Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language.............................................................................................................A-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes ..........................................................................A-4

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..................................................................................A-9

Summary of Changes ................................................................................................................A-10

Authorizing Legislation...............................................................................................................A-11

Appropriations History................................................................................................................A-12

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports................................................................A-14

Summary of Request .................................................................................................................A-15

Activities:

Grants to local education agencies .....................................................................................A-19

School improvement grants .................................................................................................A-33

Striving readers ....................................................................................................................A-43

State agency programs:

Migrant ...........................................................................................................................A-48

Neglected and delinquent ..............................................................................................A-54

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................A-60

Special programs for migrant students................................................................................A-65

State tables ................................................................................................................................A-74

*State tables reflecting 2015 allocations and 2016 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations Language

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

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

Act as ‘‘HEA’’), $15,536,107,000, of which $4,652,762,000 shall become available on July 1, 

2015, and shall remain available through September 30, 2016, and of which $10,841,177,000 

shall become available on October 1, 2015, and shall remain available through September 30, 

2016, for academic year 2015–2016:

1 Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be for basic grants 

under section 1124 of the ESEA:2 Provided further, That up to $3,984,000 of these funds shall 

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

2014, to obtain annually updated local educational agency-level census poverty data from the 

Bureau of the Census:3 Provided further, That $1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants 

under section 1124A of the ESEA:4 Provided further, That $3,294,050,000 shall be for targeted 

grants under section 1125 of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $3,294,050,000 shall be for 

education finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:6 Provided further, That 

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

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

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

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

pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act:7 Provided further, That $710,000 shall be to 

carry out sections 1501 and 1503 of the ESEA:8 Provided further, That $505,756,000 shall be 

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

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

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

agencies may use such funds to serve any school eligible to receive assistance under part A of 

title I that has not made adequate yearly progress for at least 2 years or is in the State’s lowest 

A-1
quintile of performance based on proficiency rates and, in the case of secondary schools, priority 

shall be given to those schools with graduation rates below 60 percent:9 Provided further, That 

notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, the Secretary may permit a State 

educational agency to establish an award period of up to 5 years for each participating local 

educational agency:10 Provided further, That funds available for school improvement grants for 

fiscal year 2014 and thereafter may be used by a local educational agency to implement a 

whole-school reform strategy for a school using an evidence-based strategy that ensures wholeschool reform is undertaken in partnership with a strategy developer offering a whole-school 

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

a statistically significant effect on student outcomes, including at least one well-designed or wellimplemented experimental or quasi-experimental study:11 Provided further, That funds available 

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

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

educational agency with the approval of the Secretary:12 Provided further, That a local 

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

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

model:13 Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(A), each State educational 

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

participating school applicable to such funds:14 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve 

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

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

improvement grants program:15 Provided further, That $160,000,000 shall be available under 

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

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

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

A-2
which one-half of 1 percent shall be reserved for the Secretary of the Interior for such a program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

agencies or, in the case of early literacy, to local educational agencies or other nonprofit 

providers of early childhood education that partner with a public or private nonprofit organization 

or agency with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving the early literacy 

development of children from birth through kindergarten entry and in providing professional 

development in early literacy, giving priority to such agencies or other entities serving greater 

numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children:16 Provided further, That the State 

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

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

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

an equitable distribution of funds between middle and high schools:17 Provided further, That 

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

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

professional development, screening and assessment, targeted interventions for students 

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

and practice:

18 Provided further, That $37,474,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the 

HEA.] $44,623,000.

19 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015.)

NOTES

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

authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is enacted, appropriations language for these 

programs will be proposed. 

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

Changes document which follows the appropriation language.

A-3
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 [...of which $4,652,762,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2015, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2016, and 

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

available on October 1, 2015, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2016, for academic year 2015–2016:]

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, School Improvement 

Grants, State Agency Migrant and Neglected 

and Delinquent, and Striving Readers 

programs. The language also provides that a 

portion of the funds is available in an 

advance appropriation that becomes 

available for obligation on October 1 of the 

following fiscal year.

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

for basic grants under section 1124 of the 

ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Basic Grants.

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

of these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title 

as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 2014, to obtain 

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

the Census:]

This language makes available, on a currentfunded basis, $3,984,000 from Basic Grant 

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

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

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

5 [...Provided further, That $3,294,050,000

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

6 [...Provided further, That $3,294,050,000 

shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.

A-4
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

7 [...Provided further, That funds available 

under sections 1124, 1124A, 1125 and 

1125A of the ESEA may be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under those sections, including supporting 

the liaison designated pursuant to section 

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

Homeless Assistance Act, and providing 

transportation pursuant to section 

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

This language allows funds under Title I 

Part A of the ESEA to be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under that program, including (1) supporting 

the local liaisons who are responsible for 

coordinating services to ensure that 

homeless children and youth enroll in school 

and have the opportunity to succeed 

academically under the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act; and (2) providing 

transportation as required under the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to 

permit homeless students to remain in their 

schools of origin despite their residential 

instability. 

8 [...Provided further, That $710,000 shall be 

to carry out sections 1501 and 1503 of the 

ESEA:]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Evaluation.

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

shall be available for school improvement 

grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, 

which shall be allocated by the Secretary 

through the formula described in section 

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

the requirements of section 1003(g), except 

that State and local educational agencies 

may use such funds to serve any school 

eligible to receive assistance under part A of 

title I that has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least 2 years or is in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based 

on proficiency rates and, in the case of 

secondary schools, priority shall be given to 

those schools with graduation rates below 

60 percent:]

This language expands eligibility for 

participation in the School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program to schools that are 

eligible for but do not receive Title I Part A 

funds and meet certain requirements. The 

language also establishes a priority for

secondary schools that have graduation rates 

below 60 percent.

A-5
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

10 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

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

Secretary may permit a State educational 

agency to establish an award period of up to 

5 years for each participating local 

educational agency:]

This language allows State educational 

agencies to make SIG awards of up to 

5 years to local educational agencies.

11 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants for fiscal year 

2014 and thereafter may be used by a local 

educational agency to implement a wholeschool reform strategy for a school using an 

evidence-based strategy that ensures wholeschool reform is undertaken in partnership 

with a strategy developer offering a wholeschool reform program that is based on at 

least a moderate level of evidence that the 

program will have a statistically significant 

effect on student outcomes, including at least

one well-designed or well-implemented 

experimental or quasi-experimental study:]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement, in 

partnership with a strategy developer, whole 

school reform strategies that meet specific 

standards of evidence of effectiveness.

12 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants may be used 

by a local educational agency to implement 

an alternative State-determined school 

improvement strategy that has been 

established by a State educational agency 

with the approval of the Secretary:]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement an 

alternative school improvement strategy that 

has been established by the State 

educational agency and approved by the 

Secretary.

13 [...Provided further, That a local 

educational agency that is determined to be 

eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of 

part B of title VI of the ESEA may modify not 

more than one element of a school 

improvement grant model:

This language allows local educational 

agencies that are eligible to receive funds 

and services under the Rural Education 

program to modify not more than one 

element of a SIG model.

14 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

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

agency may establish a maximum subgrant 

size of not more than $2,000,000 for each 

participating school applicable to such funds:]

This language overrides the statutory cap on 

the maximum per-school subgrant size for 

subgrants made by States under the SIG

program.

A-6
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

15 [...Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the funds available 

for section 1003(g) of the ESEA to carry out 

activities to build State and local educational 

agency capacity to implement effectively the 

school improvement grants program:]

This language authorizes the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of the funds 

appropriated for the SIG program for 

capacity-building.

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

shall be available under section 1502 of the 

ESEA for a comprehensive literacy 

development and education program to 

advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy 

skills, reading, and writing, for students from 

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

disabilities, of which one-half of 1 percent 

shall be reserved for the Secretary of the 

Interior for such a program at schools funded 

by the Bureau of Indian Education, one-half 

of 1 percent shall be reserved for grants to 

the outlying areas for such a program, up to 5 

percent may be reserved for national 

activities, and the remainder shall be used to 

award competitive grants to State educational 

agencies for such a program, of which a 

State educational agency may reserve up to 

5 percent for State leadership activities, 

including technical assistance and training, 

data collection, reporting, and administration, 

and shall subgrant not less than 95 percent 

to local educational agencies or, in the case 

of early literacy, to local educational agencies 

or other nonprofit providers of early childhood 

education that partner with a public or private 

nonprofit organization or agency with a 

demonstrated record of effectiveness in 

improving the early literacy development of 

children from birth through kindergarten entry 

and in providing professional development in 

early literacy, giving priority to such agencies 

or other entities serving greater numbers or 

percentages of disadvantaged children:]

This language provides funding for a Striving 

Readers program that serves students from 

birth through grade 12; provides a portion of 

the funds to the Department of 

Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and the 

Outlying Areas; establishes the amount the 

Department may reserve for national 

activities; and establishes the amount the 

Department must distribute through 

competitive awards to States. The language 

also specifies the amount of funds that States 

receiving competitive awards may reserve for 

State leadership activities and the amount of 

funds that they award through subgrants to 

local educational agencies or to nonprofit 

organizations that provide early childhood 

education services.

A-7
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

17 [...Provided further, That the State 

educational agency shall ensure that at least 

15 percent of the subgranted funds are used 

to serve children from birth through age 5, 

40 percent are used to serve students in 

kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent 

are used to serve students in middle and high 

school including an equitable distribution of 

funds between middle and high schools:]

This language establishes that States must 

use particular amounts of Striving Readers 

funds to support projects serving children in 

specific age groups or grades.

18 [...Provided further, That eligible entities 

receiving subgrants from State educational 

agencies shall use such funds for services 

and activities that have the characteristics of 

effective literacy instruction through 

professional development, screening and 

assessment, targeted interventions for 

students reading below grade level and other 

research-based methods of improving 

classroom instruction and practice:

This language establishes requirements for 

the types of activities that entities may 

conduct with their Striving Readers funds.

19 Provided further, That $37,474,000 shall be 

for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.]

$44,623,000.

