Department of Education

ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers ...................................................................................B-2

Summary of Changes ..................................................................................................................B-3

Authorizing Legislation.................................................................................................................B-4

Appropriations History..................................................................................................................B-6

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports..................................................................B-8

Summary of Request .................................................................................................................B-10

Activities:

College- and career-ready students ....................................................................................B-13

School turnaround grants ....................................................................................................B-30

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................B-41

State agency programs:

Migrant student education..............................................................................................B-45

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education ..............................................B-52

Homeless children and youth education..............................................................................B-58

State tables*

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

 http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-1

Appropriations language

NOTE

No appropriations language is included for this account. All programs are authorized under the expired 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act; when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act is enacted, a budget request for these programs will be proposed.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-2

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2012 2013 2014

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation .......................................................... $15,750,983 $15,741,703 $15,683,649

Discretionary Across-the board reduction (P.L. 112-74).............. -9,280 0 0

Discretionary Across-the board increase (P.L. 112-75)............... 0 29,991 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation ....... 15,741,703 15,771,694 15,683,649

Discretionary Comparative transfer to:

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

Striving Readers ................................................. -159,698 -159,698 0

High School Graduation Initiative ....................... -48,809 -48,809 0

Discretionary Higher Education for Special Programs for 

Migrant Students ................................................. -36,526 -36,526 0

Discretionary Comparative transfer from: Education 

Improvement Programs for Homeless 

Children and Youth Education: ........................... 65,173 65,173 0

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation .............................................. 15,561,843 15,591,834 15,683,649

Advance:

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

Advance from prior year......................................... 10,820,686 10,841,177 10,841,177

Total, budget authority....................................... 15,541,352 15,591,834 14,842,928

NOTE: Transfers exclude the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, which would 

total $28,890 thousand for this account.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-3

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2012..................................................................................................... 15,561,843

2014..................................................................................................... 15,683,649

Net change .................................................................. 121,806

Increases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding for School Turnaround Grants (formerly 

School Improvement Grants) to support the Administration's 

commitment to help States and LEAs turn around the Nation’s 

lowest-performing schools. The request would fund a 

reauthorized program that would require States and LEAs to 

use most funds to implement one of four school specific 

intervention models in schools that are in the bottom 5 percent 

of schools in the State in terms of student achievement or, in 

the case of secondary schools, have graduation rates below 60 

percent. The $125 million increase would fund a new 

Supporting and Sustaining Turnaround program that would 

make competitive grants to support comprehensive, districtlevel plans and reforms that build local capacity to support 

school turnaround efforts and sustain successful turnarounds 

following the end of the three-year STG award period. $533,552 +$125,000

Subtotal, increases +125,000

Decreases:

Program:

Eliminate separate funding for Evaluation. The ESEA 

reauthorization proposal includes provisions for funding 

program evaluations through set-asides from program funds. 3,194 -3,194

Subtotal, decreases -3,194

Net change +121,806
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-4

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2013 

Authorized

footnote

2013 

Estimate 2014 Authorized

footnote

2014 

Request

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

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

LEA grants formulas Basic grants (Section 1124) 2 $6,577,904 2 $6,577,904

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

LEA grants formulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) 2 3,288,126 2 3,288,126

LEA grants formulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) 2 3,288,126 2 3,288,126

School turnaround grants (ESEA Section 1003(g)) 01 533,552 To be determined1 658,552

Evaluation (ESEA I-E-1501 and 1503) 01 3,194 To be determined1 0

State agency programs:

Migrant student education (ESEA I-C) 01 393,236 To be determined1 393,236

Neglected and delinquent children and youth 

education(ESEA I-D) 01 50,231 To be determined1 50,231

Homeless children and youth education (McKinney-Vento Act, 

Title VII-B) Indefinite 65,173 Indefinite 65,173

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total appropriation 15,561,843 15,683,649

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 15,561,843 15,683,649

Total annual appropriation including 0.612 percent ATB 

increase 15,771,694

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

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

B-4
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Authorizing Legislation—continued 

B-5

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

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

B-5
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-6

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2005 $15,205,168 $15,515,735 $15,500,684 $14,843,974

2015 Advance for 206 (7,383,301) (7,383,301) (7,383,301) (7,383,301)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

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

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

2011 15,912,193 15,914,666 4 16,726,579 5 15,914,666 6

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

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

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

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

2013 15,558,649 15,208,151 815,840,103 8 15,741,703

9

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

2014 15,683,649

2014 Advance for 2015

_____________

(11,681,898)

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

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

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 6 The level for appropriation reflects the continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322) passed December 22, 2010. 7 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 8 The Senate allowance reflects action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which proceeded in the 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Authorizing Legislation—continued 

B-7

112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 9 The amount shown includes the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, in effect 

through March 27, 2013. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-8B-8

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

School Improvement Grants

Senate: At the request of three Committee members, the GAO analyzed certain aspects 

of the SIG program, focusing particularly on challenges for successful SIG 

implementation, the Department’s technical assistance and oversight activities, 

and State administration of SIG. Interim and final reports released during the past 

12 months identified, among other things, that local capacity—such as the ability 

to attract and retain administrative staff with school turnaround expertise or highquality teachers— influenced implementation, and that SIG interventions were 

often challenging for low-capacity districts. Further, the GAO found that third-party 

contractors rarely were reviewed for contract performance. The Committee 

believes the Department should implement effective strategies that address the 

GAO’s findings as soon as possible.

Response: The Department is currently taking a number of steps to help build State and local 

capacity to support effective implementation of School Improvement Grant (SIG) 

interventions in schools and to hold third-party contractors accountable for 

performance, both of which have emerged through our monitoring of SIG 

grantees as areas of need. First, as discussed in more detail in the multi-year 

plan for SIG national activities submitted to the Committee on October 1, 2012, 

the Department is using SIG national activities funds to support three primary 

categories of capacity-building work: peer-to-peer learning activities, collection 

and dissemination of promising-practice information, and capacity-building grants. 

Second, the Department is updating, as of March 2013, its SIG non-regulatory 

guidance to address, among other issues, renewal of SIG funding and review of 

contractor performance, consistent with the recommendations in GAO’s April 

2012 report. And most significantly, the Administration’s fiscal year 2014 request 

for School Turnaround Grants (STG) includes $125 million for a new competitive 

grant program that would strengthen formula grant implementation by building 

district-level capacity to support school turnaround efforts and to sustain 

improvements in schools that have used STG funds to successfully implement a 

school intervention model. 

School Improvement Grants: National Activities

Senate: The Committee believes that the Department needs to take additional steps to 

support parent engagement and family support through SIG and other programs 

and activities. The Committee notes that evidence-based parent education and 

family support models have been shown to increase parent knowledge of child 

development; provide early detection of developmental delays; and increase 

children’s school readiness and school success. The Committee directs the 

Department to address this issue through its national activities set-aside and 

other appropriate actions....
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-9B-9

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports-continued

School Improvement Grants: National Activities

Response: Community and family engagement are key elements to the success of SIG 

interventions. The Department is using fiscal year 2012 SIG national activities 

funds to support community and family engagement in SIG projects in several 

ways in fiscal year 2013. First, the Department is continuing to make resources 

on community and family engagement available through its Online School 

Turnaround Learning Community. Second, the Department is producing quick 

turnaround studies with information on promising district- and school-level 

practices in community and family engagement in SIG interventions. Lastly, the 

Department is supporting enhanced efforts to engage parents and the community 

in SIG projects through grants under the School Turnaround AmeriCorps, a new 

initiative administered jointly by the Department and the Corporation for National 

and Community Service that places AmeriCorps members in SIG schools.
ACCOUNT

B-10

Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity 

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

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 3,615,394 3,615,394 2,834,559 (780,835) -21.598%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 2,962,510 2,962,510 3,743,345 780,835 26.357%

Subtotal 6,577,904 6,577,904 6,577,904 0 0.000%

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

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

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

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Annual appropriation D 29,943 29,943 0 (29,943) -100.000%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,258,183 3,258,183 3,288,126 29,943 0.919%

Subtotal 3,288,126 3,288,126 3,288,126 0 0.000%

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

Annual appropriation D 29,943 29,943 0 (29,943) -100.000%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,258,183 3,258,183 3,288,126 29,943 0.919%

Subtotal 3,288,126 3,288,126 3,288,126 0 0.000%

Subtotal, College- and career-ready students 14,516,457 14,516,457 14,516,457 0 0.000%

Annual appropriation D 3,675,280 3,675,280 2,834,559 (840,721) -22.875%

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

 2. School turnaround grants (ESEA section 1003(g)) D 533,552 533,552 658,552 125,000 23.428%

 3. Evaluation (ESEA sections 1501 and 1503) D 3,194 3,194 0 (3,194) -100.000%

 4. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant student education (ESEA I-C) D 393,236 393,236 393,236 0 0.000%

(b) Neglected and delinquent children and youth education (ESEA I-D) D 50,231 50,231 50,231 0 0.000%

Subtotal 443,467 443,467 443,467 0 0.000%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

2014 President's Budget 

Compared to 2012 Appropriation

B-10
ACCOUNT

B-11

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity (continued)

 5. Homeless children and youth education (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 65,173 65,173 65,173 0 0.000%

Total, Appropriation 1 D 15,561,843 15,561,843 15,683,649 121,806 0.783%

Total, Budget authority D 15,541,352 15,561,843 14,842,928 (698,424) -4.494%

Current 2 4,720,666 4,720,666 4,001,751 (718,915) -15.229%

Prior year's advance 10,820,686 10,841,177 10,841,177 20,491 0.189%

Across-the-board 0.612% increase applied to discretionary appropriation, provided in P.L. 112-175. 28,890

Total, Appropriation 15,561,843 15,590,733 15,683,649 121,806 0.783%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

1 Adjusted for comparability. Excludes $36,526 thousand in FY 2012 and FY 2013 for Special Programs for Migrant Students requested in FY 2014 in the Higher Education account, and includes $65,173 thousand in 

FY 2012 and FY 2013 for Homeless Children and Youth Education, which was funded under the Education Improvement Programs account, formerly the School Improvement Programs account.

