated in 

the accompanying conference report its intention that the Department use $20 million for the 

Advanced Placement Test Fee program and $7 million for grant continuations under the 

Advanced Placement Incentive program. To help address a shortfall under the Test Fee 

program at these funding levels (resulting from the rapid growth in the number of advanced 

placement tests taken annually by students from low-income families), the Department provided 

$1.7 million less in Incentive program continuations than indicated in the conference report and 

reprogrammed $3.1 million from Magnet Schools Assistance and Charter Schools Grants to 

Advanced Placement for Test Fee program purposes, resulting in final fiscal year 2012 funding 

levels for the Test Fee and Incentive programs of $24.7 million and $5.3 million, respectively. 

Even at this increased level for the Test Fee program, however, a shortfall of approximately 

$7 million remained following the 2012 test cycle. 

The Department expects that, under the funding level anticipated for fiscal year 2013, the Test 

Fee program funding shortfall would increase as more students from low-income families 

continue to take advanced placement tests. As of March 2013, we are considering options to 

mitigate the shortfall, such as reducing the amount of the Department’s contribution per test, 

eliminating our coverage of test registration fees, further reducing or eliminating Incentive 

program continuations, and reprogramming or transferring funds from other programs. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$43,540

2010................................................................45,840

2011................................................................43,253

2012................................................................30,055 

2013................................................................30,0551

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate fiscal year 2014 funding for the Advanced 

Placement programs, which under current law are in the Innovation and Improvement account. 

In place of these and other narrowly targeted programs that seek to improve student 

achievement in high schools or provide an accelerated curriculum, the Administration has 

proposed to create, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

reauthorization, a broader program, College Pathways and Accelerated Learning. This program 

would support efforts to increase preparation for college matriculation and success through the 

introduction and expansion of advanced placement courses in high-poverty middle and high 

schools as well as other accelerated curriculum options (such as dual-enrollment and early 

college high school programs) in those schools. It would also provide grants to States for 

payment of advanced course test fees for students from low-income families.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-47E-47

The fiscal year 2014 request for the new College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program 

includes $53.2 million to pay for advanced course test fees for students from low-income 

families. This amount includes funding to cover estimated shortfalls in payments to States for 

test fee costs in fiscal year 2013.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Test Fee program

Amount for new and supplemental 

awards

$24,740 $24,740 0

Number of new awards 44 44 0

Incentive program

Amount for continuation awards $5,315 $5,315 0

Number of continuation awards 14 0 0

_________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

Test fee costs of approximately $53,200 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for College 

Pathways and Accelerated Learning in fiscal year 2014.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

Goal: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue 

higher education.

Objective: Encourage a greater number of low-income and other underrepresented categories 

of students to participate in the AP and IB programs and pass the exams.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-48E-48

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by low-income public school 

students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2009 378,272 399,809

2010 435,013 483,624

2011 500,265 596,241

2012 600,318 710,100

2013 781,110

2014 859,221

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3-5) by 

low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2009 150,552 147,654

2010 174,875 172,005

2011 203,108 210,870

2012 222,118 268,860

2013 300,727

2014 335,955

Measure: The percentage of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3-5) 

by low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2009 39.8 37.0

2010 40.2 35.6

2011 40.4 35.4

2012 37.0 37.9

2013 38.5

2014 39.1

Additional Information: Data for these measures are obtained from the College Board and 

capture the effects of efforts to increase low-income public school students’ participation in AP 

courses and success on AP exams. The targets for these measures have been revised 

beginning with the 2013 targets based on actual performance in 2012.

The International Baccalaureate Organization reported that, in 2012, 35,414 IB exams were 

taken by low-income public school students, with 19,295 of those exams, or 54.5 percent, 

receiving passing scores of 4-7.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-49E-49

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by minority (Hispanic, Black, Native 

American) public school students nationally.

Additional Information: Data for this measure are obtained from the College Board and 

capture the effects of efforts to increase minority public school students’ participation in AP 

programs. The targets for this measure have been revised beginning with the 2013 target based 

on actual performance in 2012.

The International Baccalaureate Organization reported that, in 2012, 49,791 IB exams were 

taken by minority public school students.

Measure: The ratio of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or other approved 

advanced placement tests taken in public high schools served by Advanced Placement 

Incentive grants to the number of seniors enrolled at those schools.

Year

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2008 

Cohort 

Target

2008 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort 

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 0.79 0.62 0.78 0.81 0.97

2010 0.93 0.84 1.03 1.24

2011 1.10 0.84 1.09 1.32 0.78

2012 1.15 1.30 0.87 0.89

2013 0.96

2014 1.14

Additional Information: The Department did not award new Advanced Placement Incentive 

grants in 2007 or 2010.

Measure: The ratio of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or other approved 

advanced placement tests passed by low-income students in public high schools served by 

Advanced Placement Incentive grants to the number of low-income seniors enrolled at those 

schools.

Year 2011 Cohort Target 2011 Cohort Actual

2011 0.21

2012 0.23 0.23

2013 0.25

2014 0.27

Year Target Actual

2009 544,716 538,249

2010 626,423 616,992

2011 675,520 700,872

2012 721,562 751,428

2013 788,999

2014 828,449
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-50E-50

Additional Information: Fiscal year 2011 grantees are the first grantees to collect and report 

data that address this new AP Incentive grant performance measure, which the Department 

established in order to assess the extent to which grantees are serving students from lowincome families as intended. Tests passed include AP tests with scores of 3 or higher, IB tests 

with scores of 4 or higher, and other advanced placement tests with equivalent scores.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per passage of an Advanced Placement test by a low-income public school 

student.

Year Target Actual

2009 $91.29 $110.99

2010 91.29 115.89

2011 91.29 151.45

2012 91.29

2013 91.29

2014 91.29

Additional Information: The results for this measure are calculated by dividing the total 

amount of Federal funds that States receiving AP Test Fee grants report spending on AP test 

fees by the total number of tests passed by low-income students in those States. The increase 

in cost per passage in 2011 could be explained, in part, by the fact that California stopped 

partially subsidizing test fee costs with State funds that year, thus increasing the Federal share 

of test fee costs in that State. The 2012 data for this measure will be available in January 2014.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-51

Assessing achievement

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$389,214 $389,2142 $389,214 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014.

2 Excludes a 0.612 across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires States to test all 

students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in reading (or language arts) 

and mathematics, and to administer annual assessments in science for each of three grade 

spans specified in the law. Furthermore, States must assess the English proficiency of all 

limited English proficient students annually. Under current law the annual assessments in 

reading and mathematics are used to determine whether States, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), and schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of all students 

attaining proficiency by 2013-2014; the science and language proficiency assessments are not 

required for the determination of adequate yearly progress. Under ESEA flexibility, the 

Department’s initiative to provide States, districts, and schools with flexibility from current law in 

order to improve academic achievement and improve the quality of instruction for all students, 

nearly all of the 35 States approved thus far use these annual assessments to measure the 

progress of schools toward annual measurable objectives set as part of their systems of 

differentiated accountability, recognition, and support.

All assessments must be valid and reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking 

skills and understanding of challenging content, and enable achievement results to be 

disaggregated by major racial and ethnic group, gender, poverty, disability, English proficiency, 

and migrant status. The annual assessments can be a critical diagnostic tool for teachers and 

parents to use in improving instruction and meeting specific student needs. 

