Department of Education

ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations language .........................................................................................................B-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................B-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ............................................................................B-11

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................B-12

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................B-13

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................B-14

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports.............................................................B-16

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................B-17

Activities:

College- and career-ready students ................................................................................B-20

School turnaround grants ................................................................................................B-37

Evaluation .......................................................................................................................B-46

State agency programs:

Migrant student education .........................................................................................B-50

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education............................................B-56

Homeless children and youth education..........................................................................B-61

State tables*

*State tables reflecting 2014 allocations and 2015 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update.
[EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED] ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND 

ENSURING EQUITY1

B-1

Appropriations language

[For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (referred to in 

this Act as ‘‘ESEA’’) and section 418A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (referred to in this 

Act as ‘‘HEA’’), $15,552,693,000, of which $4,625,762,000 shall become available on July 1, 

2014, and shall remain available through September 30, 2015, and of which $10,841,177,000 

shall become available on October 1, 2014, and shall remain available through September 30, 

2015, for academic year 2014–2015:2 Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be for basic grants 

under section 1124 of the ESEA:3 Provided further, That up to $3,984,000 of these funds shall 

be available to the Secretary of Education (referred to in this title as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 

2013, to obtain annually updated local educational agency-level census poverty data from the 

Bureau of the Census:4 Provided further, That $1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants 

under section 1124A of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $3,281,550,000 shall be for targeted 

grants under section 1125 of the ESEA:6 Provided further, That $3,281,550,000 shall be for 

education finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:7 Provided further, That 

funds available under sections 1124, 1124A, 1125 and 1125A of the ESEA may be used to 

provide homeless children and youths with services not ordinarily provided to other students 

under those sections, including supporting the liaison designated pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and providing transportation 

pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act:8 Provided further, That $880,000 shall be to 

carry out sections 1501 and 1503 of the ESEA:9 Provided further, That $505,756,000 shall be 

available for school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, which shall be 

allocated by the Secretary through the formula described in section 1003(g)(2) and shall be 

used consistent with the requirements of section 1003(g), except that State and local 

educational agencies may use such funds to serve any school eligible to receive assistance 
B-2

under part A of title I that has not made adequate yearly progress for at least 2 years or is in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates and, in the case of secondary 

schools, priority shall be given to those schools with graduation rates below 60 percent:10

Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, the Secretary may 

permit a State educational agency to establish an award period of up to 5 years for each 

participating local educational agency:11 Provided further, That funds available for school 

improvement grants may be used by a local educational agency to implement a whole-school 

reform strategy for a school using an evidence-based strategy that ensures whole-school reform 

is undertaken in partnership with a strategy developer offering a whole-school reform program 

that is based on at least a moderate level of evidence that the program will have a statistically 

significant effect on student outcomes, including more than one well-designed or wellimplemented experimental or quasi-experimental study:12 Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants may be used by a local educational agency to implement an 

alternative State-determined school improvement strategy that has been established by a State 

educational agency with the approval of the Secretary:13 Provided further, That a local 

educational agency that is determined to be eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B 

of title VI of the ESEA may modify not more than one element of a school improvement grant 

model:14 Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(A), each State educational 

agency may establish a maximum subgrant size of not more than $2,000,000 for each

participating school applicable to such funds:15 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve 

up to 5 percent of the funds available for section 1003(g) of the ESEA to carry out activities to 

build State and local educational agency capacity to implement effectively the school 

improvement grants program:16 Provided further, That $158,000,000 shall be available under 

section 1502 of the ESEA for a comprehensive literacy development and education program to 

advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, for students from birth 
B-3

through grade 12, including limited- English-proficient students and students with disabilities, of 

which one-half of 1 percent shall be reserved for the Secretary of the Interior for such a program 

at schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, one-half of 1 percent shall be reserved for 

grants to the outlying areas for such a program, up to 5 percent may be reserved for national 

activities, and the remainder shall be used to award competitive grants to State educational 

agencies for such a program, of which a State educational agency may reserve up to 5 percent 

for State leadership activities, including technical assistance and training, data collection, 

reporting, and administration, and shall subgrant not less than 95 percent to local educational 

agencies or, in the case of early literacy, to local educational agencies 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, giving priority to such agencies or other entities serving greater 

numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children:17 Provided further, That the State 

educational agency shall ensure that at least 15 percent of the subgranted funds are used to 

serve children from birth through age 5, 40 percent are used to serve students in kindergarten 

through grade 5, and 40 percent are used to serve students in middle and high school including 

an equitable distribution of funds between middle and high schools:18 Provided further, That 

eligible entities receiving subgrants from State educational agencies shall use such funds for 

services and activities that have the characteristics of effective literacy instruction through 

professional development, screening and assessment, targeted interventions for students 

reading below grade level and other research-based methods of improving classroom 

instruction and practice.]

19 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014.)

NOTES

No new language is included for this account. All programs are 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.
B-4

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.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-5

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 [EDUCATION FOR THE 

DISADVANTAGED] ACCELERATING 

ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

This language is included because the 

Administration proposes to change the title of 

this account from Education for the 

Disadvantaged to Accelerating Achievement 

and Ensuring Equity.

2 [...of which $4,625,762,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2014, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2015, and 

of which $10,841,177,000 shall become 

available on October 1, 2014, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2015, for academic year 2014–2015:]

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, School Improvement 

Grants, State Agency Migrant and Neglected 

and Delinquent, and Striving Readers 

programs. The language also provides that a 

portion of the funds is available in an 

advance appropriation that becomes 

available for obligation on October 1 of the 

following fiscal year.

3 [...Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be 

for basic grants under section 1124 of the 

ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Basic Grants.

4 [...Provided further, That up to $3,984,000 

of these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title 

as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 2013, to obtain 

annually updated local educational agencylevel census poverty data from the Bureau of 

the Census:]

This language makes available, on a currentfunded basis, $3,992,000 from Basic Grant 

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

5 [...Provided further, That $1,362,301,000 

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

6 [...Provided further, That $3,281,550,000

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

7 [...Provided further, That $3,281,550,000

shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

B-6

Language Provision Explanation

8 [...Provided further, That funds available 

under sections 1124, 1124A, 1125 and 

1125A of the ESEA may be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under those sections, including supporting 

the liaison designated pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act, and providing 

transportation pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act:

This language allows funds under Title I 

Part A of the ESEA to be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under that program, including (1) supporting 

the local liaisons who are responsible for 

coordinating services to ensure that 

homeless children and youth enroll in school 

and have the opportunity to succeed 

academically under the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act; and (2) providing 

transportation as required under the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to 

permit homeless students to remain in their 

schools of origin despite their residential 

instability. 

9 [ Provided further, That $880,000 shall be 

to carry out sections 1501 and 1503 of the 

ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Evaluation.

10 [...Provided further, That $505,756,000

shall be available for school improvement 

grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, 

which shall be allocated by the Secretary 

through the formula described in section 

1003(g)(2) and shall be used consistent with 

the requirements of section 1003(g), except 

that State and local educational agencies 

may use such funds to serve any school 

eligible to receive assistance under part A of 

title I that has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least 2 years or is in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based 

on proficiency rates and, in the case of 

secondary schools, priority shall be given to 

those schools with graduation rates below 60 

percent:]

This language expands eligibility for 

participation in the School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program to schools that are 

eligible for but do not receive Title I Part A 

funds and meet certain requirements. The 

language also establishes a priority for 

secondary schools that have graduation 

rates below 60 percent.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

B-7

Language Provision Explanation

11 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, the 

Secretary may permit a State educational 

agency to establish an award period of up to 

5 years for each participating local 

educational agency:]

This language allows State educational 

agencies to make SIG awards of up to 

5 years to local educational agencies.

12 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants may be used 

by a local educational agency to implement a 

whole-school reform strategy for a school 

using an evidence-based strategy that 

ensures whole-school reform is undertaken 

in partnership with a strategy developer 

offering a whole-school reform program that 

is based on at least a moderate level of 

evidence that the program will have a 

statistically significant effect on student 

outcomes, including more than one welldesigned or well-implemented experimental 

or quasi-experimental study:]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement, in 

partnership with a strategy developer, whole 

school reform strategies that meet specific 

standards of evidence of effectiveness.

13 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants may be used 

by a local educational agency to implement 

an alternative State-determined school 

improvement strategy that has been 

established by a State educational agency 

with the approval of the Secretary:]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement an 

alternative school improvement strategy that 

has been established by the State 

educational agency and approved by the 

Secretary.

14 [...Provided further, That a local 

educational agency that is determined to be 

eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of 

part B of title VI of the ESEA may modify not 

more than one element of a school 

improvement grant model:

This language allows local educational 

agencies that are eligible to receive funds 

and services under the Rural Education 

Achievement Act to modify not more than 

one element of a SIG model:

15 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 1003(g)(5)(A), each State 

educational agency may establish a 

maximum subgrant size of not more than 

$2,000,000 for each participating school 

applicable to such funds:]

This language overrides the statutory cap on 

the maximum per-school subgrant size for 

subgrants made by States under the SIG

program.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

B-8

Language Provision Explanation

16 [...Provided further, That the Secretary 

may reserve up to 5 percent of the funds 

available for section 1003(g) of the ESEA to 

carry out activities to build State and local 

educational agency capacity to implement 

effectively the school improvement grants 

program:]

This language authorizes the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of the funds 

appropriated for the SIG program for 

capacity-building.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

B-9

Language Provision Explanation

17 [...Provided further, That $160,000,000 

shall be available under section 1502 of the 

ESEA for a comprehensive literacy 

development and education program to 

advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy 

skills, reading, and writing, for students from 

birth through grade 12, including limitedEnglish-proficient students and students with 

disabilities, of which one-half of 1 percent 

shall be reserved for the Secretary of the 

Interior for such a program at schools funded 

by the Bureau of Indian Education, one-half 

of 1 percent shall be reserved for grants to 

the outlying areas for such a program, up to 

5 percent may be reserved for national 

activities, and the remainder shall be used to 

award competitive grants to State 

educational agencies for such a program, of 

which a State educational agency may 

reserve up to 5 percent for State leadership 

activities, including technical assistance and 

training, data collection, reporting, and 

administration, and shall subgrant not less 

than 95 percent to local educational agencies 

or, in the case of early literacy, to local 

educational agencies 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, 

giving priority to such agencies or other 

entities serving greater numbers or 

percentages of disadvantaged children:]

This language provides funding for a Striving 

Readers program that serves students from 

birth through grade 12; provides a portion of 

the funds to the Department of 

Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and the 

Outlying Areas; establishes the amount the 

Department may reserve for national 

activities; and establishes the amount the 

Department must distribute through 

competitive awards to States. The language 

also specifies the amount of funds that 

States receiving competitive awards may 

reserve for State leadership activities and the 

amount of funds that they award through 

subgrants to local educational agencies or to 

nonprofit organizations that provide early 

childhood education services.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

B-10

Language Provision Explanation

18 [...Provided further, That the State 

educational agency shall ensure that at least 

15 percent of the subgranted funds are used 

to serve children from birth through age 5, 

40 percent are used to serve students in 

kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent 

are used to serve students in middle and 

high school including an equitable distribution 

of funds between middle and high schools:]

This language establishes that States must 

use particular amounts of Striving Readers 

funds to support projects serving children in 

specific age groups or grades.

19 [...Provided further, That eligible entities 

receiving subgrants from State educational 

agencies shall use such funds for services 

and activities that have the characteristics of 

effective literacy instruction through 

professional development, screening and 

assessment, targeted interventions for 

students reading below grade level and other 

research-based methods of improving 

classroom instruction and practice.]

This language establishes requirements for 

the types of activities that entities may 

conduct with their Striving Readers funds.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-11

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ........................................................ $15,741,703 $15,552,693 $15,377,965

Discretionar y Discreti onar y Across-the-board reduction (P.L. 113-6)............ -31,483 0 0

Discretionar y Total, discretionary appropriation.......................... 15,710,220

Discretionar y Discreti onar y Sequester (P.L. 112-25)..................................... -788,585 0 0

Discretionar y Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation .... 14,921,636 15,552,693 15,377,965

Discretionar y Comparative transfer to:

Education Improvement Programs for: .................

