Department of Education

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2015 Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................E-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................E-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................E-5

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................E-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................E-8

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................E-10

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports.............................................................E-12

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................E-14

Activities:

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy..........................................................................E-17

Ready-to-learn television ..................................................................................................E-19

Striving readers ................................................................................................................E-25

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education ...........................................E-30

Arts in education...............................................................................................................E-33

College pathways and accelerated learning......................................................................E-39

High school graduation initiative .......................................................................................E-42

Advanced placement ........................................................................................................E-47

Assessing achievement ....................................................................................................E-52

Training and advisory services .........................................................................................E-58

Rural education ................................................................................................................E-63

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

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

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

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

State tables*

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

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update. 
[SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS] EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS1

E-1

Appropriations language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by [parts A and B of title II, part B 

of title IV, parts A and B of title VI, and parts B and C of title VII of the ESEA; the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act;] section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002; the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; and the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, [$4,397,391,000] $71,742,000, of which [$2,580,358,000 shall become available on 

July 1, 2014, and remain available through September 30, 2015, and of which $1,681,441,000 

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

September 30, 2015, for academic year 2014-2015:2 Provided, That funds made available to 

carry out part B of title VII of the ESEA may be used for construction, renovation, and 

modernization of any elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to an 

elementary school or secondary school, run by the Department of Education of the State of 

Hawaii, that serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian student body:3 Provided further, That 

funds made available to carry out part C of title VII of the ESEA shall be awarded on a 

competitive basis, and also may be used for construction:4 Provided further, That] $48,445,000 

shall be available to carry out section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002:5

Provided [further], That $16,699,000 shall be available to carry out the Supplemental Education 

Grants program for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands:6 Provided further, That the Secretary of Education may reserve up to 5 percent of the 

amount referred to in the previous proviso [may be reserved by the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands to administer the Supplemental Education 

Grants programs and to obtain technical assistance, oversight and consultancy services in the 

administration of these grants and to reimburse the United States Departments of Labor, Health 

and Human Services, and Education for such services:

7 Provided further, That up to 2 percent 

of the funds for subpart 1 of part A of title II of the ESEA shall be reserved by the Secretary for 
E-2

competitive awards for teacher or principal recruitment and training or professional 

enhancement activities to national not-for-profit organizations, of which up to 10 percent may be 

used for related research, dissemination, evaluation, technical assistance, and outreach 

activities:8 Provided further, That $149,717,000 shall be to carry out part B of title II of the 

ESEA9] to provide technical assistance in the implementation of the Supplemental Education 

Grants program.

10 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014.)

NOTES

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

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

these programs will be proposed.

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

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

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

E-3

An alysis of L anguage Provision s and Chang es

Language Provision Explanation

1 [SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS] 

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

This language reflects the proposed change 

in the name of the account.

2

 ...of which [$2,580,358,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2014, and remain 

available through September 30, 2015, and 

of which $1,681,441,000 shall become 

available on October 1, 2014, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2015, for academic year 2014-2015...]

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships, 

21st Century Community Learning Centers, 

State Assessments, Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, and Rural Education. 

This language also provides that a portion of 

funds for Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants is available on an advance-funded 

basis.

3

 ...[Provided, That funds made available to 

carry out part B of title VII of the ESEA may 

be used for construction, renovation, and 

modernization of any elementary school, 

secondary school, or structure related to an 

elementary school or secondary school, run 

by the Department of Education of the State 

of Hawaii, that serves a predominantly Native 

Hawaiian student body:...]

This language authorizes the use of funds 

appropriated for the Education for Native 

Hawaiians program for school construction, 

renovation, and modernization.

4

 ...[Provided further, That funds made 

available to carry out part C of title VII of the 

ESEA shall be awarded on a competitive 

basis, and also may be used for 

construction:...]

This language authorizes the use of funds 

appropriated for the Alaska Native Education 

Equity program for construction.

5

 ...$48,445,000 shall be available to carry 

out section 203 of the Educational Technical 

Assistance Act of 2002:...

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program.