The Grants for State Assessments program, authorized by Section 6111 of ESEA, provides 

formula grants to States to pay the costs of developing the standards and assessments required 

by ESEA Title I. Once a State has put in place those standards and assessments, it may use 

program funds to pay for the administration of the assessments and for other activities related to 

ensuring that the State’s schools and LEAs are held accountable for results. Such activities may 

include, among other things, developing standards and assessments in subjects other than 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-52E-52

those required by Title I, expanding the range of testing accommodations for students with 

disabilities and for limited English proficient students, professional development aligned with 

State standards and assessments, and developing multiple measures to ensure the validity and 

reliability of State assessments. Funds also may be used to acquire, and to train teachers and 

other staff to use the educational technology needed to implement new, computer-based 

assessments, and to purchase add-ons and diagnostic information related to such assessments.

Under the funding formula, 0.5 of 1 percent of the appropriation is reserved for the Department 

of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and 0.5 of 1 percent goes to the Outlying Areas. From 

the remaining funds, each State receives $3 million and then a share of any remaining funds 

based on its proportion of students ages 5 through 17.

Section 6112 of the ESEA authorizes Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments, a 

competitive grant program under which the Department makes awards to support efforts by 

States, or consortia of States, to: (1) improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State 

academic assessments; (2) measure student academic achievement through the use of multiple 

measures from multiple sources; (3) chart student progress over time; and (4) use 

comprehensive instruments such as performance- and technology-based assessments. To 

date, the Department has made 50 awards under the program; those grants have supported 

projects to increase the accessibility and validity of assessments for students with disabilities or 

limited English proficiency; develop English language proficiency assessments; use technology 

to improve State assessments; and provide intensive, high-quality professional development for 

using assessment data to improve instruction. 

Assessing Achievement is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on 

July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months 

through September 30 of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009........................................................... $410,732

2010..............................................................410,732

2011..............................................................389,951

2012..............................................................389,214

2013..............................................................389,2141

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2014, the Administration requests $389.2 million for Assessing Achievement (currently State 

Assessments), the same amount as the 2012 appropriation. The request would support one of 

the major reforms included in the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the implementation of college- and career-ready (CCR) 

standards and aligned assessments in order to ensure that all students graduate from high 

school with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in college and the workplace. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-53E-53

The Department would award $380 million from the request to States through the same formula 

as in current statute, and the remaining $9.2 million requested for fiscal year 2014 would be 

awarded on a competitive basis. 

Funding for the reauthorized Assessing Achievement program would support the transition to 

and implementation of common assessments aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards in English-language arts and mathematics. A new generation of assessments is 

needed because existing State assessments generally fail to capture the full spectrum of what 

students know and can do. They focus on concepts that are easy to measure; rely mainly on 

multiple-choice items with fill-in-the-bubble answers; and provide time-sensitive data and results 

months later, when their instructional usefulness is largely past. Educators need high-quality 

assessment systems that more broadly and validly measure student achievement and provide 

more timely results. They need assessment systems that appropriately assess all students, 

including students with disabilities and English Learners, and that assess a range of content 

areas to support a well-rounded curriculum. 

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would require States to adopt college- and careerready standards and to administer assessments aligned with those standards in order to receive 

program funds. States are currently collaborating to develop common assessments aligned with 

rigorous college- and career-ready standards in English-language arts and mathematics. The 

resources provided through the reauthorized Assessing Achievement program would also 

support the improvement of other assessments and the reporting of assessment data. These 

resources would increase the number of States implementing assessment systems that 

measure whether students are on track to being college- and career-ready by the time they 

graduate from high school, and they also will help States align their standards and high school 

graduation requirements with college and career expectations. 

In addition, the proposal would allow States to use formula funds to improve their own 

technological capacity, as well as that of their districts and schools, to implement computerbased assessments and use technology to implement other elements of their assessment 

systems (such as scoring and reporting). 

Formula grant funds for fiscal year 2014 would flow to all States to support compliance with the 

current ESEA requirements for reading/language arts, mathematics, and science assessment. 

Once States have finished implementing the current ESEA assessment requirements, they 

could use their formula funds to support the transition to English-language arts and mathematics 

assessments aligned to college-and career-ready standards that are held in common by a 

number of States, to measure student attainment against college-and career-ready standards, or 

to measure student growth and to inform determinations of individual teacher and principal 

effectiveness for purposes of evaluation. States could also use formula funds to administer their 

current assessments; develop and implement assessments that are aligned with college- and 

career-ready standards in other subjects, including science, engineering, and technology; 

develop or improve assessments of English-language proficiency; develop or improve native 

language assessments; expand the range of accommodations available to English Learners and 

students with disabilities; or carry out other activities. 

Starting with fiscal year 2015, funds would flow only to States that (1) have adopted college- and 

career-ready standards that are common to a significant number of States; and (2) are 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-54E-54

implementing, or have committed to implement, assessments in English-language arts and in 

mathematics in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school that are aligned with those 

standards. 

The reauthorization proposal would also establish a program to award competitive grants to 

consortia of States, or partnerships of States and other organizations, for research on, or 

development, evaluation, and improvement of, assessments that are aligned with college- and 

career-ready content and achievement standards that are held in common by a significant 

number of States. The Department would set aside $9.2 million of the fiscal year 2014 request 

to support a grant competition to assist consortia of States in developing high-quality 

assessments in areas of common need, particularly in strategic areas that may need additional 

resources for full development. Such activities might include developing or improving 

assessments in subjects other than English-language arts and mathematics, developing high 

school end-of-course assessments, developing formative or diagnostic assessments, enhancing 

early learning assessment instruments, or improving the reliability and validity of assessments

for English Learners and students with disabilities. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Grants for State Assessments:

Amount for State Grants $376,200 $376,200 $376,200

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,280-$30,239 $3,280-$30,239 $3,280-$30,239

Average award $7,235 $7,235 $7,235

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,800 $3,800 $3,800

Grants for Enhanced 

Assessment Instruments:

Amount for new awards $9,214 $9,214 $9,214

Number of new awards 1-2 1-2 1-2

Range of new awards $5,000-$9,940 $5,000-$9,174 $5,000-$9,174

Peer review of applications $40 $40 $40

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

In December of 2012, the Department notified States that it is suspending the peer reviews of 

State assessment systems under Title I in order to review and revise the current peer review 

process within the context of other initiatives in the Department that affect State assessment 

systems. At this time, most States have either received or expressed intent to seek waivers of 

key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act under ESEA flexibility. Under the terms of these 

waivers, States have to commit to adopting, or developing, and implementing high-quality 

assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards by the 2014-15 school year. To 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-55E-55

meet these requirements, many States are also using funds under the Race to the TopAssessments (RTTA) program to come together to develop the next generation of assessment 

systems aligned with new college- and career-ready standards. With these new standards and 

assessment endeavors underway, the Department believes that there is a need to revisit the 

peer review process for State assessment systems and determine what changes may be 

necessary. Besides considering how well the existing peer review process addresses the 

requirements for State assessment systems for States participating in ESEA flexibility or RTTA, 

the Department will consider changes to the peer review process that would help improve the 

technical quality, validity, and reliability of all State assessment systems.

Currently, 32 States have reading or language arts, mathematics, and science assessments that 

have received full approval from the Department. Five States have received approval of their 

reading or language arts assessments and mathematics assessments, but have not yet received 

approval for science. (The number of States that have received approval of their reading or 

language arts, mathematics, or science assessments has changed over time because some 

States have made revisions to their assessment systems and have had to re-submit evidence 

that their assessments still comply with the Title I requirements.) Six States do not currently 

have approval of their reading or language arts assessments or their mathematics assessments, 

or both, because they have made changes to their previously approved assessments. Nine 

States have never received approval; of those, four States entered into compliance agreements 

with the Department because it would take them additional time to come into compliance, and 

the remaining five were placed in “mandatory oversight” status. All compliance agreements 

ended on December 31, 2011. All States that were in mandatory oversight status or under 

compliance agreements submitted evidence to the Department for determination of whether 

their assessments systems now meet the Title I requirements.

