Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2018 Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................C-1

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................C-3

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................C-5

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................C-7

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports...............................................................C-9

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................C-11

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants.....................................................................C-13

21st Century community learning centers.........................................................................C-22

State assessments ...........................................................................................................C-29

Education for homeless children and youths.....................................................................C-35

Native Hawaiian education ...............................................................................................C-39

Alaska Native education ...................................................................................................C-43

Training and advisory services .........................................................................................C-46

Rural education ................................................................................................................C-51

Supplemental education grants ........................................................................................C-58

Comprehensive centers....................................................................................................C-62

Student support and academic enrichment grants ............................................................C-70

State tables1

1 State tables reflecting final 2016 allocations and 2017 and 2018 estimates are posted on the 

Department’s webpage at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of Title I and part B of 

title V of the ESEA; the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; section 203 of the 

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

Act of 2003; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $697,231,000, of which $622,654,000 shall 

become available on July 1, 2018, and remain available through September 30, 2019:

1

Provided, That $51,347,000 shall be available to carry out section 203 of the Educational 

Technical Assistance Act of 2002 and the Secretary shall make such arrangements as 

determined to be necessary to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education has access to 

services provided under this section:2 Provided further, That $16,667,000 shall be available to 

carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated States of Micronesia 

and the Republic of the Marshall Islands:3 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up 

to 5 percent of the amount referred to in the previous proviso to provide technical assistance in 

the implementation of these grants:4 Provided further, That $175,506,000 shall be for part B of 

title V.5

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). 

The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

C-2

Language Provision Explanation

1

... of which $622,654,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2018, and remain 

available through September 30, 2019:

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for State Assessments, Education for 

Homeless Children and Youths, and Rural 

Education.

2 Provided, That $51,347,000 shall be 

available to carry out section 203 of the 

Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 and the Secretary shall make such 

arrangements as determined to be necessary 

to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education 

has access to services provided under this 

section:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program and 

authorizes the Secretary to provide the 

Bureau of Indian Education access to 

program services.

3 Provided further, That $16,667,000 shall be 

available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands.

4 Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the amount 

referred to in the previous proviso to provide 

technical assistance in the implementation of 

these grants:

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.

5 Provided further, That $175,506,000 shall 

be for part B of title V.

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation............................................ $4,339,636 0 $697,231

Annualized CR (P.L. 114-254).................. 0 $4,331,387 0

Comparative transfer to:

Innovation and Improvement for:

Supporting effective educator

development ............................................ -93,993 -93,814 0

Total, comparable appropriation .......... 4,245,643 $4,237,573 697,231

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year .......... -1,681,441 -1,681,441 -1,678,245

Advance from prior year........................... 1,681,441 1,678,245 0

Total, budget authority ......................... 4,339,636 4,234,377 -981,014
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

C-4

2017 Annualized CR........................................................................ $4,331,387

2018.................................................................................................. 697,231

Net change............................................................... -3,634,156

Decreases:

2017

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, local, 

and private funding. $2,251,549 -$2,251,549

Eliminate funding for the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program because the program was not included 

in the reauthorized ESEA. 152,427 -152,427

Eliminate funding for the 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers program because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, local, 

and private funding. 1,164,455 -1,164,455

Eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Education program 

because it duplicates activities that may be supported by 

other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private 

funding. 33,334 -33,334

Eliminate funding for the Alaska Native Education program

because it duplicates activities that may be supported by 

other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private 

funding. 32,391 -32,391

Eliminate funding for the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program because it duplicates activities 

that may be supported by other Federal programs as well as 

State, local, and private funding. 400,000 -400,000

Net change -3,634,156
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-5

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

footnote

2018

Authorized

footnote

2018

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State 

grants (ESEA II-A) $2,295,830 $2,251,549 $2,295,830 0

Mathematics and science partnerships 

(ESEA II-B; struck by P.L. 114-95) 0 152,427 0 0

21st century community learning centers 

(ESEA IV-B) 1,000,000 1,164,455 1,100,000 0

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 

1201-1203) 378,000 377,281 378,000 $377,281

Education for homeless children and 

youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) 85,000 69,867 85,000 69,867

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 32,397 33,334 32,397 0

Alaska Native education equity 

(ESEA VI-C) 31,453 32,391 31,453 0

Training and advisory services (CRA IV) Indefinite 6,563 Indefinite 6,563

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 169,840 175,5062 169,840 175,5062

Supplemental education grants (Compact 

of Free Association Act) 21,2193 16,667 21,4923 16,667

Comprehensive centers (ETAA 

section 203) 04 51,347 To be determined4 51,347

2 The amount appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B is to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2.

3 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing statute, which requires such adjustments 

through fiscal year 2023.

4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; the program was authorized in 2017 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing legislation is 

sought for fiscal year 2018.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

C-6

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

footnote

2018

Authorized

footnote

2018

Request

footnote

Unfunded authorizations

Student support and academic 

enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A-1) 1,650,000 0 1,650,000 0

UA Family engagement in education 

programs (ESEA IV-B) 0 0 10,000 0

Total definite authorization 5,663,739 5,774,012

Total appropriation $4,331,387 $697,231

Portion of request subject to 

reauthorization 51,347 51,347
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-7

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2009 $4,566,323 $5,399,6091 $5,292,4221 $5,362,016

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

Recovery Act Supp. (P.L. 111-

5)

0 1,066,000 1,070,000 720,000

2010 5,182,181 5,244,644 5,197,3162 5,228,444

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

2011 1,890,779 5,221,4443 5,388,1732 4,593,8414

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

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

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1025 4,570,1455 4,544,596

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

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8806 4,544,5966 4,397,391

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A7 4,676,8622 4,397,391

(2014 Advance for 2015) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2015 966,923 N/A7 4,402,6748 4,402,671

(2015 Advance for 2016) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2016 4,693,171 3,500,7209 4,134,7469 4,443,629

(2016 Advance for 2017) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2017 4,658,409 4,799,91210 4,177,23910 4,408,56710

(2017 Advance for 2018) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

1 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. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 

3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance 

reflects Senate Committee action only. 

6 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.

7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

9 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 

appropriations bill, which proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and 

Senate Committee.

10 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriation bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

C-8

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2018 697,321

(2018 Advance for 2019) (0)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-9

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports

Alaska Native Education

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to ensure that Alaska Native tribes, 

Alaska Native regional nonprofits, and Alaska Native corporations have the 

maximum opportunity to successfully compete for grants under this program by 

providing these entities multiple opportunities for technical assistance in 

developing successful applications for these funds, both in Alaska and via 

various forms of telecommunications, and to make every effort to ensure that 

Alaska Natives and Alaskans represent a significant proportion of peer reviewers 

for grant applications submitted in fiscal year 2017.

Response: The Department will comply with this request and provide technical assistance to 

ensure that Alaska Native tribes, Alaska Native regional nonprofits, and Alaska 

Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to successfully compete for 

grants under this program.

Comprehensive Centers

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to brief the Committee within 30 days of 

enactment on how they plan to ensure this new cohort of comprehensive centers 

will provide a well-coordinated, accessible, and robust technical assistance 

system for SEAs.

Response: The Department will comply with this request. The Comprehensive Center 

competition originally was scheduled for 2017 but was delayed to allow the timing 

of new awards to better align with the implementation of ESSA, including 

completion of Department of Education guidance for State educational agencies 

(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs). The new centers will provide 

support for building SEA capacity to implement reforms to improve student 

learning and close achievement and graduation rate gaps, consistent with the 

expanded role and responsibilities of States under the reauthorized ESEA’s 

framework for accountability and school improvement, and will help ensure that 

SEAs and LEAs identify and implement evidence-based strategies and 

interventions, consistent with the requirements of ESSA. A key goal of the 2018 

competition will be to improve coordination among all K-12 technical assistance 

centers, resulting in a more aligned, relevant, accessible, and robust support 

system for SEAs.

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to recognize the unique challenges 

affecting rural schools, and strongly encourages the Department to establish at 

least one university-led center in a State with a significant percentage of students 

in rural schools.

Response: The Department recognizes the challenges facing rural schools and in planning 

for the 2018 competition will assess strategies for best meeting their needs. 

Institutions of higher education are eligible applicants for Comprehensive Center 

grants, along with research organizations, institutions, agencies, and regional 

entities.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports

C-10C-10

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

House: The Committee directs the Department to announce the grant competitions and 

award the grants for this program in a timely manner, as well as provide sufficient 

time for grantees to prepare their applications.

Response: The Department expects to make formula grant awards under this program on

July 1, the date when fiscal year 2017 funds for this program become available 

for obligation. To help ensure timely allocations, a State must submit to the 

Department only a set of assurances for the programs included in a consolidated 

State plan, including this program. A State’s receipt of fiscal year 2017 funds for 

this program is not contingent upon the Department’s approval of its consolidated 

or individual State plans.
ACCOUNT

C-11C-11

C-11

Click here for accessible version

Summar y of R equest

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 


(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent Amount Percent

School Improvement Programs

 1. Supporting effective instruction (ESEA II):

(a) Supporting effective instruction State grants (Part A) 1, 2

Annual appropriation D 574,396 570,108 374,389 0 (570,108) -100.00% (374,389) -100.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 3 D 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 (1,681,441) -100.00% (1,681,441) -100.00%

Subtotal D 2,255,837 2,251,549 2,055,830 0 (2,251,549) -100.00% (2,055,830) -100.00%

(b) Mathematics and science partnerships (Part B; struck by P.L. 114-95) D 152,717 152,427 0 0 (152,427) -100.00% 0 ---

 2. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,166,673 1,164,455 1,191,673 0 (1,164,455) -100.00% (1,191,673) -100.00%

 3. State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 378,000 377,281 369,100 377,281 0 0.00% 8,181 2.22%

 4. Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 70,000 69,867 77,000 69,867 0 0.00% (7,133) -9.26%

 5. Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 33,397 33,334 33,397 0 (33,334) -100.00% (33,397) -100.00%

 6. Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 32,453 32,391 32,453 0 (32,391) -100.00% (32,453) -100.00%

 7. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,575 6,563 6,575 6,563 0 0.01% (12) -0.18%

 8. Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 175,840 175,506 175,840 175,506 0 0.00% (334) -0.19%

 9. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,667 16,699 16,667 0 0.00% (32) -0.19%

 10. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 51,445 51,347 50,000 51,347 0 0.00% 1,347 2.69%

 11. Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D --- --- 400,000 --- 0 --- (400,000) -100.00%

Total, Appropriation D 4,339,636 4,331,387 4,408,567 697,231 (3,634,156) -83.90% (3,711,336) -84.18%

Total, Budget authority D 4,339,636 4,328,191 4,408,567 2,378,672 (1,949,519) -45.04% (2,029,895) -46.04%

Current 2,658,195 2,649,946 2,727,126 697,231 (1,952,715) -73.69% (2,029,895) -74.43%

Prior year's advance 3 1,681,441 1,678,245 1,681,441 1,681,441 3,196 0.19% 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ESEA II-A.

2 Adjusted for comparability. In the 2016 and 2017 Annualized CR columns, excludes funds for Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED). SEED funds are requested in the Innovation and Improvement account in the 2018 President’s Budget.