2 Excludes advance appropriations that become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year, which total $10,841,177 thousand in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, and $11,681,898 thousand in the 

FY 2014 President's Budget. In FY 2014, the amount for advances is increased due to the proposed consolidation of Teacher Quality State Grants into the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

Compared to 2012 Appropriation

2014 President's Budget 

B-11
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-12

Summary of Request

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

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

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

$15.8 billion in fiscal year 2014 for the programs in this account.

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

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

assumes that these programs will be implemented in fiscal year 2014 under reauthorized 

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

The $14.5 billion request for the reauthorized College- and Career-Ready Students program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2014 request also includes $658.6 million for School Turnaround Grants (STG), of which 

$533.6 million would support a reauthorized State grant program (under current law School 

Improvement Grants) that would require States and LEAs to use most funds to implement one of 

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

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

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

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

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

assistance, and demonstration activities.

In addition to STG State grants, the Administration’s STG request includes $125 million for a 

new Supporting and Sustaining Turnaround competitive grants program that would fund new 

competitive grants to support comprehensive, district-level plans and reforms that build local 

capacity to support school turnaround efforts and sustain successful turnarounds following the 

end of the three-year STG award period. 

The request would fund the other programs in this account as the same level as 2012, providing

$393.2 million for Migrant Student Education, $50.2 million for Neglected and Delinquent 

Children and Youth Education, and $65.2 for Homeless Children and Youth Education. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-13

Activities:

College- and career-ready students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority:

Activity and period of fund availability

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

Basic grants $6,577,904 $6,577,9042 $6,577,904 0

Concentration grants 1,362,301 1,362,3012 1,362,301 0

Targeted grants 3,288,126 3,288,1262 3,288,126 0

Education finance incentive 

grants

3,288,126 3,288,1262 3,288,126 0

Total 14,516,457 14,516,4572 14,516,457 0

Annual appropriation 3,675,280 3,675,2802 2,834,559 -$840,721

Advance for succeeding fiscal 

year

10,841,177 10,841,1772 11,681,898 +840,721

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

standards. The program serves an estimated 23 million students in 86 percent of school 

districts and more than half of all public schoolsincluding 72 percent of the Nation’s 

elementary schools. Title I Grants to LEAs were first authorized as part of the original 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and were most recently reauthorized 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

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

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

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

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

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

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

program for all children in a school. Schools in which poor children account for at least 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-14

B-14

40 percent of enrollment are eligible to operate schoolwide programs, and in the 2010-2011 

school year approximately 39,700 schools, or 72 percent of all Title I schools, operated these 

programs, which accounted for approximately 90 percent of participating students.

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

schoolwide and targeted assistance programs must employ effective methods and instructional 

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

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

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

provide ongoing professional development for staff working with disadvantaged students and 

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

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

development for school staff and other early childhood educators.

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

explained below, emphasizes State and local responsibilities in the areas of standards and 

assessments, measuring progress, supporting school improvement, and improving teacher 

quality.

Standards and Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

for meeting the State content standards. In addition, States were required to develop science 

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

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

achievement of all students against their standards. These assessments must be valid and 

reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding of 

challenging content, and enable achievement results to be disaggregated by major racial and 

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

Department provides dedicated State formula grant support for the development and 

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

Improvement Programs account).

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

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

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

(EL) students and were required to add science assessments during the 2007-2008 school year 

(testing once in each of three grade spans specified in the law). Finally, to provide a uniform 

benchmark for comparing student achievement gains nationwide, the ESEA requires biennial 

State participation in the reading and mathematics assessments for 4th- and 8th-graders 

conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-15

B-15

Adequate Yearly Progress

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

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

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

year. For a school to make AYP, all students, as well as those in statutorily specified 

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

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

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

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

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

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

AYP definition. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credit for raising the achievement of students with disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

add growth models to AYP determinations. 

Accountability and School Improvement

Title I accountability and school improvement provisions require escalating improvement 

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

implement specific strategies for students attending schools identified for improvement, including 

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

School Improvement

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

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

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

plans that incorporate strategies from scientifically based research on how to strengthen 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-16

B-16

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

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

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

addresses the problems that led to identification for improvement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement Grants program (see School Turnaround Grants).

Corrective Action

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

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

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

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

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

action.

Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

professional qualifications of their child’s teachers.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-17

B-17

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

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

one academic subject and who are highly qualified in at least one subject were given 3 more 

years to become highly qualified in the additional subjects they teach. Second, States may 

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

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

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

highly qualified.

ESEA Flexibility

The ESEA was scheduled for reauthorization in 2007 and has now entered its second decade 

without modification to reflect State progress in implementing the law or new directions in State 

and local education reform policies. In addition, the rapidly approaching 2014 deadline under 

current law for ensuring that 100 percent of students are proficient in reading and mathematics 

means that States will soon be forced to identify nearly all of their Title I schools for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. This failure of current law to differentiate 

among schools that are helping most, but not all, of their students to meet State academic 

standards and schools in which large majorities of students are not meeting such standards 

threatens to undermine public support for ESEA accountability requirements. More than 

40 States already are engaged in transitioning to “next-generation accountability systems” based 

on the adoption of State standards linked to college- and career-readiness, new assessments 

aligned with those standards, differentiated approaches to LEA and school accountability that 

target improvement resources to the lowest-performing LEAs and schools and those with the 

largest achievement gaps, and new systems for evaluating and supporting teachers and 

principals that are based in part on student growth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

school poverty levels, in meeting teacher qualification requirements, and in transferring funds 

among ESEA programs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

growth as a significant factor, to determine performance levels.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-18

B-18

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

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

March 2013, 34 States and D.C. are approved for ESEA flexibility. Additionally, as of that same 

date, 11 States, Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Indian Education have submitted requests for 

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

that are more fair, flexible, and focused on students most at risk beginning in the 2012-2013 

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

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

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

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

information on ESEA flexibility is available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/eseaflexibility/index.html

Allocations

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

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

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

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

the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main Federal-State 

income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions for 

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

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

award to each qualifying LEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

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

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

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

improve the equity of State funding systems. Once State allocations are determined, suballocations to the LEA level are based on a modified version of the Targeted Grants formula.

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

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

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

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

example, the fiscal year 2012 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2010. The 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-19

B-19

Department transfers a small amount of funding from the annual Title I appropriation ($3.9 

million in 2012) to the Census Bureau to finance the preparation of these LEA poverty estimates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(dollars in thousands)

Year Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education Finance 

Incentive Grants

2009 ....................................... $6,597,946 $1,365,031 $3,264,712 $3,264,712

Recovery Act.......................... 0 0 5,000,000 5,000,000

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

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

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

2013 ....................................... 6,577,9041 1,365,0311 3,288,1261 3,288,1261

_________________

1 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-20

B-20

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s 2014 budget request for the College- and Career-Ready Students (CCRS) 

program (Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies under current law) is $14.6 billion, the 

same as the 2012 level. The request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal 

year 2014 under a reauthorized ESEA that is consistent with the Administration’s reauthorization 

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

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

and equity. The reauthorization proposal also would permit the Department to reserve up to 

0.5 percent of Title I formula grant funds for ESEA program evaluation and performance 

measurement.

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

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

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

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

reading/language arts and mathematics has inadvertently encouraged States to lower the quality 

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

been wide divergence in most States in student performance on State assessments compared 

to student performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). For 

example, the August 2011 report from the National Center for Education Statistics, Mapping 

State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2009, found that 35 States set grade 4 

standards for the Proficient level in reading that were lower than the Basic level on NAEP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

standards and aligned assessments.

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

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

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

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

history—in their Title I accountability system so long as they meet the same “college- and careerready” requirements as the reading and mathematics standards. Finally, States would develop 

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

aligned English language proficiency assessments, that reflect the academic language 

necessary to master each State’s content standards.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-21

B-21

Rigor, Rewards, and Flexibility in State Accountability Systems

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

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

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

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

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

and support strategies for most schools.

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

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

and districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from high school ready for 

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

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

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

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

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

these data would be disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, English Learner 

status, status as connected to the active-duty military, and family income. States and districts 

also would collect other key information about teaching and learning conditions, including 

information on school climate, such as student, teacher and school leader attendance; 

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

school experience.

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

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

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

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

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

school ready for college and a career.

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

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

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

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

schools in the use of ESEA funds.

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

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

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

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

intervention model in those schools.