Striving Readers............................................. -151,378 -158,000 0

High School Graduation Initiative.................... -46,267 -46,267 0

Discretionar y Higher Education for Special Programs for: 

Migrant Students ............................................ -34,623 -34,623 0

Discretionar y Comparative transfer from: Education 

Improvement Programs for:

Homeless Children and Youth Education: 61,771 65,042 0

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation............................................. 14,751,139 15,378,845 15,377,965

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year ...................... -10,841,177 -10,841,177 -11,681,898

Advance from prior year....................................... 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177

Total, budget authority ..................................... 14,751,139 15,378,845 14,537,244
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-12

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2014................................................................................................. $15,378,845

2015................................................................................................. 15,377,965

Net change ............................................................... -880

Decreases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate separate funding for Evaluation. The ESEA 

reauthorization proposal includes provisions for funding 

program evaluations through set-asides from program funds. $880 -$880

Net change -880
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Request

College- and career-ready students (ESEA-1-A):

LEA grants formulas: LEA grants for mulas 01 To be determined 1

LEA grants for mulas Basic grants (Section 1124) 2 $6,459,401 2 $6,459,401

LEA grants for mulas Concentration grants (Section 1124A) 2 1,362,301 2 1,362,301

LEA grants for mulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) 2 3,281,550 2 3,281,550

LEA grants for mulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) 2 3,281,550 2 3,281,550

School turnaround grants (ESEA Section 1003(g)) 01 505,756 To be determined1 505,756

Evaluation (ESEA I-E-1501 and 1503) 01 880 To be determined1 0

State agency programs:

Migrant student education (ESEA I-C) 01 374,751 To be determined1 374,751

Neglected and delinquent children and youth 

education(ESEA I-D) 01 47,614 To be determined1 47,614

Homeless children and youth education (McKinney-Vento 

Act, Title VII-B) Indefinite 65,042 Indefinite 65,042

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total appropriation 15,378,845 15,377,965

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 15,378,845 15,377,965

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing language is sought for fiscal year 2014. 2 Of the total funds appropriated for Grants to LEAs, an amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $7,397,690 thousand is to be distributed through 

the Basic Grants formula. An amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,365,031 thousand is to be distributed through the Concentration Grants 

formula. Amounts appropriated in excess of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation are to be distributed through the Targeted Grants formula. However, Congress 

specifies the actual amounts to be distributed through each formula in annual appropriations.

B-13
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-14

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFoot

-

note

2006 $16,431,473 $14,728,735 $14,532,785 $14,481,161

(2006 Advance for 2007) (7,383,301) (7,383,301) (7,383,301) (7,383,301)

2007 16,469,541 N/A 1 N/A 1 14,725,593

(2007 Advance for 2008) (7,383,301) (7,383,301)

2008 16,689,090 15,969,818 15,867,778 15,489,476

(2008 Advance for 2009) (7,383,301) (8,136,218) (8,867,301) (7,934,756)

2009 16,917,059 15,788,285 2 15,735,884 2 15,760,086

(2009 Advance for 2010) (7,934,756) (10,841,176) (8,893,756) (10,841,176)

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(PL 111-5) 0 13,000,000 12,400,000 13,000,000

2010 16,431,632 15,938,215 15,891,132 315,914,666

(2010 Advance for 2011) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176)

2011 15,912,193 15,914,666 4 16,726,579 3 15,914,666 5

(2011 Advance for 2012) (11,681,897) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) -(20,490) 6

2012 16,253,026 15,949,319 7 15,741,703 7 15,741,703

(2012 Advance for 2013) (11,681,897) (13,279,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2013 15,558,649 15,208,151 815,840,103 8 14,921,636

(2013 Advance for 2014) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2014 15,683,649 N/A915,875,231 3

15,552,693

(2014 Advance for 2015) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2015 15,377,965

(2015 Advance for 2016)

_____________

(11,681,898)

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 rescission reflects the continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322) passed December 22, 2010.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Appropriations History—continued

B-15

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

Committee action only. 8 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. 9 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-16B-16

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

School Improvement Grants

Senate: The Committee expects that any approach taken with SIG funds should address 

schoolwide factors, whole school culture, the individual needs of the students, 

and the use of data to inform instruction and provide continuous improvement; 

ensure that the needs of the students are met through the organization of the 

school, curriculum and instruction, and social and emotional support services; 

and improve teacher and leader effectiveness, including through training and 

support for teachers and school leaders in school improvement efforts and in the 

needs of students.

Response: The Department believes that the current school turnaround models required by 

the SIG program regulations, while providing considerable discretion to local 

educational agencies to select and implement locally designed interventions, 

promote and encourage the factors and strategies described in the Senate 

language. In addition, the Department is considering options for implementing 

the new provisions for the SIG program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014, such as issuing new regulations or providing guidance or technical 

assistance to SEAs and LEAs. These options may include clarifying or 

strengthening the emphasis of the SIG program on one or more of the factors or 

strategies described in the Senate report language.

Striving Readers

Senate: The Committee directs the Secretary to utilize the 5 percent set-aside for national 

activities to implement a national evaluation of the Striving Readers program.

Response: The Department plans to consult with the Committee on the best way to use the 

national activities set-aside at the current stage of program implementation by 

existing Striving Readers grantees.
ACCOUNT

B-17

B-17

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity 

 1. College- and career-ready students (ESEA I-A):

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 2,919,042 3,543,625 2,702,904 (840,721) -23.725%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,313,597 2,915,776 3,756,497 840,721 28.834%

Subtotal 6,232,639 6,459,401 6,459,401 0 0.000%

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,293,919 1,362,301 1,362,301 0 0.000%

Subtotal 1,293,919 1,362,301 1,362,301 0 0.000%

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,116,831 3,281,550 3,281,550 0 0.000%

Subtotal 3,116,831 3,281,550 3,281,550 0 0.000%

(d) Education finance incentive grants (section 1125A)

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,116,831 3,281,550 3,281,550 0 0.000%

Subtotal 3,116,831 3,281,550 3,281,550 0 0.000%

Subtotal, College- and career-ready students 13,760,219 14,384,802 14,384,802 0 0.000%

Annual appropriation D 2,919,042 3,543,625 2,702,904 (840,721) -23.725%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 10,841,177 10,841,177 11,681,898 840,721 7.755%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 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 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

- Accounts are shown under the administering office that has primary responsibility for most programs in that account; however, there may be some programs that are administered by another office.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 
ACCOUNT

B-18

B-18

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity (continued)

 2. School turnaround grants (ESEA section 1003(g)): D 505,756 505,756 505,756 0 0.000%

 3. Evaluation (ESEA sections 1501 and 1503) D 3,028 880 0 (880) -100.000%

 4. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant student education (ESEA I-C) D 372,751 374,751 374,751 0 0.000%

(b) Neglected and delinquent children and youth education (ESEA I-D) D 47,614 47,614 47,614 0 0.000%

Subtotal 420,365 422,365 422,365 0 0.000%

 5. Homeless children and youth education (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 61,771 65,042 65,042 0 0.000%

 Total, Appropriation 1 D 14,751,139 15,378,845 15,377,965 (880) -0.006%

Total, Budget authority D 14,751,139 15,378,845 14,537,244 (841,601) -5.472%

Current 2 3,909,962 4,537,668 3,696,067 (841,601) -18.547%

Prior year's advance 2 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 0.000%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 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 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

- Accounts are shown under the administering office that has primary responsibility for most programs in that account; however, there may be some programs that are administered by another office.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Adjusted for comparability. Excludes $34,623 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for Special Programs for Migrant Students, requested in FY 2015 in the Higher Education account; and 

includes $61,771 thousand in FY 2013 and $65,042 thousand in FY 2014 for Homeless Children and Youth Education, which was funded in those years under the School Improvement Programs account, now

the Education Improvement Programs account. 

2 Excludes advance appropriations that become available on October 1 of the following year, which total $10,841,177 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and $11,681,898 thousand in FY 2015. In FY 2015, the 

amount for advances is increased due to the proposed consolidation of Improving Teacher Quality State Grants into the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

2015 President's Budget 

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

B-16
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-19

Summary of Request

The programs in the Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity (formerly Education for the 

Disadvantaged) account provide the foundation for school improvement efforts needed to 

ensure that all children receive a high-quality education. The Department is requesting a total of 

$15.4 billion in fiscal year 2015 for the programs in this account.

Most of the programs in the account are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) and are, therefore, subject to reauthorization this year. The budget 

request assumes that these programs will be implemented in fiscal year 2015 under 

reauthorized legislation, and the request is based on the Administration’s reauthorization 

proposal.

The $14.4 billion request for the reauthorized College- and Career-Ready Students program 

(under current law, Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)) would support local 

efforts aimed at helping more than 23 million students in high-poverty schools make progress 

toward the new college- and career-ready standards that States would implement under the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal (and that the great majority of States are currently 

implementing). The reauthorized program also would support a more differentiated approach to 

measuring school progress and identifying schools in need of improvement, reward highly 

effective schools and LEAs, require implementation of rigorous school intervention models in 

the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools, strengthen LEA improvement efforts, and help 

ensure an equitable distribution of effective teachers across high- and low-poverty schools. 

The 2015 request also includes $505.8 million for School Turnaround Grants (STG) to support a 

reauthorized State grant program (under current law School Improvement Grants). The STG 

program would require States and LEAs to use most of their funds to implement one of four 

school intervention models (Turnaround, Restart, School Closure, and Transformation) in their 

schools that (1) are in the bottom 5 percent of schools in the State in terms of student 

achievement or (2) in the case of secondary schools, have graduation rates below 60 percent. 

The reauthorized program also would include a national activities authority that would allow the 

Department to build nationwide school turnaround capacity through data collection, technical 

assistance, and demonstration activities.

The request would fund the other programs in this account as the same level as 2014, providing 

$374.8 million for Migrant Student Education, $47.6 million for Neglected and Delinquent

Children and Youth Education, and $65 million for Homeless Children and Youth Education.

B-19
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-20

Activities:

College- and career-ready students

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority: Acti vity and period of fund availability

2014 2015 Change

Basic grants $6,459,401 $6,459,401 0

Concentration grants 1,362,301 1,362,301 0

Targeted grants 3,281,550 3,281,550 0

Education finance incentive grants 3,281,550 3,281,550 0

Total 14,384,802 14,384,802 0

Annual appropriation 3,543,625 2,702,904 -840,721

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 10,841,177 11,681,898 +840,721

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) provide supplemental education funding, 

especially in high-poverty areas, for local programs that provide extra academic support to help 

raise the achievement of students at risk of educational failure or, in the case of schoolwide 

programs, to help all students in high-poverty schools meet challenging State academic 

standards. The program serves an estimated 23 million students in 77 percent of school 

districts and more than half of all public schoolsincluding 70 percent of the Nation’s 

elementary schools. 

The ESEA gives school districts and schools considerable flexibility in using Title I dollars to 

support instructional strategies and methods that best meet local needs. Title I schools help 

students reach challenging State standards through one of two models: “targeted assistance” 

that supplements the regular education program for individual children deemed most in need of 

special assistance, or a “schoolwide” approach that allows schools to use Title I fundsin 

combination with other Federal, State, and local fundsto improve the overall instructional 

program for all children in a school. Schools in which poor children account for at least 

40 percent of enrollment are eligible to operate schoolwide programs, and in the 2011-2012 

school year approximately 37,141 schools, or 70 percent of all Title I schools, operated these 

programs, which accounted for approximately 94 percent of participating students.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-21

B-21

The ESEA encourages the use of Title I funds for effective educational practices. Both 

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs must employ effective methods and instructional 

strategies grounded in scientifically based research. Schools must further ensure that services 

provided with Title I funds supplement the regular instruction that students would receive in the 

absence of Title I funds, such as by extending the school day, week, or year. Schools also must 

provide ongoing professional development for staff working with disadvantaged students and 

carry out activities designed to increase parental involvement. Additionally, Title I funds may be 

used to support high-quality preschool programs for eligible children and joint professional 

development for school staff and other early childhood educators.

Title I Grants to LEAs provides the foundation for the ESEA’s accountability system, which 

emphasizes State and local responsibilities in the areas of standards and assessments, 

measuring progress, supporting school improvement, and improving teacher quality.

Standards and Assessments

Under Title I, each State was required to create a system of academic standards and aligned 

assessments, and school districts must integrate these standards into local instruction. The 

State systems must include challenging content standards that describe what all students 

should know and be able to do in at least reading (or language arts) and mathematics, and 

academic achievement standards that describe three levels of proficiency (basic, proficient, and 

advanced) for meeting the State content standards. In addition, States were required to 

develop science standards by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

The States also were required to create or adopt academic assessments that measure the 

achievement of all students against their standards. These 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, and poverty, disability, English proficiency, and migrant status. The 

Department provides dedicated State formula grant support for the development and 

implementation of required State assessments (see Assessing Achievement in the Education 

Improvement Programs account).

Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, States have been required to administer their 

reading and mathematics assessments annually to all students in grades 3-8 and once in high 

school in reading and math. States also must assess annually the English proficiency of 

English Learner (EL) students and were required to add science assessments during the 2007-

2008 school year (testing once in each of three grade spans specified in the law). Finally, to 

provide a uniform benchmark for comparing student achievement gains nationwide, the ESEA 

requires biennial State participation in the reading and mathematics assessments for 4th- and 

8th-graders conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Adequate Yearly Progress

State assessments are used to hold LEAs and schools accountable for making adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) toward State standards for proficiency in reading and math, with the goal of 

ensuring that all students are proficient in both subjects by the end of the 2013-2014 school 

year. For a school to make AYP, all students, including those in statutorily specified 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-22

B-22

groups―economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, 

students with disabilities, and EL students―must meet the same annual statewide measurable 

objectives for improved achievement. However, the statute includes a “safe harbor” exception 

under which a school can be considered to have made AYP if the percentage of students in 

each group not reaching the proficient level decreases by at least 10 percent from the previous 

year and the school makes progress on the “other academic indicator” included in the State’s 

AYP definition. 

The Department has taken a number of actions, primarily through regulation, to give States 

additional flexibility in making AYP determinations. For example, in December 2003, the 

Department announced a final regulation permitting States, school districts, and schools to 

include in AYP calculations the “proficient” scores of students with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities who take assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The number of 

those proficient scores included in AYP determinations may not exceed 1 percent of all students 

in the grades tested (about 9 percent of students with disabilities). Since 2007, the Department 

also has provided additional flexibility permitting States to count for AYP purposes the 

“proficient” scores of a limited number of students with disabilities who take assessments based 

on modified achievement standards. The number of such “proficient” scores is capped at 

2 percent of all students tested. These regulations are intended to give schools and teachers 

credit for raising the achievement of students with disabilities.

In addition, the Department allows States to exclude from AYP calculations the assessment 

results for EL students in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools. States also may include 

in the EL subgroup for up to 2 years those students who were EL but who have attained English 

proficiency. Finally, the Department has taken steps to allow States to incorporate individual 

academic growth into their AYP systems, beginning with a pilot growth-model initiative in late 

2005 and then in a final regulation published in 2008 permitting all States to apply for approval 

to add growth models to AYP determinations. 

Accountability and School Improvement

Title I accountability and school improvement provisions require escalating improvement 

measures over time for schools that continue to miss AYP targets. In addition, LEAs must 

implement specific strategies for students attending schools identified for improvement, 

including public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) options.

School Improvement

LEAs must identify for school improvement any school that does not make AYP for 

2 consecutive years, and both LEAs and SEAs must include such identification in their annual 

report cards to parents and the public. Identified schools must develop 2-year improvement 

plans that incorporate strategies from scientifically based research on how to strengthen 

instruction in the core academic subjects and address the specific issues that caused the school 

to be identified for improvement. These plans must include the annual reservation of at least 

10 percent of the school’s Title I, Part A allocation for professional development that directly 

addresses the problems that led to identification for improvement.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-23

B-23

States must reserve 4 percent of their Title I, Part A allocations to support school improvement 

activities and are required to distribute 95 percent of these funds to LEAs with schools identified 

for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. In reserving school improvement funds, 

States are not permitted to reduce an LEA’s allocation below its prior-year level, a restriction 

that may prevent a State from reserving the full 4 percent for school improvement. Additional 

funding for school improvement is provided through the separately authorized section 1003(g) 

School Improvement Grants program (see School Turnaround Grants).

Corrective Action

If an identified school does not make AYP for 2 additional years (4 years of not making AYP), 

the LEA must take corrective action. Corrective actions may include replacing school staff 

responsible for the continued inability to make AYP, comprehensive implementation of a new 

curriculum (including professional development), and reorganizing the school internally. LEAs 

must continue to provide choice and SES options to students in schools identified for corrective 

action.

Restructuring

If a school does not increase student achievement in response to corrective action, the LEA 

must begin planning for restructuring, which involves making a fundamental change such as 

closing the school and reopening it as a public charter school, replacing all or most of the 

school’s staff, turning operation of the school over to a private management company with a 

demonstrated record of effectiveness, or any other major restructuring of the school’s 

governance arrangement. The LEA must implement the restructuring plan no later than the 

beginning of the following school year if the school still does not make AYP (i.e., 6 years of not 

making AYP), and must continue to provide choice and SES options to its students.

Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals

The ESEA requires LEAs to ensure that all Title I teachers hired after the beginning of the 2002-

2003 school year are “highly qualified.” For new teachers, this means being certified by the

State (which may be through an alternative route to certification), holding at least a bachelor’s 

degree, and passing a rigorous State test on subject knowledge and teaching skills. Veteran 

teachers also must possess a bachelor’s degree and be fully certified or licensed by the State, 

and must either pass the State test on subject-matter knowledge or demonstrate subject-matter 

competency through a “high, objective, uniform State standard of evaluation.” LEAs must use at 

least 5 percent of their Part A allocations to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified. States 

were required to develop plans with annual measurable objectives that would ensure that all 

teachers teaching in core academic subjects were highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 

school year, and both States and LEAs must report annually on progress toward this goal. In 

addition, LEAs must annually notify parents of their right to receive information on the 

professional qualifications of their child’s teachers.

In 2004, the Department provided additional flexibility to States and school districts working to 

meet the highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements. First, rural teachers who teach more 

than one academic subject and who are highly qualified in at least one subject were given

3 more years to become highly qualified in the additional subjects they teach. Second, States 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-24

B-24

may permit science teachers to demonstrate that they are highly qualified either under a general 

science certification or in an individual field such as biology or chemistry. And, third, States may 

develop a single, streamlined process for determining that veteran multi-subject teachers are 

highly qualified.

ESEA Flexibility

The ESEA was scheduled for reauthorization in 2007 and is well into its second decade without 

modification to reflect State progress in implementing the law or new directions in State and 

local education reform policies. In addition, the 2014 deadline under current law for ensuring 

that 100 percent of students are proficient in reading and mathematics means that States will 

soon be forced to identify nearly all of their Title I schools for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring. This failure of current law to differentiate among schools that are helping most, 

but not all, of their students to meet State academic standards and schools in which large 

majorities of students are not meeting such standards threatens to undermine public support for 

ESEA accountability requirements. Forty-five States and DC already are engaged in 

transitioning to “next-generation accountability systems” based on the adoption of State 

standards linked to college- and career-readiness, new assessments aligned with those 

standards, differentiated approaches to LEA and school accountability that target improvement 

resources to the lowest-performing LEAs and schools and those with the largest achievement 

gaps, and new systems for evaluating and supporting teachers and principals that are based in 

part on student growth.

In recognition of these changes, in September 2011, the Administration invited all States to 

request “ESEA flexibility,” which offers waivers of key provisions of current law in exchange for a 

comprehensive plan to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, 

and improve the quality of instruction. More specifically, States approved for ESEA flexibility no 

longer have to meet the 2014 deadline for ensuring that 100 percent of students are proficient in 

reading and mathematics; no longer have to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, 

or restructuring; and no longer have to carry out the prescriptive improvement, corrective action, 

or restructuring plans required under current law. States and LEAs also receive greater 

flexibility in the use of funds in rural schools, in adopting the schoolwide program model 

regardless of school poverty levels, in meeting teacher qualification requirements, and in 

transferring funds among ESEA programs.

States seeking ESEA flexibility must submit plans to the Department describing how they will 

transition to State college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments capable of 

measuring student academic growth; implement differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support systems that identify and reward high-performing schools, require rigorous interventions 

in the lowest-performing schools, and target meaningful improvement measures to schools with 

the largest achievement gaps; and develop and implement high-quality teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems that use multiple valid measures, including data on student 

growth as a significant factor, to determine performance levels.

All States are eligible to receive ESEA flexibility, and the Department has established a rigorous 

process for reviewing and approving State requests, including expert peer review. As of 

February 2014, 42 States, D.C., and Puerto Rico are approved for ESEA flexibility. Additionally, 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-25

B-25

as of that same date, three States and the Bureau of Indian Education have submitted requests 

for ESEA flexibility. The approved States began implementing new ESEA accountability 

systems that are more fair, flexible, and focused on students most at risk beginning in the 2012-

2013 school year. In general, the waivers of current law included in ESEA flexibility have been 

approved through the 2013-2014 school year. The waivers may be revoked if Congress 

reauthorizes the ESEA, but in the continued absence of reauthorization States will be permitted 

to seek extension of their waivers through the 2014-2015 school year. Additional information on 

ESEA flexibility is available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

Allocations

Title I, Part A funds are allocated through four separate formulas. All four formulas are based 

on the number of children from low-income families in each LEA, and each formula also 

includes such factors as the LEA’s poverty rate and State per-pupil expenditures for education. 

Other children counted for allocation purposes (“formula children”) include children in families 

above the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main FederalState income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions 

for neglected and delinquent children. Eligible LEAs receive funding under one or more of the 

formulas, but the final outcome of the Federal-State allocation process is a single Title I, Part A 

award to each qualifying LEA.

Three formulas are based primarily on the number of formula children in each LEA, weighted by 

State per-pupil expenditures for education. Basic Grants are awarded to school districts with at 

least 10 formula children who make up more than 2 percent of their school-age population 

(defined as children ages 5 to 17) and, thus, spread funds thinly across nearly all LEAs. 

Concentration Grants provide additional funds to LEAs in which the number of formula children 

exceeds 6,500 or 15 percent of the total school-age population. The Targeted Grants formula 

weights child counts to make higher payments to school districts with high numbers or 

percentages of formula students. To be eligible for Targeted Grants, an LEA must have at least 

10 formula children counted for Basic Grant purposes, and the count of formula children must 

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

In addition, the statute includes a separately authorized and funded Education Finance 

Incentive Grants (EFIG) formula. This formula uses State-level “equity” and “effort” factors to 

make allocations to States that are intended to encourage States to spend more on education 

and to improve the equity of State funding systems. Once State allocations are determined, 

sub-allocations to the LEA level are based on a modified version of the Targeted Grants 

formula.

In determining allocations under each of the four formulas, the statute requires the use of 

annually updated Census Bureau estimates of the number of children from low-income families 

in each LEA. There is roughly a 2-year lag between the income year used for LEA poverty 

estimates and the fiscal year in which those estimates are used to make Title I allocations. For 

example, the fiscal year 2013 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2011. The 

Department transfers a small amount of funding from the annual Title I appropriation 

($3.8 million in 2013) to the Census Bureau to finance the preparation of these LEA poverty 

estimates.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-26

B-26

LEAs also use poverty data—generally the number of students eligible for free- or reduced-price 

lunch—to make within-district allocations to schools. LEAs with more than 1,000 students must 

serve, in rank order by poverty rate, all schools with a poverty rate above 75 percent, including 

middle and high schools, before serving schools with less needy student populations.

One percent of the total appropriation for Title I Grants to LEAs is reserved for the Department 

of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education and the Outlying Areas (the United States Virgin 

Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands). In addition, States are 

permitted to reserve up to 1 percent, or $400,000, whichever is greater, to cover SEA costs of 

administering Title I programs, except that such amounts may not exceed the level that is 

provided if the total appropriation for Parts A, C, and D of Title I of the ESEA equals $14 billion, 

a threshold that has been exceeded each year beginning with fiscal year 2008.

Title I Grants to LEAs is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A 

portion of funds becomes available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are 

appropriated, and remains available for Federal obligation for 15 months. The remaining funds 

become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year, and remain available for Federal 

obligation for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

(dollars in thousands)

Year Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education Finance 

Incentive Grants

2010...................................... $6,597,946 $1,365,031 $3,264,712 $3,264,712

2011...................................... 6,579,151 1,359,726 3,252,025 3,252,025

2012...................................... 6,577,904 1,365,031 3,288,126 3,288,126

2013...................................... 6,232,639 1,293,919 3,116,831 3,116,831

2014...................................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,281,550 3,281,550

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s 2015 budget request for the College- and Career-Ready Students (CCRS) 

program (Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies under current law) is $14.4 billion, the 

same as the 2014 level. The request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal 

year 2015 under a reauthorized ESEA that is consistent with the Administration’s 

reauthorization proposal. This proposal would make key changes in the areas of standards and 

assessments; accountability and support for schools, LEAs and States; and teacher and leader 

effectiveness and equity. 