6

 ...Provided [further], That $16,699,000 

shall be available to carry out the 

Supplemental Education Grants program for 

the Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands:...

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

E-4

An alysis of L anguage Provision s and Chang es

Language Provision Explanation

7 ...Provided further, That the Secretary of 

Education may reserve up to 5 percent of the 

amount referred to in the previous proviso 

[may be reserved by the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands to administer the Supplemental 

Education Grants programs and to obtain 

technical assistance, oversight and 

consultancy services in the administration of 

these grants and to reimburse the United 

States Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education for such 

services:...]

This language allows the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands to reserve up to 5 percent of their 

Supplemental Education Grants funds for 

administration and for technical assistance, 

oversight, and consultancy services for these 

grants and to reimburse the United States 

Departments of Labor, Health and Human 

Services, and Education for these services. 

This language is replaced by language that 

allows the Secretary, rather than the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, to reserve 

up to 5 percent of their Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.

8

 ...[Provided further, That up to 2 percent of 

the funds for subpart 1 of part A of title II of 

the ESEA shall be reserved by the Secretary 

for competitive awards for teacher or 

principal recruitment and training or 

professional enhancement activities to 

national not-for-profit organizations, of which 

up to 10 percent may be used for related 

research, dissemination, evaluation, 

technical assistance, and outreach 

activities:...]

This language provides a specific amount for 

the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development program from the appropriation 

for the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program.

9

 ...[Provided further, That $149,717,000 

shall be to carry out part B of title II of the 

ESEA].

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

program.

10 ...Provided further, That the Secretary of 

Education may reserve up to 5 percent of the 

amount referred to in the previous proviso ... 

to provide technical assistance in the 

implementation of the Supplemental 

Education Grants program.

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of their Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation.......................................................... $4,544,596 $4,397,391 $966,923

Discretionar y Across-the-board reduction (P.L. 113-6)................. -9,089 0 0

Total, discretionary appropriation....................... 4,535,507

Discretionar y Sequester (P.L. 112-25)......................................... -228,106 0 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation......... 4,307,401 4,397,391 966,923

Discretionar y Comparative transfer to:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity for:

Homeless children and youth education.............. -61,771 -65,042 0

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Improving teacher quality State grants ................ -2,337,830 -2,349,830 0

Mathematics and science partnerships................ -141,902 -149,717 0

Supporting Student Success for:

21st century community learning centers ............ -1,091,564 -1,149,370 0

Discretionar y Comparative transfer from:

Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity for:

High school graduation initiative......................... 46,267 46,267 0

Striving readers.................................................. 151,378 158,000 0

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

Advanced placement ......................................... 28,890 28,483 0

Arts in education ................................................ 23,648 25,000 0

Ready-to-learn television ................................... 25,771 25,741 0

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation............................................... 950,286 966,923 966,923

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority ....................................... 950,286 966,923 2,648,364

Comparative transfer to:

Innovation and Instructional Teams for:

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

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

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

Total, comparable budget authority ............... 950,286 966,923 966,953
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

E-6

Summary of C hang es

2014................................................................................................. $966,923

2015................................................................................................. 966,923

Net change ............................................................... 0

Increases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Initial funding for the proposed Effective Teaching and 

Learning: Literacy program to support State and local efforts 

aimed at implementing a comprehensive literacy strategy that 

provides high-quality literacy instruction and support to students 

from pre-kindergarten to grade 12. 0 +$183,741

Initial funding for the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning 

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

efforts to develop and expand innovative practices to improve 

teaching and learning in the arts, health education, foreign 

languages, civics and government, history, geography, 

environmental education, economics, financial literacy, and other 

subjects. 0 +25,000

Initial funding for the proposed College Pathways and 

Accelerated Learning program to support activities that prepare 

students in high-need school districts to enter and succeed in 

college. 0 +74,750

Subtotal, increases +283,491

Decreases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for Striving Readers and Ready-to-Learn 

Television because these programs are proposed for 

consolidation into the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy 

program. $183,741 -183,741

Eliminate funding for Arts in Education because it is proposed for 

consolidation into the Effective Teaching and Learning for a WellRounded Education. 25,000 -25,000
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