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

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

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

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

LEAs would be required to implement data-driven interventions—which could include expanded 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-22

B-22

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

who are farthest behind and help close those achievement gaps.

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

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

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

organization to improve student academic achievement.

Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers and Leaders

Strong teachers and leaders are the heart of educational improvement, yet current law largely 

ignores the effectiveness of teachers in improving student learning and does little to recognize 

the importance of or support the development of effective school leaders. The Administration’s 

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

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

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

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

equitable distribution of effective teachers and leaders. As noted below, most LEAs would be 

allowed to spend Title I, Part A funds on activities to achieve such equitable distribution across 

their schools.

Resources for Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disseminate best practices in this area.

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

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

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

LEAs would instead be required to use an identical amount to improve student performance in 

high-need schools by implementing effective school improvement strategies and carrying out 

strategies designed to ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and school leaders.

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

develop and implement comprehensive family engagement plans. LEAs would continue to have 

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

activities designed to improve the school readiness of young children across a range of domains 

and lay the foundation for success in the early grades. 

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

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

and local funding (for personnel and relevant non-personnel expenditures) comparable to the 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-23

B-23

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

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

Title I Rewards Program

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

State accountability systems provide meaningful positive incentives and rewards that recognize 

and encourage improved student outcomes. Encouraging, recognizing, and rewarding 

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

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

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

funded State formula grant program for Title I Rewards, for 2014 the Department would work 

with the appropriators to provide a 2 percent State-level set-aside of funds under Title I Grants 

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

achieving or are making the most progress in improving student achievement. Such rewards 

could include: (1) financial rewards for principals, teachers, and other staff; (2) college 

scholarships for students in high-performing schools; (3) school-level financial rewards; or 

(4) other innovative rewards and incentives developed by the States.

Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

College- and career-ready students

B-24

B-24

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

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate

0-15%

# of LEAs 5,106 4,862 4,862

0-15% Dollars $1,893,708 $1,743,246 $1,760,357

0-15% %% of Total $ 13.31 12.24 12.36

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,818,348 1,716,694 1,716,694

0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,041 $1,015 $1,025

15-25%

# of LEAs 4,667 4,627 4,627

15-25% Dollars $4,475,468 $4,017,833 $4,055,847

15-25% % of Total $ 31.45 28.22 28.47

15-25# of Formula Eligible Children 3,798,769 3,557,929 3,557,929

15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,178 $1,129 $1,140

>25% 

# of LEAs 3,392 3,629 3,629

>25% Dollars $7,863,085 $8,478,122 $8,428,860

>25% % of Total $ 55.24 59.54 59.17

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 5,477,351 6,314,220 6,314,220

>25% $ Per Formula Child $1,436 $1,343 $1,335

LEA Allocation Subtotal $14,232,505 $14,239,201 $14,245,064

BIA/Outlying Areas 145,125 145,125 145,124

Part D, Subpart 2 134,843 128,147 122,269

Census Updates 3,984 3,984 4,000

Grants to LEAs Total 14,516,457 14,516,457 14,516,457

Schools receiving Title I funds

Schoolwide programs 39,700 39,700 39,700

Targeted assistance programs 15,466 15,466 15,466

Total 55,166 55,166 55,166

Students served (in millions)

Students In schoolwide programs 21.2 21.2 21.2

Students In targeted assistance programs 1.7 1.7 1.7

Students In non-public and N&D programs 0.3 0.3 0.3

Total 23.2 23.2 23.2

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-25

B-25

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program performance information for the Title I Grants to LEAs 

program, including, for example, GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets 

and data, as well as an assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. 

Achievement of program results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in 

previous years and those requested for fiscal year 2014 and future years, as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mathematics.

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

proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2009 72.1 61.1

2010 77.7 61.4

2011 83.2 61.3

2012 88.8

2013 94.4

2014 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2011 show that the average proficiency rate in 

reading/language arts for economically disadvantaged students was virtually unchanged from 

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

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

ESEA’s current goal of 100-percent proficiency.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-26

B-26

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

proficient or advanced levels on State math assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2009 70.2 60.7

2010 76.2 61.6

2011 82.1 61.1

2012 88.1

2013 94.0

2014 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2011 show that the average proficiency rate in 

mathematics for economically disadvantaged students rose less than 1 percentage point from 

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

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

ESEA’s current goal of 100-percent proficiency.

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

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

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

reading assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2009 8.1 11.5

2010 6.5 10.9

2011 4.9 10.7

2012 3.3

2013 1.6

2014 0.0

Additional information: The 2011 results show that the reading achievement gap is closing, 

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

student groups to be proficient in reading/language arts (thus reducing the gap to zero).
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-27

B-27

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

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

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

math assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2009 7.9 10.8

2010 6.4 10.0

2011 4.8 9.9

2012 3.2

2013 1.6

2014 0.0

Additional information: The 2011 results show that the mathematics gap is closing, but far too 

slowly to eliminate this gap by 2014, the year by which the ESEA calls for all student groups to 

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

Efficiency Measure

Measure: Average time to complete State monitoring reports, in days, following the completion 

of a site visit.

Year

Target

Number of Days

Actual

Number of Days

2009 40.0 25.5

2010 40.0 30.9

2011 40.0 35.2

2012 40.0 32.3

2013 40.0

2014 40.0

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

completing State monitoring reports within 40 days of the conclusion of a site visit. The average 

time-to-completion for 2012 was 32.3 days.

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2010-2011 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, the Title I 

program served nearly 23 million students, or 46 percent of the total student population. More 

detailed program information, compared to the overall public school population, is displayed in 

the tables below.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

College- and career-ready students

B-28

B-28

2010-2011 School Year

Student Group

# of Students, 

All Schools

# of Students, 

Title I Schools

% of students 

served by Title I

All 49,999,878 22,890,789 46

American Indian 607,374 390,930 64

Asian/Pacific Islander 2,457,423 894,086 36

Black 7,912,003 5,161,724 65

Hispanic 11,872,282 8,196,481 69

White 25,907,645 7,733,907 30

Economically 

disadvantaged 24,021,196 16,666,434 69

English Learners 4,371,553 3,519,624 81

Students with disabilities 6,530,977 2,979,291 46

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

that Title I funds seem to be reaching the target schools and students. There are 18,240 

schools where between 81 and 100 percent of the student population qualify for free or reducedprice lunch; 91 percent of those schools are served by Title I.

2010-2011 School Year

Concentration of free 

and reduced-price 

lunch ranges

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

0-20% 16,517 3,948 24

21-40% 19,265 6,639 34

41-60% 22,702 13,528 60

61-80% 19,363 15,299 79

81-100% 18,240 16,642 91

National Assessment of Title I: Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

concerning accountability and school improvement. Findings from these reports demonstrate 

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

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

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

College- and career-ready students

B-29

B-29

Highlights of key findings follow, with updates reflecting more recent ED or State-reported data 

where noted:

Trends in Student Achievement

• Looking across eight different student groups (low-income, Black, Hispanic, White, 

English Learner, migrant, students with disabilities, and the “all students” group) and four 

assessments (reading and mathematics in fourth grade and eighth grade), an average of 

16 percent of the student groups within the 30 States would be predicted to reach 

100 percent proficiency if recent growth rates were to continue.

Implementation of State Assessment and Accountability Systems

• Overall, three-quarters of the Nation’s schools made AYP in 2005–06, a nearly identical 

proportion as in 2003–04 and 2004–05. In fact, four-fifths of schools had the same AYP 

designation from 1 year to the next. Sixty-five percent of schools made AYP in both 

years, and 16 percent missed AYP in both years. Ten percent of schools’ designations 

worsened (i.e., moved from making AYP in 2004–05 to missing AYP in 2005–06) and 

9 percent of schools’ designations improved. Over the past 3 years, the percentage of 

schools making AYP has declined each year. In the 2008-2009 school year, 66 percent 

of all public schools made AYP; in the 2009-2010 school year, the percentage dropped 

to 61; and in the 2010-2011 school year, just 52 percent of schools made AYP. The 

significant decline likely reflects the greater difficulty of making AYP as each State’s 

annual targets rise toward the 100-percent proficiency goal in the 2013-2014 school year. 

[Updated March 2013]

• The number of Title I schools that were identified for improvement rose to 10,781 in 

2006–07, an 11 percent increase over the 9,694 identified Title I schools in 2005–06. 

Twenty percent of all Title I schools were identified in 2006–07. The number and 

percentage of schools identified for improvement varied considerably across States: 

9 States had identified 5 percent or fewer of their Title I schools, while 12 States had 

identified more than one-third of their Title I schools. In the 2009-2010 school year, the 

number of Title I schools identified for improvement was 14,561. That number rose to 

15,888 in the 2010-2011 school year and in the 2011-2012 school year, 19,270 schools, 

or 35 percent of all Title I schools were identified for improvement. [Updated March 

2013]

• Schools with high concentrations of poor and minority students were much more likely to 

be identified than other schools, as were schools located in urban areas. Over one-third 

of high-poverty schools (37 percent) and schools with high percentages of minority 

students (38 percent) were identified schools in 2006–07, compared with 4 to 5 percent 

of schools with low concentrations of these students. Schools in urban areas were more 

likely to be identified (25 percent) than were suburban and rural schools (12 percent and 

9 percent, respectively). Middle schools were more likely to be identified (22 percent of 

middle schools) than were high schools (13 percent) or elementary schools (14 percent). 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-30

School turnaround grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$533,552 $533,552 2 $658,552 +$125,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

allocations for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance activities. 