In addition, under the regulations pertaining to State assessment systems under Title I issued on 

April 9, 2007, States have the option of developing alternate assessments based on modified 

standards for students with disabilities that meet certain criteria. One of the criteria is that there 

must be objective evidence demonstrating that a student’s disability has precluded the student 

from achieving grade-level proficiency. To date, 15 States have submitted evidence to the 

Department to demonstrate that their alternate assessments based on modified achievement 

standards meet the requirements established under the regulations. Of those, 4 States have 

received approval of their alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards, 

and the remaining 11 States are in the process of submitting additional evidence regarding 

compliance with the regulatory requirements, or are waiting for the Department to make a 

determination of their status. 

The Department conducted a pilot review of products from grantees that received fiscal year 

2005 funding in order to obtain baseline data for the performance measures for the Grants for 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments program. These measures assess the extent to which 

funded projects produce significant research on assessments, in particular regarding 

accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities, and whether grantees 

disseminate information on the advances in assessment that result from their grants. The 

grantee’s final products were reviewed by expert panels. The review found that five of the eight 

grants funded in fiscal year 2005 produced significant research, methodologies, products, or 

tools relating to assessment systems or assessments, and five of the eight grants also produced 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-56E-56

significant research, methodologies, products, or tools specifically relating to accommodations 

and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department has adopted an efficiency measure that tracks the average number of days per

peer review session it takes the Department to issue an initial standards and assessment 

decision letter to a State after receiving a submission. 

Year Target Actual

2008 90 78.23

2009 90 100.9

2010 90 183.4

2011 90 127.3

2012 90 111.3

Additional information: The Department began formal peer reviews of State standards and 

assessment systems in 2005 in order to determine whether a State has met each of the 

requirements specified in the authorizing statute. At this time every State has submitted 

evidence for review multiple times. Since the Department has announced suspension of peer 

reviews for State assessment systems, there will be no updates for this measure until a new 

peer review process for State assessment systems is implemented.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-57

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$6,962 $6,9621 $6,962 0

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, gender, and national 

origin. To carry out those activities, the Department awards 3-year grants to regional Equity 

Assistance Centers (EACs) in each of the 10 Department of Education regions.

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin in educational programs. 

Other activities include training designed to develop educators' skills in such areas as the 

identification of race and sex bias in instructional materials and technical assistance in the 

identification and selection of appropriate educational programs to meet the needs of a diverse 

student body.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009................................................................$9,4891

2010..................................................................6,989

2011..................................................................6,975

2012..................................................................6,962

2013..................................................................6,9622

_________________

1 The appropriation included $2.5 million for one-time grants to local educational agencies for implementation 

of desegregation plans that comply with a 2007 Supreme Court decision. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-58E-58

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $7.0 million for the Training and Advisory 

Services program, the same as the fiscal year 2012 appropriation. The request would support 

the first year of 3-year grants to 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers. 

The fiscal year 2011 competition included four priorities for projects that would support the goal 

of equal access to a high-quality education for all students: (1) a competitive preference priority 

on improving the effectiveness and distribution of teachers or principals; (2) a competitive 

preference priority on strategies to improve school engagement, school environment, school 

safety, family and community engagement; (3) an invitational priority on enabling more databased decision-making; and (4) an invitational priority on promoting science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. 

Final priorities are still to be determined for the fiscal year 2014 competition, but could include 

priorities from the previous competition as well as new priorities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Amount for continuation awards $6,939 $6,939 0

Number of continuation awards 10 10 0

Amount for new awards 0 0 $6,870

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $69

Number of new awards 0 0 10

Data collection $23 $23 $23

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department gathers data to inform the program’s performance measures through customer 

surveys administered by the Library of Congress’s Federal Research Division. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-59E-59

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, and national origin.

Objective: Provide high-quality technical assistance and training to public school districts in 

addressing equity in education.

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers who develop, implement, 

or improve their policies and practices in eliminating, reducing, or preventing harassment, 

conflict, and school violence.

Year Target Actual

2009 69 52

2010 70 36

2011 71 42

2012 72 62

2013 73

2014 74

Additional information: “Actual” data reflect results from the prior program year. The drop in 

positive responses for this measure from 2009 to 2011 could be explained by fewer customers 

seeking this type of assistance, compared to the large jump in 2012. The percentages for 

individual EACs ranged from 0 percent to 93 percent in 2012.

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers who develop, implement, 

or improve their policies and practices, or both, for ensuring that students of different race, sex, 

and national origin have equitable opportunity for high-quality instruction.

Year Target Actual

2009 74 85

2010 75 77

2011 76 82

2012 77 85

2013 78

2014 79

Additional information: Results have improved for this measure. The percentages for 

individual EACs ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent in 2012. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-60E-60

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2009 90 95

2010 90 90

2011 90 96

2012 90 94

2013 90

2014 90

Additional information: Customers have responded very positively on the quality of the 

products and services they have received, and 94 percent of the respondents gave the products 

and services a “very high” or “high” rating of quality in 2012. The percentages for individual 

EACs receiving a rating of “high” or “very high” ranged from 67 percent to 100 percent in 2012.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high usefulness to their policies and 

practices.

Year Target Actual

2009 88 92

2010 89 85

2011 90 90

2012 90 92

2013 90

2014 90

Additional information: Customers have responded positively to this measure for 7 years in a 

row, and the program has generally met or exceeded its targets. In 2012, 92 percent of the 

respondents gave the products and services a “very high” or “high” rating of usefulness. The 

percentages for individual EACs receiving a rating of “high” or “very high” ranged from 

67 percent to 100 percent.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-61E-61

Efficiency Measures

The Department has implemented a measure of administrative efficiency to assess the Training 

and Advisory Services program and other technical assistance programs. A second efficiency 

measure was established specifically for Training and Advisory Services. 

Measure: The percentage of Equity Assistance Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2009 10 4

2010 10 2

2011 10 5

2012 10 6

2013 10

2014 10

Additional information: The Department has succeeded in keeping the total carryover funds 

below 10 percent. There were 3 centers with expected carryover that exceeded 10 percent and 

these centers are new grantee organizations. The Department is working with these centers to 

ensure that carryover is not excessive.

Measure: The number of working days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to 

grantees after monitoring visits.

Year Target Actual

2010 45 184

2011 45 60

2012 45 30

2013 45

2014 45

Additional information: New program staff have focused on monitoring, which has helped to 

reduce delays that occurred in 2010 and 2011. In 2012, the Department conducted two 

monitoring visits and sent reports to the relevant centers within an average of 30 days.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-62

Rural education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$179,193 $179,1932 $179,193 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Part B of Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Rural Education 

Achievement program (REAP), authorizes two programs to assist rural school districts in 

carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program provides funds to rural local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of poor students, 

regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between the 

SRSA and the RLIS programs.

The two programs have similar accountability requirements. Participating LEAs are required to 

administer an assessment that is consistent with the ESEA Title I assessment requirements. An 

LEA has 3 years to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined by the State under ESEA 

Title I. If, after 3 years, an LEA is making AYP, it may continue to participate in the program. If it 

does not make AYP, an LEA may continue to participate only if it agrees to use all of its 

applicable funding to carry out Title I school improvement activities.

REAP is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the 

fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through 

September 30 of the following year.

SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM (Subpart 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) (a) have a total 

average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students; or (b) serve only schools that are 

located in counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and 

(2) serve only schools that (a) have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale 

code of 7 (rural) or 8 (rural near an urban area); or (b) are located in an area of the State defined 

as rural by a governmental agency of the State.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-63E-63

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated under 

the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants, and State Grants for Innovative Programs, in 

the previous fiscal year (note that only the first of these programs was funded in fiscal years 

2012 and 2013).