The 2015 request would restore funding reduced through sequestration for the CCRS program, 

continuing a trend of strong support for one of the Administration’s foundation programs. The 

reauthorization proposal also would permit the Department to reserve up to 0.5 percent of 

CCRS formula grant funds for ESEA program evaluation and performance measurement.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-27

B-27

New College- and Career-Ready Standards and High-Quality Assessments

While the current Title I program has succeeded in firmly establishing standards-based 

accountability systems in all 50 States, No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on punitive sanctions 

for not making lock-step progress toward meeting the goal of 100 percent proficiency in 

reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014 has inadvertently encouraged States to lower 

the quality of their standards as well as the levels of proficiency needed to meet them. The net 

result has been wide divergence in most States in student performance on State assessments 

compared to student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP). For example, the August 2011 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, 

“Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2009,” found that 35 States set 

grade 4 standards for the Proficient level in reading that were lower than the Basic level on 

NAEP.

In response to this problem, the Administration’s Title I reauthorization proposal would ask 

States to adopt State-developed standards in reading or language arts and in mathematics that 

build toward college- and career-readiness by the time students graduate from high school, and 

high-quality statewide assessments aligned with these standards. Forty-five States and the 

District of Columbia already have adopted a common set of State-developed college- and 

career-ready standards in reading and math, and the Administration’s reauthorization proposal 

would provide additional incentives and resources for States seeking to implement these 

standards and aligned assessments.

The proposed new standards and assessments would give families and communities the 

information they need to determine whether their students are on track to college- and careerreadiness and to evaluate the effectiveness of their schools. States would also continue to 

implement statewide science standards and aligned assessments in specific grade spans, and 

could include those assessments—as well as statewide assessments in other subjects, such as 

history—in their Title I accountability system so long as they meet the same “college- and 

career-ready” requirements as the reading and mathematics standards. Finally, States would 

develop and adopt statewide English language proficiency standards for English Learners, as 

well as aligned English language proficiency assessments, that reflect the academic language 

necessary to master each State’s content standards.

Rigor, Rewards, and Flexibility in State Accountability Systems

Building on these statewide standards and aligned assessments, the Administration’s Title I 

reauthorization proposal would require every State to ensure that its statewide system of 

accountability rewards schools and districts for progress and success, requires rigorous 

interventions in the lowest-performing schools and districts and in those with the largest 

achievement gaps, and gives local officials flexibility to determine the appropriate improvement 

and support strategies for most schools.

The foundation of these new, more rigorous and fair accountability systems would be 

comprehensive data systems that gather information that is critical to determining how schools 

and districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from high school ready for 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-28

B-28

college and careers. States and districts would collect and publicly report data relating to 

student academic achievement and growth in reading and mathematics, student academic 

achievement in science, and, if States choose, student academic achievement and growth in 

other subjects, such as history. At the high school level, States also would collect and report 

graduation rates and, over time, college enrollment rates and college persistence rates. 

Reporting of these data would be disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, 

English Learner status, status as connected to the active-duty military, and family income. 

States and districts also would collect other key information about teaching and learning 

conditions, including information on school climate, such as student, teacher, and school leader 

attendance; disciplinary incidents; or the results from student, parent, or school staff surveys 

about their school experience.

The reauthorization proposal would replace the AYP measure in current law, which is based 

primarily on a single, static snapshot of student proficiency on academic assessments, with a 

broader, more accurate measure of school performance that looks at student achievement, 

student growth, and school progress. Performance targets would be aligned with the objective 

of ensuring that, by 2020, all students are graduating (or are on track to graduate) from high 

school ready for college and a career.

The schools, districts, and States that are successful in reaching performance targets, 

significantly increasing student performance for all students, closing achievement gaps, or 

turning around the lowest-performing schools would be eligible for rewards, which could include 

financial rewards for the staff and students in high-poverty schools and flexibility for LEAs and 

schools in the use of ESEA funds.

School improvement assistance would be focused on three categories of schools. First, States 

and LEAs would be required to implement one of four school turnaround models in the lowestperforming 5 percent of schools in each State, based on student academic achievement, 

student growth, graduation rates, and a lack of progress on these measures. An LEA that has 

been identified for rewards would have flexibility to implement its own research-based 

intervention model in those schools.

Second, schools that fall between the fifth and tenth percentiles based on student academic 

achievement, student growth, and graduation rates would be placed in a warning category, and 

States and LEAs would implement research-based, locally determined strategies to help them 

improve. And, third, in schools that are not closing significant, persistent achievement gaps, 

LEAs would be required to implement data-driven interventions—which could include expanded 

learning time, supplemental educational services, or other strategies—to support those students 

who are farthest behind and help close those achievement gaps.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal also would require identification of and 

intervention in low-performing States and LEAs. Such interventions could include governance 

or staffing changes, restrictions on the use of ESEA funds, or partnering with an outside 

organization to improve student academic achievement.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-29

B-29

Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers and Leaders

Strong teachers and leaders are the heart of educational improvement. The Administration’s 

reauthorization proposal would require States to develop definitions of “effective” and “highly 

effective” teachers and principals, based in significant part on student academic growth, which 

would be used in the development of State and local teacher and principal evaluation systems. 

In addition, both States and LEAs would be required to develop meaningful plans to achieve the 

equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders. 

Resources for Reform

The Administration’s Title I reauthorization proposal also would give States and LEAs greater 

flexibility in using Title I, Part A funds to build State and local capacity to improve student 

achievement. For example, States would be permitted to reserve up to 5 percent of their Title I, 

Part A allocations to carry out such activities as: (1) implementing rigorous standards and highquality assessments and, in particular, helping teachers teach to the new standards; (2) using 

data more effectively to identify local needs and improve student outcomes; (3) improving 

capacity at the State and district levels to use technology to improve instruction; (4) coordinating 

with early learning programs to improve school readiness; or (5) carrying out effective family 

engagement strategies. States also would be permitted to set aside up to 1 percent of their 

Title I, Part A allocations to fund programs that support family engagement and to identify and 

disseminate best practices in this area.

In addition, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal would broaden the requirement in 

current law for LEAs with schools in improvement to spend an amount equal to 20 percent of 

their Title I, Part A allocations on public school choice and/or supplemental educational 

services. LEAs would instead be required to use an identical amount to improve student 

performance in high-need schools by implementing effective school improvement strategies and 

carrying out strategies designed to ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and 

school leaders. LEAs would also be required to reserve at least 2 percent of their Title I, Part A 

allocations to develop and implement comprehensive family engagement plans. LEAs would 

continue to have flexibility to use Title I, Part A funds to serve eligible pre-K students and, in 

particular, to support activities designed to improve the school readiness of young children 

across a range of domains and lay the foundation for success in the early grades. 

The ESEA proposal also would encourage increased resource equity by: (1) strengthening 

“comparability” requirements to ensure that the high-poverty schools in each LEA receive State 

and local funding (for personnel and relevant non-personnel expenditures) comparable to the 

amount received by the LEA’s low-poverty schools; and (2) requiring States to measure and 

report on resource disparities and to develop a plan to reduce those disparities.

Title I Rewards Program

The Administration also is proposing a new Title I Rewards program that would help ensure that 

State accountability systems provide meaningful positive incentives and rewards that recognize 

and encourage improved student outcomes. Encouraging, recognizing, and rewarding 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-30

B-30

outstanding performance by high-poverty schools and LEAs would bring a much-needed 

corrective balance to the emphasis of current law on what often are perceived as punitive 

sanctions for low performance. While the reauthorization proposal would create a separately 

funded State formula grant program for Title I Rewards, for 2015, the Department would work 

with the appropriators to provide a 2 percent State-level set-aside of funds under CCRS grants

that would be used to reward high-poverty LEAs and schools that are the highest achieving or 

are making the most progress in improving student achievement. Such rewards could include: 

(1) financial rewards for principals, teachers, and other staff; (2) college scholarships for 

students in high-performing schools; (3) school-level financial rewards; or (4) other innovative 

rewards and incentives developed by the States.

Evaluation

The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal also would authorize the Department to 

reserve up to 0.5 percent of Title I, Part A formula grant funds under a broad ESEA evaluation 

authority aimed at supporting the comprehensive evaluation of the implementation, outcomes, 

impact, and cost-effectiveness of ESEA programs, including the Title I, Part A CCRS program. 

Title I evaluation activities would be included in a biennial evaluation plan that the Department 

would develop and submit to Congress. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal also 

would permit the Department to use funds reserved for ESEA evaluation to complete 

evaluations that were initiated before ESEA reauthorization. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-31

B-31

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands, except per-child amounts)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

# of LEAs 4,866 4,862 4,862

0-15% Dollars $1,610,660 $1,743,101 $1,751,340

0-15% %% of Total $ 11.94 12.35 12.40

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,719,375 1,725,527 1,725,527

0-15% $ Per Formula Child $937 $1,010 $1,015

15-25%

# of LEAs 4,611 4,678 4,678

15-25% Dollars $3,737,959 $3,912,520 $3,935,537

15-25% % of Total $ 27.71 27.72 27.87

15-25# of Formula Eligible Children 3,552,850 3,493,473 3,493,473

15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,052 $1,120 $1,127

>25% 

# of LEAs 3,639 3,595 3,595

>25% Dollars $8,141,872 $8,458,732 $8,432,907

>25% % of Total $ 60.35 59.93 59.72

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 6,309,201 6,451,411 6,451,411

>25% $ Per Formula Child $1,290 $1,311 $1,307

LEA Allocation Subtotal $13,490,491 $14,114,353 $14,119,784

BIA/Outlying Areas 137,564 143,808 143,808

Part D, Subpart 2 128,387 122,657 117,210

Census Updates 3,777 3,984 4,000

Grants to LEAs Total 13,760,219 14,384,802 14,384,802

# of Schools receiving Title I funds

Schoolwide programs 37,141 37,141 37,141

Targeted assistance programs 16,055 16,055 16,055

Total 53,196 53,196 53,196

# of Students served (in millions)

Students In schoolwide programs 21.6 21.6 21.6

Students In targeted assistance programs 1.2 1.2 1.2

Students In non-public and N&D programs 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total 23.0 23.0 23.0

Note: Descriptive data are from ED Data Express (school year 2011-12). Data on Title I status for GA, OR, 

and VA are from the 2010-11 school year. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-32

B-32

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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 in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The performance measures and targets for the Title I Grants to LEAs program rely on data 

submitted annually through the ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports, which include 

State and local performance information primarily as specified through the annual “report card” 

requirements described in Section 1111(h) of the ESEA.

These measures are focused on three areas: progress of economically disadvantaged students 

toward the current statutory goal of ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and 

mathematics by 2014, closing the achievement gaps in reading and mathematics between 

economically disadvantaged students and the “all students” group, and improving the efficiency 

of the Department’s monitoring process for Title I Grants to LEAs. The Department will consider 

revisions to the measures in the context of ESEA flexibility.

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Objective: The performance of low-income students will increase substantially in reading and 

mathematics.

Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the 

proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2010 77.7% 61.4%

2011 83.2 61.3%

2012 88.8 59.7

2013 94.4

2014 100.0

2015 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2012 show that the average proficiency rate in 

reading/language arts for economically disadvantaged students declined slightly from the 

previous years. Unless the rate of improvement picks up in future years, less than two-thirds of 

economically disadvantaged students will be proficient in reading in 2014, well short of the 

ESEA’s current goal of 100-percent proficiency. The Department intends to adjust or replace 

future years’ targets in response to the development and implementation of new student 

academic proficiency goals set by the more than 40 States implementing new systems of 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support under ESEA flexibility.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-33

B-33

Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at the 

proficient or advanced levels on State math assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2010 76.2% 61.6%

2011 82.1 61.1

2012 88.1 58.0

2013 94.0

2014 100.0

2015 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2012 show that the average proficiency rate in 

mathematics for economically disadvantaged students declined by 3 percentage points from the 

previous years. Unless the rate of improvement picks up in future years, only two-thirds of 

economically disadvantaged students will be proficient in mathematics in 2014, well short of the 

ESEA’s current goal of 100-percent proficiency. The Department intends to adjust or replace 

future years’ targets in response to the development and implementation of new student 

academic proficiency goals set by the more than 40 States implementing new systems of 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and support under ESEA flexibility.