E-7

Decreases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program: (continued)

Eliminate funding for the High School Graduation Initiative and 

Advanced Placement programs because these programs are 

proposed for consolidation into the proposed College Pathways 

and Accelerated Learning program. $74,750 -$74,750

Subtotal, decreases -283,491

Net change 0
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-8

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

footnote

2015

Authorized footnote

2015

Request

footnote

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy:

ELTL Effective teaching and learning: Literacy (proposed 

legislation) -- --

To be 

determined $183,741

ELTL Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) 0 $25,741 01 0

ELTL Striving readers (ESEA I-E, section 1502) 0 158,000 01 0

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education:

ETLW Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education 

(proposed legislation) -- --

To be 

determined 25,000

ETLW Arts in education (ESEA V-D, subpart 15) 0 25,000 01 0

College pathways and accelerated learning:

CP College pathways and accelerated learning (proposed 

legislation) -- --

To be 

determined 74,750

CP High school graduation initiative (ESEA I-H) 0 46,267 01 0

CP Advanced Placement (ESEA I-G) 0 28,483 01 0

Assessing achievement (ESEA VI-A-1) 0 378,000

To be 

determined1 378,000

Training and advisory services (CRA IV) Indefinite 6,598 Indefinite 6,598

Rural education (ESEA VI-B) 0 169,840

To be 

determined1,2 169,840

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association 

Act) $20,6673 16,699 $21,0343 16,699

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 0 48,445 04 48,445

Native Hawaiian student education (ESEA VII-B and HEA VIII-Z) 0 32,397

To be 

determined1 32,397

Alaska Native student education (ESEA VII-C) 0 $31,453

To be 

determined1 $31,453
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

E-9

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

footnote

2015

Authorized footnote

2015

Request

footnote

Unfunded authorizations

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

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

UA Early childhood educator professional development (ESEA, 

Section 2151(e)) 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total definite authorization $20,667 $21,034

Total appropriation 966,923 966,923

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 611,690

Portion of request not authorized 331,936

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under new legislation. 2 The amount appropriated to carry out Title VI, Part B is to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2. 3 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing statute, which requires such adjustments 

through fiscal year 2023. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes authorizing this program through appropriations 

language.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-10

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Foot

-

note AppropriationFoot

-

note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8807 4,544,5967 4,397,391

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A8 4,676,862 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923

(2015 Advance for 2016) (0)

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

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

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

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

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

 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 6

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

Senate Committee action only. 7

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

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

E-11

8

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

E-12

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

Alaska Native Educational Equity

Senate: The Committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2012 competition for this 

program did not sufficiently recognize the statutory provisions related to 

applications from Alaska Native regional nonprofit organizations or from consortia 

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

Committee notes that two competitive preference points were awarded for 

applications from such organizations, and nine points were awarded for nonstatutory priorities established by the Department. The Committee finds this 

unacceptable and directs the Department to more appropriately adhere to 

sections 7304(c) and 7305(b) of the ESEA in all future funding decisions and 

grant competitions and ensure that all grantees have meaningful plans for 

consultation with Alaska Native leaders. The Committee also directs the 

Department to prepare and submit a report, within 180 days of the enactment of 

this act, on how the Department will work to improve consultation with and 

promote the maximum participation of Alaska Native organizations, Alaska 

Native regional nonprofit organizations, and consortia that include at least one 

Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization in the program. The report should 

also outline steps the Department will take to ensure that all current grantees 

have meaningful plans for consultation with Alaska Native organizations.

Response: The Department has committed to assigning points to only the statutory priority in 

section 7304(c) of the ESEA, and has assigned 10 points to the Alaska Native 

Regional Nonprofit Organization competitive preference priority for the 2014 

competition. In addition, the Notice Inviting Applications for the 2014 

competition, which was published in the Federal Register on February, 18, 2014, 

includes the eligibility provisions described in section 7305(b). Finally, the 

Department will consider the Committee’s directive regarding consultation with 

Alaska Native leaders when designing future competitions and plans to submit 

the requested report.