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under: (1) Part A of Title I 

(Grants to Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants); (3) Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State Grants); (4) Title III (Language 

Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students); (5) Part A of Title IV (Safe and

Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants); (6) Part B of Title IV (21st Century 

Community Learning Centers); and (7) Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs). 

Eligible LEAs also may (under the “REAP-Flex” authority) consolidate funds they receive from 

these sources (except for Title I, Part A) to carry out effective activities under any of the 

authorized programs including under Title I, Part A. 

RURAL AND LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent and (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 6 (small town), 7 (rural), or 8 (rural near an urban area). States have the option of 

allocating funds to eligible LEAs competitively or through a formula based on the number of 

children in ADA in eligible LEAs within the State. A State may also use an alternative formula to 

allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an alternative method would better target funds to 

eligible LEAs that serve the highest concentrations of poor students. 

LEAs use program funds for: (1) teacher recruitment and retention; (2) teacher professional 

development; (3) educational technology; (4) parental involvement activities; (5) activities 

authorized under Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); (6) activities 

authorized under Part A of Title I (Grants to LEAs); and (7) activities authorized under Title III 

(Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students).

Lastly, the Department allocates one-half of 1 percent of RLIS funds to the Bureau of Indian 

Education of the Department of the Interior and an equal amount to the Outlying Areas. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-64E-64

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009............................................................$173,382

2010..............................................................174,882

2011..............................................................174,532

2012..............................................................179,193

2013..............................................................179,1931

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration is requesting $179.2 million for REAP, the same as the 

fiscal year 2012 level. The budget request would be implemented under the Administration’s 

ESEA reauthorization proposal, which would update the criteria by which a district is designated 

as rural to align with the most recent criteria developed by the Office of Management and Budget 

and the Census Bureau, extend “REAP-Flex” authority to RLIS subgrantees, and authorize 

national support for technical assistance, research, and other activities, including demonstration 

grants to help rural districts overcome the unique challenges they face. In fiscal year 2014, all 

funds would be used for SRSA and RLIS formula grants. The request would provide an average 

LEA award of approximately $21,000 under SRSA and an average LEA subgrant of 

approximately $37,000 under RLIS.

The Administration supports continued funding for REAP because of the significant challenges 

that rural LEAs face in meeting the objectives of the ESEA. According to the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), in school year 2010-11, 32 percent of the Nation’s public schools 

were located in rural areas, with 24 percent of all public school students enrolled at these 

schools. The small size and remoteness of many rural schools and districts creates a different 

set of challenges from those of urban schools and districts. For example, rural schools and 

districts generally do not benefit from economies of scale and, thus, can face greater per-pupil 

costs in areas such as staffing or transportation. According to the report Status of Education in 

Rural America, released by the NCES in July 2007, operating expenditures per student in 2003-

04, adjusted for geographic cost differences, were higher in rural districts than in city and 

suburban districts.

This may explain, in part, why rural school districts often are not able to offer their students the 

same level of access to advanced coursework as other districts. During the 2002-03 school 

year, just 69 percent of rural high school students attended schools that offered Advanced 

Placement or International Baccalaureate courses, compared to 93 percent of city and 

96 percent of suburban high school students. The lack of such courses may contribute to lower 

college enrollment among rural individuals; in 2004 college enrollment among 18- to 24-years 

old was only 27 percent in rural areas, compared to a national average of 34 percent.

In addition, because of size and location, many small, rural districts have faced 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 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-65E-65

subjects they teach. These districts also face challenges recruiting and retaining effective 

teachers. Rural teachers are frequently called upon to teach multiple subjects, which, in turn, 

requires teachers to obtain multiple certifications in order to meet the statutory definition of 

“highly qualified.” A 2003 national survey conducted by the Appalachia Educational Laboratory 

(AEL) found that 57 percent of secondary school teachers in rural schools with 250 or fewer 

students were teaching multiple subjects. Another national study, conducted in 2005 by 

Edvantia, the successor to AEL, found the “highly qualified” requirement, geographic and social 

isolation, and lower pay to be the greatest challenges to rural district recruitment and retention of 

teachers. REAP funds can help rural LEAs meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining a staff 

of highly qualified and effective teachers.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal is designed to support the unique needs of rural 

communities. It would make it easier for teachers to teach multiple subjects because it would 

define teacher quality not based exclusively on paper credentials, but on how well a teacher 

performs in the classroom, and would thus help rural schools keep effective teachers in the 

classrooms in which they are needed most. It would also provide greater local flexibility in 

designing interventions in schools that are not meeting their performance targets, so that rural 

communities can decide what works best for their schools. 

Rural districts frequently receive allocations under State formula grant programs that are too 

small to allow the LEA to address effectively the purposes for which the funds are appropriated. 

For example, among districts eligible for SRSA in fiscal year 2012, the fiscal year 2011 median 

sum of allocations under the Federal formula grant program Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants was $18,184. Recognizing that rural districts frequently receive small allocations from 

Federal formula grants, the “REAP-Flex” authority—which would be continued for SRSA and 

expanded to include RLIS under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal—gives SRSAeligible LEAs the flexibility to make more effective use of their small Federal formula allocations. 

An eligible LEA may use its formula allocation under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

program to carry out authorized activities or for activities authorized under Part A of Title I, Part D 

of Title II (Educational Technology), Title III (English Language Acquisition), Part A of Title IV 

(Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities), Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community 

Learning Centers), or Part A of Title V (Innovative Programs). Fifty-one percent of eligible 

districts notified their respective State of their intention to take advantage of this authority in 

school year 2010-11. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under these 

programs, they typically do not have enough money to provide effective educator professional 

development, strengthen school safety, or address the other statutory objectives in a meaningful 

manner. REAP funds help to make up the difference and assist rural LEAs in financing and 

implementing approaches to meeting ESEA requirements and addressing the other challenges 

they face.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-66E-66

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

SRSA Total funding $89,596 $89,596 $89,596

Amount for LEA grants $89,148 $89,596 $89,596

Amount for evaluation $448 0 0

Number of LEAs receiving grants 4,296 4,296 4,312

SRSA Average LEA grant $21 $21 $21

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $79 $80 $80

SRSA Range of awards to LEAs 0 - $60 0 - $60 0 - $60

Rural and low-income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $89,596 $89,596 $89,596

RLIS Amount for State grants $88,252 $88,700 $88,700

RLIS Amount for BIE $448 $448 $448

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $448 $448 $448

Amount for evaluation $448 0 0

RLIS Number of States receiving grants 44 44 45

RLIS Number of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,042 2,042 2,409

RLIS Average State grant $2,006 $2,016 $1,971

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $43 $43 $37

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $22 $22 $18

RLIS Range of awards to States $13 - $6,747 $13 - $6,781 $11 - $8,772

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs $1-$513 $1-$513 $1-$322 _________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

The fiscal year 2014 data assume the introduction of new locale codes, as provided for in the ESEA 

reauthorization proposal.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-67E-67

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Local educational agencies (LEAs) participating in REAP programs will make 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) after the third year.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-participating LEAs that make adequate yearly progress 

after 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2009 97 95

2010 97 78

2011 98 69

2012 98

2013 99

2014 100

Measure: The percentage of RLIS-participating LEAs that make adequate yearly progress 

after 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2009 82 49

2010 88 43

2011 94 31

2012 96

2013 98

2014 100

Additional information: SRSA and RLIS grantees with 3 or more years in the program showed 

a significant decrease in meeting AYP between 2009 and 2011. SRSA has consistently had a 

greater proportion of grantees making AYP than RLIS, perhaps reflecting the fact that (1) RLIS 

districts are poorer, and poverty is highly correlated to low academic achievement; and (2) RLIS 

districts are larger and thus likely to have more subgroups that are counted in AYP 

determinations. (Note that, as shown in the tables that follow, the gap in proficiency rates for 

SRSA compared to RLIS districts is not as wide as their gap in the percentage of LEAs making 

AYP.) The declines for both programs in 2011 are likely attributable to increases in States’ 

“annual measureable objectives” (the percentage of children achieving proficiency that an LEA 

must attain in order to make AYP) rather than declines in proficiency rates which have remained 

relatively stable as shown in the measures below. Data for 2012 are expected in October 2013.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics in each year through 

the 2013-2014 academic year.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-68E-68

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year. 