Measure: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State 

reading assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2010 6.5% 10.9%

2011 4.9 10.7

2012 3.3 10.6

2013 1.6

2014 0.0

2015 0.0

Additional information: The 2012 results show that the reading achievement gap is closing, 

but far too slowly to eliminate this gap by 2014, the year by which the current ESEA calls for all 

student groups to be proficient in reading/language arts (thus reducing the gap to zero). The 

Department intends to adjust or replace future years’ targets in response to the development 

and implementation of new student academic proficiency goals set by the more than 40 States 

implementing new systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support under 

ESEA flexibility.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-34

B-34

Measure: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State math assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on State 

math assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2010 6.4% 10.0%

2011 4.8 9.9

2012 3.2 10.2

2013 1.6

2014 0.0

2015 0.0

Additional information: The 2012 results show that the mathematics gap is rising, and now 

exceeds the gap from 2 years earlier, making it unlikely that this gap will be eliminated by 2014, 

the year by which the ESEA calls for all student groups to be proficient in math (thus reducing 

the gap to zero). The Department intends to adjust or replace future years’ targets in response 

to the development and implementation of new student academic proficiency goals set by the 

more than 40 States implementing new systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support under ESEA flexibility.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: Average number of business days to complete State monitoring reports, following 

the completion of a site visit.

Year

Target

Number of Days

Actual

Number of Days

2010 40.0 30.9

2011 40.0 35.2

2012 40.0 32.3

2013 40.0 57.3

2014 40.0

2015 40.0

Assessment of progress: In 2012, the Department continued to outperform its target of 

completing State monitoring reports within 40 days of the conclusion of a site visit. Data for 

2013 represent 3 monitoring visits under the traditional Title I, Part A, monitoring protocol. The 

Department conducted an additional 35 monitoring reviews under ESEA flexibility (Part A 

monitoring) and those reports were completed in an average 108.4 days. The increase in the 

average number of business days to complete monitoring reports was generally due to a more 

inquiry-based approach for ESEA flexibility monitoring, which was new for the Department and 

States. The Department will revise targets for future years once this transition is complete.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-35

B-35

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2011-2012 school year, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the 

Title I program served approximately 23 million students, or 46 percent of the total student 

population. More detailed program information, compared to the overall public school 

population, is displayed in the tables below.

2011-2012 School Year

Student Group

# of Students, 

All Schools

# of Students, 

Title I Schools

% of students 

served by Title I

All 49,974,409 22,808,295 46%

American Indian 547,407 329,124 60

Asian/Pacific Islander 2,504,208 923,565 37

Black 7,822,565 5,030,198 64

Hispanic 12,172,760 8,219,429 68

White 25,583,039 7,673,489 30

Two or More Races 1,270,321 500,045 39

Economically 

disadvantaged 23,549,530 14,486,663 62

English Learners 4,475,327 3,596,049 80

Students with disabilities 6,507,565 3,009,056 46

In addition, data on the concentration of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch show 

that Title I funds seem to be reaching the target schools and students. There are 17,582 

schools where between 81 and 100 percent of the student population qualify for free or 

reduced-price lunch; 80 percent of those schools are served by Title I.

2011-2012 School Year

Concentration ranges 

of students eligible for

free and reduced-price 

lunch 

# of Schools # of Title I Schools % Title I Schools

0-20% 15,389 4,868 32%

21-40% 18,210 6,424 35

41-60% 21,755 11,752 54

61-80% 18,793 12,806 68

81-100% 17,582 14,039 80

Note: Descriptive data are from the 2011-12 school year Common Core of Data. Data on Title I 

status for GA, OR, and VA are from the 2010-11 school year.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-36

B-36

National Assessment of Title I: Final Report

The ESEA required a comprehensive, multi-year national assessment on the implementation

and impact of the Title I Grants to LEAs. The most recent data from this assessment are 

included in two reports. The first, a 2009 report entitled “Title I Implementation: Update on 

Recent Evaluation Findings,” provides a summary of findings from Title I evaluation studies that 

have become available after the publication of the National Assessment of Title I final report in 

2007. The second report, “State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IX-Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report,” was published in 2010 and provides 

updated information on State, district, and school implementation of NCLB provisions 

concerning accountability and school improvement. Findings from these reports demonstrate 

the need to address the current accountability provisions under current law. Both reports, as 

well as other related Title I evaluation reports, are available in full on the Department of 

Education’s Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-37

School turnaround grants

 (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 1003(g))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$505,756 $505,756 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes the 

Department to award School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to each State educational agency 

(SEA) based on the SEA’s proportionate share of funds under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C, and D. 

Each SEA must use at least 95 percent of its allocation to make competitive subgrants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to assist their Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under ESEA section 1116. SEAs may use up to 5 percent of their SIG 

allocations for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance activities. 

The statute requires States to give priority in making subgrants to LEAs demonstrating the 

greatest need for school improvement funding and the strongest commitment to providing the 

resources needed to help their lowest-performing schools successfully implement improvement 

plans. Subgrants to LEAs must be of sufficient size and scope to support the activities required 

under section 1116 of the ESEA and are renewable for two additional 1-year periods.

Since fiscal year 2012, appropriations acts have authorized the Department to reserve up to 

5 percent of SIG funds to carry out activities to build SEA and LEA capacity to implement the 

SIG program effectively.

Rapid Funding Growth

Congress first funded the School Improvement Grants program in fiscal year 2007 with an initial 

appropriation of $125 million, followed by a large increase to $491 million in fiscal year 2008 and 

$546.6 million in the regular 2009 appropriation. In addition, the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $3 billion for the SIG program, for a 2009 

total of just over $3.5 billion. In response to this unprecedented increase in SIG funding, and as 

part of a comprehensive effort to maximize the impact of one-time Recovery Act funding, the 

Administration developed and issued new regulations governing the SIG program. These 

regulations, which were coordinated with regulations published for two other major education 

programs in the Recovery Act, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Race to the Top 

program, were aimed primarily at ensuring that the historic Recovery Act investment in the SIG 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-38

B-38

program was used to implement rigorous school intervention models in the Nation’s persistently 

struggling schools, including many of the high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent.

New Regulations

The new SIG regulations were issued in two parts. First, the Department published SIG final 

requirements in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65618). Second, in 

response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, which was signed into law on 

December 16, 2009, and which included new provisions applicable to the SIG program for fiscal 

years 2009 and 2010, the Department published additional interim final regulations in January 

2010. The January 2010 interim final regulations incorporated language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act that expanded school eligibility for the SIG program, while continuing to 

target funds on the lowest-performing schools. Under these regulations, SEAs and LEAs have 

the option of serving certain Title I schools that are not in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring and certain schools that are eligible for, but that do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds. The interim final regulations also raised the maximum annual amount an LEA may 

receive under the SIG program from $500,000 to $2 million per participating school. The 

December 2009 and January 2010 regulations were consolidated in a final rule published in the 

Federal Register on October 8, 2010 (75 FR 66363).

Defining Greatest Need

A key purpose of the SIG regulations was to define more closely the statutory priorities on 

awarding SIG funds to LEAs that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest 

commitment to ensuring that the funds are used to provide resources that enable the lowestperforming schools to raise substantially the achievement of their students. To drive school 

improvement funds to LEAs with the greatest need for those funds, the SIG regulations 

incorporate the common definition of “persistently lowest-achieving schools” developed for use 

in the reporting required by the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and in State plans for turning 

around their lowest-performing schools under Race to the Top. Persistently lowest-achieving 

schools are defined generally as: (1) the State’s bottom 5 percent, in terms of academic 

achievement, of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; (2) the bottom 

5 percent, in terms of academic achievement, of secondary schools in each State that are 

eligible for, but that do not receive, Title I, Part A funds; and (3) Title I secondary schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring with graduation rates below 60 percent and 

other Title I-eligible secondary schools with graduation rates below 60 percent. In identifying 

schools in categories (1) and (2), States must take into account the academic achievement of 

the “all students” group in each school in terms of proficiency on ESEA reading/language arts 

and mathematics assessments combined, as well as that group’s lack of progress on those 

assessments. The “bottom 5 percent,” as used in the definition of persistently lowest-achieving 

schools, must include at least five schools.

To determine greatest need for the purposes of the SIG program, the SIG regulations 

established three tiers of schools based on the definition of persistently lowest-achieving 

schools and the eligibility requirements of ESEA section 1003(g). Under the regulations, States 

have some flexibility in assigning schools to the three tiers, but in general must adhere to the 

following guidelines:
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-39

B-39

• Tier I schools are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that 

either (1) are in the bottom 5 percent of such schools in achievement and are not improving,

or (2) have graduation rates below 60 percent.

• Tier II schools are secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds and that either (1) are in the State’s bottom 5 percent of such schools in terms of 

achievement and are not improving, or (2) have graduation rates below 60 percent.

• Tier III schools are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are 

not in Tier I.

The final regulations also incorporate the optional expanded eligibility provisions included in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. That Act allows SEAs and LEAs to use SIG funds to 

serve, in addition to Title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, 

schools that are eligible for (but might or might not receive) Title I, Part A funds and that either: 

(1) have not made AYP for at least 2 years, or (2) are in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates. States that choose to add schools that are eligible for 

SIG funds under these expanded eligibility provisions must ensure that the school is no higher 

achieving than the highest-achieving school in the tier to which it is added. The Department 

also has provided flexibility, available through a waiver, for States to include low-achieving Title I 

secondary schools in their lists of Tier II schools (which, absent this waiver, would include only 

secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds).

Defining Strongest Commitment

States also must determine which LEAs have the strongest commitment to using SIG funds for 

interventions that are most likely to turn around their lowest-performing schools and produce 

improved student outcomes. The regulations define “strongest commitment” as a commitment 

by an LEA to use SIG funds to implement fully and effectively one of the following four school 

intervention models in each of its Tier I and Tier II schools:

• The Turnaround model, which involves, among other things, replacing the principal and 

retaining no more than 50 percent of a school’s staff, adopting a new governance structure, 

and implementing an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned 

from one grade to the next, as well as aligned with a State’s academic standards.

• The Restart model, which requires an LEA to convert a school to a charter school or close 

and reopen it under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management 

organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a 

rigorous review process.

• School Closure, which involves closing a school and enrolling its students in other, higherachieving schools in the LEA.

• The Transformation model, which addresses four specific areas critical to transforming the 

lowest-performing schools, including replacing the principal and ineffective teachers, 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-40

B-40

comprehensive instructional reform, increasing learning time, and expanding operational 

flexibility.

The Department encourages LEAs that serve high-need Tier III schools to use SIG funds to 

implement one of the intervention models in those schools, but they may also use SIG funds to 

carry out the school improvement activities described in section 1116 of the ESEA.

Awarding School Improvement Grants to LEAs

In awarding grants to an eligible LEA, an SEA must provide sufficient funding to the LEA to 

implement the selected school intervention model in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA 

applies to serve and to serve participating Tier III schools. More broadly, an SEA must award 

funds to serve each Tier I and Tier II school that its LEAs apply to serve and that the SEA 

determines its LEAs have the capacity to serve, before it awards funding to LEAs to serve 

Tier III schools. LEAs may receive up to $2 million annually over 3 years to implement the 

selected intervention model in a school; School Closure generally requires only modest funding 

(e.g., $50,000 to $100,000) and is implemented in just 1 year. Since fiscal year 2010, LEAs 

have been permitted to request funding in their first-year budgets for pre-implementation 

activities conducted in the spring and summer prior to the beginning of the school year in which 

the LEA will fully implement an intervention model in a Tier I or Tier II school. 

LEAs receiving grants must establish annual goals, subject to SEA approval, for student 

achievement and must report progress on certain leading indicators for their Tier I and Tier II 

schools. Tier III schools must meet goals established by the LEA and approved by the SEA; for 

Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, these may be the goals in their 

improvement plans required by section 1116 of the ESEA. SEAs must review progress toward 

these goals prior to renewing the second and third years of an LEA’s SIG award.

SIG under ESEA Flexibility

The SIG program is playing a key role in the differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support systems that States are creating and implementing under ESEA flexibility. More 

specifically, the Department has permitted States receiving ESEA flexibility and submitting 

applications to make new SIG awards to replace their lists of SIG Tier I, II, and III schools with 

their lists of priority schools under ESEA flexibility and to provide funds to LEAs to carry out one 

of the SIG intervention models in those schools. (The definition of “priority school” used in ESEA 

flexibility is based largely on the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools in the 

regulations governing the SIG program.) 

New SIG Provisions in FY 2014 Appropriations

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014, includes new provisions for the SIG 

program. These provisions, which apply to the use of fiscal year 2014 funds, allow an SEA to 

establish an award period for its LEAs receiving SIG funds of up to 5 years; allow an LEA to use 

SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a strategy developer, a whole-school reform 

strategy for which there is at least moderate evidence of effectiveness or to implement an 

alternative school improvement strategy established by the SEA and approved by the 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-41

B-41

Department; and allow an LEA that is eligible for assistance under the Rural Education 

Achievement programs to modify an element of a SIG intervention model. As of March 2014, 

the Department is considering options for implementing the respective provisions, such as 

issuing new regulations or providing guidance or technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs.