3 The Advance for succeeding fiscal year shown in the 2016 Appropriation column and the Prior year’s advance shown in the 2017 Appropriation column reflect the final 2016 appropriation level. The Prior year’s advance 

shown in the 2017 Annualized CR column reflects the 0.1901 percent across-the-board reduction applied to the 2016 Advance for succeeding fiscal year that was part of the 2017 Annualized CR that expired April 28, 2017.

2018 President's Budget 

Compared to 2017 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2016

Appropriation

2018 President's Budget 

2017 Annualized Compared to 2017 Annualized CR

CR 

2018 

President's 

Budget 

2017 

Appropriation 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-12

Summary of Request

The programs in the School Improvement Programs (SIP) account support State and local 

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

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

flexible resources to pay the costs of developing and administering student achievement 

assessments and address the particular educational needs of special populations. A full-year 

2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; therefore, 

the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2017 (P.L 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided 

by the continuing resolution. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$4.4 billion, a decrease of $25.1 million, or 0.57 percent, less than the 2016 level for programs 

in this account. The Administration is requesting approximately $697.2 million for programs in 

this account, including:

• $377.3 million for State Assessments to help States continue to administer aligned 

assessment systems, carry out any modifications of their assessment systems required by 

reauthorization, or improve the quality of these assessment systems so that they measure 

higher order thinking skills; appropriately assess all students, including students with 

disabilities and English learners; and provide more timely, useful data to students, teachers, 

and parents. A portion of the funds would be available to make competitive grants to help 

States, either alone or in consortia, address pressing needs they have identified for 

developing and implementing the next-generation of their assessment systems.

• $175.5 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that 

often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA.

• $69.8 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths to provide educational and 

support services that enable homeless children and youth to attend and achieve success in 

school.

• $51.3 million for Comprehensive Centers to provide comprehensive technical assistance to 

grantees. The funding and requested appropriations language would also allow the centers 

to provide assistance to the Bureau of Indian Education.

• $16.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants program to provide support to the 

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

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

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.

• $6.6 million for Training and Advisory Services to support regional equity assistance 

centers that provide technical assistance to school districts in addressing educational equity 

related to issues of race, sex, national origin, and religion.

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants, Native Hawaiian Education, Alaska Native Education, and Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants programs because they duplicate activities that may be supported 

by other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private funding.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-13

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $2,295,830

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

Annual appropriation $570,108 $374,389 0 -$570,108

Advance for succeeding 

fiscal year

1,681,441 1,681,441 0 -1,681,441

Total 2,251,549 2,055,830 0 -2,251,549

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants, previously known as the Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants program, provide formula grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), 

which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) to increase student 

achievement; improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school 

leaders; increase the number of teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective 

in improving student academic achievement in schools; and provide low-income and minority 

students greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders. SEAs and 

LEAs have flexibility to carry out a wide variety of activities, consistent with their specific needs.

In addition to renaming the program, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), which

reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), made a number of 

changes, including a greater focus on evidence-based practices; an emphasis on developing 

rigorous and fair human capital evaluation and development systems; and providing a separate

authorization for the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, which 

previously was a set-aside within the formula grant program created through appropriations 

language. 

The reauthorized program also included two significant changes affecting State allocations. 

First, it will phase out a longstanding hold-harmless allocation methodology under which most 

funds (about $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2016) were allocated to States on the basis of the 

amounts received by each State in fiscal year 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional 

Development State Grants and Class Size Reduction programs. For each of fiscal years 2017 

through 2022, the initial amounts based primarily on fiscal year 2001 allocations are reduced by 

a percentage equal to the product of 14.29 percent and the number of years between the fiscal 

year for which the determination is being made and fiscal year 2016; thus, for 2017, the initial 

amounts are reduced by 14.29 percent. Any remaining funds are then allocated to States by 

statutory formula.

The second change gradually increases the weighting for children from low-income families in 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-14C-14

that statutory allocation formula. In 2017, 35 percent of remaining allocations are based on 

States’ relative shares of the population aged 5 to 17, and 65 percent is based on States’ 

relative shares of children aged 5 to 17 from low-income families. By 2020, the weighting will be 

20 percent for all children and 80 percent for children in poverty. Each State must receive at 

least one-half of 1 percent of the additional funds. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the 

Department of the Interior and the Outlying Areas each receive one-half of 1 percent of the 

appropriation. The Department may reserve one-half of 1 percent of funding for evaluation.

Each State must reserve at least 95 percent of its funds for subgrants to LEAs; they may use up 

to 1 percent for administration and the remainder for State-level activities. The statute further 

authorizes States to reserve up to an additional 3 percent of the amount otherwise reserved for 

subgrants to LEAs for a range of State-level activities aimed at improving the effectiveness of 

principals and other school leaders. In making subgrants to LEAs, 20 percent of allocations are 

based on LEAs’ share of children aged 5 though 17 and 80 percent on the LEAs’ share of 

children aged 5 through 17 from low-income families. Under the prior legislation, LEAs received 

the amount that they had received for fiscal year 2001, with any available funds above that 

amount distributed by formula.

Under the antecedent program, States used 2.5 percent of their grant funds for awards to 

eligible partnerships to provide professional development in core academic subjects to teachers, 

highly qualified paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, principals. These awards, which funded 

the State Agency for Higher Education (or SAHE) awards, are no longer authorized.

States may use their State-level funds for a variety of activities, including the reform of teacher, 

principal, and other school leader certification and licensing; helping LEAs design and 

implement teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation and support systems that are 

based in part on evidence of student academic achievement; improving equitable access to 

effective teachers; creating or improving alternative routes to certification; technical assistance 

to LEAs; improving professional development; improving State reciprocity of teacher and 

principal certification or licensing; reforming or improving teacher and principal preparation 

programs; and training teachers on the appropriate use of student data. To receive funds, 

States must submit an application that describes how funds will be used, including how activities 

will be aligned with challenging State academic standards, how activities are expected to 

improve student achievement, and how they will monitor and support LEA activities.

To receive subgrants, LEAs submit applications to their States that describe proposed activities 

and how the LEA will prioritize funds to schools. The reauthorized ESEA requires LEAs to 

consult with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders in determining the best uses of Title II, 

Part A funds. States may require LEAs to confirm in their applications that they have involved 

these stakeholders not only in determining how to use the funds, but how to do so in ways that 

are likely to increase the probability that the funds have a positive impact on student 

achievement. Similarly, States may encourage LEAs to consider evidence-based practices to 

increase likelihood of effective use of funds. LEAs may use funds to develop, implement, and 

evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to improve teacher and school leader quality, 

including evaluation and support systems; implement initiatives to assist in recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining effective teachers, especially in low-income schools that particularly need assistance; 

promote teacher leadership; recruit qualified individuals from other fields; reduce class size; 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-15C-15

provide high-quality, personalized professional development; and develop feedback 

mechanisms to improve school working conditions. 

In 2015-16, two-thirds of LEAs1 reported using at least a portion of their Title II, Part A funds for 

professional development activities for teachers and paraprofessionals and just over one-third 

used funds to reduce class size. (The estimates are based on data from a nationally 

representative sample of 800 school districts. LEAs could use funds for more than one activity, 

so percentages total more than 100.)

From fiscal years 2011 to 2016, a portion of Title II, Part A funds were reserved, through 

appropriations language, for competitive grants under the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) program. This program is now separately authorized and is described 

elsewhere under the Innovation and Improvement account.

SEI State Grants is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A portion 

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

appropriated and remains available for 15 months through September 30 of the following year. 

The remaining funds become available on October 1 of the fiscal year following the 

appropriations act and remain available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forwardfunded portion.

1 Findings From the 2015-2016 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A, Subgrants to LEAs, 

August 2016. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/seasurveyfundsrpt82016.pdf

7

18

25

35

66

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Professional development activities for

superintendents

Initiatives that promote professional growth and

reward quality teaching

Professional development activities for principals

Hiring highly qualified teachers to reduce class

size

Professional development activities for teachers

and paraprofessionals

Percent of LEAs Using Funds for Each Activity
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-16C-16

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013..................................................... $2,337,830

2014........................................................ 2,348,898

2015........................................................ 2,349,830

2016....................................................... 2,255,837

2017....................................................... 2,055,830

NOTE: Includes funds provided to support the SEED program in 2013 through 2015. Funds for the 

SEED program for 2016 and 2017 are provided in the Innovation and Improvement account.

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the SEI State Grants program for fiscal year 

2018. The SEI State Grants program duplicates activities that may be supported with other 

Federal, State, and local funds; has not demonstrated success in contributing to improved 

teacher quality or student outcomes; and makes formula-based allocations to LEAs that often 

are too small to have a meaningful impact on student outcomes.

While the SEI State Grants program authorizes a wide range of activities intended to improve 

the quality of the educator workforce, in school year 2015-2016, 52 percent of funds were used 

for professional development and 25 percent were used for class-size reduction. An LEA that 

identifies either activity as a key strategy for responding to a comprehensive needs assessment 

may use Title I, Part A funds for the same purpose. Title I funds also may be used to recruit and 

retain effective teachers.

The number of districts using funds for class-size reduction has decreased significantly over the 

years: In 2002-03, 57 percent of funds were used for class-size reduction, but only 25 percent 

were in 2015-16, indicating that districts now view class size reduction as a lower priority. 

Moreover, LEAs used Title II, Part A funds to pay the salaries of an estimated 8,500 teachers in 

school year 2015-2016, out of a total nationwide teacher workforce of roughly 3 million teachers. 

These data suggest that eliminating the program is likely to have minimal impact on class sizes 

or teacher staffing levels in most school districts.

While complete information on size of the LEA subgrants is not available, based on 2015 data 

for the antecedent program, the Department estimates that over 3,600 subgrant allocations are 

$10,000 or less, with at least another 2,900 LEAs receive between $10,000 and $25,000, too 

little to implement most authorized activities in a meaningful way that will improve instruction or, 

most importantly, student outcomes.

Finally, this program initially was authorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) primarily for the 

purpose of ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified, and program performance information 

demonstrates that this goal was met years ago. (To be “highly qualified” under NCLB, teachers 

had to have a bachelor’s degree, full State certification or licensure, and demonstrated 

competency in core academic subjects taught.) For example, in 2005, less than 90 percent of 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-17C-17

core academic elementary classes in high-poverty schools were taught by highly qualified 

teachers; by 2010 this percentage had climbed to 97 percent, and it has remained between 96 

and 97 percent in every year since. In 2015, the latest year for which performance data are 

available, the percentages in high poverty (96 percent) and low poverty elementary schools 

(97 percent) were nearly the same. In high-poverty secondary schools, only 84 percent of 

teachers were highly qualified in 2005; that figure rose to 95 percent in 2010.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Funding for State awards $2,220,707 $2,025,095 0

Range of State awards $10,634−$249,340 $9,723−$227,943 NA

Average State award $42,706 $38,944 0

Funding for Outlying Area Awards $11,690 $10,228 0

Funding for BIE $11,690 $10,228 0

Evaluation $11,749 $10,279 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal year 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA 

program. Similar authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act 

(section 8601) for fiscal year 2017 and subsequent years. The Department reserved a portion of funds 

for this purpose in 2016 and may do so again in 2017

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The measures established by the Department to assess the performance of the Improving 

Teacher Quality State Grants program gauged the percentage of core academic classes taught 

by highly qualified teachers, as previously required under the ESEA as reauthorized by NCLB, 

in elementary and secondary schools as a whole compared to the percentage in high poverty 

schools. Since 2007, these data have been collected by the Department’s EDFacts/Education 

Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

The reauthorization of the ESEA by the ESSA eliminated highly qualified teacher requirements, 

and the last year of data collection for the current measures will be 2016 (school year 2015-16). 