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

A-8
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2014 2015 2016

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation .......................................................... $15,552,693 $15,536,107 $16,592,546

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year....................... -10,841,177 -10,841,177 -10,841,177

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

Total, budget authority....................................... 15,552,693 15,536,107 16,592,546

A-9
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2015..................................................................................................... $15,536,107

2016..................................................................................................... 16,592,546

Net change .................................................................. +1,056,439

Increases: 2015 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding for Title I Grants to LEAs to increase State 

and district capacity and support for statewide reforms. $14,409,802 +$1,000,000

Increase funding for School Improvement Grants for new 

grants to States based on their records of making subgrants to 

LEAs for evidence-based interventions; States would in turn 

use the funds for new subgrants for such interventions or for 

school closures. 505,756 +50,000

Increase funding for Special Programs for Migrant Students to 

expand the number of new High School Equivalency and 

College Assistance Migrant projects and increase the number 

of migrant individuals obtaining a high school equivalency 

certificate or completing their first year of postsecondary 

education. 37,474 +7,149

Subtotal, increases +1,057,149

Decreases:

Program:

Eliminate separate funding for Evaluation in favor of expanding 

the ESEA pooled evaluation authority first authorized in the 

fiscal year 2014 appropriations act for the Department of 

Education and continued in fiscal year 2015. 710 -710

Subtotal, decreases -710

Net change +1,056,439

A-10
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Request

Grants to local educational agencies (ESEA-1-A):

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

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

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

LEA grants formulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) (2) 3,294,050 (2) 3,794,050

LEA grants formulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (2) 3,294,050 (2) 3,794,050

School improvement grants (ESEA Section 1003(g)) 01 505,756 To be determined1 555,756

Striving Readers 01 160,000 To be determined 160,000

State agency programs:

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

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 01 47,614 To be determined1 47,614

Evaluation (ESEA I-E-1501 and 1503) 01 710 To be determined1 0

Special Programs for Migrant Students (Higher Education 

Act 418A) Indefinite 37,474 To be determined3 44,623

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total appropriation 15,536,107 16,592,546

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 15,498,633 16,592,546

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016. 2 Of the total funds appropriated for Grants to LEAs, an amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $7,397,690 thousand is to be distributed 

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

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

Congress specified the amounts to be distributed through each formula in the annual appropriations acts. 3 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2016.

A-11
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 15,683,649 N/A 915,875,231 315,552,693

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

2015 15,377,965 N/A 915,566,226 10 15,536,107

(2015 Advance for 2016) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2016 16,592,546

(2016 Advance for 2017)

_____________

(10,841,177)

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

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

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 6 The level for rescission reflects the continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322) passed December 22, 2010. 7 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 

A-12
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

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

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 9 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 10 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

A-13
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports

School Improvement Grants

Manager’s 

Statement: With regard to the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, the Department's 

proposed implementation of bill language that allows local educational agencies 

(LEAs) to implement a State-determined school improvement strategy falls short 

of Congressional intent. Several new bill language provisions provide flexibility 

from the existing prescriptive SIG requirements, so that LEAs will have the 

opportunity to implement alternative strategies beyond those previously required 

by the Department. However, the Department's Notice of Proposed Requirements 

would require a State-determined intervention strategy to be aligned with 

turnaround principles, as well as impose seven additional requirements on the 

State-determined strategy. The Department shall ensure that any Final 

Requirements for the SIG program strictly adhere to bill language which stipulates 

that LEAs may implement an alternative State-determined school improvement 

strategy that has been established by a State educational agency (SEA) with the 

approval of the Secretary. In addition, not later than 15 days prior to the 

publication of a Notice Inviting Applications to submit State-determined school 

improvement strategies, the Department shall brief the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on the Final Notice Inviting 

Applications.

Response: The Department continues to consult with the Committees and is taking steps to 

ensure that the final requirements for the SIG program, which we expect to 

publish by February 2015, are consistent with Congressional intent as described.

A-14A-14
ACCOUNT

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2016

Category 2014 2015 President's 

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Education for the Disadvantaged

 1. Grants to local educational agencies (ESEA I-A):

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 3,543,625 3,568,625 4,568,625 1,000,000 28.022%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 2,915,776 2,890,776 1,890,776 (1,000,000) -34.593%

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

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,362,301 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 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,281,550 3,294,050 3,794,050 500,000 15.179%

Subtotal 3,281,550 3,294,050 3,794,050 500,000 15.179%

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

Annual appropriation D 0 0 0 0 ---

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,281,550 3,294,050 3,794,050 500,000 15.179%

Subtotal 3,281,550 3,294,050 3,794,050 500,000 15.179%

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 14,384,802 14,409,802 15,409,802 1,000,000 6.940%

Annual appropriation D 3,543,625 3,568,625 4,568,625 1,000,000 28.022%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 0.000%

 2. School improvement grants (ESEA section 1003(g)): D 505,756 505,756 555,756 50,000 9.886%

 3. Striving readers (ESEA I-E, section 1502) D 158,000 160,000 160,000 0 0.000%

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

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2016 President's Budget 

Compared to 2015 Appropriation

A-15

A-15

A-15
ACCOUNT

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

Click here for accessible version 

Education for the Disadvantaged (continued)

 4. State agency programs:

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

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

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

 5. Evaluation (ESEA sections 1501 and 1503) D 880 710 0 (710) -100.000%

 6. Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 34,623 37,474 44,623 7,149 19.077%

 7. High school graduation initiative (ESEA I-H) D 46,267 0 0 0 ---

 Total, Appropriation D 15,552,693 15,536,107 16,592,546 1,056,439 6.800%

Total, Budget authority D 15,552,693 15,536,107 16,592,546 1,056,439 6.800%

Current 4,711,516 4,694,930 5,751,369 1,056,439 22.502%

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

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

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

A-16

A-16

A-16
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Request

The programs in the Education for the Disadvantaged account provide the foundation for school 

improvement efforts needed to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education. The 

Administration is requesting a total of $16.6 billion in fiscal year 2016 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 $15.4 billion request ($1 billion more than the 2015 level) for Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies (LEAs) would provide support to States and districts to increase their 

capacity to implement key reforms. The increase also recognizes the challenges that States, 

school districts, and schools have faced in recent years in ensuring that an increasing number of 

students served under the program meet challenging new college- and career-ready standards 

(CCR). In addition, the request would build State capacity, through an increase in the State-level 

set-aside of Title I funds from 1 percent to 3 percent, to lead critical reforms, primarily under the 

ESEA flexibility requests that more than 40 States are implementing in the areas of CCR 

standards and aligned assessments, rigorous systems of differentiated accountability and 

support for low-performing schools, and educator evaluation systems. Finally, the request 

includes an Equity and Outcomes Pilot that would allow up to 10 districts to use Title I and other 

Federal formula funds more flexibly at the district level to support comprehensive, evidencebased plans to improve achievement and outcomes for their lowest-achieving students in their 

high-poverty schools. In exchange for this flexibility, districts would have to demonstrate that 

they are equitably distributing State, local, and Federal dollars—based on actual expenditures—

to their highest poverty schools. 

The 2016 request also includes $555.8 million for School Improvement Grants, which primarily 

provides formula funding to States to assist LEAs in implementing rigorous intervention models 

in schools that, in general: (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. Formula funds would be used by States primarily to continue subgrants made under 

new program requirements which, among other things, allow LEAs to implement intervention 

models beyond those currently authorized, including evidence-based whole-school reform 

models, a State-determined model approved by the Department, and models that include a 

focus on early learning. The request for School Improvement Grants also includes $50 million in 

new competitive funding that would be awarded to States based on their records of making 

subgrants to LEAs for evidence-based interventions, and States would in turn use the funds for 

new subgrants for such interventions or for school closures.

The $160.0 million request for Striving Readers would support grants to LEAs to provide 

targeted, evidence-based literacy intervention for children from birth through grade 8. Grantees 

would implement interventions to increase student literacy achievement in high-need schools in 

at least two grades, based on a required needs assessment.

The request for Special Programs for Migrant Students provides a $7.1 million increase for the 

program in recognition of strong program performance supported by improvements in the areas 

of data quality and program management over the past several years. The increase would not 

only support a larger number of new grant awards for two successful programs but also would 

allow the Department to bring parity to the base amount of funds used for each program. 

A-17
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Request - continued

The request would fund the other programs in this account at the same level as in 2015, 

providing $374.8 million for the State agency Migrant program and $47.6 million for the State 

agency Neglected and Delinquent program.

A-18

A-18
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Activities:

Grants to local education agencies

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority: Activity and period of fund availability

2015 2016 Change

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

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

Targeted grants 3,294,050 3,294,050 +$500,000

Education finance incentive grants 3,294,050 3,294,050 +500,000

Total 14,409,802 15,409,802 0

Annual appropriation 3,568,625 4,568,625 +1,000,000

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 10,841,177 10,841,177 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

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 23.8 million students in 84 percent of school 

districts and more than half of all public schoolsincluding 68 percent of the Nation’s 

elementary schools. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (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: a “targeted assistance” model that supplements the regular education 

program for individual children deemed most in need of special assistance, or a “schoolwide” 

model that allows schools to use Title I fundsin combination with other Federal, State, and 

local fundsto improve the overall instructional program for all children in a school. Schools in 

which poor children account for at least 40 percent of enrollment are eligible to operate 

schoolwide programs, and in the 2012-2013 school year States reported that 40,632 schools, or 

74 percent of all Title I schools, operated these programs, which accounted for approximately 

94 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 

A-19
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

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 provide the foundation for the ESEA’s accountability system, which

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

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

STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

Under Title I, each State is required to have 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.

States are also required to have 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 State Assessments in the School Improvement Programs account).

States must administer their reading and mathematics assessments annually to all students in 

grades 3-8 and once in high school. States also are required to assess annually the English 

proficiency of English Learner (EL) students, while science assessments must be administered 

annually 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.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Under the statute, State assessments are used to hold LEAs and schools accountable for 

making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward State standards for proficiency in reading and 

math, with the goal of ensuring that all students are proficient in both subjects by the end of the 

2013-2014 school year. For a school to make AYP, all students, including those in statutorily 

specified 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. However, the Department has taken a number of actions, most recently 

through ESEA Flexibility, to give States additional flexibility regarding AYP determinations, in 

A-20

A-20
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

part because such determinations are no longer meaningful when 100 percent of students must 

be proficient to make AYP.

Similarly, the statutory Title I accountability and school improvement provisions, which require 

rigidly escalating improvement measures over time for schools that continue to miss AYP 

targets, have become increasingly unworkable because they no longer differentiate meaningfully 

between schools that miss performance targets in one or two areas (e.g., one subject, grade, or 

subgroup) and those that miss AYP for nearly all subjects, grades, and subgroups. It makes 

little sense to subject both sets of schools to the same restructuring requirements (the final stage 

of improvement), yet that is the reality under NCLB for any school that consistently misses AYP, 

whether by an inch or by a mile. Moreover, none of the three stages of improvement under 

NCLB—improvement, corrective action, or restructuring—have demonstrated much success in 

turning around low-performing schools. Similarly the public school choice and supplemental 

educational services (SES), or tutoring, options provided to certain students in schools identified 

for improvement under NCLB have not proven effective, with few students taking advantage of 

choice options and few students seeing achievement gains following participation in SES. 

States also have struggled to use the required 4 percent reservation for school improvement 

effectively, particularly as the rapidly growing number of identified schools in recent years 

encouraged States to spread available funds thinly across many LEAs and schools.

HQT REQUIREMENTS

The highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirements of NCLB also are increasingly outdated and 

obsolete. Since the 2002-2003 school year, all newly hired teachers must be certified by the 

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

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

teachers were required to meet similar requirements. However, nearly all States have reported 

very high percentages of teachers (e.g., 98 percent) as highly qualified for the past several 

years, with little if any impact on student achievement.