This 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 through September 30 of the following 

year.

Funding levels for the program for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.........................................................$545,633

2011...........................................................534,562

2012...........................................................533,552

2013...........................................................505,756 

2014...........................................................505,756

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $505.8 million for School Turnaround Grants (School Improvement 

Grants under current law) in fiscal year 2015, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. Under the 

Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the ESEA, these formula grants would play a critical 

role in efforts to implement rigorous interventions in persistently lowest-performing schools, 

which would be identified through the reauthorized Title I accountability system rather than the 

three-tiered system established in the SIG final regulations under current law. In general, these 

would be schools that are in the bottom 5 percent of schools in each State based on student 

achievement and, at the high school level, graduation rates, and that are not improving. 

Under the reauthorization proposal, States would be permitted to reserve funds to build their 

capacity to improve low-performing schools, including by reviewing and ensuring the 

effectiveness of external partners. States would subgrant most funds through competitive 

awards to LEAs (or partnerships of LEAs and nonprofit organizations) to implement one of the 

locally selected intervention models: turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation. LEAs 

would receive up to 3 years of funding to implement fully and effectively one of these 

intervention models, and would be eligible for 2 additional years of funding to support a school's 

ongoing improvement if the school is showing progress. With the exception of the closure 

model, each of these models allows flexibility for locally designed plans that recognize and meet 

a broad range of student needs from preschool through grade 12 and that support investments 

across the age continuum, from improving the school readiness of young children to helping 

dropouts return to school and graduate ready for college or a career.

In addition to providing State and local funding, the Department would be authorized to reserve 

funds to carry out activities designed to enhance the capacity of States, LEAs, and nonprofit 

organizations to improve schools, such as by investing in model school quality review teams to 

identify school needs and support school improvement. The Department could also use these 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-42

B-42

funds to continue its support for the School Turnaround AmeriCorps initiative of the Corporation 

for National and Community Service, which provides SIG schools and priority schools served in 

States receiving ESEA flexibility with AmeriCorps members who support critical interventions 

aligned to locally developed school and LEA turnaround plans, as well as for the School 

Turnaround Leaders program, which the Department is initiating in fiscal year 2014 (using funds 

from the fiscal year 2013 appropriation) to help ensure that leaders of schools eligible for or 

receiving SIG funds possess the specialized skills needed to drive successful efforts to turn 

those schools around.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount to States $475,970 $475,958 $475,958

Range of State awards 1,110-57,026 1,089-59,971 1,089-59,971

Average State award 9,153 9,153 9,153

Amount to BIE 3,152 3,113 3,113

Amount to Outlying Areas 1,346 1,397 1,397

National activities 25,288 25,288 25,288

NOTE: The 2013 and 2014 appropriations acts authorized the Department to use up to 5 percent, or in each 

case $25,288 thousand, of SIG funds for activities to build SEA and LEA capacity to implement the SIG program 

effectively. The Department has not yet determined the specific amount of fiscal year 2013, 2014, or 2015 funds that 

it would use for national activities.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The final regulations for the SIG program include reporting metrics intended to help the 

Department, States, and LEAs evaluate the effectiveness of the required interventions and to 

inform technical assistance activities. States must report to the Department on the LEAs that 

received SIG awards, the size of the awards, and the schools served by each LEA with SIG 

funds (including the level of support provided to each participating school). States also must 

report school-level information, such as the type of intervention, student achievement levels, 

graduation and dropout rates, and data on teacher performance and school climate. The 

Department collects these data through its EDFacts system.

Numbers and Characteristics of Schools Eligible for and Receiving SIG Grants

In May 2011, the Department published “Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIGEligible and SIG-Awarded Schools” (SIG Baseline Study), which provides descriptive analyses 

of States’ fiscal year 2009 SIG competitions and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114019/. The SIG Baseline Study showed that States identified a 

total of 1,107 Tier I schools, 1,034 Tier II schools, and 13,136 Tier III schools that were eligible 

to receive SIG funds in the fiscal year 2009 competitions. Of the total of 15,277 eligible schools 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-43

B-43

identified, 55 percent were elementary schools, 20 percent were middle schools, 19 percent 

were high schools, and 6 percent were “non-standard.”

According to the study, States funded in the fiscal year 2009 SIG competitions included 

514 Tier I schools, 312 Tier II schools, and 402 Tier III schools. Of the total of 1,228 schools 

served, 32 percent were elementary schools, 22 percent were middle schools, 40 percent were 

high schools, and 5 percent were “non-standard.” States made just over half of SIG awards to 

urban schools, about one-quarter to suburban schools, and about one-quarter to rural schools. 

High schools were particularly likely to be funded, receiving 40 percent of SIG awards while 

constituting just 19 percent of eligible schools. Rural schools also competed successfully, 

receiving almost a quarter of awards despite constituting only one-fifth of eligible schools. The 

following table compares SIG-eligible and SIG-awarded schools by grade range and school 

locale:

Comparison of FY 2009 SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools

by School Level and Locale

Grade range SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Elementary 55.3% 32.2%

Middle 20.1% 22.1%

High 19.1% 40.4%

Non-standard 5.5% 5.2%

Locale Type SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Central City 44.9% 52.5%

Urban Fringe 35.2% 24.3%

Rural 19.9% 23.2%

Other key findings of the SIG Baseline Study include the following:

• Nearly three-quarters (603 schools, or 74 percent) of SIG-awarded Tier I and Tier II schools 

are implementing the transformation model, while 20 percent (168 schools) are 

implementing the turnaround model. Just 33 schools, or 4 percent, are implementing the 

restart model and 16 schools, or 2 percent, are implementing school closure.

• Award amounts varied by tier and by State. The average 3-year award among Tier I and 

Tier II schools was $2.54 million, compared to $520,000 among Tier III schools.

• The percentage increase in overall per-pupil funding associated with SIG varied across 

States. The highest State average increase in per-pupil funding in Tier I and Tier II schools 

receiving SIG awards was 58 percent (in Montana) while the lowest was 3 percent (in 

Vermont).

In October 2012, the Department published “School Improvement Grants: Analyses of State 

Applications and Eligible and Awarded Schools,” which analyzes States’ fiscal year 2010 SIG 

competitions and compares them to the fiscal year 2009 competitions, and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124060/. The study shows that in their 2010 competitions States 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-44

B-44

made SIG awards to an additional 315 Tier I schools, 174 Tier II schools, and 111 Tier III 

schools, a total of 600 schools. According to the study, this second SIG cohort largely mirrors 

the first cohort in distribution of schools by grade range, locale type, and intervention model 

implemented. The average 3-year award among Tier I and Tier II schools in fiscal year 2010 

competitions was $2.84 million, an increase of $300,000 over that for the first cohort; the 

average award among Tier III schools saw a similar increase, from $520,000 for the first cohort 

to $810,000 for the second.

In addition to the combined 1,303 Tier I and II schools served in the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 

competitions, States reported awarding new grants to 153 and 197 Tier I and Tier II schools in 

their 2011 and 2012 competitions, respectively. The Department estimates that another 340 

Tier I and Tier II schools will be served beginning with fiscal year 2013 or 2014 funds, bringing 

the total number of the Nation’s persistently lowest-achieving schools that to date are or will be 

implementing rigorous interventions with the support of SIG funds to approximately 2,000.

Implementation of SIG Grants

In 2013, the Department initiated a set of quick-release profiles designed to accelerate 

collection and dissemination of promising practices in the school turnaround field. These 

profiles will be informed by interviews of selected States, LEAs, and schools receiving SIG 

funds and analyses of implementation data and will address topics such as turnaround 

leadership, data-based decision-making, school climate, community engagement, and capacity 

building. The profiles are expected to be released in phases beginning in March 2014.

The Department is also conducting a series of more detailed case studies of SIG 

implementation. The studies, which include a set of special studies focusing on rural SIG 

schools and SIG schools serving high percentages of English learners, will provide descriptively 

rich information on a carefully selected sample of 25 schools that began implementing SIG 

interventions in the 2010-2011 school year. A report with findings from the schools’ first 

implementation year, along with evaluation briefs on the special case study schools, is expected 

to be available in summer 2014.

Outcomes of SIG Grants

In February 2014, the Department published an analysis of State assessments results for 

schools receiving SIG funding from the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 competitions. Comparing, 

where data permit, schools’ average proficiency rates in the 2011-2012 school year (the second 

year of SIG implementation for schools receiving fiscal year 2009 grants and the first 

implementation year for schools in the 2010 cohort) to their rates in the year prior to receiving 

SIG funds, the analysis notably found that:

• Proficiency rates in SIG schools have on average increased in both reading/language arts 

and mathematics, with more schools demonstrating gains in proficiency than declines;

• Proficiency rates in 2009 cohort SIG schools continued to increase on average in the 

second year of implementation; and
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-45

B-45

• When compared to all schools nationally, 2009 cohort SIG schools on average showed 

larger increases in proficiency rates in both reading/language arts and mathematics, while 

2010 cohort schools showed larger increases in reading/language arts but similar increases 

in mathematics.

The Department is also conducting a formal evaluation of the impact of school turnaround 

efforts in both the Race to the Top (RTT) and SIG programs. This evaluation involves collecting 

data from all 50 States and DC, as well as roughly 60 LEAs and 525 schools. The study will 

focus on (1) the implementation of RTT and SIG; (2) the relationship between receipt of RTT 

funds and student outcomes; (3) the impact of the receipt of SIG funds on student outcomes in 

the lowest-achieving schools; and (4) the relationship between the four school turnaround 

models (and related improvement strategies) and student outcomes and school performance. 

The Department released a brief from this evaluation in December 2013 (accessible at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144008/) outlining trends in the operational authority (e.g., 

autonomy over school budgets, student discipline policies, and staffing) of SIG and non-SIG 

schools, the most common forms of technical assistance and other supports for turnaround 

efforts, and the role of State monitoring. The first full evaluation report is scheduled for release 

in late 2014.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-46

Evaluation

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Sections 1501 and 1503)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$880 0 -$880

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or reauthorization legislation is 

sought.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes a separate appropriation for 

the evaluation of Title I programs. The Department uses these funds to carry out objective 

measurement and systematic analyses of the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

program, the Federal Government's largest investment in elementary and secondary education. 

These evaluations compare actual results with program objectives and provide the data needed 

to make sound decisions on program policies and resources and to guide program improvement 

in the field.

The ESEA required a comprehensive, multi-year national assessment on the implementation 

and impact of the Title I Grants to LEAs. Data from the multi-year national assessment are 

included in two reports. The first, a 2009 report entitled “Title I Implementation: Update on 

Recent Evaluation Findings,” provides a summary of findings from Title I evaluation studies that 

have become available after the publication of the National Assessment of Title I final report in 

2007. The second report, “State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, 

Volume IX-Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report,” was published in 2010 and provides 

updated information on State, district, and school implementation of NCLB provisions 

concerning accountability and school improvement. Funding under this program also supported 

nine volumes of reports on the “State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB)” as well as a series of reports on specialized topics. Some of those specialized topics 

include analyses of States’ accountability provisions; implementation and outcome findings in 

districts that received waivers to serve as supplemental educational services providers, despite 

being districts identified for improvement; an evaluation of the growth model pilot project, a 

project initiated to allow States to experiment with adjustments to the NCLB status 

accountability system, which informed the Administration’s future decisions on accountability 

under ESEA flexibility; and an examination of the Title I comparability requirement, which 

included the first national data collection on school-level expenditures. These reports, as well

as other related Title I evaluation reports, are available in full on the Department of Education’s 

Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Evaluation

B-47

B-47

Ongoing studies under way in fiscal year 2014 include the following:

• The implementation of ESEA Title I and Title II program initiatives. This study will examine 

the implementation of policies promoted through the ESEA at the State, district and school 

levels in four core areas: State content standards, aligned assessments, accountability and 

school turnaround, and developing effective teachers and leaders. The study will address 

changes since the previous national assessment of Title I (in 2006) as well as ESEA 

flexibility. The study will include a survey of all 50 States and DC, as well as a nationally 

representative sample of 570 school districts, 1,300 schools, and 9,100 teachers.

• Early childhood language development. Data from 83 Title I schools, collected during the 

2011-2012 school year, will be analyzed to estimate the associations between instructional 

programs and programs for students in preschool through grade 3 and the outcomes for 

those students. 