No performance data will be collected in 2017 (school year 2016-17), which is a transition year 

for SEAs and LEAs.1 

1 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-18C-18

Goal: To improve teacher and principal quality and increase the number of highly 

qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant 

principals in schools.

Objective: Show an annual increase in the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers.

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty elementary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2013 100% 97%

2014 100 96

2015 100 96

2016 100

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty secondary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2013 100% 95%

2014 100 93

2015 100 93

2016 100

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

elementary schools.

Year Target Actual

2013 100% 98%

2014 100 97

2015 100 97

2016 100%

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

secondary schools.

Year Target Actual

2013 100% 96%

2014 100 95

2015 100 95

2016 100

Additional information: The program did not make progress on this objective from 2014 to 

2015 but did maintain a high percentage. Results for 2016 are expected in the late spring of

2017. As noted above, no performance data will be reported for 2017.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-19C-19

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in elementary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2013 34

2014 14

2015 15

2016

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in secondary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in secondary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2013 24

2014 16

2015 17

2016

Additional information: These measures present the number of States that reduced (from the 

year prior to the year for which the data are reported) the difference in the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in highest poverty versus lowest poverty 

schools. Results for 2016 are expected in the late spring of 2017. No data will be reported for 

2017.

Other performance information

Department evaluations related to Title II, Part A have focused on impact studies of activities 

that may be supported with program funds, including professional development, equitable 

access to effective teaching, and teacher retention strategies. Key findings include the 

following:

• Recent studies show that professional development, as currently provided, has limited 

impact on student achievement. A recent impact evaluation of an intensive elementary 

school mathematics professional development (PD) intervention, which examined the 

effectiveness of providing PD to fourth-grade teachers to enhance their conceptual 

understanding of math, found that while the PD improved teacher knowledge and led to 

improvements in teachers’ use and quality of explanation in the classroom, there was no 

difference in student achievement test scores on either the State assessment or on a studyadministered math test.1

 Earlier studies of middle school mathematics and elementary 

reading PD improved teacher knowledge or practice on some aspects targeted by the PD 

but did not translate into improvements in student achievement. The study of middle school 

mathematics PD2

, completed in 2011, had an impact on at least one of three targeted 

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp

2 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathematics.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-20C-20

teacher practices, but did not improve teacher knowledge or improved student achievement 

in the math areas assessed. The study of elementary school reading1

, released in 2008, 

examined the impact of a research-based PD intervention for reading instruction and found 

that teacher knowledge of teaching reading improved along with some aspects of 

instructional practice. However, the PD did not improve student achievement in reading. An 

evaluation brief reviewing these studies2

, released in 2016, discusses the need for PD 

models that have a larger impact on teacher knowledge and practice or a need to better 

understand the aspects of teacher knowledge and practice that are more closely related to 

improving student achievement.

• While there are inequities in the distribution of effective teachers, the effects on low-income 

students may be relatively small. The study of the distribution of effective teaching, the final 

report for which was released in 2016, found that, on average, there are small differences in 

the effectiveness of teachers of high- and low-income students and that providing lowincome students with equally effective teachers would not substantively reduce the 

achievement gap.3

 There were, however, a small number of districts3 out of the 26 study 

districtswhere data suggested that providing low-income students with teachers who were 

as effective as the high-income students’ teachers could reduce the math achievement gap 

by about 4 percentile points. (The study identified students as low-income or high-income 

based on whether or not they were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch, so it was not 

possible to determine whether there might be differences in teacher effectiveness for very 

low-income students.)

• Incentive programs can attract and retain effective teachers, but only for as long as 

incentives are provided. An impact evaluation of moving high-performing teachers to lowperforming schools showed that financial incentives ($10,000 per year) were successful in 

attracting good teachers to low-performing schools, but once the incentives were 

discontinued, the high-performing teachers left at similar rates to other teachers. The 

transfer incentives had a positive effect on math and reading achievement in the elementary 

grades, and under some circumstances the policy was more cost-effective than a strategy of 

class size reduction. The study found no impact of the transfer incentives in middle 

schools.4

• Most States have adopted laws or regulations related to educator evaluation systems, but 

only a small minority of districts has implemented systems consistent with research. The 

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives study, which began in 2011, released its first 

report, based on data collected during the 2013−2014 school year, in January 2017.5

 The 

report summarizes information collected from States, LEAs, principals, and teachers in three 

core areas: (1) State content standards and assessments, (2) school accountability, and 

(3) teacher and principal evaluation and support. The study found that almost all States 

adopted new laws or regulations related to educator evaluation systems between 2009 and 

2014, and a majority of districts reported full (32 percent of districts) or partial (27 percent of 

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_reading.asp

2 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/pdf/20174010.pdf

3 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp

4 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_recruitment.asp

5 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-21C-21

districts) implementation in 2013−14. However, only one out of every five districts 

implemented teacher evaluation systems that were consistent with the best practices 

highlighted by emerging research.

The Department is currently supporting an additional study on preservice teacher preparation 

that is examining the extent to which novice teachers’ preparation experiences are related to the 

achievement of students in their classrooms.1

 This study includes a large sample of novice 

teachers who attended a diverse group of preparation providers. The study collected teachers’ 

reports of their preparation experiences related to 13 instructional topic areas (such as 

classroom management) and information about the types of experiences (ranging from a 

traditional classroom experience to feedback based on their use of a particular strategy). The 

study report, expected in fall 2017, will look at the relationships between the teachers' 

experiences in their preparation programs and the achievement of students in their classrooms.

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-22

21st Century community learning centers

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $1,100,000

Budget Authority: 

2017 

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$1,164,455 $1,191,673 0 -$1,164,455

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program enables communities to 

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities through 

before- and after-school programs and summer school programs, as well as parenting skills and 

family literacy services, aimed at improving student academic outcomes. Centers must target 

their services primarily to students who attend schools identified for improvement under Title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or other schools determined by local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to be in need of assistance. The program currently provides 

funding to approximately 11,500 centers serving 1.8 million students and 183,000 adult family 

members. In the 2014-15 program year, approximately 752,000, or 42 percent, of all students 

served attended a center for 30 or more days. 

Additionally, 21st CCLC funds may support local activities that are included as part of an 

expanded learning time program under which the regular school day has been extended to 

include at least 300 additional program hours. Program funds may be used for a broad range of 

activities, such as those that support a well-rounded education; financial literacy and 

environmental literacy programs; programs that support a healthy and active lifestyle; services 

for individuals with disabilities; activities for students who are English learners; cultural 

programs; telecommunications and technology education programs; expanded library service 

hours; family engagement and literacy programs; programs for students who have been truant, 

suspended, or expelled; drug and violence prevention activities; programs that partner with indemand fields of the local workforce; and programs that build skills in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics. 

Program funds are allocated by formula to States. Of the total appropriation, the Department 

reserves up to 1 percent to carry out national activities and up to 1 percent for grants to the 

Bureau of Indian Education in the Department of the Interior and to the Outlying Areas. The 

Department allocates the remaining funds to States in proportion to each State’s share of funds 

received the previous fiscal year under Part A of Title I of the ESEA. However, no State may 

receive less than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-23C-23

Each State educational agency (SEA) must award at least 93 percent of its allocation 

competitively to LEAs, community-based organizations, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, 

faith-based organizations, or other public or private entities that can demonstrate experience, or 

the promise of success, in providing educational and related activities. In making awards, 

States give priority to applications that: (1) propose to target services to students who attend 

schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support 

and improvement activities under Title I; (2) are submitted jointly by at least one LEA that 

receives funds under Part A of Title I and another eligible entity; and (3) demonstrate that the 

activities proposed in the application are not otherwise accessible to the students who would be 

served by the program or the activities would expand accessibility to high-quality services. 

States must make awards of at least $50,000 per year for a period of 3 to 5 years. An SEA may 

reserve up to 2 percent of its allocation for administrative expenses, including the costs of 

conducting its grant competition, and up to 5 percent for monitoring local programs, providing 

technical assistance and training, and evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s program.

This program is forward funded. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through September 30 

of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2013 ......................................................$1,091,564

2014 ........................................................1,149,370

2015 ........................................................1,151,673

2016 ........................................................1,166,673

2017 ........................................................1,191,673

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for 21st CCLC for fiscal year 2018. While limited 

evaluation and survey data from certain States and individual centers highlights benefits from 

participation, such as improved behavior and classroom grades, overall program performance 

data show that the 21st CCLC is not achieving its goal of helping students, particularly those 

who attend low-performing schools, meet challenging State academic standards. For example, 

on average from 2013 to 2015, less than 20 percent of program participants improved from not 

proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and mathematics. 

Additionally, student improvement in academic grades was limited, with States reporting higher 

math and English grades for less than half of “regular program participants.” 

Indeed, low attendance rates at the program’s centers likely are a key explanation for the 

program’s longstanding failure to contribute meaningfully to improved academic outcomes. For 

example, States reported that fewer than half of all students served (752,000 out of 1.8 million) 

attended programs for 30 days or more during the 2014-2015 school year. These recent results 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-24C-24

are consistent with findings of the last rigorous national evaluation of the program, conducted in 

2005, which found the program had limited academic impact and low student attendance rates.1

These data strongly suggest that the 21st CCLC program is not generating the benefits 

commensurate with an annual investment of more than $1 billion in limited Federal education 

funds. Moreover, the provision of before- and after-school academic enrichment opportunities 

may be better supported with other Federal, State, local, or private funds, including the 

$15 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Appropriation 2018

Funding for States awards $1,143,339 $1,167,840 0

SA Range of State awards $5,717-132,665 $5,839-136,586 0

SA Average State award $21,987 $22,458 0

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) $34,300 $ 58,392 0

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) $22,867 $ 23,357 0

National activities and evaluation $11,667 $11,917 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas $11,667 $11,917 0

NOTE: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most 

ESEA programs, including 21st CCLC, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. 

The Department used this authority to pool $3,366 thousand of evaluation funding from this program in 

fiscal year 2016, and it may reserve a similar amount for pooled evaluation purposes in fiscal years 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by this program. The tables below do not have 2018 

targets because the Administration is not requesting funding for this program and, therefore, no 

targets have been established. 

Goal: To establish community learning centers that help students in high poverty, low 

performing schools meet academic achievement standards, that offer a broad array of 

additional services designed to complement the regular academic program, and that 

1 https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-25C-25

offer families of students opportunities for educational development.

Objective: Participants in 21st CCLC programs will demonstrate educational and social 

benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics grades improve 

from fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2013 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 30.7% 30.3% 30.7%

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5 36.7 36.0 36.5

2015 40.0 40.0 40.0 49.7 45.4 48.0

2016 40.0 40.0 40.0

2017 40.0 40.0 40.0

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose English grades improve from 

fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2013 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 31.0% 30.3% 30.9%

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5 36.7 37.3 36.8

2015 48.5 48.5 48.5 49.6 46.9 48.5

2016 48.5 48.5 48.5

2017 48.5 48.5 48.5

Additional information: A “regular program participant” is defined as a student who attends 

the program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year (approximately 42 percent 

of program participants). To report data by grade span for this measure, the data system sorts 

program performance data by analyzing participant demographic information at the center level 

(as opposed to the individual student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all 

ages are not included in the columns disaggregated by grade level. Over the last 3 years, the 

Department has developed and phased in a new performance data collection system for the 

program. The increases in 2015 for the two measures above may be due, in part, to the 

transition to the new system. During this period of transition for the States, the data may suffer 

from comparability and reliability issues.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-26C-26

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants who improve from not proficient to 

proficient or above on State assessments.