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

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

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

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

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

The 2012 appropriations act authorized the Department to reserve up to 5 percent of SIG funds 

to carry out activities to build SEA and LEA capacity to implement effectively the SIG program.

Rapid Funding Growth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs in the Recovery Act, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Race to the Top 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-31

B-31

program, were aimed primarily at ensuring that the historic Recovery Act investment in the SIG 

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

struggling schools, including many of the high school “dropout factories” with graduation rates 

below 60 percent.

New Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defining Greatest Need

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; (2) the bottom 5 percent, in 

terms of academic achievement, of secondary schools in each State that are eligible for, but that 

do not receive, Title I, Part A funds; and (3) Title I secondary schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring with graduation rates below 60 percent and other Title I-eligible 

secondary schools with graduation rates below 60 percent. In identifying schools in categories 

(1) and (2), States must take into account the academic achievement of the “all students” group 

in each school in terms of proficiency on ESEA reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments combined, as well as that group’s lack of progress on those assessments. The 

“bottom 5 percent,” as used in the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools, must 

include at least five schools.

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

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

and the eligibility requirements of ESEA section 1003(g). Under the regulations, States have 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-32

B-32

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

guidelines:

• Tier I schools are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that (1) are 

in the bottom 5 percent of such schools in achievement and are not improving or (2) have 

graduation rates below 60 percent.

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

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

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

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

not in Tier I.

As discussed above, the final regulations also incorporate the optional expanded eligibility 

provisions included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. That Act allows SEAs and 

LEAs to use SIG funds to serve, in addition to Title I schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, schools that are eligible for (but might or might not receive) 

Title I, Part A funds and that either: (1) have not made AYP for at least 2 years, or (2) are in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates. States that choose to add 

schools that are eligible for SIG funds under these expanded eligibility provisions must ensure 

that the school is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school in the tier to which it is 

added. The Department also has provided flexibility, available through a waiver, for States to 

include low-achieving Title I secondary schools in their lists of Tier II schools (which, absent this 

waiver, would include only secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I 

funds). 

Defining Strongest Commitment

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

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

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

commitment to use SIG funds to implement fully and effectively one of the following four school 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigorous review process.

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

School turnaround grants

B-33

B-33

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

lowest-performing schools, including replacing the principal and ineffective teachers, 

comprehensive instructional reform, increasing learning time, and expanding operational 

flexibility.

LEAs must serve each of their Tier I schools unless they lack the capacity to implement fully and 

effectively one of these 4 models. They may serve Tier I and Tier II schools only by 

implementing one of the models. LEAs with 9 or more Tier I or Tier II schools may not 

implement the Transformation model in more than half of those schools. 

Awarding School Improvement Grants to LEAs

In awarding School Improvement Grants to an eligible LEA, an SEA must provide sufficient 

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

school the LEA applies to serve and to serve participating Tier III schools. More broadly, an 

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

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

to serve Tier III schools. SEAs that did not serve all of their Tier I schools in fiscal year 2009 

were required, absent a waiver, to carry over at least 25 percent of their fiscal year 2009 SIG 

allocations and award these funds through their fiscal year 2010 SIG competitions.

LEAs may receive up to $2 million annually over 3 years to implement the Turnaround, Restart, 

or Transformation model in a school; School Closure generally requires only modest funding 

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

LEAs were permitted to request funding in their first-year budgets for pre-implementation 

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

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

encourages LEAs that serve high-need Tier III schools to use SIG funds to implement 1 of the 4 

models, but they may also use SIG funds to carry out the school improvement activities 

described in section 1116 of the ESEA.

LEAs must establish annual goals, subject to SEA approval, for student achievement and must 

report progress on certain leading indicators for their Tier I and Tier II schools. Tier III schools 

must meet goals established by the LEA and approved by the SEA; for Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, these may be the goals in their improvement 

plans required by section 1116 of the ESEA. SEAs must review progress toward these goals 

prior to renewing the second and third years of an LEA’s SIG award.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-34

B-34

Maximizing the Number of SIG-Eligible Schools Served

In fiscal year 2009, the Department offered a waiver (which all States applied for and were 

approved to implement) of the period of availability of fiscal year 2009 SIG funds beyond 

September 30, 2011, the statutory deadline for obligation. These waivers allowed SEAs to use 

fiscal year 2009 funds to make front-loaded awards to eligible LEAs that provided the full amount

of an LEA’s 3-year SIG award and thus do not entail continuation costs in subsequent years. 

For their fiscal year 2010 competitions, the Department encouraged SEAs, after front-loading 

any awards made with fiscal year 2009 carryover funds, to provide only the first year of 3-year 

SIG awards made with fiscal year 2010 SIG funds; fiscal year 2011 and 2012 funds would then 

support the second and third years of these projects. This hybrid funding model reflects the goal 

of serving the maximum number of Tier I and Tier II schools with the smaller allocations 

available from the fiscal year 2010 and subsequent SIG appropriations.

SIG under ESEA Flexibility

The SIG program is playing a key role in the differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support systems that States are creating and implementing under ESEA flexibility. More 

specifically, the Department has permitted States receiving ESEA flexibility and submitting 

applications to make new SIG awards with fiscal year 2012 funds to replace their lists of SIG 

Tier I, II, and III schools with their lists of priority schools under ESEA flexibility and to provide 

those funds to LEAs to carry out one of the four SIG school intervention models in those 

schools. (The priority school definition used in ESEA flexibility is based largely on the definition 

of persistently lowest-achieving schools in the regulations governing the SIG program.) 

New SIG Awards in Fiscal Year 2013

The Department anticipates that States generally will use fiscal year 2013 SIG funds to make 

new, 3-year front-loaded awards. Assuming an average 3-year award of $3 million per school, 

States would support SIG interventions in up to an additional 170 persistently low-performing 

schools through their fiscal year 2013 competitions, which will be conducted in the spring and 

summer of 2014.

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

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

year.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-35

B-35

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 ...........................................................$545,633

Recovery Act.............................................3,000,000

2010 .............................................................545,633

2011 .............................................................534,552

2012 .............................................................533,552 

2013 .............................................................533,5521

_________________

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

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $658.6 million for the School Turnaround Grants (under current 

law School Improvement Grants) program in fiscal year 2014, an increase of $125 million over 

the 2012 level. The proposed increase for School Turnaround Grants (STG) would fund a new 

competitive grant program that would strengthen formula grant implementation by building 

district-level capacity to support school turnaround efforts and to sustain improvements in 

schools that have used STG funds to successfully implement a school intervention model. The 

Department could use a portion of the funds for this program, not to exceed $25 million, to 

support district capacity for successful school turnaround by expanding the School Turnaround 

AmeriCorps initiative, which is administered collaboratively by the Department and the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). This initiative, currently funded with 

fiscal year 2012 SIG national activities funds as well as funding from CNCS and other sources, 

provides grants to place AmeriCorps members in SIG and priority schools to support and 

enhance school turnaround efforts.

State Formula Grants

The request includes $533.6 million, the same as the 2012 level, for the State formula grant 

program. Under the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the ESEA, these formula grants 

would play a critical role in efforts to implement rigorous interventions in persistently lowestperforming schools, which would be identified through the reauthorized Title I accountability 

system rather than the three-tiered system established in the SIG final regulations under current 

law. In general, these would be schools that are in the bottom 5 percent of schools in each 

State based on student achievement and, at the high school level, graduation rates, and that are 

not improving. 

Under the reauthorization proposal, States would be permitted to reserve funds to build their 

capacity to improve low-performing schools, including by developing and implementing school 

quality review teams to assist schools in identifying school needs and in supporting school 

improvement, and by reviewing and ensuring the effectiveness of external partners. States 

would subgrant most funds through competitive awards to LEAs (or partnerships of LEAs and 

nonprofit organizations) to implement one of the locally selected intervention models: 

turnaround, restart, school closure, or transformation. LEAs and their partners would receive 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-36

B-36

3-year awards to implement fully and effectively one of these intervention models, and would be 

eligible for 2 additional years of funding to support a school's ongoing improvement if the school 

is showing progress. With the exception of the closure model, each of these models allows 

flexibility for locally designed plans that recognize and meet a broad range of student needs from 

preschool through grade 12 and that support investments across the age continuum, from 

improving the school readiness of young children to helping dropouts return to school and 

graduate ready for college or a career.

In addition to providing State and local funding, the Department would be authorized to reserve 

funds to carry out activities designed to enhance the capacity of States, LEAs, and nonprofit 

organizations to improve schools, such as by investing in model school quality review teams to 

identify school needs and support school improvement.

Supporting and Sustaining Turnaround Competitive Grants

The $125 million increase proposed for the STG program in 2014 would fund new competitive 

grants that build local capacity to support school turnaround efforts and to sustain successful 

turnarounds following the end of the three-year STG award period. Information gathered 

through the Department’s monitoring and technical assistance efforts consistently shows that 

local capacity to support and sustain school turnarounds is a major concern for State and local 

leaders. Indeed, in some cases, concerns about local capacity present a significant barrier to 

the initial implementation of SIG awards, preventing the “buy in” from school and community 

leaders that is essential to long-term, sustainable success in turning around low-performing 

schools. Such concerns are exacerbated in LEAs that face the challenge of implementing 

school intervention models in an increasing number of schools as well as in rural areas that 

often face a wide range of capacity constraints.