• Case studies of the implementation of school turnaround models. These case studies, 

involving approximately 60 schools in 6 States, will focus on the change process in schools 

implementing school turnaround models and examine leading indicators of successful 

implementation of the models to provide information useful to both policy-makers and 

practitioners. Descriptive analyses of State SIG applications and SIG-eligible and SIGawarded schools are available for the first and second cohorts of SIG grantees (fiscal year 

2010 and 2011 competitions).

1

• Early implementation of ESEA flexibility. This study of 12 States and 24 school districts that 

have begun the first full year of implementing provisions under ESEA flexibility will provide 

reports of early implementation of ESEA flexibility to policy-makers as they continue to refine 

policy and technical assistance to States on issues related to the flexibility provisions.

• Feasibility Study on Improving the Quality of School-Level Expenditure Data. This feasibility 

study will explore options for improving the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of 

school-level expenditure reporting by interviewing fiscal staff in five States and districts that 

have finance systems that track school-level financial data and then collecting and analyzing 

available school-level expenditure data in the selected States and districts.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.............................................................$9,167

2011...............................................................8,151

2012...............................................................3,194

2013...............................................................3,028

2014..................................................................880

 1 http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20114019 and 

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20124060
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Evaluation

B-48

B-48

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for Title I Evaluation in fiscal year 2015. 

The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would consolidate this activity into a 

broader evaluation authority aimed at supporting comprehensive evaluation of the 

implementation, outcomes, impact, and cost-effectiveness of ESEA programs. Funding would 

be made available through a reservation of up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated each 

year for programs authorized by Title I of the ESEA and up to 1.5 percent of the funds 

appropriated each year for all other ESEA programs. 

Education improvement is an on-going process of building our knowledge about what works in 

improving practice and results for students. Understanding how ESEA programs are being 

implemented and whether they achieve their intended outcomes is essential for improvement. 

However, the current fragmentation of evaluation authorities and funding hampers effective 

evaluation and the development of effective performance management strategies. The 

proposed cross-cutting reservation of funds would provide resources to conduct rigorous, 

objective evaluations of ESEA programs, policies, and practices, while also supporting 

performance measurement essential for program improvement. In addition, the new authority 

would enable the Department to provide increased technical assistance on evaluation to States 

and LEAs in order to promote quality and comparability of evaluation results. 

Under the reauthorization proposal, the Department would be required to develop and submit to 

the Congress an evaluation plan every 2 years describing proposed evaluation activities and the 

reservations required to fund this plan. The evaluation plan would identify the Department’s key 

priorities for evaluations and related knowledge-building activities, such as strengthening 

performance measures and improving grantee evaluations, within and across program offices. 

The plan would support appropriate resource allocation and help ensure that evaluations 

generate usable knowledge that informs program improvement, policy development, and budget 

decision-making for Federal, State, and local decision-makers. The Department would be 

required to use at least 30 percent of total funds reserved for evaluation to conduct impact 

studies that employ experimental designs and other methodologies that support causal 

inferences.

In addition to evaluation and impact studies, the Department would carry out analyses of data 

from evaluations and other sources intended to inform policy-making and promote continuous 

program improvement. A recent example of this kind of activity is the policy brief published in 

November 2011, entitled: “The Potential Impact of Revising the Title I Comparability 

Requirement to Focus on School-Level Expenditures,” which was based on a study of schoollevel expenditures conducted in response to a requirement in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The currently funded study of ESEA flexibility will be another 

example of a quick turnaround study with the same overarching goal of informing policy-making 

and promoting continuous program improvement.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal also would permit the Department to use funds 

reserved for ESEA evaluation to complete evaluations that were initiated before ESEA 

reauthorization. Language from the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act clarified the Secretary’s 

authority to evaluate ESEA programs under section 9601. In the absence of reauthorization, 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Evaluation

B-49

B-49

the Administration would work with appropriators to ensure sufficient funding for Title I 

evaluation activities and to more closely align future appropriations for evaluations with our 

reauthorization proposal.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Implementation of Title I and 

Title II Program Initiatives $1,675 $502 0

Study of Early Childhood 

Language Development 500 50 0

Early Implementation of 

ESEA Flexibility 453 50 0

School Expenditure Study 400 104 0

Data Analysis and Support 0 174 0

Total, Evaluation 3,028 880 0
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-50

State agency programs:

Migrant student education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$374,751 $374,751 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Migrant Education program (MEP) provides financial assistance to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to establish and improve programs of education for children of migratory 

farmworkers and fishers. The goal of the MEP is to enable migrant children: (1) to meet the 

same academic standards as other children; and (2) to graduate from high school or a GED 

program with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment. To help achieve this objective, program services help migratory 

children overcome the educational disruption and other challenges that result from repeated 

moves. The program statute encourages activities to promote coordination of needed services 

across States and encourages greater access for migratory children to services available under 

the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and other programs authorized under 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so that MEP funds can be used for 

services not already available from those programs to meet the unique needs of migrant 

students. Migratory children who have made a "qualifying move" within the last 3 years are 

generally eligible to be counted and served by the program. A move is considered to be a 

qualifying move if it: (1) is a change of residence due to economic necessity; (2) involves 

crossing school district boundaries; (3) is made in order to obtain temporary or seasonal work in 

agriculture or fishing; and (4) was made in the preceding 36 months.

Because the program appropriation has not exceeded the fiscal year 2002 level of $396 million, 

State allocations are still based on the amount each State received in fiscal year 2002. Under 

the statute, all funds in excess of $396 million would be allocated through a statutory formula 

based on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for education, its count of eligible migratory 

students aged 3 through 21 residing within the State in the previous year, and its count of 

students who received services in summer or intersession programs provided by the State. 

The Department may set aside up to $10 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

contracts and grants to improve inter- and intra-State migrant coordination activities, including 

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migrant students. The Department is 

required to consult with States receiving allocations of $1 million or less about whether they can 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-51

B-51

increase the cost-effectiveness of their programs by entering into inter-state consortium 

arrangements. By law, the Department may reserve up to $3 million a year from coordination 

funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 to such consortia. 

The statute requires the Department to assist States in developing effective methods for the 

electronic transfer of migrant student records. The Department developed the Migrant Student 

Information Exchange System (MSIX) to enable States to exchange migrant student data 

records efficiently and expeditiously and provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number 

of migrant students on a national and Statewide basis.

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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.........................................................$394,771

2011...........................................................393,981

2012...........................................................393,236

2013...........................................................372,751

2014...........................................................374,751

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2015, the Administration requests $374.8 million for the Title I Migrant Student Education 

program, the same amount as the 2014 appropriation. The fiscal year 2015 appropriation would 

support a reauthorized program that would continue to fund activities that identify highly mobile 

migratory children and youth, provide them comprehensive services that address their specific 

needs, and promote coordination of the Federal resources available to serve this population. 

The budget request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2015 under a 

reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Administration’s 

reauthorization proposal would revise the funding formula to address the problems identified in 

program reviews and audit findings. The current formula includes provisions that are 

cumbersome, difficult to interpret, and based on child counts from fiscal year 2001. The 

reauthorization proposal would simplify the formula and ensure that allocations respond to shifts 

in State counts of migrant students. The proposal would also improve targeting of services to 

migrant students by strengthening the program purpose language and clarifying which students 

receive priority for program services. State and local recipients would continue to have wide 

flexibility in how they allocate program funds provided they track and report on the academic 

achievement of migratory students in the State. 

Migrant students represent an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve group due to a multitude 

of risk factors present in the population. In particular, the movement of these children across 

school district and State boundaries means that, in general, no single school district or State 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-52

B-52

has ongoing responsibility for the education of these students, thus creating a need for Federal 

support to assist in the coordination of services to meet their educational needs. 

Moreover, the characteristics of the migrant population create a need for educational services 

that go well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 

addition to being highly mobile, migrant students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity and poor 

health and housing conditions. Almost one-third (32 percent) of the children and youth eligible 

to receive services under the program in 2011-2012 had moved within the previous 12 months. 

In addition, 36.6 percent of eligible children and youth were limited English proficient.

Migrant children and youth may also help their families perform agricultural work, and a growing 

number of migrant “emancipated youth" travel without a parent or guardian to obtain migratory 

work in the fields and in processing plants. A significant proportion of migrant individuals 

eligible for services under the program (13 percent of the eligible population in 2011-2012) are 

school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

Data for 2011-12 indicate that the program provided services to 219,956 migrant students 

during the regular school year and 118,612 during the summer or intersessions. Program funds 

supported 4,002 projects that operated during the school day, 1,078 projects that provided an 

extended school day during the regular school year, 902 summer or intersession projects, and 

1,630 year-round projects. The program served 3,979 children aged birth through 2; 

27,512 children aged 3 through 5; 206,233 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; 

and 19,671 out-of-school youth. Services provided included supplemental instruction in 

reading, math, and other academic areas, family literacy and preschool instruction, and high 

school credit accrual. Program funds were also used to provide such support services as 

counseling, health and nutrition services, advocacy and referrals for migrant students with 

disabilities, and (especially in the summer) transportation. 

The Department would reserve approximately $10 million from the fiscal year 2015

appropriation for migrant coordination and national activities, including $3 million for consortium 

incentive grants. The remainder of the funds would be used for activities related to inter- and 

intra-State coordination, primarily for maintenance and operation of the MSIX, including for 

technical assistance to States as they continue to implement their systems for collecting and 

exchanging data on migrant students. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Number of eligible children 375,000 375,000 375,000

SEA program:

Amount for State grants $362,751 $364,751 $364,751

Range of State awards $0-$127,952 $66-$128,260 $66-$128,260

Coordination activities: (coord)
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-53

B-53

Measures 2013 2014 2015

(coor d) Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

(coor d) Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 $7,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program 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 in FY 2015 and future years, 

and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and 

achieving graduation from high school (or a GED program) with an education that 

prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.

Objective: Along with other Federal programs and State and local reform efforts, the Migrant 

Education Program (MEP) will contribute to improved school performance of migrant children.

Measure: Number of States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students scored at 

the proficient level or above in reading at the elementary school level.

Year Target Number of States Number of States

2010 33 24

2011 35 24

2012 36 22

2013 37

2014 24

2015 25

Measure: The number of States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students scored 

at the proficient level or above in reading at the middle school level.

Year Target Actual

2010 27 22

2011 29 26

2012 31 20

2013 33

2014 25

2015 26
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-54

B-54

Measure: The number of States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students scored 

at the proficient level or above in mathematics at the elementary school level.

Year Target Actual

2010 33 32

2011 35 31

2012 37 27

2013 39

2014 27

2015 28

Measure: The number of States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students scored 

at the proficient level or above in mathematics at the middle school level.

Year Target Actual

2010 25 25

2011 27 25

2012 29 22

2013 31

2014 24

2015 25

Additional information: Data for elementary students include data for grades 3 through 5; 

data for middle school students include data for grades 6-8. Forty-seven States reported 

reading proficiency data in 2012 and all 47 reported reading and mathematics proficiency data 

that year. The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance Reports that States 

submit to the Department. Data for 2013 will be available in summer 2014.

Based on State data, 51.5 percent of migrant 4th-grade students were proficient in reading and 

57.7 percent in math in 2012, compared to 51.4 percent in reading and 59.9 percent in math in 

2011. For 8th-grade migrant students, 48.3 percent were proficient in reading in 2012 and 

43.7 percent in math, compared to 48.3 percent in reading and 45.9 percent in math in 2011.

The Department previously reported data on migrant student graduation and dropout rates, but 

there are will not be new data on these measures because those data elements are no longer 

collected through EDFacts. The Department recently determined that it had no authority to 

collect these data as part of the subgroup data it collects and reports to meet its own 

responsibilities under Title I of the ESEA. When MSIX is fully implemented (i.e., when all States 

are collecting and entering all three types of data elements collected in MSIX) and regulations 

are issued, the Department will have access to data on migrant student graduation, but it may 

not be able to calculate 4-year cohort graduation rates because MSIX contains only migrant 

student-level information. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-55

B-55

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant 

student records through the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system. The MSIX 

integrates procedures designed to achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate 

State and local efforts to transfer health and education records into a single system that can be 

used within and across all States. The system began collecting data from a number of States in 

December 2007, but not every State had access to the system at that time. Furthermore, the 

Department had to work with States to ensure that their data systems met the appropriate 

technical standards needed to connect to MSIX. 

Initially the Department assessed annual changes in the percentage of actively migrating 

students for which MSIX contained consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school 

and health information. As of 2012, MSIX contains consolidated records for migrant students 

who have enrolled in school in more than one State. The Department is now tracking how many 

States are collecting the three types of data elements collected in MSIX for migrant students: 

basic student information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for 

secondary students.