Rural Education

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

between the Small, Rural School Achievement Program, which provides funds to 

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

School Program, which provides funds to LEAs that serve concentrations of poor 

students, regardless of the number of students served.

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

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

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

School program.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

E-13E-13

Rural Education—continued

Senate: The Committee notes that almost one-third of the Nation’s schools are in rural 

areas. The GAO and others have noted the unique challenges faced by these 

schools, including recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers; offering 

access to advanced coursework, such as Advanced Placement courses; meeting 

transportation costs that diminish resources available for academic and 

enrichment programs; and writing successful applications for grant competitions 

given their more limited administrative capacity. The Committee is very 

concerned that the Department has generally failed to recognize these 

challenges over the past 4 years, particularly in some of its grant competitions. 

The Investing in Innovation program offers a welcome departure from this 

pattern, as the Department altered its competition to provide an absolute priority 

for rural applicants, instead of the competitive preference priority it established in 

the initial competition. The Committee directs the Department to immediately 

take action to improve its record in the area of rural education. The Committee 

requests a report not later than 30 days after enactment of this act describing the 

actions the Department has taken and will take to ensure that the needs of 

students in rural schools are effectively met by the programs it administers. The 

report should specifically address how the Department organizes or will organize 

itself to ensure rural expertise is available to program staff throughout the 

Department, and strategies the Department is taking or will take to ensure that 

students in rural LEAs are able to benefit from competitive grant opportunities 

and other resources available through Department’s discretionary appropriations.

Response: The Department submitted the requested report on February 19, 2014.
ACCOUNT

E-14E-14

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Education Improvement Programs

 1. Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

(a) Effective teaching and learning: Literacy (proposed legislation) D 0 0 183,741 183,741 ---

(b) Ready-to-learn television (ESEA II-D-3) D 25,771 25,741 0 (25,741) -100.000%

(c) Striving readers (ESEA I-E, section 1502) 2 D 151,378 158,000 0 (158,000) -100.000%

Subtotal 177,149 183,741 183,741 0 0.000%

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

(a) Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education (proposed legislation) D 0 0 25,000 25,000 ---

(b) Arts in education (ESEA V-D, subpart 15) D 23,648 25,000 0 (25,000) -100.000%

Subtotal 23,648 25,000 25,000 0 0.000%

 3. College pathways and accelerated learning:

(a) College pathways and accelerated learning (proposed legislation) D 0 0 74,750 74,750 ---

(b) High school graduation initiative (ESEA I-H) 1 D 46,267 46,267 0 (46,267) -100.000%

(c) Advanced placement (ESEA I-G) 1 D 28,890 28,483 0 (28,483) -100.000%

Subtotal 75,157 74,750 74,750 0 0.000%

 4. Assessing achievement (ESEA VI-A-1) D 368,900 378,000 378,000 0 0.000%

 5. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,598 6,598 6,598 0 0.000%

 6. Rural education (ESEA VI-B) D 169,840 169,840 169,840 0 0.000%

 7. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,699 16,699 0 0.000%

 8. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 48,445 48,445 48,445 0 0.000%

 9. Native Hawaiian student education (ESEA VII-B) D 32,397 32,397 32,397 0 0.000%

 10. Alaska Native student education (ESEA VII-C) D 31,453 31,453 31,453 0 0.000%

Total 2 950,286 966,923 966,923 0 0.000%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 are proposed under new authorizing legislation.

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

- Account totals and programs shown within accounts in FY 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Reflects a reprogramming to Advanced Placement in FY 2013 of $407 thousand from the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National Significance, appropriated to the Innovation and 

Improvement account, now the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

2 Adjusted for comparability. Excludes $61,771 thousand in FY 2013 and $65,042 thousand in FY 2014 for Homeless Children and Youth Education, requested in FY 2015 under the Accelerating Achievement and 

Ensuring Equity account. Excludes $2,337,830 thousand in FY 2013 and $2,349,830 thousand in FY 2014 for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, and $141,902 thousand in FY 2013 and $149,717 thousand

in FY 2014 for Mathematics and Science Partnerships, requested in FY 2015 under the Innovation and Instructional Teams account. Excludes $1,091,564 thousand in FY 2013 and $1,149,370 thousand

in FY 2014 for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, requested in FY 2015 under the Supporting Student Success account. Includes $25,771 thousand in FY 2013 and $25,741 thousand in FY 2014 for

Ready-to-learn Television, $23,648 thousand in FY 2013 and $25,000 thousand in FY 2014 for Arts in Education, and $28,890 thousand in FY 2013 and $28,483 thousand in FY 2014 for Advanced Placement,

appropriated to the Innovation and Improvement account, now the Innovation and Instructional Teams account.