Under the proposed STG competitive grant program, applicants would seek funding to 

implement comprehensive plans to support their turnaround schools and to sustain specific 

interventions in their successful STG-awarded schools. Applicants would include LEAs, 

consortia of LEAs, and non-profit organizations in partnership with LEAs that serve a minimum 

of 5 STG-funded schools or non-STG-funded Priority Schools. The Department would give 

priority to applicants that propose partnerships with entities that have demonstrated 

effectiveness in turning around low-performing schools or applicants that submit plans for 

building turnaround capacity in rural areas. Applicants also would be required to demonstrate 

that their plans are supported by local teachers’ unions or associations.

Local plans would include strategies such as adopting district-wide policies for teacher and 

leader assignment in support of school-level reforms; recruiting and training turnaround leaders; 

implementing data-based accountability and performance-management tools; creating networks 

of low-performing schools or pairing low-performing schools with high-performing schools to 

share turnaround strategies and improve oversight; and increasing parent and community 

involvement in turnaround planning and implementation. Applicants could also use a portion of 

any grant award to sustain progress in their successful STG-funded schools by continuing to 

fund specific interventions after the three-year grant period ends.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-37

B-37

The Department also could use a portion of the requested funds to build district capacity for 

school turnaround by expanding the School Turnaround AmeriCorps initiative. This initiative 

supports the national effort to turn around the country’s lowest-performing schools by leveraging 

AmeriCorps’ pre-existing national service infrastructure, local and national non-profit and private 

organizations, and community partners. The program provides SIG-awarded and priority 

schools served under States’ ESEA flexibility plans with AmeriCorps members who will support 

critical interventions aligned to the local turnaround plans of schools and districts. These funds 

would support AmeriCorps members trained to implement interventions that are evidence-based 

or evidence-informed, including in specific areas that districts have had challenges addressing 

on their own, such as increased learning time, social/emotional supports, and community 

engagement. The School Turnaround AmeriCorps initiative would also help districts build their 

capacity to sustain successful practices by using AmeriCorps members to carry out activities that 

have been identified as effective in schools that are finishing their last year of SIG funding. 

Department funds would be matched by contributions from CNCS, school districts, and private 

sources. The use of a portion of the requested funds to expand the School Turnaround 

AmeriCorps initiative would leverage the expertise of the Department and CNCS to help provide 

personalized supports for struggling students and communities that would make dramatic 

changes in many of the Nation’s lowest-performing schools.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

State Formula Grants

Amount to States $502,120 $502,120 $502,120

Range of State awards $1,171-$61,846 $1,172-$60,515 $1,172-$60,515

Average State award $9,656 $9,656 $9,656

Amount to BIE $3,332 $3,324 $3,324

Amount to Outlying Areas $1,422 $1,430 $1,430

Supporting School 

Turnaround Grants

Amount for awards 0 0 $125,000

Number of awards 0 0 20-25

Range of awards 0 0 $2,000-20,000

Average award 0 0 $5,000

National activities $26,678 $26,678 $26,678

NOTES: The 2012 appropriations act authorizes the Department to use up to 5 percent, or $26,678 thousand, 

of SIG funds for activities to build SEA and LEA capacity to effectively implement the SIG program. As of March 

2013, the Department planned to use approximately $15,000 thousand under this authority, or roughly 3 percent of 

the fiscal year 2012 appropriation. The Department has not yet determined the specific amount that it would use for 

national activities in fiscal years 2013 or 2014.

2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-38

B-38

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program include reporting 

metrics intended to help the Department, States, and LEAs evaluate the effectiveness of the 

required interventions and to inform technical assistance activities. States must report to the 

Department on the LEAs that received SIG awards, the size of the awards, and the schools 

served by each LEA with SIG funds (including the level of support provided to each participating 

school). States also must report school-level information, such as the type of intervention, 

student achievement levels, graduation and dropout rates, and data on teacher performance 

and school climate. The Department collects these data through its EDFacts system. The 

Department also will develop indicators to measure its own performance in administering the 

SIG program.

Schools Eligible for and Receiving SIG Grants

In May 2011, the Department published Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and SIG-Eligible 

and SIG-Awarded Schools (SIG Baseline Study), which provides descriptive analyses of States’ 

fiscal year 2009 SIG competitions and is available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114019/. 

The SIG Baseline Study showed that States identified a total of 1,107 Tier I schools, 1,034 Tier II

schools, and 13,136 Tier III schools that were eligible to receive SIG funds in the fiscal year 

2009 competitions. Of the total of 15,277 eligible schools identified, 55 percent were elementary 

schools, 20 percent were middle schools, 19 percent were high schools, and 6 percent were 

“non-standard.”

According to the study, States funded in the fiscal year 2009 SIG competitions 514 Tier I 

schools, 312 Tier II schools, and 402 Tier III schools. Of the total of 1,228 schools served, 

32 percent were elementary schools, 22 percent were middle schools, 40 percent were high 

schools, and 5 percent were “non-standard.” States made just over half of SIG awards to urban 

schools, about one-quarter to suburban schools, and about one-quarter to rural schools. High 

schools were particularly likely to be funded, receiving 40 percent of SIG awards while 

constituting just 19 percent of eligible schools. Rural schools also competed successfully, 

receiving almost a quarter of awards despite constituting only one-fifth of eligible schools. The 

following table compares SIG-eligible and SIG-awarded schools by grade range and school 

locale:
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-39

B-39

Comparison of FY 2009 SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools

by School Level and Locale

Grade range SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Elementary 55.3% 32.2%

Middle 20.1% 22.1%

High 19.1% 40.4%

Non-standard 5.5% 5.2%

Locale Type SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Central City 44.9% 52.5%

Urban Fringe 35.2% 24.3%

Rural 19.9% 23.2%

Other key findings of the SIG Baseline Study include the following:

• Nearly three-quarters (603 schools, or 74 percent) of SIG-awarded Tier I and Tier II schools 

are implementing the transformation model, while 20 percent (168 schools) are implementing 

the turnaround model. Just 33 schools, or 4 percent, are implementing the restart model and 

16 schools, or 2 percent, are implementing school closure.

• Award amounts varied by tier and by State. The average 3-year award among Tier I and Tier II 

schools was $2.54 million, compared to $520,000 among Tier III schools.

• The percentage increase in overall per-pupil funding associated with SIG varied across States. 

The highest State average increase in per-pupil funding in Tier I and Tier II schools receiving 

SIG awards was 58 percent (in Montana) while the lowest was 3 percent (in Vermont).

In October 2012, the Department published School Improvement Grants: Analyses of State 

Applications and Eligible and Awarded Schools, which analyzes States’ fiscal year 2010 SIG 

competitions and compares them to the fiscal year 2009 competitions, and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20124060/. The study shows that in their 2010 competitions States 

made SIG awards to an additional 315 Tier I schools, 174 Tier II schools, and 111 Tier III 

schools, a total of 600 schools. According to the study, this second SIG cohort largely mirrors 

the first cohort in distribution of schools by grade range, locale type, and intervention model 

implemented. The average 3-year award among Tier I and Tier II schools in fiscal year 2010 

competitions was $2.84 million, an increase of $300,000 over that for the first cohort; the 

average award among Tier III schools saw a similar increase, from $520,000 for the first cohort 

to $810,000 for the second.

Implementation and Outcomes of SIG Grants

In January 2013, the Department initiated a set of quick-turnaround studies designed to 

accelerate collection and dissemination of promising practices in the school turnaround field. 

These studies will be informed by interviews of selected States, LEAs, and schools receiving 

SIG funds and analyses of implementation data and will address topics such as turnaround 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

School turnaround grants

B-40

B-40

leadership, data-based decision-making, school climate, community engagement, and capacity 

building. The results of these studies are expected to be released in phases beginning in 

summer 2013.

The Department is also evaluating the implementation and impact of school turnaround efforts in 

both the Race to the Top (RTT) and SIG programs. This evaluation will involve collecting data 

from all 50 States and DC, as well as roughly 60 LEAs and 525 schools. The study will focus on 

(1) the implementation of RTT and SIG; (2) the relationship between receipt of RTT funds and 

student outcomes; (3) the impact of the receipt of SIG funds on student outcomes in the lowestachieving schools; and (4) the relationship between the four school turnaround models (and 

related improvement strategies) and student outcomes and school performance. Data collection 

for this study will continue through the 2013-14 school year. The Department expects to begin 

releasing evaluation briefs on specific topics in mid-2013, with the first full report scheduled for 

release in early 2014.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-41

Evaluation

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Sections 1501 and 1503)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$3,194 $3,194 2 0 -$3,194

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or new reauthorization 

legislation is sought.

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes a separate appropriation for 

the evaluation of Title I programs. The Department uses these funds to carry out objective 

measurement and systematic analyses of the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

program, the Federal Government's largest investment in elementary and secondary education. 

These evaluations compare actual results with program objectives and provide the data needed 

to make sound decisions on program policies and resources and to guide program improvement 

in the field.