Year

Target 

Elementary

Reading

Target 

Middle and High 

School Math

Actual 

Elementary

Reading

Actual 

Middle and High 

School Math

2013 45.0% 25.0% 20.2% 17.8%

2014 45.0 25.0 05.4 11.1

2015 15.0 25.0 28.4 22.6

2016 15.0 25.0

2017 15.0 25.0

Additional information: The Department calculates results for this measure by dividing the 

number of regular participants who scored proficient or better in spring of the reporting year (but 

were not proficient in the previous year) by the total number of current-year regular participants 

who scored below proficient the previous spring. For a regular participant to be included in the 

data for this measure, the center has to have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. The decreases from 2013 to 2014 are partly due to a combination of 

factors: many States transitioned to new assessments during this period and were also unable 

to enter high-quality information into the Department’s old performance data system that was 

retired immediately following the annual performance report submission deadline in fall 2014.

Measure: The percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2013 75% 75% 75% 68.5% 64.2% 67.1%

2014 75 75 75 31.2 28.9 30.6

2015 60 75 75 57.5 55.3 56.8

2016 60 75 75

2017 60 75 75

Additional information: As with the measures for reading and math grades and proficiency, to 

report data by grade span for this measure the data system sorts program performance data by 

analyzing participant demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the individual 

student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included in the 

columns disaggregated by grade level. Similar to the measure above, the decreases from 2013 

to 2014 are due in part to the transition to the new performance data system.

Efficiency measures

The Department developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-27C-27

Measure: The percentage of SEAs that submit complete data on 21st CCLC program 

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2013 95% 31%

2014 95 50

2015 95 98

2016 95

2017 95

Additional information: With better data quality and completeness checks compared to its 

predecessor, the new performance data collection system has likely helped to improve the rate 

at which SEAs submit complete data for the program. 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to submit a final monitoring 

report to an SEA after the conclusion of a site visit.

Year Target Actual

2013 35 90

2014 35 75

2015 35 45

2016 35

2017 35

Measure: The average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings in a 

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2013 4 17

2014 4 26

2015 4 17

2016 4

2017 4

Additional information: This measure tracks States’ timeliness in responding to the 

Department’s fiscal management monitoring findings that require States to take corrective 

action within 30 days. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down 

funds in a manner that is not consistent with State and Federal policies; awarding funds for 

periods other than between 3 and 5 years (the subgrant length required by the statute); and 

improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants. Changes in the efficiency measures are due in 

part to the volume and severity of the findings for each year. Ongoing issues with a small 

number of States have made the average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance 

findings significantly increase in the last 2 years. 

Other performance information

The Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service analyzed data from a nationally 

representative sample of 21st CCLC programs to evaluate State and local program 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-28C-28

implementation. The resulting report, “21st Century Community Learning Centers: Descriptive 

Study of Program Practices,” was released in July 2010.2

 The evaluation focused on how, and 

to what extent, funds support high quality programs that emphasize academic content, as well 

as staffing patterns and other features of after-school program implementation that may have an 

impact on the quality of the programming offered. Centers reported that about half of their 

students attended roughly 2 days a week or more. In addition, three-quarters of the centers 

reported that a typical student participated in reading activities (75 percent) and mathematics 

activities (81 percent) for less than 4 hours per week. About half of centers reported offering 

professional development opportunities to staff through training courses or conferences.

A 2005 program evaluation conducted by the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences 

found that there were no differences between treatment group students and control group 

students on most academic outcomes; treatment group students scored no better on reading 

tests than control group students and had similar grades in English, mathematics, science, and 

social studies. Because the program has remained fundamentally the same for the last decade, 

even these dated findings are worth noting. This study identified a potentially contributing factor 

to the lack of academic gains resulting from the program: only 53 percent of the treatment 

group students who continued to have access to a 21st CCLC program in year 2 of the 

evaluation continued to attend a center.3

2 http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#after-school

3 https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-29

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $378,000

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$377,281 $369,100 $377,281 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), requires 

States to test all students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in 

reading/language arts and mathematics and to administer annual assessments in science once 

in each of three grade spans specified in the law (grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). Furthermore, 

States must assess the English language proficiency of all English learners annually. The 

annual Statewide assessments, aligned to the State’s academic content standards in 

reading/language arts and mathematics, provide critical information about student achievement 

and progress to parents and teachers, which can be used to help improve instruction for all 

students and meet specific student needs.

Changes to assessment requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, 

which reauthorized the ESEA, include giving States express authority to use computer adaptive 

assessments and to establish a cap at the State level (but not the local level) on the percentage 

of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who may be assessed using alternate 

assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards. New Title I requirements 

also allow local educational agencies (LEAs) to administer locally selected, nationally 

recognized high school assessments instead of statewide assessments as long as the State 

approves the use of such assessments, has determined that they meet alignment and technical 

criteria outlined in the statute and are equivalent to or more rigorous than the State 

assessments, and provides for Federal peer review evidence that the nationally recognized 

assessments meet statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the reauthorized ESEA, the annual assessments in reading and mathematics are to be 

used as a factor to determine whether States, LEAs, and schools are meeting long-term goals 

and interim measures of progress and to differentiate annually and meaningfully the 

performance of all schools in the State. All assessments must be used for purposes for which 

such assessments are valid and reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking 

skills and understanding, and enable achievement results to be disaggregated by major racial 

and ethnic group, gender, poverty, disability, English proficiency, and migrant status.

State compliance with the Title I assessment requirements is contingent on the annual 

appropriations levels for the State Assessments program. For any year for which Congress 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-30C-30

appropriates less than a “trigger amount” of $369.1 million, States may defer the 

commencement or suspend the administration of State assessments.

As previously authorized, the State Assessments program included formula grants to States and 

a separate competition for Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments. The reauthorization 

of the ESEA added a new optional set-aside to help States and LEAs carry out audits of their 

assessment systems to eliminate low-quality or duplicative assessments and ensure that 

remaining tests are worth the instructional time devoted to them. Additionally, the Department 

must reserve 0.5 percent of the funds that are equal to or less than the trigger amount for the 

Bureau of Indian Education and 0.5 percent for the Outlying Areas. (Prior to the reauthorization, 

this set-aside was calculated exclusively from the amount used for Grants for State 

Assessments program). The Department may reserve up to 20 percent of the remaining trigger 

amount funds for Assessment System Audits. The remaining trigger amount funds must be 

used for formula Grants for State Assessments. Any appropriated funds above the trigger 

amount may be used for Competitive Grants for State Assessments, which replace Grants for 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments.

The Grants for State Assessments program provides formula grants to States to pay the costs 

of developing the challenging academic standards and high-quality, aligned assessments 

required by Title I of the ESEA. Once a State has developed the assessments, it may use 

program funds to pay for the administration of the assessments and for other activities related to 

improving those assessments. Such activities may include, among other things, refining State 

assessments to ensure continued alignment with standards, expanding the range of testing 

accommodations for students with disabilities and for English learner students, developing 

multiple measures to ensure the validity and reliability of State assessments, developing or 

improving models to measure student progress or growth, and using academic assessment 

instruments such as performance and technology-based assessments or computer adaptive 

assessments to better reflect the kind of complex work students do in an effective classroom 

and the real world. States allocations are $3 million, plus a share of any funds remaining for 

grants under this program based on each State’s share of students ages 5–17.

The Assessment System Audit program, funded by an optional set-aside of up to 20 percent of 

the trigger amount (or any lesser amount appropriated by Congress) supports audits of State

and local assessment systems. The purpose of these audits is to review the educational benefit 

of the assessments and the legal authority for administering them, and obtain feedback from 

stakeholders on a number of issues pertaining to the assessments, such as how assessment 

data are used; the amount of time teachers spend on assessment preparation and 

administration; and which assessments school personnel, parents, and students do and do not 

find useful. States must implement a plan to eliminate unnecessary or low-quality assessments, 

support dissemination of best practices for improving assessment quality and efficiency, and 

assist LEAs in streamlining local assessment systems, including the establishment of a regular 

process to review and evaluate local assessments to help ensure that all assessments are 

worth taking. States must subgrant at least 20 percent of the funds they receive under this 

program to LEAs, which may use funds to, among other activities, conduct an audit of local 

assessments, implement a plan to eliminate unnecessary or low quality assessments, which 

may include the paying for the costs associated with terminating procurement contracts, and 

improve the capacity of school personnel to use assessment data to improve instruction. The 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-31C-31

Department must provide each State a minimum allocation of $1.5 million under this program, 

with any remaining funds allocated on the same basis as the Grants for State Assessments 

(each State’s share of students ages 5-17).

The Competitive Grants for State Assessments program, which is funded with the amount, if 

any, of appropriations in excess of the trigger amount, makes awards to States or consortia of 

States to support efforts to: (1) improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic 

assessments; (2) measure student academic achievement through the use of multiple 

measures from multiple sources; (3) develop or improve models to measure and assess student 

progress or growth; (4) develop or improve assessments for English learners, including 

assessments of English language proficiency or assessments of academic content in languages 

other than English; (5) develop or improve assessments for children with disabilities, including 

alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement standards; and (6) develop 

and use comprehensive assessment instruments, such as performance- and technology-based 

assessments, computer adaptive assessments, or extended performance task assessments

that allow for new and improved methods for measuring critical thinking, writing, and problem 

solving skills.

State Assessments is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on 

July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months 

through September 30 of the following year.

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

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2012................................. ........................$389,214

2013................................. ..........................368,900

2014................................. ..........................378,000

2015................................. ..........................378,000

2016................................. ..........................378,000

2017................................. ..........................369,100

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $377.2 million for State Assessments, the 

same amount as the fiscal year fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level 

(CR level). The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $369.1 million for 

this program. The request is sufficient to provide $369.1 million, or the “trigger amount,” for 

Grants for State Assessments and $8.1 million for awards under the Competitive Grants for 

State Assessment program. The fiscal year 2018 request would support State efforts to meet 

the assessment requirements of the reauthorized ESEA. 

Annual, high quality, statewide assessments aligned to challenging State academic standards 

will continue to play a key role in helping schools support student learning under the 

reauthorized Title I while also serving as a critical element of the statewide accountability 

systems that each State must establish under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA. These 

assessments provide parents and educators with information they need to enable their students 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-32C-32

to be successful and make progress towards attainment of college- and career-ready academic 

standards. Assessments also help ensure equity for all students by identifying the students that 

need the most help, the schools that are succeeding, and the schools where challenges remain. 

Additionally, they give teachers valuable feedback that allows them to enhance their instruction 

and better engage students, improving academic achievement and closing achievement gaps. 

Grants for State Assessments funds will help States continue to administer aligned assessment 

systems, carry out any modifications of their assessment systems required by reauthorization, 

or improve the quality of these assessment systems so that they measure higher order thinking 

skills; appropriately assess all students, including students with disabilities and English learners;

and provide more timely, useful data to students, teachers, and parents. States may also use 

funds to develop comprehensive academic assessment instruments such as technology-based 

assessments or computer adaptive assessments. The Department would not reserve funds for 

the Assessment System Audit program because States that desire to carry out such audits may 

do so in a more flexible, less prescriptive manner under the regular Grants for State 

Assessments.