ESEA FLEXIBILITY

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

modification to reflect State progress in implementing the law or new evidence about what works 

and what does not in State and local education reform policies. For example, the 2014 deadline 

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

mathematics meant that States would have been forced to identify nearly all of their Title I 

schools as missing adequate yearly progress targets and take punitive action under the law’s 

school improvement designations. In addition, by 2011, 45 States and DC were engaged in 

transitioning to “next-generation accountability systems” based on college- and career-ready 

academic standards, new assessments aligned with those standards, differentiated approaches 

to LEA and school accountability that target 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 challenges, and to support action already underway in many of the 

States, in September 2011, the Administration invited all States to request “ESEA flexibility,” 

which offers States voluntary waivers of key provisions of current law in exchange for a 

A-21

A-21
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

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

and improve the quality of instruction. States seeking ESEA flexibility were required to 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 highperforming 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.

As of January 2015, 42 States, D.C., and Puerto Rico are approved for ESEA flexibility. Thirtyfour of the approved States and D.C. 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 while the remaining States began implementation in the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 

school year. Waivers for all States currently approved for ESEA flexibility, other than Illinois, will 

expire at the end of the 2014-2015 school year, and the Department will begin processing 

requests in early 2015 for renewal of previously approved ESEA flexibility requests for up to an 

additional 4 years. Additional information on ESEA flexibility is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.

ALLOCATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

neglected and delinquent (N&D) 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 

A-22

A-22
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

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 2014 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2012. The 

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

(approximately $4.0 million) 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:

(dollars in thousands)

Year Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education Finance 

Incentive Grants

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

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

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

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

2015 ....................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,294,050 3,294,050

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is seeking an increase of $1 billion (for a total of $15.4 billion) for Title I 

Grants to Local Educational Agencies in fiscal year 2016, or almost 7 percent over the 2015 

level of $14.4 billion. In its first 6 years, this Administration emphasized the importance of 

A-23

A-23
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

competitive funding as a driver of systemic change, while at the same time supporting significant 

funding for Title I. Today, because of the partnership among districts, States, and the Federal 

Government, States across the Nation are pursuing important and difficult efforts to lift 

standards, support teachers, strengthen student assessments, and improve low-performing 

schools. These efforts require new resources across the Nation. 

STRENGTHENING STATE CAPACITY

The request also includes changes designed to strengthen the Title I program. In particular, the 

Administration will seek appropriations language that would permit States to reserve up to 

3 percent of their Title I, Part A allocations for State-level support of such activities as: 

(1) implementing rigorous standards and high-quality assessments, including 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; 

and (5) carrying out effective family engagement strategies. 

While most States approved for ESEA flexibility have made good progress in implementing their 

reform plans, their efforts have also highlighted the need for increased State capacity in key 

areas. For example, full and effective implementation of college- and career-ready standards 

and aligned assessments requires substantial support and intensive professional development 

for teachers and school leaders, who often report that they feel unprepared to teach to the new 

standards. States and districts are working to use new teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems to identify and provide the resources and assistance educators need to ensure 

that students are learning to high standards, but this is hard work that requires constant 

adjustment and improvement. States and LEAs also need to build capacity in the area of school 

turnaround, including the identification and recruitment of principals ready to handle the specific 

challenges of running a turnaround school, the use of data systems to measure and guide 

turnaround efforts, and effective use of expanded learning time. States and LEAs can address 

some of these challenges by redirecting and improving the use of existing Federal, State, and 

local resources, but there also is a need for new funding to fill gaps in services and to provide 

support for the growing numbers of educationally disadvantaged students struggling to meet 

college- and career-ready standards.

EQUITY IN STATE AND LOCAL ALLOCATIONS

Improving equity in the distribution of education funding has been an important goal of Title I 

since it was first authorized in 1965. Research has consistently shown that districts with high 

concentrations of poverty face unique challenges in enabling all their children to succeed. For 

this reason, Title I provides additional funding targeted to high-poverty districts. 

Title I funds are intended to add to an equitable base of State and local education funding for all 

public schools, including high-poverty schools. However, the effectiveness of the “comparability” 

requirement that is intended to ensure an equitable base of State and local funding is often 

undermined by the statutory exclusion of salary differentials based on years of employment in 

calculating personnel expenditures. Research has consistently shown that this exception allows 

districts to meet the Title I comparability requirement while providing a lower level of State and 

A-24

A-24
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

local resources—as measured by actual expenditures—to high-poverty schools than to lowpoverty schools. To end this inequity, the Administration proposes that Title I districts be 

required to ensure that each of their high-poverty schools receive per pupil State and local 

funding (based on actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures) at least equal to the 

average per-pupil amount provided to their low poverty schools. Districts would implement this 

change over a multi-year period. 

EQUITY AND OUTCOMES PILOTS

Finally, to promote further a more equitable distribution of education resources as well as more 

effective uses of formula funds, the Administration will seek appropriations language to establish 

an Equity and Outcomes Pilot for up to 10 school districts. Districts that demonstrate fairness in 

the distribution of real dollars across schools would receive relief from fiscal and reporting 

requirements that can impede innovation in improving student outcomes. This will allow districts 

to focus their funding decisions on whether their efforts are closing achievement gaps and 

improving outcomes in high-poverty schools, rather than being driven by fiscal and other 

reporting requirements. 

Participating districts would be required to demonstrate a commitment to equitably distribute 

dollars to their highest poverty schools, by showing that each Title I school receives $X more per 

student than the average per pupil expenditures in non-Title I schools, where X is the school’s 

Title I, Part A allocation divided by the number of students enrolled in the school. In effect, this 

test would require early adoption of the new, strengthened comparability requirement described 

above for State and local dollars, which would otherwise be phased in. In exchange, 

participating districts would receive broad flexibility from fiscal requirements, including a 

supplement-not-supplant requirement, for all of their schools, and could combine all sources of 

Federal formula funds to support a districtwide plan focused on improving outcomes for their 

lowest-achieving students. In addition, participating districts could request waivers of monitoring 

and reporting requirements that they believe interfere with their ability to promote improved 

student outcomes. This proposal is designed to incentivize and reward equity in the allocation of 

State and local education resources, and to respond to research suggesting that existing, 

complex fiscal and use-of-funds requirements encourages a “compliance culture” that can inhibit 

local flexibility and innovation.

For example, in many districts the majority of Title I funds are used for the same activities each 

year, in part because such expenditures may be easily tracked for accounting purposes and 

because they have been approved by auditors in the past, and not necessarily because the 

spending is part of a comprehensive plan to meet the educational needs of the lowest-achieving 

students Title I is intended to serve. Equity and Outcomes Pilots would allow district leaders 

who are committed to equity to focus on student outcomes by identifying and implementing 

evidence-based interventions in response to the needs of students rather than auditors. Pilot 

participants would identify, collect, and annually report on a robust range of performance 

measures linked to key student outcomes, such as student achievement and academic growth, 

closing achievement gaps, and high school graduation rates. Participating districts would also 

have the capacity to link these outcomes to expenditures at the school level to ensure their 

investments are serving the lowest-achieving students effectively. 

 

A-25

A-25
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Districts that are selected to participate in the Equity and Outcomes Pilot would receive priority in 

the proposed Leveraging What Works competition, described in the Innovation and 

Improvement account, to accelerate implementation of evidence-based approaches that improve 

educational outcomes.

A-26

A-26
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands, except whole dollar 

per-child amounts)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

# of LEAs 4,862 4,828 4,828

0-15% Dollars $1,733,738 $1,798,413 $1,922,597

0-15% %% of Total $ 12.28 12.71 12.70

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,719,237 1,741,709 1,741,709

0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,008 $1,033 $1,104

15-25%

# of LEAs 4,655 4,583 4,583

15-25% Dollars $3,910,215 $3,966,782 $4,235,526

15-25% % of Total $ 27.71 28.04 27.99

15-25# of Formula Eligible Children 3,492,301 3,487,419 3,487,419

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,120 $1,137 $1,215

>25% 

# of LEAs 3,617 3,666 3,666

>25% Dollars $8,469,898 $8,378,908 $8,974,861

>25% % of Total $ 60.01 59.23 59.31

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 6,465,162 6,316,938 6,316,938

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,310 $1,326 $1,421

LEA Allocation Subtotal $14,113,851 $14,144,103 $15,132,984

BIA/Outlying Areas 143,808 144,058 154,058

N&D program (Part D, Subpart 2) 123,159 117,657 118,776

Census Updates 3,984 3,984 3,984

Grants to LEAs Total 14,384,802 14,409,802 15,409,802

Number of Schools receiving Title I 

funds:

Students Schoolwide programs 40,632 40,632 40,632

Targeted assistance programs 14,077 14,077 14,077

Total 54,709 54,709 54,709

Number of Students served (in 

millions):

StudentsSchoolwide programs 22.4 22.4 22.4

StudentsTargeted assistance programs 1.2 1.2 1.2

StudentsNon-public and N&D programs 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total 23.8 23.8 23.8

 Note: Descriptive data related to number of schools receiving Title I funds are from the 2012-13 school year 

Common Core of Data (CCD). Data on Title I status for NY are from the 2011-12 school year. Descriptive data 

related to numbers of students served are from the Consolidated State Performance Report (school year 2012-13).

A-27

A-27
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

revisions to the measures in the context of ESEA flexibility.

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

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

mathematics.

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

proficient or advanced levels on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2011 83.2% 61.3%

2012 88.8 59.7

2013 94.4 54.5

2014 100.0

2015 100.0

2016 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2013 show that the average proficiency rate in 

reading/language arts for economically disadvantaged students has continued to decline from 

the previous years. At this rate, less than half of economically disadvantaged students will be 

proficient in reading in 2014, well short of the ESEA’s current goal of 100 percent proficiency. 

The Department will support States in adjusting or replacing future years’ targets, as the more 

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

support under ESEA flexibility transition to more rigorous standards and assessments.

A-28

A-28
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

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

2011 82.1% 61.1%

2012 88.1 58.0

2013 94.0 51.9

2014 100.0

2015 100.0

2016 100.0

Additional information: Assessment data for 2013 show that the average proficiency rate in 

mathematics for economically disadvantaged students has continued to decline from previous 

years. At this rate, less than half of economically disadvantaged students will be proficient in 

mathematics in 2014, well short of the ESEA’s current goal of 100 percent proficiency. The 

Department will support States in adjusting or replacing future years’ targets, as the more than 

40 States implementing new systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 

under ESEA flexibility transition to more rigorous standards and assessments.

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

2011 4.9% 10.7%

2012 3.3 10.6

2013 1.6 11.1

2014 0.0

2015 0.0

2016 0.0

Additional information: The 2013 results show that the reading achievement gap is not on 

track to elimination by 2014, the year by which the current ESEA calls for all student groups to 

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

support States in adjusting or replacing future years’ targets, as the more than 40 States 

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

flexibility transition to more rigorous standards and assessments.