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

and impact of the Title I Grants to LEAs. Data from the multi-year national assessment are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

concerning accountability and school improvement. Funding under this program has also 

supported 9 volumes of reports on the State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB) as well as a series of reports on specialized topics. Some of those 

specialized topics include analyses of States’ accountability provisions; implementation and 

outcome findings in districts that received waivers to serve as supplemental educational services 

providers, despite being districts identified for improvement; an evaluation of the growth model 

pilot project, a project initiated to allow States to experiment with adjustments to the NCLB status 

accountability system, which informed the Administration’s future decisions on accountability 

under ESEA Flexibility; and an examination of the Title I comparability requirement, which 

included the first national data collection on school-level expenditures. These reports, as well as 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

B-42

B-42

other related Title I evaluation reports, are available in full on the Department of Education’s 

Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

Ongoing studies under way in fiscal year 2013 include the following:

• The implementation of ESEA Title I and Title II program initiatives. This study will examine the 

implementation of policies promoted through the ESEA at the State, district and school levels 

in four core areas: State content standards, aligned assessments, accountability and school 

turnaround, and developing effective teachers and leaders. The study will address changes 

since the previous national assessment of Title I (in 2006) as well as ESEA flexibility. The 

study will include a survey of all 50 States and DC, as well as a nationally representative 

sample of 570 school districts, 1,300 schools, and 9,100 teachers. 

• Early childhood language development. Data from 83 Title I schools, collected during the 

2011-2012 school year, will be analyzed to estimate the associations between instructional 

programs and programs for students in preschool through grade 3 and the outcomes for those 

students.

• Case studies of the implementation of school turnaround models. These case studies, 

involving approximately 60 schools in 6 States, will focus on the change process in schools 

implementing school turnaround models and examine leading indicators of successful 

implementation of the models to provide information useful to both policy-makers and 

practitioners.

• Early implementation of ESEA flexibility. This study of 12 States and 24 school districts that 

have begun the first full year of implementing provisions under ESEA flexibility will provide 

reports of early implementation of ESEA flexibility to policy-makers as they continue to refine 

policy and technical assistance to States on issues related to the flexibility provisions.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 ...............................................................$9,167

2010 ................................................................. 9,167

2011 ................................................................. 8,151

2012 ................................................................. 3,194

2013 ................................................................. 3,1941

_________________

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

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for Title I Evaluation in fiscal year 2014. 

The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would consolidate this activity into a 

broader evaluation authority aimed at supporting comprehensive evaluation of the 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

B-43

B-43

implementation, outcomes, impact, and cost- effectiveness of ESEA programs. Funding would 

be made available through a reservation of up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated each 

year for programs authorized by Title I of the ESEA and up to 1.5 percent of the funds 

appropriated each year for all other ESEA programs. 

Education improvement is an on-going process of building our knowledge about what is working 

in improving practice and results for students. Understanding how ESEA programs are being 

implemented and whether they are achieving their intended outcomes is essential for 

improvement. However, the current fragmentation of evaluation authorities and funding 

hampers effective evaluation and the development of effective performance management 

strategies. The proposed cross-cutting reservation of funds would provide resources to conduct 

rigorous, objective evaluations of ESEA programs, policies, and practices, while also supporting 

performance measurement essential for management improvement. In addition, the new 

authority would enable the Department to provide increased technical assistance on evaluation 

to States and LEAs in order to promote quality and comparability of evaluation results. 

Under the reauthorization proposal, the Department would be required to develop and submit to 

Congress an evaluation plan every 2 years describing proposed evaluation activities and the 

reservations required to fund this plan. The evaluation plan would identify the Department’s key 

priorities for evaluations and related knowledge-building activities, such as strengthening 

performance measures and improving grantee evaluations, within and across program offices. 

The plan would support appropriate resource allocation and help ensure that evaluations 

generate usable knowledge that informs program improvement, policy development, and budget 

decision-making for Federal, State, and local decision-makers. The Department would be 

required to use at least 30 percent of any funds reserved for evaluation to conduct impact 

studies that employ experimental designs and other methodologies that support causal 

inferences.

In addition to evaluation and impact studies, the Department would carry out analyses of data 

from evaluations and other sources intended to inform policy-making and promote continuous 

program improvement. A recent example of this kind of activity is the policy brief published in 

November 2011 entitled: The Potential Impact of Revising the Title I Comparability Requirement 

to Focus on School-Level Expenditures, which was based on a study of school-level 

expenditures conducted in response to a requirement in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The currently funded study of ESEA Flexibility will be another 

example of a quick turnaround study with the same overarching goal of informing policy-making 

and promoting continuous program improvement.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal also would permit the Department to use funds 

reserved for ESEA evaluation to complete evaluations that were initiated before ESEA 

reauthorization.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

B-44

B-44

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Implementation of Title I and 

Title II Program Initiatives $1,662 $1,947 0

Study of Early Childhood 

Language Development 0 500 0

School Turnaround Study 1,132 400 0

Data Analysis and Support 400 347 0

Total, Evaluation 3,194 3,194 0

____________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-45

State agency programs:

Migrant student education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$393,236 $393,236 2 $393,236 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Migrant Education program (MEP) provides financial assistance to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to establish and improve programs of education for children of migratory 

farmworkers and fishers. The goal of the MEP is to enable migrant children: (1) to meet the 

same academic standards as other children; and (2) to graduate from high school or a GED 

program with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment. To help achieve this objective, program services help migratory 

children overcome the educational disruption and other challenges that result from repeated 

moves. The program statute encourages activities to promote coordination of needed services 

across States and encourages greater access for migratory children to services available under 

the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and other programs authorized under 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so that MEP funds can be used for 

services not already available from those programs to meet the unique needs of migrant 

students. Migratory children who have made a "qualifying move" within the last 3 years are 

generally eligible to be counted and served by the program. A move is considered to be a 

qualifying move if it: (1) is a change of residence due to economic necessity; (2) involves 

crossing school district boundaries; (3) is made in order to obtain temporary or seasonal work in 

agriculture or fishing; and (4) was made in the preceding 36 months.

Because the program appropriation has not exceeded the fiscal year 2002 level of $396 million, 

State allocations are still based on the amount each State received in fiscal year 2002. Under 

the statute, all funds in excess of $396 million would be allocated through a statutory formula 

based on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for education, its count of eligible migratory 

students aged 3 through 21 residing within the State in the previous year, and its count of 

students who received services in summer or intersession programs provided by the State. 

The Department may set aside up to $10 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

contracts and grants to improve inter- and intra-State migrant coordination activities, including 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-46

B-46

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migrant students. The Department is 

required to consult with States receiving allocations of $1 million or less about whether they can 

increase the cost-effectiveness of their programs by entering into inter-state consortium 

arrangements. By law, the Department may reserve up to $3 million a year from coordination 

funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 to such consortia. 

The statute requires the Department to assist States in developing effective methods for the 

electronic transfer of migrant student records. The Department developed the Migrant Student 

Information Exchange System (MSIX) to enable States to exchange migrant student data 

records efficiently and expeditiously and provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number 

of migrant students on a national and Statewide basis.

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

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

following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 .............................................................394,771

2010 .............................................................394,771

2011 .............................................................393,981

2012 .............................................................393,236

2013 .............................................................393,2361

_________________

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

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2014, the Department requests $393.2 million for the Title I Migrant Student Education 

program, the same amount as the 2012 appropriation. The fiscal year 2014 appropriation would 

support a reauthorized program that would continue to fund activities that identify highly mobile 

migratory children and youth, provide them comprehensive services that address their specific 

needs, and promote coordination of the Federal resources available to serve this population. 

The budget request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2014 under 

reauthorized legislation. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would revise the funding 

formula to address the problems identified in program reviews and audit findings. The current 

formula includes provisions that are cumbersome, difficult to interpret, and based on child counts 

from fiscal year 2001. The reauthorization proposal would simplify the formula and ensure that 

allocations respond to shifts in State counts of migrant students. The proposal would also 

improve targeting of services to migrant students by strengthening the program purpose 

language and sharpening the provisions that determine which students receive priority for 

program services. State and local recipients would continue to have wide flexibility in how they 

allocate program funds so long as they track and report on the academic achievement of 

migratory students in the State. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-47

B-47

Migrant students represent an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve group due to a multitude 

of risk factors present in the population. In particular, the movement of these children across 

school district and State boundaries means that, in general, no single school district or State has 

ongoing responsibility for the education of these students, thus creating a need for Federal 

support to assist in the coordination of services to meet their educational needs. 

Moreover, the characteristics of the migrant population create a need for educational services 

that go well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 

addition to being highly mobile, migrant students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity and poor 

health and housing conditions. Almost one-third (29 percent) of the children and youth eligible to 

receive services under the program in 2010-2011 had moved within the previous 12 months. In 

addition, 36 percent of eligible children and youth were limited English proficient.

Migrant children and youth may also help their families perform agricultural work, and a growing 

number of migrant “emancipated youth" travel without a parent or guardian to obtain migratory 

work in the fields and in processing plants. A significant proportion of migrant individuals eligible 

for services under the program (15 percent of the eligible population in 2010-2011) are schoolaged youth who do not attend school. 