Year Target Actual

2009 78 75

2010 82 74

2011 86 75

2012 90

2013 94

2014 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2009 76 71

2010 81 72

2011 86 71

2012 91

2013 96

2014 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2009 79 68

2010 84 67

2011 88 68

2012 92

2013 96

2014 100
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-69E-69

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2009 75 67

2010 80 63

2011 85 66

2012 90

2013 95

2014 100

Additional information: Among SRSA districts, the percentage of students who scored 

proficient or better on their State assessments increased slightly in reading and decreased 

slightly in mathematics from 2010 to 2011, and both did not meet the targets. RLIS districts 

showed increases in the percentage of students who score proficient or better on both reading 

and mathematics assessments, but remained below the targets for both measures. The 

performance targets for these measures reflect the ESEA goal that 100 percent of students 

enrolled in districts participating in both the SRSA and RLIS programs will be proficient by 2014. 

Data for fiscal year 2012 are expected in October 2013. 

Objective: Eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority.

Year Target Actual

2009 65 50

2010 65 56

2011 65 51

2012 65

2013 65

2014 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible districts actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of districts reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. Data for 2012 are expected in October 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-70E-70

Program Efficiency Measure

Measure: The percentage of SRSA program grants awarded by August 30 of each fiscal year.

Year Target Actual

2009 80 100

2010 80 100

2011 80 100

2012 80 100

2013 80

2014 80

Additional information: Due to difficulty in processing over 4,000 SRSA grants to LEAs in a 

timely manner in the early years of the program, the Department established a measure to track 

the efficiency of this task. The Department has had great success since creating the measure, 

not only exceeding its target of awarding 80 percent of SRSA awards by August 30, but 

awarding 100 percent each year. Data for 2013 are expected in October 2013.

Other Performance Information

A 2006 evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute examined the use of REAP-Flex authority in 

rural school districts. The study found that 80 percent of SRSA-eligible districts that exercised 

the authority used its flexibility to maintain a stable level of effort for ongoing activities that had 

been affected by Federal and State budget cuts. Similarly, over 80 percent of REAP-Flex 

participants reported using the authority to target achievement outcomes, including 73 percent 

that had targeted math and 77 percent that had targeted reading.

The Department released an evaluation report of the RLIS program in June 2010. The purpose 

of this study was to examine implementation at the State and district levels. Specifically, the 

Department obtained information on State RLIS priorities and monitoring, State progress toward 

achieving RLIS goals, characteristics of RLIS districts, uses of RLIS funds, and student 

achievement and AYP trends in participating districts. The report found that the coordinators 

saw RLIS as a supplemental program, rather than as a stand-alone program, and that they 

believed that their subgrantee LEAs used their funds to support efforts to make AYP. All nine 

States in the sample were requiring RLIS districts to engage in a comprehensive planning 

process and to address gaps identified through local needs assessments, and seven of the 

States implemented RLIS through an integrated planning process that required LEAs to show 

how they planned to use funding from Federal programs. Survey respondents indicated that 

funds were primarily used to purchase technology, support professional development, and 

support Title I, Part A activities. From the 2002–03 school year to the 2007–08 school year, the 

rate of academic improvement in mathematics and reading for districts that received RLIS 

funding was significantly greater than for non-RLIS rural districts; however, the evaluation did not 

examine causality, and achievement gains cannot be attributed to the RLIS program. The report 

also found that, on average, RLIS districts had more students than other rural LEAs but fewer 

students than all LEAs nationally, that student-to-teacher ratios in RLIS LEAs were higher than 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-71E-71

in other rural LEAs but similar to the national average, and that per-pupil expenditures were 

substantially lower in RLIS LEAs than in other rural LEAs and the national average. 

Section 6224(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires the Department to 

prepare a biennial report to Congress on the RLIS program. The report must describe the 

methods SEAs have used to award grants and provide technical assistance, how LEAs and 

schools have used RLIS funds, and the progress made toward meeting the goals and objectives 

outlined in the SEA applications. In 2011, the Department submitted to Congress its biennial 

report for school years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The report includes the finding that of the 

41 States receiving fiscal year 2009 funds, all but 5 awarded funds to eligible LEAs by formula 

based on each eligible LEA’s share of students in average daily attendance. One State used a 

modified formula that targeted a greater share of program funds to LEAs with poverty rates 

greater than 40 percent, and four States awarded funds on a competitive basis. The report had 

findings that were consistent with the evaluation report, in that technology, professional 

development, and Title I, Part A activities were the most frequently reported uses of funds. 

Finally, it is difficult to link LEA progress toward goals to activities specifically supported with 

RLIS funds, but the report does include examples provided by the States of LEA progress 

toward program goals.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-72

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: $20,6671

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$17,619 $17,6192 $17,619 0

_________________

1 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing 

statute, which requires such adjustments through fiscal year 2023. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of Education 

(ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, beginning in 

fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount that is roughly 

equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 2004 under the 

Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible. These grants augment the 

funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general education assistance under their Compacts 

of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies; Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants; Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants; and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) of 

the Workforce Investment Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four cabinet 

agencies and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM 

and the RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

E-73E-73

local school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

and the transition from high school to postsecondary education and careers. They may not be 

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. Past year’s appropriations acts have also permitted the FSM and the RMI 

to reserve up to 5 percent of their grants to pay for such technical assistance as well as for 

administration of their grants.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$17,687

2010................................................................17,687

2011................................................................17,652

2012................................................................17,619

2013................................................................17,6191

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $17.6 million, the same as the 2012 level, to maintain funding for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the RMI and the FSM. The request would ensure the 

continuation of services for residents of the RMI and the FSM. The Administration also is 

seeking appropriations language that would allow the Department of Education to reserve up to 

5 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical assistance to support effective use of 

program funds to improve educational outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

A majority of the funding in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was used to support early childhood 

education. The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grants for education 

improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional development. Both the 

RMI and the FSM are also using funds to prepare students for jobs that may result from the 

Guam military build-up. For example, funds to the RMI have supported an Accelerated Boot 

Camp Trades Academy in collaboration with the College of the Marshall Islands while funds to 

the FSM have supported projects developed in partnership with the Guam Trades Academy. 

The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2014 funding would be used for similar purposes.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

E-74E-74

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,752 $11,752 $11,752

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,867 5,867 5,867

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Supplemental Education Grants program was funded for the first time in fiscal year 2005. 

The Department has not established performance measures for this program because it is 

operated by the Department of the Interior.

A December 2006 General Accounting Office report, entitled Compacts of Free Association: 

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring 

Progress, and Ensuring Accountability, documented both the continuing need for improvement 

in the public education systems of the Freely Associated States and the difficulties in obtaining 

and reporting performance data for this program. The RMI, according to the report, was not able 

to measure progress towards its educational goals because the data the Republic collected 

were inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests the Republic used were not aligned with 

the curriculum used in RMI schools and thus were not adequate measures of student 

achievement. The FSM also lacked consistent performance outcomes and measures; 

measures and outcomes had been established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to 

track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior covering the 5-year period between 

2004 and 2009 highlights the continuing challenges faced by both entities in improving the 

quality of education due to a lack of qualified teachers, poor facilities, and a high absentee rate 

among students and teachers. While access to elementary and secondary education has 

increased in the RMI and student enrollment has also increased despite significant outmigration, the RMI continues to have few standardized tests for assessing student achievement, 

a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of highly qualified teachers. 