A-29

A-29
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

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

2011 4.8% 9.9%

2012 3.2 10.2

2013 1.6 11.0

2014 0.0

2015 0.0

2016 0.0

Additional information: The 2013 results show that the mathematics gap continues to rise, all 

but ensuring the existence of a gap in 2014, the year by which the ESEA calls for all student 

groups to be proficient in math (thus reducing the gap to zero). The Department will support 

States in adjusting or replacing future years’ targets, as the more than 40 States implementing 

new systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support under ESEA flexibility

transition to more rigorous standards and assessments.

Efficiency Measure

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

completion of a site visit.

Year

Target

Number of Days

Actual

Number of Days

2011 40.0 35.2

2012 40.0 32.3

2013 40.0 57.3

2014 40.0

2015 40.0

2016 40.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States. The Department will revise targets for future years once this transition is complete.

A-30

A-30
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2012-2013 school year, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the 

Title I program served approximately 23.8 million students, or about 47 percent of the total 

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

population, is displayed in the tables below.

2012-2013 School Year

Student Group

# of Students, 

All Schools

# of Students, 

Title I Schools

% of students 

served by Title I

All 50,205,727 23,575,543 47%

American Indian 533,409 326,493 61

Asian/Pacific Islander 2,543,466 949,986 37

Black 7,798,620 5,141,834 66

Hispanic 12,498,176 8,604,609 69

White 25,367,182 7,967,842 31

Two or More Races 1,390,514 584,7779 42

Economically 

disadvantaged 25,587,412 16,931,250 66

English Learners 4,854,470 3,657,969 75

Students with disabilities 6,893,085 3,126,309 45

Additional information: 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 20,480 schools where between 81 and 100 percent of the student population qualify 

for free or reduced-price lunch; 87 percent of those schools are served by Title I. Descriptive 

data related to counts of students from all schools are from the CCD, 2012-13 school year. 

Descriptive data related to counts of students in Title I Schools are from the Consolidated State 

Performance Report, 2012-13 school year. Total counts of students in Title I schools do not 

include students in non-public or Neglected and Delinquent programs.

2012-2013 School Year

Concentration ranges 

of students eligible for

free and reduced-price 

lunch 

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

0-20% 13,688 3,081 23%

21-40% 18,014 5,842 32

41-60% 22,401 12,248 55

61-80% 20,634 15,194 74

81-100% 20,480 17,724 87

A-31

A-31
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Additional information: Descriptive data related to the number of schools receiving Title I 

funds are from the CCD, 2012-13 school year. Data on Title I status for NY are from the 2011-

12 school year.

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 

became 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 IXAccountability 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.

ESEA Flexibility Analysis

The Department also supports the development of State profiles, which are data analyses of 

States’ accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. The profiles examine the characteristics of 

schools identified by each SEA’s differentiated accountability system for the 2012-13 and 2013-

14 school years, including the performance of all students and all subgroups based on, 

respectively, 2011-12 and 2012-13 student achievement and graduation rate data. The profiles 

are one tool that States can use to support continuous improvement, analyze whether their 

identification systems capture the lowest-performing schools and subgroups, and also will be 

used to provide greater public transparency around accountability systems under ESEA 

flexibility.

The Department released State profiles to 19 States, with 23 more profiles to be distributed by 

the end of February, 2015. Following a State review period, the Department will post the profiles 

on its Web site by March 2015.

A-32

A-32
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$505,756 $555,756 +$50,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 1003(g) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) authorizes the 

Department to award grants 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. In making subgrants, SEAs must give priority 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. SEAs may use up to 5 percent of their School Improvement Grant (SIG) allocations for 

administration, evaluation, and technical assistance activities. 

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

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

SIG program effectively.

NEW SIG PROVISIONS IN FY 2014 AND 2015 APPROPRIATIONS ACTS

Through the fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations acts, Congress made certain changes to 

the SIG program to encourage the adoption of evidence-based models for school improvement 

and to increase flexibility for SEAs and LEAs. Specifically, the acts allow an LEA to use SIG 

funds to implement (in addition to the four intervention models in current requirements described 

in more detail below): (1) a whole-school reform strategy in partnership with a strategy developer 

for which there is at least moderate evidence of effectiveness; or (2) an alternative Statedetermined school improvement strategy established by the SEA and approved by the 

Department. The appropriations acts also allow an LEA that is eligible for assistance under the 

Rural Education Achievement programs to modify one element of a SIG intervention model. In 

addition, they allow an SEA to establish an award period for its LEAs receiving SIG funds of up 

to 5 years. In September 2014, the Department proposed new requirements to implement the 

appropriations provisions, allow an additional intervention model designed to improve student 

outcomes by offering a high-quality preschool program and full-day kindergarten as part of an 

A-33
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

integrated school turnaround strategy, and make other changes reflecting lessons learned from 

5 years of SIG implementation under the current requirements (79 FR 53254). 

The Department expects to publish final requirements by February 2015. In these final 

requirements, the Department intends to make two changes from the proposed requirements 

based on language in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill enacted in December 2014 and the 

accompanying Manager’s Statement. First, the Department will align the requirement for 

evidence of effectiveness in the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the definition 

of “moderate level of evidence” in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations 

(EDGAR), specifically by requiring that evidence of effectiveness include at least one study that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards, rather than two such studies. 

Second, the Department will provide more flexibility under the alternative State-determined 

model by requiring that an SEA’s proposed model meet the definition of “whole-school reform 

model,” rather than meet the turnaround principles under ESEA flexibility and include increased 

learning time.

2010 REQUIREMENTS

Congress first funded the SIG 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. The current SIG requirements, issued in final form in October 2010 (75 FR 66363), 

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 lowestachieving schools, including a significant number of high schools with graduation rates below 

60 percent over a number of years. 

DEFINING GREATEST NEED

A key purpose of the 2010 requirements was to establish criteria for SEAs to use in 

implementing the statutory priorities for 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 adequate resources to enable the lowest-performing schools to raise substantially the 

achievement of their students. To drive school improvement funds to LEAs with the greatest 

need, the SIG requirements incorporated the 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 

A-34

A-34
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

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 2010 requirements 

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 requirements, States have 

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 either 

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

(2) have graduation rates below 60 percent.

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

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

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

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

not in Tier I.

The 2010 requirements also incorporated 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 adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at least 2 years, or (2) are in the State’s 

lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates. An SEA that chooses to add schools 

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

school it adds 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 SEAs 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

SEAs 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 2010 requirements defined “strongest commitment” as a 

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

four school intervention models in each of its Tier I and Tier II schools. As discussed above, in 

September 2014, the Department proposed new requirements that would define “strongest 

commitment” as a commitment by an LEA to use SIG funds to implement in these schools, in 

addition to any one of these four intervention models, an evidence-based whole-school reform 

strategy, an alternative State-determined model, or an early learning model.

A-35

A-35
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

The school intervention models in the 2010 requirements were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigorous review process.

•

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

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

lowest-performing schools, including developing and increasing teacher and school leader 

effectiveness (including by replacing the principal), comprehensive instructional reform 

strategies, increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools, and providing 

operational flexibility and sustained support.

AWARDING SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS TO LEAS

In awarding a SIG grant 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, as well as for any participating Tier III schools the LEA seeks to serve. Further, 

an SEA must award funds for each Tier I and Tier II school that its LEA applies for and has the 

capacity to serve before it awards funding to LEAs to serve Tier III schools. LEAs may receive 

up to $2 million annually for each school it will serve with SIG funds; implementing the School 

Closure model generally requires only modest funding (e.g., $50,000 to $100,000) and is 

implemented in just 1 year. 

LEAs receiving SIG grants must establish annual goals, subject to SEA approval, for student 

achievement and must report progress on certain leading indicators for their Tier I and Tier II 

schools. Tier III schools must meet goals established by the LEA and approved by the SEA; for 

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

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

these goals prior to renewing an LEA’s SIG award.

SIG UNDER ESEA FLEXIBILITY

Through ESEA flexibility, the Department has provided 42 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico with flexibility from key requirements of the ESEA in exchange for implementing 

rigorous reforms designed to increase academic achievement and improve teaching for all 

students. Among other commitments an SEA must make, an SEA with ESEA flexibility must 

commit to identifying a group of low-achieving schools as “priority schools” and to ensuring that 

their LEAs implement rigorous interventions in those schools. Both the schools that are 

A-36

A-36
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

identified as priority schools and the interventions they must implement are closely aligned with 

the SIG program. In particular, a priority school must be: (1) a Title I school in the State’s bottom 

five percent based on academic achievement; (2) a SIG-served Tier I or Tier II school; or (3) a 

Title I-participating or Title I-eligible secondary school that has had a graduation rate less than 

60 percent over a number of years. The interventions a priority school must implement are 

closely aligned with the transformation model, but include some additional flexibility (for example, 

under specific circumstances and after SEA review, the school may not be required to replace 

the principal). 

In recognition of the close relationship between priority schools in ESEA flexibility and SIG, the 

Department has granted a waiver to a number of SEAs that are implementing ESEA flexibility to 

allow them to replace their lists of SIG Tier I, II, and III schools, for the purpose of making new 

SIG awards, with their lists of priority schools under ESEA flexibility and to provide funds to LEAs 

to carry out one of the SIG intervention models in those schools. The proposed requirements 

that were issued in September 2014 would also require an SEA with ESEA flexibility to use its 

lists of priority and focus schools (generally, schools with the largest achievement gaps) as its 

list of SIG-eligible schools. 

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

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

year.

Funding levels for the program for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011 ...........................................................$534,562

2012 .............................................................533,552

2013 .............................................................505,756 

2014 .............................................................505,756

2015 .............................................................505,756

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $555.8 million for School Improvement Grants in fiscal year 2016, 

an increase of $50 million over the fiscal year 2015 level. The additional funds would support 

new competitive grants that build on Congress’s support for the use of evidence-based 

interventions in the SIG program. Specifically, the Department would award additional funds to 

SEAs based on the extent to which they have made or are making SIG subgrants to LEAs to 

support implementation of strategies that fit within the tiered evidence framework in EDGAR. 

This framework has four tiers of evidence: strong evidence of effectiveness, moderate evidence 

of effectiveness, evidence of promise, and the high potential of effectiveness as reflected in a 

strong theory. The Department would give priority to SEAs supporting strategies with at least 

moderate evidence of effectiveness, and, in particular, evidence-based whole-school reform 

models as authorized by Congress. SEAs would use their awards to make new subgrants to 

LEAs to implement these strategies or school closures in their lowest-achieving schools. The 

A-37

A-37
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

Department would also give priority to SEAs that seek funds to serve high schools with 

persistently low graduation rates.

The Administration’s support for evidence-based interventions in SIG reflects a larger 

commitment to evidence-based policymaking across the President’s Budget. In the context of 

SIG, the record is now clear that some approaches work better than others. SIG funds can 

support, for example, reforms demonstrated to have positive impacts through research that 

meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards, including the KIPP charter schools1 in 

Memphis and New Orleans, the small schools of choice2 created in New York City and 

elsewhere, and the Success for All reform model.3 The purpose of the competitive add-on is to

further encourage the use of these effective methods, with both existing and new funding.