Data for 2010-11 indicate that the program provided services to 223,226 migrant students during 

the regular school year and 130,743 during the summer or intersessions. Program funds 

supported 4,267 projects that operated during the school day, 961 projects that provided an 

extended school day during the regular school year, 849 summer or intersession projects, and 

1,646 year-round projects. The program served 4,642 children aged birth through 2; 

27,920 children aged 3 through 5; 214,110 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; 

and 22,191 out-of-school youth. Services provided included supplemental instruction in reading, 

math, and other academic areas, family literacy and preschool instruction, and high school credit 

accrual. Program funds were also used to provide such support services as counseling, health 

and nutrition services, advocacy and referrals for migrant students with disabilities, and 

(especially in the summer) transportation. 

The Department would reserve approximately $10 million from the fiscal year 2014 appropriation 

for migrant coordination and national activities, including $3 million for consortium incentive 

grants. The remainder of the funds would be used for activities related to inter- and intra-State 

coordination, primarily for maintenance and operation of the MSIX, including for technical 

assistance to States as they continue to implement their systems for collecting and exchanging 

data on migrant students. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-48

B-48

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Number of eligible children 408,888 385,000 385,000

SEA program:

Amount for State grants $383,236 $383,236 $383,236

Range of State awards $69-$134,761 $69-$134,761 $69-$134,761

Coordination activities: (coord)

(coord)Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

(coord)Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 $7,000

____________________

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

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and in FY 2014 and future years, 

as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and 

achieving graduation from high school (or a GED program) with an education that 

prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.

Objective: Along with other Federal programs and State and local reform efforts, the Migrant 

Education Program (MEP) will contribute to improved school performance of migrant children.

Measure: Number of States (of States reporting) meeting the performance target in reading at 

the elementary school level for migrant students.

Year Target Number of States Number of States

2009 31 27

2010 33 24

2011 35 24

2012 36

2013 37

2014 24
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-49

B-49

Measure: The number of States meeting the performance target in reading at the middle 

school level for migrant students.

Year Target Actual

2009 25 25

2010 27 22

2011 29 26

2012 31

2013 33

2014 25

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in mathematics 

at the elementary school level for migrant students.

Year Target Actual

2009 31 36

2010 33 32

2011 35 31

2012 37

2013 39

2014 27

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target in mathematics 

for middle school migrant students.

Year Target Actual

2009 23 27

2010 25 25

2011 27 25

2012 29

2013 31

2014 24

Additional information: These measures call for States to reach a performance for 50 percent 

of migrant students performing at the proficient or above level on State reading and mathematics 

assessments. Data for elementary students include data for grades 3-5; data for middle school 

students include data for grades 6-8. As more States reach the initial target level, the 

Department will raise the target accordingly. Forty-eight States reported reading proficiency data 

in 2011 and 47 reported mathematics proficiency data that year. Forty-eight States participated 

in the program in 2011. One State did not report mathematics proficiency data because the 

number of migrant students taking the assessment was too small to yield valid and reliable 

results for that subgroup. The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance 

Reports that States submit to the Department. Data for 2012 will be available in summer 2013.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-50

B-50

Based on State data, 51.4 percent of migrant 4th-grade students were proficient in reading and 

59.9 percent in math in 2011, an increase from 49.7 percent in reading and 58.7 percent in math 

in 2010. For 8th-grade migrant students, 48.3 percent were proficient in reading in 2011 and 

45.9 percent in math, an increase from 47.1 percent in reading and 44.6 percent in math in 

2010.

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target for dropout rate for 

migrant students.

Year Target Actual

2009 27 41

2010 29 38

2011 31

2012 33

2013 35

2014 35

Measure: The number of States meeting an annually set performance target for high school 

graduation of migrant students. 

Year Target Actual

2009 18 26

2010 19 33

2011 20

2012 21

2013 22

2014 23

Additional information: The measures call for States to reach a performance target of 

50 percent or fewer migrant students dropping out of school and 50 percent or more migrant 

students graduating from high school. Thirty-eight out of 47 participating States reported 

dropout data in 2010, and 39 States reported graduation data. Note that variation in States’ 

calculation of dropout rates limits the validity of comparisons across the States. As nearly all 

States are now using the 4-year cohort graduate rate calculations required under ESEA Title I 

regulations, validity and reliability of the data has improved over time. The source of the data is 

the Consolidated State Performance Reports that States submit to the Department. Data for 

2011 will be available in summer 2013.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant 

student records. This measure assesses annual changes in the percentage of actively migrating 

students for which the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) system has consolidated 

records that reflect a complete history of school and health information. The MSIX integrates 

procedures designed to achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate State and 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Migrant student education

B-51

B-51

local efforts to transfer health and education records into a single system that can be used within 

and across all States. 

Measure: The percentage of migrant student records consolidated in MSIX when school 

enrollment has occurred in more than one State. (Phase I)

Year Target Actual

2009 50 26.5

2010 75 87.0

2011 100

2012 100

2013 100

2014 100

Additional information: The system began collecting data from a number of States in 

December 2007, but not every State had access to the system at that time. The Department 

continues to work with States to ensure that their data systems meet the appropriate technical 

standards needed to connect to MSIX. In addition, the Department has developed a 3-phase 

plan to ensure that States collect all the required student data elements and make them 

available to other States through MSIX. The data reported in this table represent the percentage 

of consolidated records for migrant students entered into MSIX under phase 1. Under phase 1, 

States are to collect and make available all data elements for basic student information; under 

phase 2, States would add student assessment data; and under phase 3, States would add 

credit accrual information for secondary students. The Department plans to issue regulations to 

establish deadlines for collecting and transmitting data to MSIX under each phase. This 

measure will have greater validity and reliability over time as State procedures for collecting and 

providing the data elements improve. Data for 2011 will be available in summer 2013
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-52

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$50,231 $50,231 2 $50,231 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program provides financial assistance to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) for provision of education services to neglected and delinquent 

children and youth in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in 

correctional facilities. Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on the number of 

children in State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the State. Each 

State’s N and D allocation is generated by child counts in State institutions that provide at least 

20 hours of instruction a week from non-Federal funds; adult correctional institutions must 

provide 15 hours a week. State institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 

least 30 days are eligible to receive funds. Adult correctional institutions must give priority for 

services to youth who are likely to be released within a 2-year period.

Like other Title I programs, the N and D program requires institutions receiving funds to gear 

their services to the State academic content and achievement standards that all children are 

expected to meet. Similar to the school-wide program option under the Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may operate institution-wide education 

programs in which they use Title I funds in combination with other available Federal and State 

funds; this option allows juvenile institutions to serve a larger proportion of their eligible 

population and to align their programs more closely with other education services in order to 

meet participants’ educational and occupational training needs. States are required to reserve 

between 15 and 30 percent of their allocations for projects to help N and D participants make the 

transition from State institutions to locally operated programs or to support the successful entry 

of youth offenders into postsecondary and career and technical education programs.

The Department may reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriation for national activities, 

including the development of a uniform model to evaluate Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 programs, 

and technical assistance to help build the capacity of State agency programs.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-53

B-53

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

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

year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 .............................................................$50,427

2010 ...............................................................50,427

2011 ...............................................................50,326

2012 ...............................................................50,231

2013 ...............................................................50,2311

_________________

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

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2014, the Administration requests $50.2 million, the same as the 2012 level, for the 

Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program. The activities supported with this funding would 

help an estimated 107,000 N and D students return to and complete school and obtain 

employment after they are released from State institutions.

The N and D program is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

and is, therefore, subject to reauthorization. The budget request assumes that the program will 

be implemented in fiscal year 2014 under reauthorized legislation, and the request is based on 

the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. The reauthorized program would support States 

in helping neglected and delinquent children and youth receive instruction aligned with the 

State’s college- and career-ready standards and in helping them transition into locally operated 

programs and postsecondary and career and technical education programs.

The Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would also amend ESEA Title I, Part D, 

Subpart 2, under which SEAs currently use funding from the Title I, Part A program to make 

subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the provision of educational services 

for children and youth in local institutions and schools who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk of 

dropping out. The reauthorization proposal would target the Subpart 2 program on 

institutionalized children and youth, who may not be served adequately by the Title I, Part A 

program.

The population served by the Subpart 1 program is extremely disadvantaged and isolated, and 

research has shown that the youth served are up to 3 years behind in grade level and generally 

lack job skills. A study by Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Malcahy (2009) of youth 

incarcerated in three long-term correctional facilities found low levels of reading achievement 

among this population, with significantly lower levels for certain ethnic and racial groups and for 

students in special education. Another study, by Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild, and Legters (2003), 

noted that incarcerated youths in a large mid-Atlantic city tended to have failed at least half of 

their classes and had extremely low attendance rates in the year prior to incarceration. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-54

B-54

Moreover, a study by Keith and McCray (2002) reported on the special and underserved needs 

of incarcerated youth offenders with reading disabilities. The longstanding nature of this 

problem is demonstrated by a 1996 study from the Educational Testing Service showing that 

while most of the inmates in America’s prisons would eventually be paroled, two-thirds did not 

have the literacy skills needed to function in society. The findings of these reports show the 

importance of programs focused on improving outcomes for neglected and delinquent youth and 

preparing these students for further education or to enter the workforce.