The DOI information also notes that the FSM has made steady progress toward building the 

capacity to collect and report annually on a set of 20 indicators of educational progress but 

continues to struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out rates, and 

problematic teacher attendance. One area of improvement for the FSM was a slight increase, 

between 2005 and 2009, in the number and percentage of teachers holding an Associates of 

Arts degree for certification.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-75

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$51,113 $51,1132 $51,113 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014.

2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) authorizes support for not less than 

20 comprehensive centers to provide training, technical assistance, and professional 

development in reading, mathematics, science, and technology, particularly to low-performing 

local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. By statute, the Department is required to 

establish at least one center in each of the 10 geographic regions served by the regional 

educational laboratories (RELs). Allocations for regional centers are to be determined on the 

basis of the number of school-aged children, the proportion of disadvantaged students in the 

various regions, the higher cost of service delivery in sparsely populated areas, and the number 

of schools identified for improvement under Section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA). 

In order to provide assistance to LEAs and schools in the most efficient and sustainable manner, 

in 2005 the Department established a system of technical assistance that includes regional and 

content centers that, rather than providing services directly to LEAs and schools, focuses on 

building the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to meet the needs of the LEAs and 

schools in the State. The existing cohort of comprehensive centers, first funded in 2012, is 

organized into 15 regional centers that work with the SEAs within their geographic regions to 

help the SEAs implement school and district improvement measures and objectives. In addition, 

instead of requiring each regional center to have in-depth knowledge of all aspects of school 

improvement – from school turnaround to teacher and leader quality to assessment design – the 

Department has funded seven content centers, with one center specializing in each of the 

following seven content areas: standards and assessment implementation; innovations in 

learning; promoting great teachers and leaders; school turnaround; enhancing early learning 

outcomes; college- and career-readiness and success; and building State capacity and 

productivity. Each content center brings together resources and expertise to provide analyses, 

information, and materials in its focus area for use by the regional centers and SEAs. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-76E-76

Each center developed a 5-year plan for carrying out authorized activities. The plan of each 

regional center addresses the needs of its SEAs in meeting the student achievement goals of 

the ESEA, as well as priorities established by the Department and the States. Each center has 

an advisory board that advises the center on: (1) allocation of resources; (2) strategies for 

monitoring and addressing the region’s educational needs (or the regional centers’ needs in the 

case of the content centers); (3) maintaining a high standard of quality in the performance of its 

activities; and (4) carrying out the center’s activities in a manner that promotes progress toward 

improving student academic achievement. 

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component under the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences, to carry out an independent 

evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers to determine the extent to which each center meets its 

objectives.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$57,113

2010................................................................56,313

2011................................................................51,210

2012................................................................51,113

2013................................................................51,1131

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $51.1 million, the same as the fiscal year 2012 

appropriation, to support the third year of funding for the second cohort of comprehensive 

centers funded under the ETAA.

The Department provided the first year of funding to 22 Comprehensive Center grantees in 

2012. The 2012 competition restructured the program slightly, changing the configuration of the 

regions and reducing the number of regional centers to 15 from 16, while adding two content 

centers to bring the number of those centers to 7. The regions are aligned with the 

Department’s REL regions, such that 1 or 2 regional centers are located in each of the 10 REL 

regions.

Regional centers must provide technical assistance that aligns with the work of the content 

centers and builds the capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives 

statewide that are designed to improve student outcomes. This technical assistance must also 

focus on key reform priorities, which include (1) implementing college- and career-ready 

standards and aligned, high-quality assessments for all students; (2) identifying, recruiting, 

developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders; (3) turning around the lowestperforming schools; (4) ensuring the school readiness and enabling the success of preschoolage children and their successful transition to kindergarten; (5) building rigorous instructional 

pathways that support the successful transition of all students from secondary education to 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-77E-77

college, without the need for remediation, and careers; (6) identifying and scaling up innovative 

approaches to teaching and learning that significantly improve student outcomes; and (7) using 

data-based decision-making to improve instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes.

The content centers will continue to supply research-based products and services for the 

regional centers and the States they serve that is focused on one of 7 content areas.

Four of the 22 centers received additional funds from programs other than the Comprehensive 

Centers program. The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders received additional funding from 

the Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program as well as from the 

Career and Technical Education National Activities program. These contributions support the 

provision of technical assistance on serving students with disabilities and on effective instruction 

and leadership in career and technical education. The Indian Education National Activities 

program provided support to 3 regional centers that serve States with the largest populations of 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students, for technical assistance designed to increase 

the capacity of SEAs to lead and support their LEAs and schools in improving student outcomes 

for AI/AN students.

The Administration is aware that States face many challenges in implementing reforms designed 

to improve student performance and close achievement gaps and has undertaken a crossDepartment initiative designed to better coordinate ED-funded technical assistance to help meet 

these challenges. This initiative is intended to provide a consistent message about reform 

priorities, avoid duplication of effort, and better leverage existing resources. The immediate 

scope of these coordination efforts will focus on technical assistance provided by the Race to 

the Top program, the Regional Educational Laboratories, the Office of Special Education 

Programs’ Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers, and the Comprehensive Centers. 

Staff from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Office of Special Education 

Programs, and the Office of the Deputy Secretary’s Implementation and Support Unit will 

manage the implementation of this initiative. 

The Department will use fiscal year 2013 funds to begin an IES evaluation of the new centers.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-78E-78

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Comprehensive centers

Number of centers 22 22 22

Center awards $50,631 $49,613 $49,513

Average award $2,301 $2,255 $2,251

Evaluation 0 $1,500 $1,600

Regional advisory committees and peer 

review of new award applications $483 0 0

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

In response to deficiencies identified in the comprehensive centers under the antecedent 

program, the Department placed strong emphasis on creating a performance-based framework 

for the current centers that includes, among other things, annual performance measures. These 

measures were created as part of a Department-wide effort to bring consistency to the 

assessment of performance across technical assistance programs through the creation of 

common performance measures. The measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, 

and usefulness of the services provided by the centers, the extent to which each center meets 

the objectives of its respective plan, and whether their services meet the educational needs of 

the SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

As part of the Department’s national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers, initiated in 2006, 

the contractor led panel reviews and conducted surveys annually beginning in 2007. An analysis

of the results of those reviews and surveys provided data for the centers’ performance measures 

from 2007 - 2009. Grantees reported performance measurement data for 2010 and 2011 

through their individual performance reports. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-79E-79

Goal: To improve student achievement in low-performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2009 46 45

2010 52

2011 59

2012 66

2013 73

2014 80

Additional information: Independent panels reviewed the substantive content of sample 

products and services provided by the centers and made an assessment of their technical 

quality on the following dimensions: demonstrated use of the appropriate documented 

knowledge base; fidelity of application of the knowledge base to the products and services 

provided; and clear and effective delivery. The Department distributed and discussed with each 

center the panelists’ comments about its projects in order to help centers consider areas for 

improvement. The evaluation included only 2 years of data collection (2008 and 2009), and the 

data for 2010 and 2011 were collected and reported using client surveys developed by the 

centers in conjunction with their evaluators. For 2010 and 2011, the centers reported 91 and 

92 percent, respectively, of all products and services to be of high quality. The designs of client 

surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. 