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-15

Summary of Request

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

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

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

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

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

developing and administering student achievement assessments. The account also includes a 

variety of smaller programs addressing particular educational needs or special populations.

The fiscal year 2015 appropriation would support the first year of a reauthorized ESEA. The 

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

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

Administration is requesting approximately $967 million for programs in this account. This 

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

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

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

Learning. The budget also reallocates programs across budget accounts in order to better 

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

The requested $184 million for Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy would support 

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

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

through grade 12.

The Administration also requests $25 million for Effective Teaching and Learning for a WellRounded Education to support States and high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) in 

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

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

education, economics, financial literacy, and other subjects.

The Administration also is proposing a new $75 million College Pathways and Accelerated 

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

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

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

graduation and success in college.

The Administration requests $378 million for Assessing Achievement (State Assessments 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

improvement of teaching and learning. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2015 would support 

a grant competition to address pressing needs States identify with their assessments.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-16E-16

The 2015 request also includes:

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

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

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

• $170 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that often 

face unique challenges in implementing ESEA;

• $17 million for Supplemental Education Grants program to provide support to the 

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

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

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003;

• $48 million for Comprehensive Centers to provide comprehensive technical assistance to 

grantees under the Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002;

• $32 million for Native Hawaiian Student Education to provide supplemental education 

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

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

education, and community-based education learning centers; and

• $31 million for Alaska Native Student Education to support the development and operation 

of supplemental education programs and services for Alaska Native children and adults.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-17

Activities:

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

0 $183,741 +$183,741

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

local efforts to provide high-quality literacy programs aligned with college- and career-ready 

English-language arts standards. These programs would be designed to strengthen and 

support instruction and to increase student achievement in high-need LEAs and schools, with 

flexibility for LEAs to focus funds on the areas of their greatest need from preschool through 

grade 12.

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

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

English language arts that are common to a significant number of States or certified by a State’s 

higher education system, consistent with the requirements of ESEA flexibility. States would be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department would be permitted to reserve up to 5 percent of program funds for competitive 

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

teaching and student achievement in literacy.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $183.7 million in fiscal year 2015 for Effective Teaching and 

Learning: Literacy, the same as the combined fiscal year 2014 level for Striving Readers and 

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

Effective teaching and learning: Literacy

E-18E-18

would address the need to strengthen and support instruction comprehensively and increase 

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

replace the Striving Readers and Ready to Learn Television programs (and other literacyrelated programs currently authorized by the ESEA and funded in previous fiscal years) with a 

single comprehensive and coherent program that supports the improvement of education in 

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

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

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

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

developmentally appropriate, and systematic literacy instruction.

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

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

Findings released in July 2012 from the Department’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 

indicate that, at kindergarten entry, children from low-income families have significantly lower 

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

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than half (53 percent) of fourthgrade students in high-poverty schools scored below the basic reading level, compared with 

only 15 percent in low-poverty schools. Forty-three percent of eighth-grade students in highpoverty schools scored below the basic reading level, compared with only 12 percent in lowpoverty schools.

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

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

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

instruction for children from birth through grade 12. The Department would discontinue the 

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

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

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

The Department would use 2015 funds to pay continuation costs for grants made prior to ESEA 

reauthorization under Striving Readers and the Fund for the Improvement of Education: 

Programs of National Significance’s Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2015

Continuation awards for antecedent programs $183,741

Total, Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy $183,741

_________________

NOTE: Approximately $158,741 thousand for Striving Readers and $25,000 thousand for Innovative Approaches 

to Literacy would be provided in fiscal year 2015 to fund continuation awards for grants made in prior fiscal years.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-19

Ready-to-learn television

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$25,741 0 -$25,741

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

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

of the funding must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

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

effective use of such programming;

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

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

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

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

caregivers; and

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

programs are widely distributed.