The request also would provide $8.1 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment 

program to help States, either alone or in consortia, address pressing needs they have identified 

for developing and implementing the next-generation of their assessment systems. Potential 

priorities for the fiscal year 2018 competition could include improving assessments for English 

learners or students with disabilities; implementing innovative strategies to improve the technical 

quality of State assessments or decrease the time away from learning (including embedded 

assessments); incorporating multiple measures to assess student academic achievement; and 

using technology to improve the quality of assessment systems while reducing their costs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Grants for State Assessments:

Amount for State Grants $365,361 $365,409 $347,409

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,288-$28,494 $3,288-$28,500 $3,288-$26,500

Average award $7,026 $7,027 $7,027

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,691 $3,691 $3,691
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-33C-33

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Grants for Enhanced 

Assessment 

Instruments/Competitive Grants

for State Assessments:

Funding for new awards $8,948 0 $8,101

Number of new awards 2 0 4-7

Range of new awards $3,800-3,900 0 $5,000-10,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $88 0 $80

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 results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2018

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. 

The goal of the Grants for State Assessments program is to support States in the development 

of the State assessments required under Title I of the ESEA. The performance measure is the 

number of States (including DC and PR) that have reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments that align with the State's academic content standards for all students in grades

3–8 and in high school and science assessments that align with the State's academic content 

standards for all students in each of three grade spans (grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12). The 

determination of whether a State has implemented such an assessment in a manner that meets 

statutory requirements is based primarily on formal peer reviews of State assessment systems

by panels of external assessment experts.

The Department launched a new round of peer reviews in 2016 based on updated practices and 

technical standards in the field. Thirty-eight States submitted assessments for review in 2016. 

The table below shows the number of those States that were determined to have partially or 

substantially met requirements by assessment subject, grade, and type (general or alternate) for 

the 36 States that have been notified of the outcome of their assessment review.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-34C-34

Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments

Grade s 3-8 General High School General Grades 3-8 and

High School Alternate

Partially met 

requirements

11 10 15

Substantially met 

requirements

21 21 15

Science

Science Grades 3-8 

General

Science High School 

General

Science Grades 3-8 

and High School 

Alternate

Partially met 

requirements

3 7 7

Substantially met 

requirements

9 5 4
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-35

Education for homeless children and youths

(McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subpart B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $85,000

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$69,867 $77,000 $69,867 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program, authorized by the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act, 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 program was reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act. Key program changes 

include greater inclusion of and supports for homeless children in preschool; an increased 

emphasis on the identification of homeless children and youth and on connecting homeless 

students to postsecondary opportunities; new provisions to ensure that student-centered factors 

are considered when determining the school that is in a child’s best interest to attend; and 

strengthened provisions to ensure that LEAs coordinate homeless education and special 

education services for homeless students with disabilities. 

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 $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, whichever is greatest. 

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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-36

Education for Homeless Children and Youths 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)

2013............................................................$61,771

2014..............................................................65,042

2015..............................................................65,042

2016..............................................................70,000

2017..............................................................77,000

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $69.9 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths for 

fiscal year 2018, the same amount as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution 

level (CR level). The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $77 million

for this program. The fiscal year 2018 appropriation would support activities to help reduce and 

eliminate the barriers to educational success faced by homeless children, such as transportation 

and healthcare needs, and ensure they have access to academic services available to other 

children, including preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented programs, and 

career and technical education. Approximately 1.3 million students were identified as homeless 

in school year 2014-15, of which 14.4 percent were English learners, 17.1 percent were eligible 

to receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and 7.5 percent were 

unaccompanied youth (i.e., youth who were not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian). 

The Department plans to continue to coordinate activities under the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program with other programs that serve homeless students, in particular 

the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program under the ESEA. This program, for 

which homeless students are automatically eligible, authorizes recipients to provide homeless 

children and youths with services not ordinarily provided to other students, such as supporting 

LEA liaisons for homeless children and youths and providing transportation. The non-regulatory 

guidance on the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program issued by the 

Department in 2016 included a section on coordinating services with the Title I program28. 

In addition, the Department plans to continue to use national activities funds to help support 

projects to improve educational services and outcomes for homeless youth. In particular, the 

Department will seek opportunities to work with other agencies that administer programs that 

serve homeless family and youth.

28 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/160240ehcyguidance072716updated0317.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Amount for State grants $68,145 $74,868 $67,803

Amount for State Gr ants Range of State awards $175–8,177 $193–9,029 $175–8,153

Amount for State Gr ants Average State award 1,310 1,440 1,304

Amount to BIE 700 770 699

Amount to Outlying Areas 70 77 70

National activities 1,085 1,285 1,295

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 fiscal 

year 2018 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 assessed homeless students, grades three through eight, who 

meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by 

LEA subgrantees.

Year Target – Reading Actual – Reading Target – Math Actual – Math

2013 66% 45% 66% 41%

2014 69 43 69 39

2015 73 27 73 23

2016 77 77

2017 80 80

2018 80 80

Additional Information: The Department has worked to improve performance and reporting 

for this 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 has also worked with its Data Quality 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-38

Initiative contractor to assess the reliability of State-reported data on homeless students and to 

develop strategies to help States improve data quality.

The decrease in the percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency on State 

assessments since 2013 may be explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous 

assessments based on college- and career-ready standards.

Efficiency Measure

The Department has 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 events.

Year Target Actual

2011 40 35

2012 40 32

2013 40 51

2014 40 N/A

2015 40 35

2016 40 37.4

Additional Information: This measure provides information on monitoring events with States. 

No data is provided for 2014 because there were no monitoring events for the program that 

year. The Department monitored 6 States in 2015 and 6 States in 2016. 

Other Performance Information

The Department released a report in February 2015 from a national study of implementation of 

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program.29 The study examined State and 

local 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. The study found that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and 

supplemental instruction were reported by district liaisons as the largest local program 

expenditures and that transportation needs and preoccupation with survival needs were most 

frequently identified as barriers to homeless student enrollment and attendance in school.

29 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/homeless/state-district-implementation-homelesschildren-report.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-39

Native Hawaiian education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part B) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $32,3971

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR 

$33,334 $33,397 0 -$33,334

_________________

1 Of the amount available to carry out Title VI, Part B of the ESEA, $500 thousand is to be reserved for a direct grant 

to the Native Hawaiian Education Council to carry out Section 6204.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. Competitive grants are awarded to eligible 

applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, family-based 

education, gifted and talented education, early childhood education, special education, higher 

education, and community-based education learning centers. Eligible applicants include Native 

Hawaiian educational organizations and community-based organizations, public and private 

nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating 

Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, and 

other entities.

The program also supports the activities of the Native Hawaiian Education Council. The Council 

coordinates the educational and related services and programs available to Native Hawaiians, 

directly or through subgrants. It also provides administrative support and financial assistance to 

island councils authorized by the statute. The Council must receive a minimum award of 

$500,000 annually.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-40

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013 ............................................................$32,397

2014 ..............................................................32,397

2015 ..............................................................32,397

2016 ..............................................................33,397

2017 ..............................................................33,397

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Native Hawaiian Education in 2018 because it 

duplicates activities that may be supported by other Federal programs as well as State, local, 

and private funding. For example, school districts in Hawaii may use Title I Grants to LEAs 

funds to carry out some activities authorized under the Native Hawaiian Education program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Amount for new awards $3,280 $20,499 0

Number of new awards 4 7 0

Amount for continuation awards $29,275 $11,990 0

Number of continuation awards 29 15 0

Native Hawaiian Education Council $500 $500 0

Peer review of new award 

applications

$342 $333 0

NOTE: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most 

ESEA programs, including this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The 

Department did not reserve such funds from this program in fiscal year 2016, but may do so in fiscal year 

2017.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2018, the 

output measures for fiscal year 2017 reflect the use of fiscal year 2017 funds to pre-pay continuation 

costs so as to allow existing grantees to complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to 

pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-41

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2018 are not 

included because this program is proposed for elimination.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in reading on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2013 55% 70%

2014 70 66

2015 70 46

2016 70

2017 70

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in math on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2013 53% 57%

2014 57 53

2015 58 39

2016 59

2017 60

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in science on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2013 30% 34%

2014 31 37

2015 32 25

2016 35

2017 38
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-42

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that demonstrated school 

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2013 42% 43%

2014 43 45

2015 44 51

2016 45

2017 46

Additional Information: In 2014, this measure applied to only five grantees. In 2015, this 

measure applied to only two grantees.

Measure: The percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate from 

high school with a regular high school diploma in 4 years.

Year Target Actual

2013 79% 79%

2014 80 81

2015 80 83

2016 81

2017 82

Measure: The percentage of students receiving Hawaiian language instruction through a grant 

under the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in reading on a test of the 

Hawaiian language.

Year Target Actual

2013 50% 50%

2014 50 Not applicable

2015 50 Not applicable

2016 50

2017 50

Additional Information: In 2014 and 2015, this measure did not apply to any grantees. The 

only Hawaiian language project funded under the Native Hawaiian education program focused 

on professional development in Hawaiian language and culture and family language, not 

providing Hawaiian language instruction to students.

Performance data for 2016 will be available in fall 2017.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-43

Alaska Native education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part C) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $31,453

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017 

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR 

$32,391 $32,453 0 -$32,391

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services for Alaska Natives. As reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act, the program 

awards competitive grants to eligible applicants to improve the educational outcomes of Alaska 

Natives. Eligible applicants include Alaska Native organizations and entities located in Alaska 

with experience operating Alaska Native programs that have been granted a charter from an 

Alaska Native tribe or Alaska Native organization.

Allowable activities include the development and implementation of curricula and educational 

programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population (including the use and 

preservation of Alaska Native languages), professional development activities for educators, the 

development and operation of home instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children 

that help ensure the active involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy 

services, student enrichment programs in science and mathematics, and dropout prevention 

programs.

Grantees may use no more than 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013................................ ..........................$31,453

2014................................ ............................31,453

2015................................ ............................31,453

2016................................ ............................32,453

2017................................ ............................32,453

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Alaska Native Education program in 2018 

because it duplicates activities that may be supported by other Federal programs as well as 

State, local, and private funding. For example, entities in Alaska are eligible for the Title VI 

Indian Education Grants to LEAs program, which supports supplemental education services for 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-44

Alaska Native students. Additionally, entities that serve Alaska Native students also are eligible 

for Title VI Indian Education competitive grants, including Native Youth Community Project 

demonstration grants to support local initiatives to meet the specific educational needs of Alaska 

Native communities. School districts in Alaska also may use Title I Grants to LEAs to carry out 

some activities authorized under the Alaska Native Education program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Amount for new awards $208 $7,614 0

Number of new awards 2 4 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $32,245 $24,514 0

Number of continuation 

awards 48 30 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $324 0

____________________

NOTE: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most 

ESEA programs, including this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The 

Department did not reserve such funds from this program in fiscal year 2016, but may do so in fiscal year 

2017.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2018, the 

output measures for fiscal year 2017 reflect the use of fiscal year 2017 funds to pre-pay continuation 

costs so as to allow existing grantees to complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to 

pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

This section presents selected program performance information and results bases on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is based 

on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2018 are not included 

because this program is proposed for elimination.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-45

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and science on the State’s 

annual assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2013 42% 45%

2014 43 45

2015 45 32

2016 46

2017 47

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native children participating in early learning and 

preschool programs who demonstrate school readiness in language and literacy as measured 

by the Revised Alaska Developmental Profile.