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2009 76 85

2010 77 84

2011 78 89

2012 79

2013 80

2014 80

Additional information: As part of the national evaluation, an independent firm collected 

survey data from a random sample of SEA and intermediate education agency staff who 

participated in regional centers’ projects and also from regional center staff who participated in 

content centers’ projects. Projects were defined as a group of closely related activities or 

deliverables designed to achieve specific outcomes for a specific audience. The evaluation 

included only 2 years of data collection (2008 and 2009), and the data for 2010 and 2011 were 

collected and reported using client surveys developed by the centers in conjunction with their 

evaluators. The designs of client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely 

by center. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-80E-80

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

children in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2009 56 71

2010 60 88

2011 65 89

2012 70

2013 75

2014 80

Additional information: As part of the national evaluation, an independent firm collected 

survey data from a random sample of SEA and intermediate education agency staff who 

participated in regional centers’ projects and from regional center staff who participated in 

content centers’ projects. Projects were defined as a group of closely related activities or 

deliverables designed to achieve specific outcomes for a specific audience. The evaluation 

included only 2 years of data collection (2008 and 2009), and the data for 2010 and 2011 were 

collected and reported using client surveys developed by the centers in conjunction with their 

evaluators. The designs of client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely 

by center. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department is implementing a common measure of administrative efficiency to assess the 

Comprehensive Centers program and other technical assistance programs. The measure is the 

percentage of grant funds that the centers carry over for each year of operations. Data for the 

measure are available each year in September, after Department staff have reviewed data for 

the previous 12-month budget cycle, and are presented in the table below. The Department also 

established a second efficiency measure for the program: the number of working days following 

a monitoring visit that it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to grantees. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-81E-81

Objective: Improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure: The percentage of Comprehensive Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2009 10 4

2010 10 2

2011 10 2

2012 10 3

2013 10

2014 10

Additional information: The centers had 40 percent carryover in 2006, the baseline year, 

which was likely the result of their receiving initial grant awards several months into the 

beginning of the first award year. Since then, grantees have greatly reduced the amount of 

funds they carry over each year. 

Measure: The number of working days following a monitoring visit that it takes the Department 

to send a monitoring report to grantees. 

Year Target Actual

2009 81

2010 45 78

2011 45 58

2012 45 NA

2013 45

2014 45

Additional information: The Department conducted two monitoring visits with reports due in 

fiscal year 2012. The report for the first visit was sent to the grantee within 28 working days after 

the visit, well within the target of 45 working days. Due to extensive preparations for the fiscal 

year 2012 grant competition, the report for the second visit was delayed. Since that grantee did 

not receive a new award under the fiscal year 2012 competition and thus was no longer a 

grantee beginning in fiscal year 2013, the Department will not send a report. 

Other Performance Information

In addition to providing data for the performance measures, the national evaluation of the 

Comprehensive Centers assessed: (1) the extent to which the centers have met the objectives 

of their respective technical assistance plans and the educational needs of SEAs, and 

(2) whether the centers’ assistance has expanded SEAs’ capacity to provide technical 

assistance to help LEAs and schools meet their statutory requirements. The evaluation also 

examined the centers’ responses to changing SEA needs in technical assistance, SEAs’ 

reliance on the centers compared to other technical assistance sources, the overall costs for 

SEAs in providing ESEA-related technical assistance, and the estimated dollar value of the 

centers’ products and services to SEAs.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-82E-82

In July 2010, the first interim report from the national evaluation provided an analysis of data 

obtained through surveys of comprehensive center clients and expert reviews of comprehensive 

center projects, covering the 2006-07 program year, the second year of center operations. In 

this first round of project ratings, the content centers had higher mean ratings of technical quality 

for their sampled projects than did the regional centers, while the regional centers had higher 

mean ratings of relevance than did the content centers. There was no statistically significant 

relationship between ratings of quality and ratings of relevance or usefulness, which suggests 

that achieving high technical quality (judged on the basis of expert peer reviews) was unrelated 

to the delivery of assistance thought by clients to be highly relevant or useful. There was a high 

correlation between relevance and usefulness. 

The final report, covering the 2007-08 and 2008-09 program years, was released August 31, 

2011 (see: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114031/). The report indicated that both the regional 

centers and the content centers conducted activities consistent with their design and that, over 

the 3-year period, the regional centers and content centers were increasingly involved in each 

other’s projects. Similarly, an increasing number of State managers reported each year that 

center assistance served their purposes, with “statewide systems of support” cited most 

frequently as a State priority. The proportion of State managers reporting that center assistance 

had served the State’s purposes completely rose from 36 percent in 2006-07 to 56 percent in 

2008-09. Statewide systems of support was also the topic most frequently addressed in center 

projects each year. Among the managers who reported that their States’ purposes were not 

completely served, a larger proportion in each year reported wanting more interaction with the 

centers. In 2008-09, 43 percent of those State managers said, “center staff are not able to 

spend as much time working with the State as we would like.” 

Further, State managers reported that center assistance had expanded State capacity in the 

area of Statewide systems of support. Among State managers who reported Statewide systems 

of support or school support teams to be a State priority for assistance in 2008-09, 82 percent 

credited center assistance with a “great” or “moderate” expansion of State capacity in this area. 

To a lesser extent, State managers also credited the centers with expanding their States’ 

capacity in other areas during the same year: from 77 percent in the areas of research-based 

curriculum, instruction, or professional development in academic subjects to 39 percent in ESEA 

provisions on supplemental educational services and choice.

On average, across each of the 3 years, the ratings for quality, relevance, and usefulness 

increased. The average quality rating was consistently higher for content center projects than 

for regional center projects while the average relevance ratings were higher for regional centers 

than content centers in the first 2 years of the study. There were no consistent differences in the 

usefulness ratings between regional centers and content centers.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-83

Native Hawaiian student education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1,2

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$34,181 $34,1813 $34,181 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Under current law, of the amount available to carry out Sections 7204 and 7205 of ESEA, $500 thousand is to 

be reserved for a direct grant to the Native Hawaiian Education Council to carry out Section 7204. 3 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Student Education program supports the provision of supplemental 

education services to the Native Hawaiian population. Competitive grants are awarded to 

eligible applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, familybased education, gifted and talented education, special education, higher education, and 

community-based education learning centers. Eligible applicants include Native Hawaiian 

educational organizations and community-based organizations, public and private nonprofit 

organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating Native 

Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, and other 

entities. 

The program also supports the activities of the Native Hawaiian Education Council. The Council 

uses funds directly and is authorized to make grants to facilitate its coordination of the 

educational and related services and programs available to Native Hawaiians. It also provides 

administrative support and financial assistance to island councils authorized by the statute. The 

Council receives a minimum award of $500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$33,315

2010................................................................34,315

2011................................................................34,246

2012................................................................34,181

2013................................................................34,1811

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian student education

E-84E-84

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $34.2 million for the Native Hawaiian Student 

Education program, the same amount as fiscal year 2012. The budget request assumes the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal for of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), which would require that grantees ensure that academic projects use evidence-based 

approaches and report academic achievement data for the students they serve. 

Data on the educational performance of Native Hawaiian students demonstrate the continuing 

need for this program. Across all assessed grades in 2012, 59.9 percent of Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students demonstrated grade-level proficiency in reading and 

46.3 percent in mathematics on Hawaii’s State assessment, compared to 71.1 percent in 

reading and 59.2 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiian students. This gap between Native 

Hawaiians and their peers remains consistent across grade levels. In the 4th grade, 60.5 percent 

of Native Hawaiian students met or exceeded proficiency in reading and 51.1 percent met or 

exceeded proficiency in mathematics, compared to 71.8 percent in reading and 63.2 percent in 

mathematics for all Hawaiian students. In the 8th grade, 60.4 percent of Native Hawaiian 

students met or exceeded proficiency in reading and 44.3 percent met this level in mathematics, 

compared to 71.8 percent in reading and 58.8 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiians 

students. 