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

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

effective use of educational video programs.

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

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

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

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

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

Ready-to-learn television

E-20E-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make It GO”), which is designed to help children age 2 through 8 learn 

mathematics. Project UMIGO will use multiple platforms (including the Internet, cell phones, 

handheld gaming devices, television, DVDs, and books) and a media-based mathematics 

curriculum to offer child-initiated and creative play opportunities (e.g., digital paint, glue, and 

blocks) that support mathematics learning, as well as related support materials and digital 

resources for parents, caregivers, and teachers. The goal is to ensure that children learn the 

basic principles of mathematics and to think creatively, invent, and work 

collaboratively. (See http://umigo.info/)

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

Service, will receive $71.1 million over the life of the grant to develop a “transmedia” 

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

designed to raise the achievement of children ages 2 to 8 in high-needs 

communities. Project content will be aligned with rigorous mathematics and literacy 

academic standards, and a progress tracking system will provide feedback on student 

progress to parents and teachers. (See http://pbskids.org/readytolearn/commitment.html)

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

over 5 years, has partnered with Zinkia, Inc., the creators of Pocoyo, to form the Ready-toLearn Early Learning Collaboration, which will develop transmedia learning applications that 

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

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

applications, interactive websites, and television, and will include training materials for 

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

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

Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2013.............................................................25,771

2014.............................................................25,741

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-21E-21

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

program for fiscal year 2015. In place of this and several other narrowly targeted programs that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disseminating information on effective programs and best practices. Public telecommunications 

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

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

high-quality educational content for children. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Number of continuation 

awards 3 3 0

Continuation award funding $25,721 $25,681 0

Evaluation (review of grant 

products) $50 $60 0

Total 25,771 25,741 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rise of new digital media platforms. Initially, the grantees focused on the creation and launch of 

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

children. Grantees will then pursue the more expensive production of television shows. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-22E-22

Performance Measures

In 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the Ready-to-Learn program to 

better measure both Ready-to-Learn’s effectiveness in improving what children learn and the 

number of children Ready-to-Learn is reaching. The revised measures are: 

• the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

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

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

more traditional educational materials; 

• the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary supporting 

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

an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

• the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, disaggregated 

by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard metrics or, when 

available, by tracking tools.

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

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

provide data on the first performance measure. The Department received the first three studies 

in 2013. All three studies found that children who use RTL-produced educational media 

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

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

to other more traditional educational materials. Therefore, in 2013, 100 percent of experimental 

or quasi-experimental research studies conducted by RTL grantees met the first performance 

measure. 

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

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

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

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

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. In 2012, panel members reviewed three 

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

determined that two were of high quality, receiving scores of 3.89 and 4.26. The third suite 

received a score of 3.56. In 2013, panel members reviewed five transmedia product suites 

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

of high quality, receiving scores of 4.26 and 4.85. Reviewers determined one suite was of good 

quality, with a score of 3.19, and two were of poor quality, receiving scores of 1.81 and 1.89.

For the third performance measure, grantees reported on the number of children who used 

RTL-produced products, by type of product. Overall, 46.5 million users accessed RTL-produced 

educational media products. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported 

46.4 million users, of which 30.7 million watched CPB television shows, 15.0 million used webbased games, and 784 thousand downloaded mobile apps. Window to the World (WTTW) 

reported a total of 38.5 thousand users, 23.5 thousand of whom used web-based products and 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-23E-23

14.5 thousand of whom participated in one of WTTW’s 25 pilot programs. Finally, the Hispanic 

Information and Telecommunications Network (HITN) reported 632 children who used HITN’s 

mobile apps and accompanying transmedia at HITN pilot sites.