Year Target Actual

2013 29% 35%

2014 50 51

2015 54 49

2016 55

2017 56

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

graduate from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. 

Year Target Actual

2013 53% 56%

2014 53 51

2015 54 40

2016 55

2017 56
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-46

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$6,563 $6,575 $6,563 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, sex, national origin, 

and religion. To carry out those activities, in fiscal year 2016 the Department awarded grants 

for a project period of 5 years to Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) in four geographic regions

serving the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Outlying Areas of American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands:
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-47

The EACs are part of the Department’s wide-ranging technical assistance network that includes 

the regional educational laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, What Works Clearinghouse, 

Office of Special Education Program-funded Technical Assistance Centers, and other 

Department-supported single centers designed to provide high-quality support that is 

accessible, comprehensive, and relevant to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they tackle the 

important work of ensuring a high-quality education for all students.

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination in educational programs. Other activities include training designed to 

develop educators' skills in such areas as the identification of race and sex bias in instructional 

materials and technical assistance in the identification and selection of appropriate educational 

programs to meet the needs of a diverse student body.

In the 2016 competition the Department reduced the number of EACs from ten to four to 

increase the funding (and thereby capacity) of each center to assemble high-quality staff with 

the expertise needed to provide relevant support to districts facing the challenges of navigating 

an ever-changing civil rights landscape. For example, topics covered by the EACs increasingly 

go beyond a traditional view of desegregation to include areas such school climate, 

disproportionate discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally relevant pedagogy, teacher 

diversity, the effect of poverty on equity and achievement gaps, and instructional practices that 

reach all students.

The consolidation also minimizes duplicative overhead costs (such as start-up costs, 

administrative support, and rent), redirecting those funds to services. Furthermore, it is enabling 

the Department to provide more thorough staff support and monitoring of the centers. The 

resulting network of EACs is positioned to adopt a new approach to technical assistance (for 

example, greater collaboration across regions to improve efficiency) that responds to new areas 

of need, such as socioeconomic integration, and areas that have previously not been 

emphasized, such as issues of religious discrimination that may be occasioned by

desegregation.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................$6,598

2014...............................................................6,598

2015...............................................................6,575

2016...............................................................6,575

2017...............................................................6,575

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Department requests $6.563 million for Training and Advisory 

Services, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR level). 

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $6.575 million for this 

program. The fiscal year 2018 funds would support the third year of the Equity Assistance 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-48

Center awards made in fiscal year 2016 under the comprehensive redesign of the program 

intended to improve the capacity of the individual centers and the quality of the services that 

they provide to school districts.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2016

2017 

Annualized CR 2018

Amount for grant awards $6,531 $6,533 $6,533

Number of awards 4 4 4

Peer review of new award applications $44 0 0

Data collection 0 $30 $30

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results base on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested 

in FY 2018 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department gathers data for the program’s performance measures through customer 

surveys administered by the Library of Congress’s Federal Research Division. The Department 

chose not to incur the expense of collecting final year (2016) data for the 2011 cohort of EACs, 

because those data would be of limited value given: (1) the Department’s redesign of the 

program in 2016, including the consolidation in the number of EACs from ten to four; and (2) the 

revision of the GPRA measures in the 2016 competition. GPRA performance information 

(through 2015) for the 2011 cohort of EACs is provided below.

The Department developed the following performance measures for the 2016 cohort and

expects to have baseline data for these measures later in 2017:

GPRA Measures for 2016 Cohort of EACs

• The percentage of customers reporting an increase in awareness and/or knowledge 

resulting from technical assistance provided.

• The percentage of customers who report changed policies or practices related to providing 

students with a full opportunity for participation in all educational programs regardless of 

their sex, race, religion, and national origin.

• The percentage of customers reporting an increase in capacity resulting from technical 

assistance provided.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-49

Project Measures for the 2016 Cohort of EAC

• The percentage of technical assistance requests received from organizations that were 

accepted during the performance period.

• The percentage of technical assistance requests received from new (not previously served 

by the EAC) organizations during the performance period.

• The percentage of customers willing to request additional technical assistance and/or refer 

another organization to an EAC for technical assistance during the performance period.

GPRA Performance Information for the 2011 Cohort of EACs

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, and national origin.

Objective: Provide high quality technical assistance and training to public school districts in 

addressing equity in education.

Measure: The percentage of customers of EACs who develop, implement, or improve their 

policies or practices, or both, in eliminating, reducing, or preventing harassment, conflict, and 

school violence.

Year Target Actual

2012 72% 62%

2013 73 51

2014 74 49

2015 75 40

Additional information: Changes in positive responses for this measure could be explained by 

more or fewer customers seeking this type of assistance, as the denominator includes all 

responding customers. Note that, more specifically, of the respondents indicating receipt of 

services in this area in 2015, 71 percent reported developing, implementing, or improving 

policies or practices, or both. The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 

0 percent to 73 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers who develop, implement, 

or improve their policies and practices, or both, for ensuring that students of different race, sex, 

and national origin have equitable opportunity for high quality instruction.

Year Target Actual

2012 77% 85%

2013 78 78

2014 79 80

2015 80 65

Additional information: Changes in positive responses for this measure could be explained by 

more or fewer customers seeking this type of assistance, as the denominator includes all 

responding customers. Note that, more specifically, of the respondents indicating receipt of 

services in this area in 2015, 86 percent reported developing, implementing, or improving 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-50

policies or practices, or both. The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 

30 percent to 83 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they received 

from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 94%

2013 90 94

2014 90 94

2015 90 97

Additional information: The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 80 percent 

to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they received 

from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high usefulness to their policies and practices.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 92%

2013 90 93

2014 90 89

2015 90 91

Additional information: The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 80 percent 

to 96 percent.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-51

Rural education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $169,840

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from 

Annualized CR

$175,506 $175,840 $175,506 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement program (REAP) is authorized by Part B of Title V of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA). REAP includes two distinct programs to assist rural school local educational 

agencies (LEAs) in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in 

their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program provides funds to rural

LEAs that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program 

provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of students living in poverty, 

regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between the 

SRSA and the RLIS programs. Key changes in the reauthorized ESEA include updating the 

locale codes used for determining the eligibility of LEAs, a hold harmless provision for LEAs no 

longer eligible due to a change in locale code designation, clarifying that LEAs within 

educational service agencies may be considered for SRSA eligibility, extending to RLIS the 

alternative State certification option for meeting the rural criterion that already existed for SRSA,

and giving LEAs the option to participate in either SRSA or RLIS if they meet the eligibility 

criteria for both programs.

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

fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through 

September 30 of the following year.

Small, Rural School Achievement Program (Subpart 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) have a total average 

daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students or serve only schools that are located in 

counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and (2) serve 

only schools that have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 41

(Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 43 (Rural, Remote) or are located in an area of the State 

defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-52

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated in the 

previous fiscal year under the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Part A of Title II) 

and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Part A of Title IV) programs.

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under: (1) Part A of Title I 

(Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II 

(Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); (3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State 

Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants); and 

(5) Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning Centers). 

SRSA-eligible LEAs also may, under an alternative fund use authority (AFUA) previously known 

as “REAP-Flex”, consolidate any and all of its applicable funding for allowable activities 

authorized under the five programs specified above.

Rural and Low-Income School Program (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent, and (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 32 (Town, Distant), 33 (Town, Remote), 41 (Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 

43 (Rural, Remote). States have the option of allocating funds to eligible LEAs competitively or 

through a formula based on the number of children in ADA in eligible LEAs within the State. 

A State may also use an alternative formula to allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an 

alternative method would better target funds to eligible LEAs that serve the highest 

concentrations of poor students. 

LEAs may use program funds for: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); 

(3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants); and (5) parental involvement activities.

Lastly, the Department allocates .5 percent of RLIS funds to the Bureau of Indian Education of 

the Department of the Interior and an equal amount to the Outlying Areas. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

2013 .........................................................$169,840

2014 ...........................................................169,840

2015 ...........................................................169,840

2016 ...........................................................175,840

2017 ...........................................................175,840

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration is requesting $175.5 million for REAP, the same as the 

fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $175.8 million for this program. The request includes 

appropriations language that overrides the authorized funding level for this program. The 

requested level would provide an average LEA award of approximately $21,000 under SRSA 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-53

and an average LEA subgrant of approximately $43,000 under RLIS.

The Administration supports ongoing funding for REAP because rural LEAs continue to face 

significant obstacles in ensuring that all students meet challenging State academic standards 

and graduate high school ready for college or careers, consistent with the requirements of the 

ESEA. Based on 2014 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 

28 percent of the Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, with 18 percent of all 

public school students enrolled at these schools. The small size and remoteness of many rural 

schools and LEAs creates a different set of challenges from those of urban schools and LEAs. 

For example, rural schools and LEAs generally do not benefit from economies of scale and, 

thus, can face greater per-pupil costs in areas such as staffing or transportation. Rural LEAs 

often are not able to offer their students the same level of access to advanced coursework as 

other LEAs. In 2009, just 32 percent of students graduating high school in rural areas had 

earned credits in dual credit, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate courses, 

compared to 48 percent of city and 44 percent of suburban high school graduates. In addition, 

because of size and location, many small, rural LEAs have faced difficulty in recruiting and 

retaining effective teachers. REAP funds can provide rural LEAs with critical additional 

resources to help meet each of these challenges.

Rural LEAs also frequently receive allocations under the Department’s formula grant programs 

that are too small to allow the LEA to effectively address the purposes for which the funds are 

appropriated. Recognizing that rural LEAs frequently receive small allocations from Federal 

formula grants, the AFUA gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the flexibility to make more effective use of 

their small Federal formula allocations. An estimated 43 percent of eligible LEAs notified their 

respective States of their intention to take advantage of this authority in school year 2014-15. 

Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under these programs, some do 

not have enough money to address the other statutory objectives in a meaningful manner. 

REAP funds supplement these small formula grant allocations under other ESEA programs and 

assist rural LEAs in financing and implementing approaches to meeting ESEA requirements and 

addressing the other challenges they face.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Appropriation 2018

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

SRSA Total funding $87,920 $87,920 $87,753

RSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 4,249 4,249 4,249

SRSA Average LEA grant $21 $21 $21

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $78 $78 $78

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0-$60 0-$60 0-$60
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-54

Output Measures 2016

2017

Appropriation 2018

Rural and low income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $87,920 $87,920 $87,753

RLIS Amount for State grants $87,040 $87,040 $86,875

RLIS Amount for BIE $440 $440 $439

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $440 $440 $439

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 43 43 43

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 1,942 1,942 1,942

RLIS Average State grant $2,024 $2,024 $2,020

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $43 $43 $43

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $23 $23 $23

RLISRange of awards to States $36-$6,888 $36-$6,888 $36-$6,875

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0-$486 0-$486 0-$485

NOTES: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA 

programs, including SRSA and RLIS, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. While the Department did not reserve funds from these programs in fiscal year 2016, it may 

reserve funds for ESEA evaluation activities in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested 

in fiscal year 2018 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

The Department is planning to revise REAP’s GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and targets to 

reflect changes resulting from the reauthorization of the ESEA; in particular, the Department 

anticipates changing performance targets for several measures to reflect the elimination of the 

obsolete 100-percent proficiency requirement under the previous version of the law.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-55

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual

2013 94% 69%

2014 100 67

2015 100 56

2016 100

2017 100

2018 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2013 96% 65%

2014 100 63

2015 100 49

2016 100

2017 100

2018 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts.