Measure: The number of States collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 31

2014 31

2015 31

Additional information: As of August of 2013, 31 out of 47 States participating in the MEP are 

collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX. The Department developed a 

3-phase plan to help States fully participate in MSIX. Under phase 1, States were to collect and 

make available all data elements for basic student information, which is required for all migrant 

students. Under phase 2, States would add student assessment data, which is required only for 

migrant students taking State assessments. Under phase 3, States would add credit accrual 

information for secondary students. At this time, State participation in MSIX is voluntary; once 

the Department issues regulations requiring States to collect and share data through MSIX, the 

Department will be able to expect all States participating in the MEP to collect all three types of 

data elements. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that contains requirements for States 

pertaining to MSIX was published on December 27, 2013. Data for 2014 will be available in late 

2014.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-56

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$47,614 $47,614 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program provides financial assistance to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) for provision of education services to neglected and delinquent 

children and youth in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in 

correctional facilities. Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on the number of 

children in State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the State. Each 

State’s N and D allocation is generated by child counts in State institutions that provide at least 

20 hours of instruction a week from non-Federal funds; adult correctional institutions must 

provide 15 hours a week. State institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 

least 30 days are eligible to receive funds. Adult correctional institutions must give priority for 

services to youth who are likely to be released within a 2-year period.

Like other Title I programs, the N and D program requires institutions receiving funds to gear 

their services to the State academic content and achievement standards that all children are 

expected to meet. Similar to the school-wide program option under the Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may operate institution-wide education 

programs in which they use Title I funds in combination with other available Federal and State 

funds; this option allows juvenile institutions to serve a larger proportion of their eligible 

population and to align their programs more closely with other education services in order to 

meet participants’ educational and occupational training needs. States are required to reserve 

between 15 and 30 percent of their allocations for projects to help N and D participants make 

the transition from State institutions to locally operated programs or to support the successful 

entry of youth offenders into postsecondary and career and technical education programs.

The Department may reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriation for national activities, 

including the development of a uniform model to evaluate Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs, 

and technical assistance to help build the capacity of State agency programs.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-57

B-57

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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$50,427

2011.............................................................50,326

2012.............................................................50,231

2013.............................................................47,614

2014.............................................................47,614

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2015, the Administration requests $47.6 million, the same as the 2014 level, for the 

Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program. The activities supported with this funding would 

help an estimated 98,000 N and D students return to and complete school and obtain 

employment after they are released from State institutions.

The N and D program is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

and is, therefore, subject to reauthorization. The request assumes that the program will be 

implemented in fiscal year 2015 under reauthorized legislation consistent with the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal, which would align instruction for N and D students 

with each State’s college- and career-ready standards and improve the transition of these 

students into locally operated programs and postsecondary and career and technical education 

programs.

The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would also amend ESEA Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 2, under which SEAs currently use funding from the Title I, Part A program to make 

subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the provision of educational services 

for children and youth in local institutions and schools who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk 

of dropping out. The reauthorization proposal would target the Subpart 2 program on 

institutionalized children and youth, who may not be served adequately by the Title I, Part A 

program.

The population served by the Subpart 1 program is extremely disadvantaged and isolated, and 

research has shown that the youth served are up to 3 years behind in grade level and generally 

lack job skills. A study by Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Malcahy (2009) of youth 

incarcerated in three long-term correctional facilities found low levels of reading achievement 

among this population, with significantly lower levels for certain ethnic and racial groups and for 

students in special education. Another study, by Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild, and Legters (2003), 

noted that incarcerated youths in a large mid-Atlantic city tended to have failed at least half of 

their classes and had extremely low attendance rates in the year prior to incarceration. 

Moreover, a study by Keith and McCray (2002) reported on the special and unmet needs of 

incarcerated youth offenders with reading disabilities. The longstanding nature of this problem 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-58

B-58

is demonstrated by a 1996 study from the Educational Testing Service showing that while most 

of the inmates in America’s prisons would eventually be paroled, two-thirds did not have the 

literacy skills needed to function in society. The findings of these reports show the importance 

of programs focused on improving educational outcomes for neglected and delinquent youth 

and preparing these students for further education or to enter the workforce.

From the 2015 request, the Department would reserve approximately $1.3 million to continue to 

provide technical assistance and other services through the National Evaluation and Technical 

Assistance Center for Children who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Some of the 

Center’s activities include: (1) developing a national model for evaluating the effectiveness of 

N and D programs; (2) collecting and disseminating information on tools and effective practices 

that can be used to support N and D youth; and (3) providing technical assistance, using 

experts and practitioners, to State agencies.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Number of participating institutions 727 727 727

Estimated number of students served 98,495 98,495 98,495

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $483 $483 $483

Range of awards to States $97-$2,900 $95-$2,910 $95-$2,910

Average State award $893 $893 $893

National activities $1,190 $1,190 $1,190

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 in 

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

Goal: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the 

opportunity to meet the challenging State standards needed to further their education 

and become productive members of society. 

Objective: Neglected or delinquent (N or D) students will improve academic and vocational 

skills needed to further their education. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-59

B-59

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program who obtain a 

secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2010 13.4% 11.2%

2011 14.1 12.8

2012 13.8 13.0

2013 14.8

2014 15.8

2015 16.8

Additional information: The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better 

align with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2010 58.0% 52.0%

2011 60.9 55.6

2012 56.6 52.3

2013 57.6

2014 58.6

2015 59.6

Additional information: This measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in 

neglected, juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult 

correctional institutions. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to be better 

aligned with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve reading skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 92.6% 69.9%

2011 97.2 70.4

2012 71.4 71.1

2013 72.4

2014 73.4

2015 74.4
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-60

B-60

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve mathematics skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2010 84.2% 71.3%

2011 88.4 71.9

2012 72.9 71.9

2013 73.9

2014 74.9

2015 75.9

Additional information: Student counts are based on the number of long-term students (those 

enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive calendar days) who 

complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These are not the same as the 

State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily reflect State proficiency 

levels. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to be better aligned with recent 

performance.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2010 $3,739 $5,256

2011 3,515 4,566

2012 4,520 4,891

2013 4,475

2014 4,430

2015 4,385

Additional information: This measure attempts to determine program cost efficiency by 

tracking the ratio of the number of participating students achieving a high school diploma or its 

equivalent to the cost of the program. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013

to be better aligned with recent performance.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-61

Homeless children and youth education

(McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subtitle B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$65,042 $65,042 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Children and Youth program helps ensure that all homeless children and youth 

have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available to other children 

through grants to States to: (1) establish or designate an Office of Coordinator of Education of 

Homeless Children and Youth; (2) develop and carry out a State plan for the education of 

homeless children; and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the 

education of those children. 

The Department allocates program funds to States through a formula based on each State's 

share of funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A 

State may not receive less than the greater of $150,000, 0.25 percent of the total program

appropriation for the fiscal year, or the amount of the State’s fiscal year 2001 allocation. 

Program funds are also reserved for the outlying areas (0.1 percent of a fiscal year’s 

appropriation) and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior 

(1 percent). In addition, the Department is authorized to reserve funds to provide technical 

assistance (if requested by a State) and conduct evaluation and dissemination activities.

A State may reserve up to 25 percent (or in the case of a State receiving the minimum award, 

50 percent) of its allocation for State-level activities and must use remaining funds to make 

subgrants to LEAs. LEAs may use subgrant funds for such activities as providing enriched 

supplemental instruction, transportation, professional development, referrals to health care, and 

other services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless 

children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

The McKinney-Vento Act explicitly prohibits States that receive program funds from segregating 

homeless students in separate schools, except for short periods of time for health or safety 

emergencies or to provide temporary, special, and supplementary services. This prohibition 

does not apply to separate schools for homeless children or youth that were operating in fiscal 

year 2000 in four counties (San Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego counties in California, and 

Maricopa County in Arizona) if those schools and their LEAs meet certain requirements.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-62

B-62

The Homeless Children and Youth Education program 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 through September 30 of the following year.

Funding levels for the program for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$65,427

2011.............................................................65,296

2012.............................................................65,173

2013.............................................................61,771

2014.............................................................65,042

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $65.0 million for the Homeless Children and 

Youth Education program (which under current law is named the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program and is in the School Improvement Programs account), the same 

as the fiscal year 2014 level. The Administration is proposing to strengthen this program 

through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The fiscal 

year 2015 appropriation would fund the first year of operations of a reauthorized program, which 

would more directly target resources to homeless children and remove barriers to serving them 

effectively. Under the reauthorization proposal, program funds would be allocated to States 

based on the most recent State-reported data on the number of homeless children and youth 

rather than on State shares of ESEA Title I, Part A funds, a change that would help ensure that 

program funds flow to States on the basis of need. The reauthorization proposal also would 

eliminate the exemption to the prohibition against operating separate schools for homeless 

youth; this change is needed because homeless students are unlikely to receive a high-quality 

education in a segregated environment and because of the stigma attached to groups of 

students placed in segregated schools. The proposal would also support efforts to improve and 

accelerate the identification of homeless students and would increase transparency by requiring 

States to report on academic outcomes for homeless students served by the program, including 

high school graduation and college enrollment rates.

This program is an important component of the national effort to end the cycle of homelessness. 

Homeless children face many barriers that impede their educational access and success, such 

as immunization, transportation, and guardianship needs. This program helps reduce and 

eliminate those barriers while providing homeless children access to academic services 

available to other children, including preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented 

programs, and career and technical education. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-63

B-63

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for State grants $60,198 $63,283 $63,263

Average State award 1,158 1,217 1,217

Amount to Outlying Areas 62 65 65

Amount to BIE 618 650 650

National activities 893 1,044 1,064

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 in 

FY 2015 and future years as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate 

public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Homeless children and youth will have greater access to a free and appropriate 

public education.

Measure: The percentage of homeless children and youth, grades 3 through 8, who are 

included in statewide assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by LEA 

subgrantees.

In 2012, 98.1 percent of students identified as homeless at the time of State assessments were 

included in State assessments in reading, and 98.0 percent of such students were included in 

State assessments in mathematics. In 2011, those rates were 98.5 and 98.6 percent, 

respectively.

Additional Information: Beginning in 2011, the Department developed a new method of 

calculating assessment participation rates of homeless students using different data elements in 

the Education Data Exchange Network. We believe this method produces more accurate and 

reliable results than the method used in prior years. Because, with this change, results are not 

comparable with prior years, we are providing participation rate data for 2011 and 2012 only. 

The Department is considering whether to continue reporting on this measure in future years.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-64

B-64

Measure: The percentage of assessed homeless students, grades 3 through 8, who meet or 

exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and mathematics.

Year Target – Reading Actual – Reading Target – Math Actual – Math

2010 57% 53% 57% 52%

2011 60 51 60 51

2012 63 50 63 47

2013 66 66

2014 69 69

2015 73

Additional Information: Data for this measure are reported only for LEAs receiving subgrants

under the program. Beginning in 2009, the Department directed States to report data based on 

whether homeless students were enrolled in LEAs with subgrants rather than whether the 

students were served by (but not necessarily enrolled in) such LEAs. Because student 

enrollment data are available for verification in State data systems, the Department believes that 

these data are the more reliable. Data for this measure for 2012 will be available in the summer 

of 2013.

The Department has worked to improve performance and reporting for this and the preceding 

measure by requiring States to report on the measures through the Consolidated State 

Performance Report and the Education Data Exchange Network and by providing, together with 

the National Center for Homeless Education (the Department’s technical assistance contractor), 

a variety of guidance and technical assistance, including an annually updated Federal data 

collection guide for the program. The Department also is currently working with its Data Quality 

Initiative contractor to assess the reliability of State-reported data on homeless students. 

Efficiency Measure

The Department established the following efficiency measure for the program: 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to 

States after monitoring visits.

Year Target Actual

2010 40 31

2011 40 35

2012 40 32

2013 40 51

2014 40

2015 40

Additional Information: This measure provides information on monitoring visits to States 

conducted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. These visits cover the 

following Department formula grant programs: College- and Career-Ready Students, Neglected 

and Delinquent Children and Youth Education, Homeless Children and Youth Education, and 

Language Acquisition State Grants. In 2013, the Department began implementing a new set of 

monitoring protocols for States receiving ESEA flexibility.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-65

B-65

Other Information

The Department initiated a national study of implementation of the Homeless Children and 

Youth Education program in the fall of 2010. The study will examine, at the State and local 

levels, program administration and use of funds, efforts to collect data on homeless students, 

policies to remove barriers faced by homeless students, and coordination of services to 

homeless students. Results from the study are expected to be available in the spring of 2014.
B-66

B-66

State tables