The request also includes $505.8 million, the same as the 2015 level, for the State formula grant 

program. These formula grants continue to play a critical role in efforts to implement rigorous 

interventions in the Nation’s lowest-performing schools. Funds would be used by SEAs primarily 

to continue subgrants made with fiscal year 2014 or 2015 funds under new program 

requirements consistent with the fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations acts.

The Department would continue to use up to 5 percent of SIG formula grant funds to support a 

range of national activities to improve State and local capacity to implement the program. For 

example, the Department may use a portion of fiscal year 2016 national activities funds to make 

new awards under the Turnaround School Leaders program, which the Department initiated in 

2014 using fiscal year 2013 SIG national activities funds and which provides 3-year grants to 

LEAs to help ensure that leaders of schools eligible for or receiving SIG funds possess the 

specialized skills needed to drive successful efforts to turn those schools around. The 

Department may also use a portion of the national activities funds to support rapid-cycle 

evaluation to determine the effectiveness of low-cost, technology-based interventions, such as 

the use of text messages designed to increase parent engagement and student achievement by 

notifying parents about their students’ attendance patterns or school assignments.

1 Tuttle, C. C., Gill, B., Gleason, P., Knechtel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., & Resch, A. (2013). KIPP middle 

schools: Impacts on achievement and other outcomes, final report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research.

2 Howard S. Bloom, Saskia Levy Thompson, Rebecca Unterman. "Transforming the High School 

Experience: How New York City’s New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation 

Rates." New York, NY: MDRC, June 2010.

3 Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2006). Final 

reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. Retrieved from Success for All 

website: http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/Third_Year_Results_06.doc.

A-38

A-38

 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

State Formula Grants

Amount to States $475,958 $475,958 $475,958

Range of State awards 1,093-59,959 1,096-59,464 1,104-59,274

Average State award 9,153 9,153 9,153

Amount to BIE 3,091 3,187 3,200

Amount to Outlying Areas 1,419 1,323 1,329

Evidence-Based Competitive 

Grants

Amount for awards 0 0 $49,500

Number of awards 0 0 5

Peer review of new award 

applications

0 0 $500

National activities $25,288 $25,288 $25,288

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The regulatory requirements for the SIG program include reporting metrics intended to help the 

Department, States, and LEAs evaluate the effectiveness of the required interventions and to

inform technical assistance activities. States must report to the Department on the LEAs that 

received SIG awards, the size of the awards, and the schools served by each LEA with SIG 

funds (including the level of support provided to each participating school). States also must 

report certain school-level information for each Tier I or Tier II school that is served with SIG 

funds, such as the intervention implemented in the school, student achievement levels, 

graduation and dropout rates, and data on teacher performance and school climate. The 

Department collects these data through its EDFacts system.

NUMBERS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS ELIGIBLE FOR AND RECEIVING SIG 

GRANTS

In May 2011, the Department published “Baseline Analyses of SIG Applications and 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, in the fiscal year 2009 SIG competitions, States funded 514 Tier I 

schools, 312 Tier II schools, and 402 Tier III schools. Of the total of 1,228 schools served, 

A-39

A-39
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

32 percent were elementary schools, 22 percent were middle schools, 40 percent were high 

schools, and 5 percent were “non-standard.” States made just over half of SIG awards to urban 

schools, about one-quarter to suburban schools, and about one-quarter to rural schools. High 

schools were particularly likely to be funded, receiving 40 percent of SIG awards while 

constituting just 19 percent of eligible schools. Rural schools also competed successfully, 

receiving almost a quarter of awards despite constituting only one-fifth of eligible schools. The 

following table compares SIG-eligible and SIG-awarded schools by grade range and school 

locale:

Comparison of FY 2009 SIG-Eligible and SIG-Awarded Schools

by School Level and Locale

Grade range SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Elementary 55.3% 32.2%

Middle 20.1% 22.1%

High 19.1% 40.4%

Non-standard 5.5% 5.2%

Locale Type SIG-eligible schools SIG-awarded schools

Central City 44.9% 52.5%

Urban Fringe 35.2% 24.3%

Rural 19.9% 23.2%

Other key findings of the SIG Baseline Study include the following:

• Nearly three-quarters (603 schools) of SIG-awarded Tier I and Tier II schools implemented 

the transformation model, while 20 percent (168 schools) implemented the turnaround 

model. Just 33 schools, or 4 percent, implemented the restart model and 16 schools, or 2 

percent, implemented 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 

A-40

A-40
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

competitions was $2.84 million, an increase of $300,000 over the average for the first cohort; the 

average award among Tier III schools saw a similar increase, from $520,000 for the first cohort 

to $810,000 for the second.

In addition to the combined 1,303 Tier I and II schools served in the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 

competitions, States reported awarding new grants to about 500 Tier I, Tier II, or priority schools 

in their 2011, 2012, and 2013 competitions. Consequently, as of the 2014-2015 school year, 

approximately 1,800 of the Nation’s lowest-achieving schools that have implemented or are 

implementing rigorous interventions with the support of SIG funds.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SIG GRANTS

In November 2014, the Department began publishing, at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigprofiles/index.html, a set of quick-release profiles designed 

to accelerate dissemination of promising practices in the school turnaround field. These profiles 

are informed by interviews of selected States, LEAs, and schools receiving SIG funds and 

analyses of implementation data and address topics such as turnaround leadership, data-based 

decision-making, school climate, community engagement, and capacity building. A profile of Kit 

Carson International Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada, for instance, showed that efforts to 

increase learning time and make strategic improvements in literacy instruction have contributed 

to a 30 percentage point increase in proficiency on State reading assessments for the school 

over just 3 years. Remaining profiles are expected to be released on a rolling basis through 

April 2015.

The Department is also conducting a series of more detailed case studies of SIG 

implementation. The studies are designed to provide descriptively rich information on a carefully 

selected sample of 25 schools that began implementing SIG interventions in the 2010-2011 

school year. A report with initial findings from the schools’ first implementation year was 

published in May 2014 and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/pdf/20144015.pdf. This report showed that the schools for 

which respondents described improvements in the greatest number of areas had higher levels of 

principal strategic leadership (referring to the ability of principals to formulate a strategy for 

school improvement and translate that strategy into concrete priorities and specific actions) and 

were more likely to have experienced a disruption from past practices (defined as visible 

changes on at least four of eight indicators relating to school operation); however, for most of the 

schools, respondents did not perceive their SIG grant as the primary impetus for the change 

strategies that had been adopted. In addition, the report found that the three improvement 

actions noted by respondents in the greatest number of schools were expanding professional 

development activities, replacing the principal, and increasing learning time.

The Department also released, in April 2014, two evaluation briefs focusing on case study 

schools that are rural or that serve high percentages of English learners. The brief on rural case 

study schools (available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144013/pdf/20144013.pdf) indicated, 

among other things, that rural SIG schools faced challenges beyond those also reported by nonrural schools (such as low student motivation and staff morale) due to these schools' remote 

locations and large catchment areas, including challenges in the recruitment or retention of 

teachers and, to a lesser extent, parent involvement in the schools. The brief on case study 

A-41

A-41
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

schools serving English learners (at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144014/pdf/20144014.pdf) 

found that the schools’ approaches to improvement during initial implementation tended to 

include only limited to moderate attention to the unique needs of these students and that schools 

that appeared to provide stronger attention were more likely to report having school staff 

dedicated to English learner needs and more likely to be located in districts that reportedly 

provided expertise and an explicit focus on English learners within the context of SIG.

OUTCOMES OF SIG GRANTS

In February 2014, the Department published an analysis of State assessment results for schools 

receiving SIG funding from the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 competitions. Comparing, where data 

permit, schools’ average proficiency rates in the 2011-2012 school year (the second year of SIG 

implementation for schools receiving fiscal year 2009 grants and the first implementation year for 

schools in the 2010 cohort) to their rates in the year prior to receiving SIG funds, the analysis 

found that, when compared to all schools nationally, 2009 cohort SIG schools showed slightly 

larger increases in proficiency rates in both reading/language arts and mathematics, while 2010 

cohort schools showed slightly larger increases in reading/language arts but similar increases in 

mathematics. It is possible that the different rates of achievement reflect different baseline 

characteristics of the schools (e.g., SIG schools begin from lower levels of achievement) rather 

than the results of the SIG interventions. Consistent with the above-noted findings regarding 

disruption, the 2009 and 2010 cohort data also indicate that schools using the turnaround and 

restart models achieved greater math gains than schools using the transformation model, 

though the difference is modest and the cause is not clear.

The Department is also conducting a formal evaluation of the impact of school turnaround efforts 

in both the Race to the Top (RTT) and SIG programs. This evaluation involves collecting data 

from all 50 States and DC, as well as roughly 60 LEAs and 525 schools. The study will focus on 

(1) the implementation of RTT and SIG; (2) the relationship between receipt of RTT funds and 

student outcomes; (3) the impact of the receipt of SIG funds on student outcomes in the lowestachieving schools; and (4) the relationship between the four school turnaround models (and 

related improvement strategies) and student outcomes and school performance. The 

Department released an initial brief from this evaluation in October 2014 (accessible at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154001) examining the adoption by SIG and non-SIG schools of 

improvement practices promoted under the program. According to the brief, schools 

implementing a SIG intervention model were more likely than low-performing schools not 

implementing a model to adopt practices for developing and increasing teacher and principal 

effectiveness, increasing learning time, and creating community-oriented schools. The first full 

evaluation report is scheduled for release in spring 2015.

A-42

A-42
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Striving readers

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Sections 1501 and 1503)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change 

$160,000 $160,000 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing language is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

comprehensive literacy development and education program intended to advance the literacy 

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

The 2010 appropriation included funding for both formula and competitive grants. From the 

appropriation, $10 million supported formula grants to States for the establishment or support of 

a State Literacy Team with expertise in literacy development and education for children from 

birth through grade 12 to assist the State in developing a comprehensive literacy plan. Most 

remaining funds, or about $176 million, were used to make competitive 5-year awards to six 

States: Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The fiscal year 2011 

appropriations act did not include funding for the Striving Readers program. The fiscal year 

2012 appropriations act continued the program but did not include State formula grant funding. 

Fiscal year 2015 will be the fifth and final year of funding for the 2010 cohort of six States.

Each State educational agency (SEA) that receives a competitive grant must award at least 

95 percent of its allocation competitively to local educational agencies (LEAs) or, for the 

purposes of providing early literacy services, to LEAs or other nonprofit providers of early 

childhood education that partner with a public or private nonprofit organization or agency with a 

demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving the early literacy development of children 

from birth through kindergarten entry and in providing professional development in early literacy. 

SEAs are required to: (1) give priority to such agencies or other entities serving greater numbers 

or percentages of disadvantaged children; and (2) ensure that at least 15 percent of the 

subgranted funds are used to serve children from birth through age 5, 40 percent to serve 

students in kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent to serve students in middle and high 

school. Further, States must equitably distribute funds between middle and high schools. 