Year Target Actual

2013 96% 64%

2014 100 61

2015 100 48

2016 100

2017 100

2018 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2013 95% 60%

2014 100 57

2015 100 43

2016 100

2017 100

2018 100

Additional information: The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the 

proficient level among LEAs participating in REAP can be explained, in part, by States’ 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-56

transition to more rigorous assessments based on college- and career-ready standards. The 

performance targets for these measures reflect the ESEA goal of 100 percent proficiency by 

2014 among students enrolled in LEAs participating in both the SRSA and RLIS programs. 

These targets are no longer relevant following the reauthorization of the ESEA, and REAP 

GPRA measures will be revised to reflect appropriate goals. Data for 2016 are expected in 

October 2017. 

Objective: SRSA -eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority

(the AFUA).

Year Target Actual

2013 65% 41%

2014 65 43

2015 65 43

2016 65

2017 65

2018 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible LEAs actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of LEAs reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. Data for 2016 are expected in October 2017.

Other Performance Information

The Department completed a study of REAP in December 2016 that examined implementation 

of REAP funds at the State and LEA levels. More specifically, the study sought to identify how 

grantees are targeting REAP funds and to assess effectiveness in key areas, such as teacher 

recruitment and retention, professional development, strategies for school improvement, and the 

use of technology. Respondents included State, LEA, and school level administrators, as well 

as professional development and technical assistance providers. LEAs most frequently used 

REAP funds to improve or expand access to technology (71 percent of SRSA LEAs and 

71 percent of RLIS LEAs) and to provide educator professional development (45 percent of 

SRSA LEAs and 58 percent of RLIS LEAs). Forty-six percent of SRSA LEAs reported 

exercising REAP-Flex (the AFUA). The majority of both LEA and State REAP coordinators were 

highly satisfied with REAP as a whole. However, they provided recommendations for 

improvement to REAP in three categories: 1) improved timelines for eligibility and award 

determination, 2) more information on allowable uses of funds and REAP-flex, and 3) revised 

eligibility criteria. Upon reviewing this report and additional feedback received from State and 

LEA grantees in fiscal year 2016, the Department is revising the REAP grant making timeline 

and developing a robust technical assistance and communication plan to be implemented in 

fiscal years 2017 and 2018. 

Prior to the ESEA’s reauthorization by the ESSA, REAP’s program statute required the 

Department to prepare a biennial report to Congress on the RLIS program describing (1) the 

methods States used to award grants and provide technical assistance, (2) how LEAs and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-57

schools have used RLIS funds, and (3) the progress made toward meeting the goals and 

objectives outlined in State applications. The Department plans to issue a report in late spring 

2017 that will cover school years 2010-11 through 2013-14.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-58

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $21,4921

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$16,667 $16,699 $16,667 0

1 The 2018 authorization is based on the fiscal year 2005 authorization level, adjusted for inflation in 

accordance with statutory requirements.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, 

beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount 

that is roughly equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 

2004 under the Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible, adjusted for 

inflation. These grants augment the funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general 

education assistance under their Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies, Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants, and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) 

of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four agencies 

and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM and the 

RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the local 

school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-59

and the transition from high school to postsecondary education and careers. They may not be 

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. While past years’ appropriations acts also permitted the FSM and the 

RMI to reserve up to 5 percent of their grants to pay for such technical assistance as well as for 

administration of their grants, since fiscal year 2015, appropriations acts instead allow ED to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance 

for these grants.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013 ...........................................................$16,699

2014 .............................................................16,699

2015 .............................................................16,699

2016 .............................................................16,699

2017 .............................................................16,699

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16.7 million, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized 

Continuing Resolution level, to maintain funding for Supplemental Education Grants to the RMI 

and the FSM. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $16.67 million

for this program. The request would ensure the continuation of services for residents of the RMI 

and the FSM. The request also includes appropriations language that would continue to give 

the Department of Education the authority to reserve up to 5 percent of appropriated funds to 

provide technical assistance to support effective use of program funds to improve educational 

outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

A majority of the funding in some fiscal years was used to support early childhood education. 

The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grants for education 

improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional development. Both the 

RMI and the FSM have also used funds to prepare students for jobs that may result from the 

Guam military build-up. The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2018 funding would be 

used for similar purposes. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-60

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,142 $11,121 $11,121

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,557 5,546 5,546

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has not established performance measures for this program because it is 

operated by the Department of the Interior.

A December 2006 General Accounting Office report, entitled “Compacts of Free Association: 

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring 

Progress, and Ensuring Accountability,” documented both the continuing need for improvement 

in the public education systems of the Freely Associated States and the difficulties in obtaining 

and reporting performance data for this program. The RMI, according to the report, was not 

able to measure progress towards its educational goals because the data the Republic collected 

were inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests the Republic used were not aligned with 

the curriculum used in RMI schools and thus were not adequate measures of student 

achievement. The FSM also lacked consistent performance outcomes and measures; 

measures and outcomes had been established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to 

track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior (DOI) covering the 5-year period 

between 2004 and 2009 highlights the continuing challenges faced by both entities in improving 

the quality of education due to a lack of qualified teachers, poor facilities, and a high absentee 

rate among students and teachers. While access to elementary and secondary education has 

increased in the RMI and student enrollment has also increased despite significant outmigration, the RMI continues to have few standardized tests for assessing student achievement, 

a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of qualified teachers. The FSM continues to struggle 

with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out rates, and problematic teacher 

attendance. 

Both entities began tracking 20 education indicators and established data collection systems 

between 2004 and 2006 and have continued to track data on their indicators. However, the 

most recent GAO study from 2013 entitled “Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and 

Marshall Islands Continue to Face Challenges Measuring Progress and Ensuring 

Accountability,” found that in reviewing subsets of the education indicators that eight of nine 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-61

indicators for FSM and three of five indicators for RMI were not sufficiently reliable to assess 

progress primarily due to missing, incomplete, or inconsistent data. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-62

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$51,347 $50,000 $51,347 0

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) authorizes support for not less than 

20 Comprehensive Centers, including regional centers and content centers, to provide training, 

technical assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide highquality education for all students, particularly those in low-performing local educational agencies 

(LEAs) and schools. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), and 

through them, to LEAs and schools, helping them make evidence-based investments that have 

been shown to improve student outcomes. Comprehensive Centers are part of the 

Department’s wide-ranging technical assistance network that includes the Regional Educational 

Laboratories, the What Works Clearinghouse, Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special 

Education Program-funded technical assistance centers, and other Department-supported 

single centers designed to provide high-quality support that is accessible, comprehensive, and 

relevant to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they tackle the important work of ensuring a highquality education for all students. 

The statute requires that the Department fund a minimum of 10 regional centers. In order to 

provide robust and efficient technical assistance through the comprehensive center program, 

the Department has established content centers in addition to the regional centers. The content 

centers create materials, tools, and training that reflect national expertise to complement and 

support the direct services that regional centers provide to SEAs. Regional centers identify 

relevant information generated by these content centers in their local work with SEAs to build 

their capacity to implement school and district improvement measures. The 2012 cohort of 

Comprehensive Centers, which received initial awards in 2012, includes 7 content centers and 

15 regional centers. An additional content center, funded in response to 2016 appropriations 

language and a new authority in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as 

reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), focuses on students at risk of not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

Each comprehensive center must develop a 5-year plan for carrying out authorized activities. 

The plan of each center is developed to address the needs of SEAs in meeting ESEA student 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-63

achievement goals, as well as priorities established by the Department and the States. Each 

center has an advisory board, with representation from SEAs, LEAs, institutions of higher 

education, educators, administrators, policymakers, researchers, and business representatives, 

that advises the center on: (1) allocation of resources, (2) strategies for monitoring and 

addressing the region’s educational needs (or the regional centers’ needs in the case of the 

content centers), (3) maintaining a high standard of quality in the performance of its activities, 

and (4) carrying out the center’s activities in a manner that promotes progress toward improving 

student academic achievement.

Comprehensive Centers Network

Awards to the regional Centers ranged from $800,000 to $4.6 million in fiscal year 2016, 

depending in part on the complexity and scope of the work involved and the size of the area to 

Content Centers

Standards & Assessments Implementation

Great Teachers and Leaders

School Turnaround

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

College- and Career- Readiness and Success

Building State Capacity and Productivity

Innovations in Learning

Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities

Regional Centers
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-64

be served. In addition, certain Department programs provide supplemental funding to one or 

more Centers to expand their capacity to meet special needs identified by either the Department 

or particular stakeholders. For example, the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders receives 

additional funding from the Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination program 

as well as from the Career and Technical Education National Activities program to provide 

technical assistance on serving students with disabilities and on effective instruction and 

leadership in career and technical education, respectively. The Indian Education National 

Activities program provides support to four regional centers (North Central, Northwest, South 

Central, and West) that serve States with the largest populations of American Indian/Alaska 

Native (AI/AN) students and to the Center on Standards and Assessment Implementation to 

produce information that addresses the needs of AI/AN students. 

By statute, the Comprehensive Centers are not permitted to provide direct support to the 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, fiscal year 2016 appropriations language directed 

the Department to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education has access to services from the 

Comprehensive Centers, and the Department provided a supplement of $249,947 to the Center 

on Standards and Assessments Implementation to provide support to the BIE. These funds 

help the BIE’s Office of Assessment and Accountability collect, organize, and report Federallyrequired data in the 23 States in which there are BIE-funded schools. The 2016 appropriations 

act also included $1.5 million to establish a new comprehensive center on students at risk of not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a disability; in response the Department established the 

National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities.

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), to carry out an 

independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers (both regional and content) to determine 

the extent to which each center meets its objectives. The evaluation of the 2012 Centers is 

scheduled for completion in 2018.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013............................................................$48,445

2014..............................................................48,445

2015..............................................................48,445 

2016..............................................................51,445

2017..............................................................50,000

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $51.3 million for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, level with the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level, to support a 

new cohort of centers that will reflect changing priorities and new demands resulting from the 

reauthorization of the ESEA. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided 

$50 million for this program. The competition originally was scheduled for 2017 but was 

delayed to allow the timing of new awards to better align with the implementation of ESSA, 

including completion of Department of Education guidance for SEAs and LEAs. The new 

centers will provide support for building SEA capacity to implement reforms to improve student 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-65

learning and close achievement and graduation rate gaps, consistent with the expanded role 

and responsibilities of States under the reauthorized ESEA’s framework for accountability and 

school improvement, and will help ensure that SEAs and LEAs identify and implement 

evidence-based strategies and interventions, consistent with the requirements of ESSA. A key 

goal of the 2018 competition will be to improve coordination among all K−12 technical 

assistance centers, resulting in a more aligned, relevant, accessible, and robust support system

for SEAs.