The Department has some evidence that the program is producing positive outcomes. Data 

reported by States in ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports for 2011 indicate that 

approximately 70 percent of students enrolled in an N and D program or facility for 90 or more 

consecutive calendar days showed improved performance on assessments in reading and 

math. In addition, the percentage of participating students earning high school course credits 

while in an N and D program has increased. The Department is continuing to provide technical 

assistance to States to help ensure that they are providing effective transition services to enable 

students leaving State institutions to continue their schooling or seek employment. The 

Department is also continuing to develop better means of tracking data on achievement once 

students leave institutions, including data on high school graduation rates for program 

participants.

From the 2014 request, the Department would reserve approximately $1.3 million to continue to 

provide technical assistance and other services through the National Evaluation and Technical 

Assistance Center for Children who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Some of the center’s 

activities include: (1) developing a national model for evaluating the effectiveness of N and D 

programs; (2) collecting and disseminating information on tools and effective practices that can 

be used to support N and D youth; and (3) providing technical assistance, using experts and 

practitioners, to State agencies.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Number of participating institutions 861 861 861

Estimated number of students served 106,747 106,747 106,747

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $470 $470 $470

Range of awards to States $84-$3,003 $84-$3,003 $84-$3,003

Average State award $942 $942 $942

National activities $1,256 $1,256 $1,256

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-55

B-55

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

program. 

Goal: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the 

opportunity to meet the challenging State standards needed to further their education 

and become productive members of society. 

Objective: Neglected or delinquent (N or D) students will improve academic and vocational 

skills needed to further their education. 

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program who obtain a 

secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2009 12.8 10.6

2010 13.4 11.2

2011 14.1 12.8

2012 13.8

2013 14.8

2014 15.8

Additional information: The Department revised its performance targets in 2013 to better align 

with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2009 55.2 47.9

2010 58.0 52.0

2011 60.9 55.6

2012 56.6

2013 57.6

2014 58.6

Additional information: This measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in 

neglected, juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-56

B-56

corrections. The Department revised its performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent 

performance.

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve reading skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2009 88.2 68.3

2010 92.6 69.9

2011 97.2 70.4

2012 71.4

2013 72.4

2014 73.4

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve mathematics skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2009 80.2 70.7

2010 84.2 71.3

2011 88.4 71.9

2012 72.9

2013 73.9

2014 74.9

Additional information: Student counts are based on the number of long-term students (those 

enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive calendar days) who are 

in N and D institutions and complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These 

are not the same as the State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily 

reflect State proficiency levels. The Department revised its performance targets in 2013 to 

better align with recent performance.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2009 $3,978 $5,013

2010 3,739 5,256

2011 3,515 4,566

2012 4,520

2013 4,475

2014 4,430
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Neglected and delinquent children and youth education

B-57

B-57

Additional information: This measure attempts to determine program cost efficiency by 

tracking the ratio of the number of participating students achieving a high school diploma or its 

equivalent to the cost of the program. The Department revised its performance targets in 2013 

to better align with recent performance.
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

B-58

Homeless children and youth education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$65,173 $65,173 1 $65,173 0

_______________

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Children and Youth program helps ensure that all homeless children and youth 

have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available to other children 

through grants to States to: (1) establish or designate an Office of Coordinator of Education of 

Homeless Children and Youth; (2) develop and carry out a State plan for the education of 

homeless children; and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the 

education of those children. 

The Department allocates program funds to States through a formula based on each State's 

share of funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), with 

each State guaranteed the greater of $150,000, 0.25 percent of the total program appropriation 

for the fiscal year, or the amount of the State’s fiscal year 2001 allocation. Program funds are 

also reserved for the outlying areas (0.1 percent of a fiscal year’s appropriation) and the Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (1 percent). In addition, the 

Department is authorized to reserve funds to provide technical assistance (if requested by a 

State) and conduct evaluation and dissemination activities.

A State may reserve up to 25 percent (or in the case of a State receiving the minimum award, 

50 percent) of its allocation for State-level activities and must use remaining funds to make 

subgrants to LEAs. LEAs may use subgrant funds for such activities as providing enriched 

supplemental instruction, transportation, professional development, referrals to health care, and 

other services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless 

children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

The McKinney-Vento Act explicitly prohibits States that receive program funds from segregating 

homeless students in separate schools, except for short periods of time for health and safety 

emergencies or to provide temporary, special, and supplementary services. This prohibition 

does not apply separate schools for homeless children or youth that were operating in fiscal 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-59

B-59

year 2000 in four counties (San Joaquin, Orange, and San Diego counties in California, and 

Maricopa County in Arizona) if those schools and their LEAs meet certain requirements.

The Homeless Children and Youth Education program is a forward-funded program. Funds 

become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year for 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)

2009 .............................................................$65,427

Recovery Act..................................................70,000

2010 ...............................................................65,427

2011 ...............................................................65,296

2012 ...............................................................65,173 

2013 ...............................................................65,1731

_______________

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

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2014, the Administration requests $65.2 million for the Homeless Children and 

Youth Education program (which under current law is named the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program and is in the School Improvement Programs account), the same 

amount as the fiscal year 2012 level. The Administration is proposing to strengthen this program 

through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The fiscal 

year 2014 appropriation would fund the first year of operations of a reauthorized program, which 

would more directly target resources to homeless children and remove barriers to serving them 

effectively. Under the reauthorization proposal, program funds would be allocated to States 

based on the most recent State-reported data on the number of homeless children and youth 

rather than on State shares of ESEA Title I, Part A funds, a change that would help ensure that 

program funds flow to States on the basis of need. The proposal also would eliminate the 

exemption to the prohibition against operating separate schools for homeless youth; this change 

is needed because homeless students are unlikely to receive a high-quality education in a 

segregated environment and because of the stigma attached to groups of students placed in 

segregated schools. The proposal would also support efforts to improve and accelerate the 

identification of homeless students and would increase transparency by requiring States to 

report on academic outcomes for homeless students served by the program, including high 

school graduation and college enrollment rates.

This program is an important component of the national effort to end the cycle of homelessness. 

Homeless children face many barriers that impede their educational access and success, such 

as immunization, transportation, and guardianship needs. This program helps reduce and 

eliminate those barriers while providing homeless children access to academic services 

available to other children, including preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented 

programs, and career and technical education. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-60

B-60

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Amount for State grants $63,604 $63,562 $63,562

Average State award 1,223 1,222 1,222

Amount to Outlying Areas 65 65 65

Amount to BIE 652 652 652

National activities 852 894 894

_______________

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

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

program.

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate 

public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Homeless children and youth will have greater access to a free and appropriate 

public education.

Measure: The percentage of homeless children and youth, grades three through eight, included 

in statewide assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by LEA subgrantees.

In 2011, 98.5 percent of students identified as homeless at the time of State assessments were 

included in State assessments in reading, and 98.6 percent of such students were included in 

State assessments in mathematics.

Additional Information: For 2011, the Department developed a new method of calculating 

assessment participation rates of homeless students using different data elements in the 

Education Data Exchange Network. We believe this method produces more accurate and 

reliable results than the method used in prior years. Because, with this change, results are not 

comparable across years, we are providing participation rate data for 2011 only.

Data for this measure for 2012 will be available in the summer of 2013. 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-61

B-61

Measure: The percentage of assessed homeless students, grades three through eight, who 

meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and mathematics.

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

2009 55 50 55 50

2010 57 53 57 52

2011 60 51 60 51

2012 63 63

2013 66 66

2014 69 69

Source of data: Consolidated State Performance Reports

Additional Information: Data for this measure are reported only for LEAs receiving subgrants 

under the program. Beginning in 2009, the Department has directed States to report data based 

on whether homeless students were enrolled in LEAs with subgrants rather than whether the 

students were served by (but not necessarily enrolled in) such LEAs. Because student 

enrollment data are available for verification in State data systems, the Department believes that 

these data are the more reliable.

Data for this measure for 2012 will be available in the summer of 2013.

The Department has worked to improve performance and reporting for this and the preceding 

measure by requiring States to report on the measures through the Consolidated State 

Performance Report and the Education Data Exchange Network and by providing, together with 

the National Center for Homeless Education (the Department’s technical assistance contractor), 

a variety of guidance and technical assistance, including an annually updated Federal data 

collection guide for the program. The Department is also currently working with its Data Quality 

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

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 visits.

Year Target Actual

2009 40 26

2010 40 31

2011 40 35

2012 40 32

2013 40

2014 40

Additional Information: This measure provides information on monitoring visits to States 

conducted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. These visits cover the 

following Department formula grant programs: College- and Career-Ready Students, Neglected 
ACCELERATING ACHIEVEMENT AND ENSURING EQUITY

Homeless children and youth education

B-62

B-62

and Delinquent Children and Youth Education, Homeless Children and Youth Education, and 

Language Acquisition State Grants. In 2011, the Department’s monitoring effort focused on the 

School Turnaround Grants program in selecting States for monitoring and used different 

monitoring protocols.

Other Information

The Department initiated a national study of implementation of the Homeless Children and Youth 

Education program in the fall of 2010. The study will examine, at the State and local levels, 

program administration and use of funds, efforts to collect data on homeless students, policies to

remove barriers faced by homeless students, and coordination of services to homeless students. 

Results from the study are expected to be available in the summer of 2013.
B-63

B-63

State tables