A-43
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Striving readers

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

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

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

characteristics of effective literacy instruction; specific activities may include professional 

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

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

The Department is required to reserve: (1) one-half of 1 percent for grants to the Department of 

the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and one-half of 1 percent for the Outlying Areas, and 

may reserve up to 5 percent for national activities. 

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 as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) Footnote

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

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

2013........................................................... 151,378

2014........................................................... 158,000

2015........................................................... 160,000

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2016 request includes $160.0 million for Striving Readers, the 

same amount as the fiscal year 2015 level. In fiscal year 2016, the Administration will seek 

appropriations language allowing the Department to make competitive grants to LEAs, rather 

than SEAs, to support targeted, evidence-based literacy interventions in high-need schools. The 

2016 request would support high-quality literacy programs aligned with college- and careerready English language arts standards and would provide more flexible support for locally 

designed efforts to increase student achievement in high-need LEAs and schools. The 

Administration believes that its 2016 request would allow grantees to better meet local needs

through the implementation of high-quality, developmentally appropriate literacy instruction.

The request also would allow the Department to make larger, more focused awards that would 

enable LEAs to provide the intensive required to ensure that students in high-need schools are 

reading at grade level. Grantees would have flexibility to target interventions based on local 

needs, but must serve at least two grades to increase the program’s impact within selected 

schools, and may propose school-wide interventions. Grantees also must propose interventions 

that (1) meet the moderate evidence of effectiveness standard in the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and (2) are aligned with the State’s college- and 

career-ready English language arts standards.

A-44

A-44
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Striving readers

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

a large-scale reading program based on scientific reading research. For example, according to 

the results of the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), nearly two-thirds 

of students in both fourth and eighth grades are not reading at grade level. The results also 

show wide achievement gaps in reading between students from low-income families (as defined 

by eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch) and students from higher-income families: 

51 percent of fourth-grade students from higher-income families scored at or above the 

proficient reading level, compared with 18 percent of fourth-grade students eligible for free lunch 

and 30 percent of fourth-grade students eligible for reduced-price lunch. Similarly, for eighthgrade reading, 48 percent of students from higher-income families scored at or above the 

proficient reading level, compared with 19 percent of students eligible for free lunch and 

30 percent of students eligible for reduced-price lunch. 

Research also shows that students who fail to read well by fourth grade have a greater likelihood 

of dropping out and of a lifetime of diminished success. Further, the differences in the reading 

skills and knowledge of children from low-income families as compared to the skills and 

knowledge of children from higher-income families are dramatic. For example, the size of the 

working vocabulary of 4-year-old children from low-income families is approximately one-third 

that of children from middle-income families (Hart & Risley, 1995). Perhaps even more 

alarming, these early differences in children’s skills persist over time. The NCES “Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study,” which follows the academic progress of children from 

kindergarten through 5th grade, has found, for example, that differences in children’s reading 

skills and knowledge that are usually seen in later grades appear to be present as children begin 

school and persist after 1 or 2 years of school. In addition, because NAEP and other data 

clearly show that many students are reaching the later grades without having learned to read at 

the level necessary for understanding higher-level content, the Department believes that a new 

Striving Readers competition in fiscal year 2016 would continue to support efforts to improve 

adolescent literacy that respond to local needs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Funding for continuation 

awards $155,667 $155,662 0

Number of continuation 

awards 6 6 0

Funding for new awards 0 0 $150,400

Number of new awards 0 0 15

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $1,600

A-45

A-45
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Striving readers

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education $790 $800 $800

Amount for Outlying Areas $790 $800 $800

National activities (including 

evaluation) $753 $758 $8,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents 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 

2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

For awards made in fiscal year 2016, the Department would establish performance measures 

related to student academic growth on literacy assessments, disaggregated by subgroup.

The Department established the following performance measures for the 2010 Striving Readers 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proficiency for purposes of accountability determinations. 

In 2013, 72 percent of participating 5th-grade students, 73 percent of participating 8th-grade 

students, and 69 percent of participating high school students met or exceeded proficiency on 

State reading or language arts assessments. The Department will have data on the first 

performance measure later in 2015. 

Other Performance Information

Prior to 2010, when the program was an adolescent literacy program, all 16 Striving Readers 

adolescent literacy grantees conducted rigorous experimental evaluations of their supplemental 

literacy interventions for struggling readers. The eight 2006 grantees also conducted

A-46

A-46
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Striving readers

experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of their whole-school literacy-throughout-thecurriculum models for all students. In fall 2011, the Department released the year-4 evaluation 

reports for the 2006 grantees, which provided results from 4 years of implementation, including 

impact findings. Five of the eight evaluations found that 1 year of a targeted intervention had 

statistically significant positive impacts on achievement for either middle or high school students. 

None of the four evaluations examining interventions that could serve struggling readers for up 

to 3 years found positive impacts after 2 or 3 years of the interventions. None of the five 

evaluations that examined the effectiveness of the whole-school models found a statistically 

significant impact on student reading achievement. The evaluation reports are available at:

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

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

adolescent literacy program covering all 5 years of data collection and updated the cross-site 

summary tables and project profiles to include the final results of the evaluations of the 2006 

grants. The Department also released the project profiles and summaries of evaluation reports

from the 2009 grants. These materials are posted on the program’s Web site: 

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

A-47

A-47
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

State agency programs:

Migrant

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

P2015 2016 Change

$374,751 $374,751 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

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 

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 based on the amount each State received in fiscal year 2002. Under the 

statute, all funds in excess of $396 million would be allocated through a statutory formula based 

on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for education, its count of eligible migratory students aged 

3 through 21 residing within the State in the previous year, and its count of students who 

received services in summer or intersession programs provided by the State. 

The Department may set aside up to $10 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

contracts and grants to improve inter- and intra-State migrant coordination activities, including 

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migrant students. The Department is 

required to consult with States receiving allocations of $1 million or less about whether they can 

A-48
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

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)

2011 ...........................................................$393,981

2012 .............................................................393,236

2013 .............................................................372,751

2014 .............................................................374,751

2015 .............................................................374,751

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2016, the Administration requests $374.8 million for the Title I Migrant program, the same 

amount as the 2015 appropriation. The fiscal year 2016 appropriation would continue to support 

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. 

Migrant students represent an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve group due to multiple risk 

factors. In particular, the high mobility of these children across school district and State 

boundaries (sometimes within the school term or year) 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. The high mobility also creates additional challenges for both students and the school 

systems serving them.

Moreover, the characteristics of the migrant population create a need for educational services 

that go well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 

addition to being highly mobile, migrant students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity and poor 

health and housing conditions. Almost one-third (32.7 percent) of the children and youth eligible 

to receive services under the program during school year 2012-2013 had moved within the 

previous 12 months. In addition, 38.1 percent of eligible children and youth were limited English 

proficient and 6.5 percent of eligible children and youth were eligible to receive services under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

A-49

A-49
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

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 (11.4 percent of the eligible population in 2012-2013) are schoolaged youth who do not attend school. 

Data for 2012-13 indicate that the program provided services to 214,428 migrant students during 

the regular school year and 109,521 during the summer or intersessions. Program funds 

supported 3,133 projects that operated during the school day, 525 projects that provided an 

extended school day during the regular school year, 181 summer or intersession projects, and 

1,056 year-round projects. The program served 3,607 children aged birth through 2; 

21,803 children aged 3 through 5; 203,847 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; 

and 16,925 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 2016 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 Migrant Student Exchange System 

(MSIX), including for technical assistance to States as they continue to implement their systems 

for collecting and exchanging data on migrant students. 

The Administration believes that the current, outdated funding formula for the Migrant program 

includes provisions that are cumbersome, difficult to interpret, and prevent allocations from 

responding to shifts in State counts of migrant students since 2001. For these reasons, the 

Administration’s request includes appropriations language that would revise this funding formula 

to improve targeting of services to migrant students and address problems identified in program 

reviews and audit findings.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Number of eligible children 375,000 375,000 375,000

SEA program:

Amount for State grants $364,751 $364,751 $364,751

Range of State awards 0-$128,658 $66-$128,260 $66-$128,260

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

A-50

A-50
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

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, in FY 2016 and future years, and 

the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

In 2014, the Department adopted new performance measures for the program: (1) the 

percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level or above in 

reading/language arts assessments; (2) the percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who 

scored at the proficient level or above in mathematics assessments; (3) the percentage of 

migrant students in grades 7-12 who graduated from high school or were promoted to the next 

grade level; and (4) the percentage of migrant students who entered the 11th grade who had 

received full for credit for taking Algebra I. Previous measures focused on the number of 

States reporting that 50 percent or more of migrant students scored at the proficient level in 

certain grades. The new measures are focused on student performance and attainment in 

reading/language arts and mathematics; student success in progressing through school; and 

success in Algebra, a critical subject for helping students become college- and career-ready. 

The Department will not be able to start collecting data for the grade promotion/graduation and 

Algebra I measures until school year 2015-16, when changes in the MSIX will enable the 

Department to collect the data take effect.

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: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2013 Baseline 44.1%

2014 44.1%

2015 44.1

2016 44.1

A-51

A-51
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

Measure: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2013 Baseline 47.6%

2014 47.6%

2015 47.6

2016 47.6

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance 

Reports that States submit to the Department. States are currently making changes to their 

standards and assessments systems to make them more rigorous. However, since these 

changes have been associated with decreases in student performance during this transition 

period, current performance targets are static. The Department plans to re-set targets once 

data for school years 2015-16 are available. Data for 2014 will be available in summer 2015.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant 

student records through the MSIX system. The MSIX integrates procedures designed to 

achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate State and local efforts to transfer 

health and education records into a single system that can be used within and across all States. 

Initially the Department assessed annual changes in the percentage of actively migrating 

students for which MSIX contained consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school 

and health information. As of 2012, MSIX contains consolidated records for migrant students 

who have enrolled in school in more than one State. The Department is now tracking how many 

States are collecting the three types of data elements collected in MSIX for migrant students: 

basic student information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for 

secondary students. 

Measure: The number of States collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 31

2014 31 34

2015 31

2016 35

Additional information: At the end of fiscal year 2014, 34 out of 47 States participating in the 

migrant education program were collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX. The 

Department developed a three-phase plan to help States fully participate in MSIX. Under 

phase one, States were to collect and make available all data elements for basic student 

information, which is required for all migrant students. Under phase two, States would add 

student assessment data, which is required only for migrant students taking State assessments. 

Under phase three, States would add credit accrual information for secondary students. At this 

A-52

A-52
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

time, State participation in MSIX is voluntary. Once the Department issues regulations requiring 

States to collect and share data through MSIX, targets will be adjusted to reflect the expectation 

that all States participating in the MEP will collect all three types of data elements. A Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking containing requirements for States pertaining to entering student data into 

and using student data in MSIX was published on December 27, 2013, and the comment period 

ended on February 25, 2014. The Department anticipates that the Notice of Final Rulemaking 

will be published by the end of calendar year 2015.