Data from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show similar trend in 

achievement gaps. In 4th-grade reading, 18 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students 

in Hawaii were proficient or advanced, while the overall national average for all students was 

34 percent. There were similar differences in 8th-grade reading (13 percent proficient compared 

to 34 percent nationally), 4th-grade mathematics (29 percent proficient compared to 40 percent 

nationally), and 8th-grade mathematics (17 percent proficient compared to 35 percent nationally).

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measure: 2012 2013 2014

Amount for new awards $10,784 $2,046 $9,454

Number of new awards 17 5 18

Amount for continuation awards $22,555 $31,635 $23,885

Number of continuation awards 31 40 22

Native Hawaiian Education 

Council $500 $500 $500

Peer review of new award 

applications

$342 01 $342

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

1 The Department plans to fund new applications in FY 2013 from the FY 2012 slate.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian student education

E-85E-85

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department established new performance measures for this program in 2008, partly in 

response to recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to more 

accurately and reliably gauge the effectiveness of this program. The Department used the new

measures beginning with the fiscal year 2009 cohort of new grantees. Baseline data is available 

for 2012. The new indicators measure (1) the percentage of Native Hawaiian students in schools 

served by the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and 

science on the State’s annual assessments; (2) the percentage of Native Hawaiian children 

participating in early learning programs who demonstrate school readiness in literacy as 

measured by the Hawaii School Readiness Assessment (HSRA); (3) the percentage of students 

in schools served by the program who graduate from high school with a regular high school 

diploma in 4 years; and (4) the percentage of students receiving Hawaiian language instruction 

through a grant under the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in reading on a 

test of the Hawaiian language. 

In 2012, 59 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards in reading, 47 percent of 

students met or exceeded proficiency standards in math, and 48 percent of students met or 

exceeded proficiency standards in science on the State’s annual assessments. The second 

measure regarding school readiness only applied to a two grantees and the information is not 

yet available. Seventy seven percent of students in schools served by the program graduated 

from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. No grantees reported on the final GPRA 

measure regarding Hawaiian language proficiency. The Department expects to have year one 

data available in fall 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-86

Alaska Native student education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part C) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability

2012 2013

fn

2014

Change

from 2012

$33,185 $33,1852 $33,185 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Student Education program supports supplemental educational programs 

and services for Alaska Natives. The program awards competitive grants to eligible applicants 

for a variety of authorized activities, such as teacher training and student enrichment programs. 

Eligible applicants include Alaska Native organizations, educational entities with experience in 

developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of instruction conducted in Alaska 

Native languages, cultural and community-based organizations, and other entities. At least 

$1 million must be used for parenting education activities.

Activities supported by these grants include the development and implementation of curricula 

and educational programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population, 

professional development activities for educators, the development and operation of home 

instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children that help ensure the active 

involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy services, student enrichment 

programs in science and mathematics, and dropout prevention programs.

Section 7304(d)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires the 

following grants to be awarded annually: $1 million for cultural education programs operated by 

the Alaska Native Heritage Center; $1 million for a cultural exchange program operated by the 

Alaska Humanities Forum; $2 million for an Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement; and 

$2 million for the Cook Inlet Tribal Council’s Partners for Success program, a dropout prevention 

program. However, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act required that all program funds must 

be awarded competitively that year. 

All grantees may use no more than 5 percent of the funding for administrative costs.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-87E-87

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2009..............................................................$33,315

2010................................................................33,315

2011................................................................33,248

2012................................................................33,185

2013................................................................33,1851

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $33.2 million for the Alaska Native Student 

Education program, the same as the fiscal year 2012 level. The budget request assumes the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), and would support the continued provision of education-related services to the Alaska 

Native population, funding the program’s first year of operation under a reauthorized ESEA. The 

reauthorization proposal would also eliminate directed funding for particular organizations in the 

current statute under this program because the Administration believes that competing these 

funds will lead to higher-quality programs and improved student outcomes. 

Data on the educational performance of Alaska Native students demonstrate the continuing 

need for this program. Results from the spring 2012 Alaska Standards-Based Assessment 

indicated that Alaska Native and American Indian students in the State continue to lag behind 

their peers in academic performance. Because Alaska Natives constitute approximately 

95 percent of the State’s American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) student population, the AI/AN 

scores are good proxies for Alaska Native achievement. Fifty six percent of AI/AN students 

demonstrated proficiency on the 4th-grade reading assessment, compared to 77 percent of all 

4th-grade students, and 57 percent of AI/AN students achieved proficiency in mathematics, 

compared to 74 percent of all 4th-grade students. Eighth-grade assessments showed similar 

results as 66 percent of AI/AN students demonstrated proficiency on the 8th-grade reading 

assessment, compared to 83 percent of all 8th-grade students, and 49 percent of AI/AN students 

achieved proficiency in mathematics, compared to 69 percent of all 8th-grade students. 

Data from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show similar trends in 

achievement gaps. In 4th-grade reading, 8 percent of AI/AN students in Alaska were proficient, 

while the overall national average for all students was 34 percent. There were similar 

differences in 8th-grade reading (10 percent proficient compared to 34 percent nationally), 

4th-grade mathematics (14 percent proficient compared to 40 percent nationally), and 8th-grade 

mathematics (15 percent proficient compared to 35 percent nationally). 

According to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, in the 2011-2012 

school year, the annual dropout rate (the proportion of students who drop out of school during 

the course of a year) among Alaska Natives and American Indian students in grades 7 through 

12 was 8.0 percent. This was higher than the rate for any other racial or ethnic group in the 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-88E-88

State and well above the statewide rate of 4.8 percent. Further, Alaska’s Report Card to the 

Public: 2011-2012 reported that the American Indian/Alaska Native high school graduation rate 

was 53.9 percent, while the statewide figure was 69.6 percent.

Alaska’s geography and population patterns add to the challenge of delivering quality 

educational services to Alaska Native students. The State has many rural districts, which often 

house few schools spread out over large remote areas, and Alaska Native students are 

disproportionately enrolled in small, rural, and isolated schools.

Program grants help address these barriers by developing programs tailored to the educational 

and cultural needs of Alaska Native students in order to improve their performance in the 

classroom and increase their chances of graduating from high school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measure: 2012 2013 2014

Amount for new awards $20,860 $3,082 $10,422

Number of new awards 44 2 19

Amount for continuation 

awards

$11,403 $30,103 $22,431

Number of continuation 

awards

19 61 46

Peer review of new award 

applications

$332 01 $332

_________________

NOTES: In 2012, $590 thousand was used to make an award to the last applicant on the fiscal year 2011 slate.

2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

1 The Department plans to fund new applications in FY 2013 from the FY 2012 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested for fiscal 

year 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department established new and revised performance measures in 2008 that more 

accurately and reliably gauge the effectiveness of this program. The Department used these 

measures beginning with the fiscal year 2009 cohort of new grantees. Baseline data is available 

for 2012. The new indicators measure (1) the percentage of Alaska Native students in schools 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-89E-89

served by the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and 

science on the State’s annual assessments; (2) the percentage of Alaska Native children 

participating in early learning and preschool programs who demonstrate school readiness in 

language and literacy as measured by the Revised Alaska Developmental Profile (RADP); and 

(3) the percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate from high school 

with a high school diploma in 4 years. 

In 2012, 48 percent of students in schools served by the program met or exceeded proficiency 

standards for reading, 44 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards for math, 

and 22 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards in science on the State’s 

annual assessments. The second measure regarding school readiness applied to only three 

grantees and information is not yet available. Fifty three percent of students in schools served 

by the program graduated from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. The 

Department expects to have year one data available in fall 2013.
E-90E-90

State tables