The new centers also would complement the work of the Department’s Office of State Support 

(OSS), which is focused on providing comprehensive, integrated guidance and technical 

assistance to help States implement more effectively the State formula grant programs 

authorized by the ESEA. The establishment of the OSS early in fiscal year 2015 reflects the 

changing role of SEAs in driving statewide education reform and providing support to LEAs and 

schools. The creation of the OSS, through which Department staff are in regular contact with 

States regarding their specific assistance needs, allows the Department to target additional 

resources to the comprehensive center(s) best positioned to address those needs.

Planning for the 2018 competition will be guided by advice from Regional Advisory Committees 

(RACs), which are required by the authorizing statue. In October 2016, the RACs reported on 

the educational needs of each region, helping determine priorities for the competition.1

 The 

RACs conducted an online survey of education stakeholders—including teachers, principals, 

superintendents, and school board members—as well as focus groups and interviews. By far, 

the highest priority need identified by survey respondents in each region was preparing students 

to be college and career ready, followed by ensuring equity and supporting the lowest 

performing schools to help close achievement gaps. 

The budget for fiscal year 2018 requests continuation of 2016 appropriations language, which 

also was requested for 2017, that permits the provision of direct support to the BIE, allowing 

services for schools that are often in great need of assistance. Consistent with the Blueprint for 

BIE-funded schools, the comprehensive centers would support the BIE as it transforms from a 

direct provider of education into an organization that serves as a capacity-builder and serviceprovider to tribes with BIE-funded schools. The comprehensive centers would provide an 

important source of expertise to support the BIE, in the same way they serve SEAs.

1

 https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/rac/index.html
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-66

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) Content Centers

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Funding

Funding for Regional Center grantsfunding $37,297 $38,876 $38,900

Content Center grantsfunding 11,471 11,942 12,000

Regional Advisory Committeesfundi ng 469 0 0

Peer review of new award applicationsfundi ng 21 0 447

Evaluationfunding 2,187 529 0

Total fundi ng 51,445 51,347 51,347

Regional Centers

ReAverage Award for Regional C enters $2,486 $2,592 TBD

Range of Awards for Regional C enters $776 to $4,608 $809 to $4,803 TBD

Number of Awards for Regional C enters 15 15 TBD

Content Centers

Average Awardfor C ontent Centers $1,434 $1,493 TBD

Range of Awardsfor Content C enters $1,202 to $1,845 $1,253 to $1,923 TBD

Number of Awardsfor Content C enters 8 8 TBD

Grant Funding Summary

Amount for new awardsfor grants $1,500 0 $49,400

Amount for continuation awardsfor grants 47,268 $50,818 1,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested 

for fiscal year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by this program.

The Department places strong emphasis on rigorous performance measures for the centers, in 

part through a Departmentwide effort to create common performance measures for technical 

assistance programs. The measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers, the extent to which each center meets the 

objectives of its respective plan, and whether their services meet the educational needs of the 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-67

Goal: To improve student achievement in low performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2013 73% 95%

2014 80 95

2015 80 95

2016 80 96

2017 80

2018 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the Centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects, the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects, and the 2016 data represent 16 of the 22 Centers in year 4 of their projects. 

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2013 80% 95%

2014 80 94

2015 80 95

2016 80 93

2017 80

2018 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects, the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects, and the 2016 data represent 16 of the 22 Centers in year 4 of their projects.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-68

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

students in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2013 75% 94%

2014 80 92

2015 80 92

2016 80 93

2017 80

2018 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects, the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects, and the 2016 data represent 16 of the 22 Centers in year 4 of their projects.

Efficiency Measures

The Department implemented a common measure of administrative efficiency to assess the 

Comprehensive Centers program and other technical assistance programs. The measure is the 

percentage of grant funds that the centers carry over for each year of operations. Data for the 

measure are available each year in September, after Department staff have reviewed data for 

the previous 12-month budget cycle, and are presented in the table below.

Objective: Improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure: The percentage of Comprehensive Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2013 10% 20%

2014 10 8

2015 10 5

2016 10 1

2017 10

2018 10

Additional information: In 2013, carryover was 20 percent, a considerable increase over 

2012, when it was 3 percent. The higher carryover amount in 2013 was likely due to grantees 

carrying over more funds following the first year of their awards; first year spending is often 

lower than planned due to time required for start-up and planning. Since that time, carryover 

has decreased each year, contributable in part, in all likelihood, by improved program office 

monitoring.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-69

Other Performance Information

In addition to the performance measures and data described above, the Department is carrying 

out a descriptive study of the 2012 cohort of Comprehensive Centers’ activities and outcomes 

that is examining how the individual centers intend to build SEA capacity (their theories of 

action) and what types of activities they conduct to build capacity.1

 Data collection began in the 

spring of 2015; the final report is scheduled for release in 2018.

The data collection consists of interviews, surveys, and reviews of Center work to address 

questions about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the Centers’ products and 

technical assistance. The evaluation focuses on two of the seven federal priority areas in which 

Centers provide services: (1) Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective

teachers and leaders and (2) ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool-age 

children and their successful transition to kindergarten.

Preliminary study information is available. In November 2016, the study contractor provided 

descriptive reports for 8 of the 22 Centers (4 regional centers and 4 content centers). The 

descriptive reports summarized information from an online survey of recipients of Center 

technical assistance. (Reports for the remaining 14 Centers were not provided because 

response rates were less than 50 percent and the number of respondents was less than 10.) 

The number of respondents across the eight Centers for which reports were provided was small 

(136 of 186 individuals responded to the survey, with response rates ranging from 50 to 

80 percent across the Centers), but based on information received:

• Most respondents (72 to 100 percent across the eight Centers) indicated that they had 

specific plans to use the information received from the Centers within the next 12 months;

and

• Most respondents (77 to 100 percent) indicated that the Centers enabled them to 

accomplish something that they might not otherwise have been able to accomplish.

In addition, respondents tended to agree that the Centers helped them to learn about new tools 

and strategies, access useful information, and perform their jobs in more informed and efficient 

ways.

1

 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp
C-70

Student support and academic enrichment grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $1,600,000

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017 

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

0 $400,000 0 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants are intended to improve academic 

achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

provide students with access to a well-rounded education and improve school conditions and 

use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for the preceding fiscal year. No State may receive less than 0.5 percent of 

the total program appropriation except for Puerto Rico, which may not receive more than this 

amount. The Department also reserves funds for the outlying areas and for the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (0.5 percent in each case) and to 

provide technical assistance and capacity building (2 percent).

States must use not less than 95 percent of funds to make subgrants to LEAs and not more 

than 1 percent for administrative costs, and may use any remaining funds for State-level 

activities consistent with the purposes of the program, which may include providing technical 

assistance or direct support to LEAs to carry out authorized activities. Under the authorizing 

statute, States allocate subgrants to LEAs on the same formula basis as above, except that no 

LEA may receive less than $10,000. LEAs may form consortia and combine subgrant 

allocations to carry out activities jointly. States and LEAs must use funds to supplement, and 

not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for authorized activities.

LEAs receiving formula allocations of $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs 

assessment and, based on the results of that assessment, use not less than 20 percent of their 

allocations for activities to support well-rounded educational opportunities, not less than 20 

percent for activities to support safe and healthy students, and a portion to support the effective 

use of technology. LEAs receiving less than $30,000 must use funds to carry out activities in at 

least one of these three areas. LEAs must prioritize support to schools with the greatest needs 

as determined by the LEA, schools with the highest concentrations of Title I formula children,

schools that are identified for comprehensive support and improvement or implementing 

targeted support and improvement plans under the amended Title I, or schools that are 

identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs may reserve up to 2 percent of their 

allocations for administrative costs.
C-71

LEAs may use funds for a range of activities to support a well-rounded education, including: 

providing college and career counseling, including financial literacy activities; promoting student 

engagement and success through music and the arts; improving instruction in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics, including computer science; increasing the 

availability of accelerated learning courses, such as Advanced Placement and International 

Baccalaureate courses, as well as dual or concurrent enrollment programs and early college 

high schools; strengthening instruction in American history, civics, economics, geography, and 

government; and providing foreign language instruction and environmental education.

Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: evidence-based drug and 

violence prevention programs; school-based mental health services, including through 

partnerships with mental health or health care entities; activities to support a healthy, active 

lifestyle, including physical education; activities to help prevent bullying and harassment; 

mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; high-quality training for 

school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict 

resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. In these areas, LEAs may use funds to 

implement pay for success initiatives (i.e., performance-based agreements under which, among 

other things, payments are made only after achievement of outcomes).

Lastly, LEAs may pursue such educational technology-related activities as: providing school 

and LEA personnel with tools and resources to use technology effectively to improve instruction, 

support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning; building technological capacity and 

infrastructure, including by procuring content and purchasing devices, equipment, and software; 

providing specialized or rigorous technology-based academic courses; carrying out projects 

blending classroom and technology-based instruction in a way that provides students with 

control over the time, path, or pace of learning; providing professional development; and 

providing students in rural and underserved areas with access to digital learning experience and 

resources, including online courses. Of funds supporting the effective use of technology, LEAs

receiving formula allocations may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology 

infrastructure.

Optional Competitive Subgrants

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provides States the option to award

fiscal year 2017 funds to LEAs on a competitive basis. States that award fiscal year 2017 funds

competitively must give priority to LEAs with the greatest need based on the number or 

percentage of Title I formula children while also ensuring geographic diversity among subgrant 

recipients representing rural, suburban, and urban areas. Significantly, the 2017 appropriations 

language requires States, rather than LEAs, to address the statutory requirements related to the 

distribution of funds among authorized activities by making competitive awards that, in the 

aggregate, reflect the required percentage distribution of funds (i.e. not less than 20 percent for 

well-rounded education, not less than 20 percent for safe and healthy students, and a portion for 

technology). Competitive subgrants must be for a term of 1 year and in an amount not less than 

$10,000 and are not subject to the expenditure distribution requirements that apply to LEA 

formula allocations above $30,000. In addition, a competitive subgrant recipient using funds to 

carry out only activities to support the effective use of technology may use not more than 25 

percent of funds for purchasing technology infrastructure. Competitive subgrants are otherwise 
C-72

subject to the same terms and conditions as LEA formula allocations.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 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)

2013.......................................................................0

2014.......................................................................0

2015.......................................................................0

2016.......................................................................0

2017..........................................................$400,000

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request funding for Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Grants for fiscal year 2018. The activities authorized under this program, which received 

$400 million under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, generally can be 

supported with funds from other Federal, State, local, and private sources, including similarly 

flexible funds provided under the $15 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program. In addition, 

although the 2017 appropriations act allows States to make subgrants competitively, funds may 

be awarded by formula, which at the current funding level of $400 million would result in 

allocations of less than $30,000 for the vast majority of LEAs. The Administration believes that 

limited Federal resources should not be allocated to a program under which LEA formula 

allocations would be too small to have a meaningful impact.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018

Amount to States $388,000 0

Range of State awards 1,940–46,418 0

Average State award 7,462 0

Amount to Outlying Areas 2,000 0

Amount to BIE 2,000 0

National activities 8,000 0

NOTE: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most 

ESEA programs, including Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and to pool such funds for 

use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department may reserve funds from Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants for ESEA evaluation activities in fiscal year 2017.
C-73

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department has not yet established measures to assess the impact of the activities that 

receive support under this program. The development of any such measures would build on our 

experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would 

also seek to align those measures for related programs.