A-53

A-53
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$47,614 $47,614 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

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.

A-54
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

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)

2011 .............................................................$50,326

2012 ...............................................................50,231

2013 ...............................................................47,614

2014 ...............................................................47,614

2015 ...............................................................47,614

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2016, the Administration requests $47.6 million, the same as the 2015 level, for the 

Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program. The activities supported with this funding would 

help an estimated 98,000 N and D students return to and complete school and obtain 

employment after they are released from State institutions.

The population served by the N and D program is extremely disadvantaged and isolated. 

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. 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 educational outcomes for neglected and delinquent youth and preparing these 

students for further education or to enter the workforce.

With few exceptions, these young people will reenter our communities, schools, and 

postsecondary institutions. High-quality correctional education can help equip them with the 

skills needed to successfully reenter their communities and either continue their education or join

the workforce.1

 In short, educating these youth is crucial for reducing re-incarceration rates, 

supporting future success, and strengthening communities. 

In December 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice released new guidance and 

technical assistance materials to help State and local leaders provide high-quality education to 

youth in juvenile justice facilities.2

 This guidance built on the Task Force Report to the President 

1 Lois M. Davis et al., “How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? 

The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation” (2014); Lois M. Davis et al., “Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults” 

(2013). 2 http://www.ed.gov/correctionaled

A-55

A-55

 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

for the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, which aimed to address persistent opportunity gaps faced 

by boys and young men of color and ensure that all young people have the opportunity to reach 

their full potential.3

 In addition, in a June 2014 letter to Chief State School Officers and State 

Attorneys General, the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General noted several ongoing 

Federal initiatives in this area.4

The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds 

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

program. With funds available under this new authority, the Department is also beginning an 

implementation evaluation of the N and D program to study correctional education services 

provided to children in State and local facilities and institutions. Initial funding will support a 

review of existing administrative and performance data, site visits, and a feasibility study to 

inform further research.

From the 2016 request, the Department would reserve approximately $1.2 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 2014 2015 2016

Number of participating institutions 727 727 727

Estimated number of students served 98,495 98,495 98,495

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $483 $483 $483

Range of awards to States $103-$2,780 $107-$2,818 $107-$2,805

Average State award $893 $893 $893

National activities $1,190 $1,190 $1,190

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/053014_mbk_report.pdf

4 http://www.ed.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/doj-dod-ltr.pdf

A-56

A-56

 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

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

FY 2016 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

2011 14.1% 12.8%

2012 13.8 13.0

2013 14.8 14.9

2014 15.8

2015 16.8

2016 17.8

Additional information: The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better 

align with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2011 60.9% 55.6%

2012 56.6 52.3

2013 57.6 58.1

2014 58.6

2015 59.6

2016 60.6

Additional information: This measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in 

neglected, juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult 

correctional institutions. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align 

with recent performance.

A-57

A-57
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

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

2011 97.2% 70.4%

2012 71.4 71.1

2013 72.4 64.4

2014 73.4

2015 74.4

2016 75.4

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

2011 88.4% 71.9%

2012 72.9 71.9

2013 73.9 65.4

2014 74.9

2015 75.9

2016 76.9

Additional information: Student counts are based on the number of long-term students (those 

enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive calendar days) who 

complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These are not the same as the 

State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily reflect State proficiency 

levels. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent 

performance. A number of factors may have contributed to the reduction in the percentage of 

students showing improvement in reading and mathematics from 2012 to 2013. In particular, 

States reported serving significantly fewer students, who often had greater academic challenges,

as they implement efforts to move students out of institutions and back into communities. Also, 

several States with high student counts changed reporting systems, leading to fluctuations in 

their reported results.

A-58

A-58
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2011 $3,515 $4,566

2012 4,520 4,891

2013 4,475 4,873

2014 4,430

2015 4,386

2016 4,341

Additional information: This measure attempts to determine program cost efficiency by 

tracking the ratio of the number of participating students achieving a high school diploma or its 

equivalent to the cost of the program. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 

to better align with recent performance.

A-59

A-59
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Sections 1501 and 1503)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2015 2016 Change

$710 0 -$710

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or reauthorization legislation 

is sought.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes a separate appropriation for 

the evaluation of Title I programs. The Department uses these funds to carry out objective 

measurement and systematic analyses of the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

program, the Federal Government's largest investment in elementary and secondary education. 

These evaluations compare actual results with program objectives and provide the data needed 

to make sound decisions on program policies and resources and to guide program improvement 

in the field.

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

and impact of the Title I Grants to LEAs. Data from the multi-year national assessment are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

concerning accountability and school improvement. Funding under this program also supported 

nine volumes of reports on the “State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB)” as well as a series of reports on specialized topics. Some of those specialized topics 

include analyses of States’ accountability provisions; implementation and outcome findings in 

districts that received waivers to serve as supplemental educational services providers, despite 

being districts identified for improvement; an evaluation of the growth model pilot project, a 

project initiated to allow States to experiment with adjustments to the NCLB status accountability 

system, which informed the Administration’s future decisions on accountability under ESEA 

flexibility; and an examination of the Title I comparability requirement, which included the first 

national data collection on school-level expenditures. These reports, as well as other related 

Title I evaluation reports, are available in full on the Department of Education’s Web site at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. 

A-60
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

Ongoing studies under way in fiscal year 2015 include the following:

• The implementation of ESEA Title I and Title II program initiatives. This study will examine 

the implementation of policies promoted through the ESEA at the State, district and school 

levels in four core areas: State content standards, aligned assessments, accountability and 

school turnaround, and developing effective teachers and leaders. The study will address 

changes since the previous national assessment of Title I (in 2006) as well as ESEA 

flexibility. The study will include a survey of all 50 States and DC, as well as a nationally 

representative sample of 570 school districts, 1,300 schools, and 9,100 teachers.

• Early childhood language development. Data from 83 Title I schools, collected during the 

2011-2012 school year, will be analyzed to estimate the associations between instructional 

programs and programs for students in preschool through grade 3 and the outcomes for 

those students. 

• Case studies of the implementation of school turnaround models. These case studies, 

involving approximately 60 schools in 6 States, will focus on the change process in schools 

implementing school turnaround models and examine leading indicators of successful 

implementation of the models to provide information useful to both policy-makers and 

practitioners. Descriptive analyses of State SIG applications and SIG-eligible and SIGawarded schools are available for the first and second cohorts of SIG grantees (fiscal year 

2010 and 2011 competitions).1

• Early implementation of ESEA flexibility. This study of 12 States and 24 school districts that 

have begun the first full year of implementing provisions under ESEA flexibility will provide 

reports of early implementation of ESEA flexibility to policy-makers as they continue to refine 

policy and technical assistance to States on issues related to the flexibility provisions.

• Feasibility Study on Improving the Quality of School-Level Expenditure Data. This feasibility 

study will explore options for improving the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of 

school-level expenditure reporting by interviewing fiscal staff in five States and districts that 

have finance systems that track school-level financial data and then collecting and analyzing 

available school-level expenditure data in the selected States and districts.

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

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011 ...............................................................$8,151

2012 ................................................................. 3,194

2013 ................................................................. 3,028

2014 .................................................................... 880

2015 .................................................................... 710

1 http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20114019 and 

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20124060

A-61

A-61

 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for Title I Evaluation in fiscal year 2016. 

Instead, the Administration would seek appropriations language expanding the ESEA pooled 

evaluation authority first authorized in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act for the Department 

of Education and continued in fiscal year 2015. This authority allows the Department to reserve 

up to 0.5 percent of the funds appropriated for each ESEA program, except those in Titles I and 

III, and pool those funds in order to fund high-priority evaluations of all ESEA programs 

(including Titles I and III). The 2016 request would modify the existing authority to include 

Titles I and III, except that the Department would be permitted to pool 0.1 percent of the Title I, 

Part A appropriation. These changes are consistent with the Strengthening Education Through 

Research Act, which would reauthorize the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 and which 

was passed by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions Committee in the 113th Congress. The larger set-aside would ensure that 

sufficient funds are available to support comprehensive evaluations of the implementation, 

outcomes, impact, and cost-effectiveness of all ESEA programs. The actual amount of funds 

reserved each year would depend on the funding requirements of the annual evaluation plan 

described below. 

Education improvement is an on-going process of building our knowledge about what works in 

improving practice and results for students. Understanding how ESEA programs are being 

implemented and whether they achieve their intended outcomes is essential for improvement. In 

addition, rigorous evaluation of the impact of interventions that may be funded with Federal 

education funds is essential both for ensuring the optimal use of taxpayer-provided resources 

and for providing effective technical assistance and guidance to the Department’s State and 

local partners. However, the current fragmentation of evaluation authorities and funding 

hampers effective evaluation and the development of effective performance management 

strategies. The proposed cross-cutting reservation of funds would provide resources to conduct 

rigorous, objective evaluations of ESEA programs, policies, and practices, while also supporting 

performance measurement essential for program improvement. In addition, the new authority 

would enable the Department to provide increased technical assistance on evaluation to States 

and LEAs in order to promote quality and comparability of evaluation results. 

Under the current pooled evaluation authority, the Department is required to develop and submit 

to the Congress an evaluation plan every year describing proposed evaluation activities, 

including Title I evaluation activities, the reservations required to fund this plan, and the impact 

of those reservations on existing programs. In 2016, 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 

anticipates using a portion of the 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 

A-62

A-62
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

program improvement. A recent example of this kind of activity is the policy brief published in 

November 2011, entitled: “The Potential Impact of Revising the Title I Comparability 

Requirement to Focus on School-Level Expenditures,” which was based on a study of schoollevel expenditures conducted in response to a requirement in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The currently funded study of ESEA flexibility is another example of 

a quick turnaround study with the same overarching goal of informing policy-making and 

promoting continuous program improvement.

Under the pooled evaluation authority in the fiscal year 2014 Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, the Department developed an operating plan that includes five studies that 

address specific provisions in Title I programs or allowable interventions under the programs. 

Fiscal year 2014 pooled funds total $4.5 million and will support these studies, all scheduled to 

begin in fiscal year 2015. They are:

• A Title I implementation evaluation on schoolwide program models to identify which 

strategies are being used to address the needs of low-achieving students and subgroups 

and how such strategies compare to approaches used in targeted assistance program 

models. This evaluation is supported with $1 million from the 2014 pooled funds and 

would also receive support from fiscal year 2015 pooled evaluation funds.

• A Title I evaluation to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial 

evaluation on whole-school reform within several districts in order to build impact evidence 

on commonly used whole-school reform models. Pooled funding totaling $600,000 will 

support this evaluation. The results of this study will determine whether a randomized 

control trial evaluation on whole-school reform would be supported with pooled evaluation 

funds in 2016.

• An impact evaluation of interventions aimed at improving student understanding and use 

of academic language (defined as the language used in textbooks, in classrooms, and on 

tests) in order to improve the effectiveness of local programs supported through Titles I 

and III, costing nearly $2.4 million from the 2014 pooled funds. This study would also be 

supported with pooled evaluation funds from fiscal years 2016 and 2017 as well as funding 

from the evaluation set-aside under the Language Acquisition State Grants program.

• An implementation evaluation of the Title I, Part D Neglected and Delinquent program to 

study correctional education services provided to children in State and local facilities and 

institutions; initial funding of $500,000 would support a review of existing administrative 

and performance data, site visits, and a feasibility study to inform further research. This 

evaluation would also be supported with fiscal year 2015 pooled evaluation funds.

A-63

A-63
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Evaluation

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Implementation of Title I and Title II 

Program Initiatives $502 $610 0

Study of Early Childhood Language 

Development 50 50 0

Early Implementation of 

ESEA Flexibility 50 0 0

School Expenditure Study 104 0 0

Data Analysis and Support 174 50 0

Total 880 710 0

A-64

A-64
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: Indefinite1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$37,474 $44,623 +$7,149

_________________

1

The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Special Programs for Migrant Students provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) and private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed for 

students who are engaged in, or whose families are engaged in, migrant and other seasonal 

farmwork. 

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migrant students 

aged 16 and over and provide academic and support services (including counseling, health 

services, stipends, and placement) to help those students obtain a high school equivalency 

certificate and subsequently to gain employment or admission to a postsecondary institution or 

training program. 

Projects funded by the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provide tutoring, academic 

assistance, and counseling services, as well as stipends, tuition, and room and board, to firstyear undergraduate migrant students and assist those students in obtaining student financial aid 

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

HEP projects, located in college or university settings, operate residential and commuter

programs of instructional services for out-of-school migrant youth; some HEP projects employ a 

commuter model in which students attend GED classes after work. Most CAMP projects use an 

on-campus residential design and provide a high level of support services in order to assist 

participants, virtually all of whom have had no prior contact with a college campus, to adjust to 

life at an institution of higher education. In making awards under both programs, the Department

is required to consider applicants' prior experience in operating HEP and CAMP projects. 

The Department may reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional development 

activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining funds are to be 

distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts available for each 

program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent of the remaining 

A-65
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

funds must be used for HEP and 45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may be used for 

either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications received.

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

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011 .............................................................$36,595

2012 ...............................................................36,526

2013 ...............................................................34,623

2014 ...............................................................34,623

2015 ...............................................................37,474

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2016, the Administration requests a total of $44.6 million for the Special Programs for 

Migrant Students, a $7.1 million increase over the 2015 appropriation. The proposed increase 

recognizes strong program performance supported by improvements in the areas of data quality 

and program management over the past several years. For the HEP program, the average rate 

of participants attaining a high school equivalency credential was approximately 69.4 percent 

between 2009 and 2013, and the average rate of those participants who attained a high school 

equivalency credential and then entered postsecondary education or training programs, 

upgraded employment, or entered the military was 76.6 percent during the same period. In 

comparison, the average percentage of adults participating in adult basic education programs 

who had a high school completion goal and earned a high school diploma or equivalency 

credential was 62.1 percent over the same period. For the CAMP program, the average 

percentage of CAMP participants who completed their first academic year in a postsecondary 

program was 86 percent between 2009 and 2013. In addition, of those students who completed 

their first year of postsecondary education, 93.2 percent continued their postsecondary 

education. In contrast, data from the National Center of Education Statistics show that the 

retention rate of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at Title IV institutions was 

71.8 percent from 2011 to 2012.

These results are due, in part, to strong program management practices. More specifically, 

Department staff continuously improve data collection and analysis practices to increase the 

accuracy, validity, and reliability of data used for providing technical assistance, monitoring 

grantees, holding grantees accountable for substantial progress, developing and implementing 

improvement plans at the grantee and program levels, and informing decisions on continuation 

or termination of grants.

The requested increase would not only support a larger number of new grant awards for two 

successful programs but also would allow the Department to bring parity to the base amount of 

funds used for each program. Under the statute, if the total amount appropriated is below 

$40 million, the funds remaining after one half of 1 percent of the appropriation is reserved for 

outreach, technical assistance, and professional development activities are to be distributed 

between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts available for each program 

the previous year, making the funding level for HEP programs higher than the funding level for 

CAMP programs since the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 2008. At the request 

A-66

A-66
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

level, the statute would require the Department to use 45 percent of the funds not reserved for 

outreach, technical assistance, and professional development for HEP, 45 percent for CAMP, 

and the remainder for either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications 

received.

The migrant youth these programs serve are particularly at risk for poor educational, 

employment, and earnings outcomes. According to the US Department of Agriculture’s 

Economic Research Service (ERS) report, Profile of Hired Farmworkers, a 2008 Update, 

farmworkers tend to be younger, less educated, and less likely to speak English than other wage 

and salary workers in the United States. Individuals aged 15-21 constituted 15.1 percent of 

farmworkers in 2006, and 30.0 percent of farmworkers had attained less than a 9th-grade 

education. Further, an ERS analysis of data from the US Department of Labor’s National 

Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) showed that, over the period 1989-2006, the average 

median years of education for migrant farmworkers was 6, compared to 9 for nonmigrant 

farmworkers. In addition, 66.2 percent of migrant farmworkers had no knowledge of English, 

compared to 27.1 percent for nonmigrant farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers are also more likely 

to have lower hourly wages than nonmigrant farmworkers, and their limited education affects 

their ability to pursue postsecondary education or obtain skilled work that pays higher wages. 

A substantial number of migrant youth are living on their own. The 2002-03 NAWS found that 

migrant youth working in farmwork and living on their own constituted 11 percent of the total farm 

labor force. Their likelihood of being able to support themselves for an extended period of time 

through farmwork is poor. The ERS 2008 Profile reported that unemployment rates of 

farmworkers are double those of all wage and salary workers; that farmworkers earned less than 

other workers; and that the rate of poverty among farmworkers was more than double that of all 

wage and salary employees.

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 Edition, the median hourly wage for agricultural 

workers in 2012 was $9.09, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they 

do instead of how many hours they work. By comparison, the National Center for Education 

Statistics reports in The Condition of Education 2014 that in 2012 the median earnings for fulltime, full-year wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent 

were $30,000 (equivalent to $14.42 per hour) and the median was $35,700 for a person with an 

associate’s degree (equivalent to $17.16 per hour). 

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have not been able

to complete high school or go on to postsecondary education due to limited or inconsistent 

educational opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects emphasize services to out-of-school-youth 

and other eligible individuals by conducting extensive outreach in locations where these youth 

live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing services at 

locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population.

A-67

A-67
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Outreach, technical 

assistance, and 

professional development $171 $187 $223

HEP:

Number of students served 5,165 5,374 5,500

Number of awards:

First year 14 14 12

Second year 0 14 14

Third year 5 0 14

Fourth year 10 5 0

Fifth year 13 10 5

Total 42 43 45

Funding:

New awards $6,007 $6,841 $5,138

Peer review of new award 

applications 36 100 100

Continuation awards 12,791 13,445 16,962

Average grant award 447 463 465

Average Federal 

contribution per 

student (whole dollars) 3,615 3,774 4,000

CAMP:

Number of students served 1,882 1,914 2,496

Number of awards:

First year 12 13 19

Second year 0 12 13

Third year 9 0 12

Fourth year 6 9 0

Fifth year 10 6 9

Total 37 39 53

Funding:

New awards $4,975 $5,460 $8,158

Peer review of new award 

applications 36 100 150

Continuation awards 10,488 11,339 13,892

Average grant award 423 422 425

Average Federal 

contribution per 

student (whole dollars) 8,216 9,002 8,834

A-68

A-68
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, goals, objectives, 

measures, and performance targets and data consistent with the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); and an assessment of the progress made 

toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the cumulative 

effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2016 and future 

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

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of 

a high school diploma, and, subsequently, in beginning postsecondary education, 

entering military service, or obtaining employment.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their General Educational 

Development (GED) credential.

Measure: The percentage of High School Equivalency Program participants receiving a 

General Educational Development credential.

Year Target Actual

2011 69% 74%

2012 69 67.4

2013 69 74.5

2014 69

2015 69

2016 69

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data collected for 

fiscal year 2014 will be available in the spring of 2015. 

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of the GED will enter postsecondary 

education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP GED credential recipients who enter postsecondary 

educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2011 80% 75%

2012 80 79.3

2013 80 80.1

2014 80

2015 80

2016 80

A-69

A-69
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after receipt of a GED credential. The Department is 

providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they 

are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2014 will be available in the spring of 2015.

Goal: Assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in successfully completing their 

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.

Objective: All CAMP students will complete their first academic year at a postsecondary 

institution in good standing.

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants 

completing the first year of their postsecondary program.

Year Target Actual

2011 86% 89%

2012 86 85.5

2013 86 85.1

2014 86

2015 86

2016 86

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for projects 

completing their first year of implementation are not included in the data for any given year 

because projects receive their initial funding in the fall, after the school year may have already 

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth year of the project. In 2009, the 

Department adjusted its methods for calculating performance data for recipients that serve more 

students than they projected at the beginning of their grant period. Data collected for fiscal year 

2014 will be available in the spring of 2015. 

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.

Measure: The percentage of College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) participants who, 

after completing the first academic year of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2011 85% 95%

2012 85 96.7

2013 85 95.0

2014 85

2015 85

2016

A-70

A-70
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after completion of the first year of college. The 

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2014 will 

be available in the spring of 2015. 

Efficiency measures

The Department established a cost-per-participant outcome measure to assess program 

efficiency for HEP and CAMP. For HEP, the measure is the cost per participant earning a GED 

credential and, for CAMP, it is the cost per participant who completes his or her first year of 

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education. The Department 

established different costs for programs serving participants who commute, programs serving 

participants who reside at the institution of higher education where the program is based, and 

programs with both types of participants. Targets are based on actual costs in 2011 (the 

baseline year), multiplied by an estimated rate of inflation for college-associated costs and then 

decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 percent. Data for 2014 will be

available in the spring of 2015.

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, commuter programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $7,529

2012 $7,910 5,766

2013 8,306 5,409

2014 8,718

2015 9,104

2016 9,509

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, residential programs.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $14,753

2012 $15,459 11,201

2013 16,195 9,667

2014 16,962

2015 17,719

2016 18,511

A-71

A-71
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, programs with both commuting and resident 

students.

Year Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2011 Baseline $11,923

2012 $12,502 11,160

2013 13,104 7,589

2014 13,732

2015 14,344

2016 14,984

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $11,486

2012 $12,003 9,111

2013 12,543 10,686

2014 13,107

2015 13,697

2016 14,314

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2011 Baseline $18,408

2012 $19,236 14,860

2013 20,102 14,534

2014 21,007

2015 21,952

2016 22,940

A-72

A-72
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, programs with both commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary

Education

2011 Baseline $13,998

2012 $14,628 11,748

2013 15,286 10,701

2014 15,974

2015 16,693

2016 17,444

A-73

A-73
State tables

A-74

A-74