Efficiency Measure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

children’s television programs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television production. In the first 

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

compared to $19.5 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.50 of non-Federal 

dollars for every Federal dollar. Because of the decrease in leveraged funds needed, the 

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

Other Performance Information

Both 2005 RTL programming grantees implemented multiple formative studies designed to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

content. Research conducted on Ready-to-Learn outreach activities has examined how families 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Ready-to-learn television

E-24E-24

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

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

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

enhancing learning through targeted programming and outreach.

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

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

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

shows, materials, and resources as well as a bibliography of studies and other publications. 

Window to the World Communications will be producing a companion document that will not 

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

E-25

Striving readers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$158,000 0 -$158,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

comprehensive literacy development and education program intended to advance the literacy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

activities. The remaining funds were used to make competitive grants to six States. The fiscal 

year 2011 appropriations act did not include funding for the Striving Readers program. The 

fiscal year 2012 appropriations act continued the program but did not include State formula 

grant funding. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Striving readers

E-26E-26

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

distribute funds between middle and high schools. 

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

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

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

characteristics of effective literacy instruction; specific activities may include professional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applying on behalf of the SEA and one or more LEAs with governing authority over Title Ieligible schools that serve any of grades 6 through 12. Applicants were required to implement a 

supplemental literacy intervention (for students reading 2 or more years below grade level) 

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

effectiveness of the intervention using an experimental research design.

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

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

following year.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-27E-27

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) Footnote

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

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

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

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

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

_________________

1 Reflects a rescission of $50,000 thousand under P.L. 111-226. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

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

year 2015. In place of this program and other literacy-related programs currently authorized by 

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

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

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

achievement in literacy in high-need LEAs and schools. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

developmentally appropriate, and systematic literacy instruction.

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

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

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

children from birth through grade 12. However, the 2010 appropriations language also required 

the allocation of funding by specific age ranges of students, which limited State and local 

flexibility to invest Federal funds based on their needs within the framework of a comprehensive 

preschool-through-12th-grade literacy plan. 

The fiscal year 2015 request for Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy includes funds to pay 

2015 continuation costs for the Striving Readers grants made in previous years.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-28E-28

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for competitive grants 

(continuations) $149,223 $155,779 0

Number of competitive grants 6 6 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education $757 $790 0

Amount for Outlying Areas $757 $790 0

National activities (including 

evaluation) $641 $641 0

NOTE: In fiscal year 2015, continuation costs of approximately $182,558 thousand would be provided from the 

appropriation for the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program. 

The Department established the following performance measures for the Striving Readers 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proficiency for purposes of accountability determinations. 

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

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

disabilities. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Striving readers

E-29E-29

In 2013, on Performance Measure 1, 65 percent of all participating students made significant 

gains in oral language skills. Similarly, 65 percent of participating disadvantaged students, 

54 percent of participating limited-English-proficient participating students, and 41 percent of 

participating students with disabilities made significant gains in oral language skills. On 

Performance Measure 2, 75 percent of all participating 5th-grade students, 71 percent of 

participating disadvantaged students, 60 percent of participating limited-English-proficient 

students, and 52 percent of participating students with disabilities met or exceeded proficiency 

on State reading or language arts assessments. On Performance Measure 3, 79 percent of all 

participating 8th-grade students, 76 percent of participating disadvantaged students, 45 percent 

of participating limited-English-proficient students, and 51percent of participating disabled 

students met or exceeded proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments. Finally, 

on Performance Measure 4, 71 percent of all participating high school students, 66 percent of all 

participating disadvantaged students, 17 percent of all limited-English-proficient students, and 

34 percent of all students with disabilities met or exceeded proficiency on State reading or 

language arts assessments.

Other Performance Information

All 16 Striving Readers adolescent literacy grantees conducted rigorous experimental 

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

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

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

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

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

targeted intervention had statistically significant positive impacts on achievement for either 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

posted on the program’s Web site: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

relevant impacts of the 2009 grants.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-30

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

0 $25,000 +$25,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

other subjects as identified by the Department.

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

(1) integrate teaching and learning in one or more of the above subjects with reading or Englishlanguage arts instruction or instruction in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics; 

(2) establish articulation agreements with postsecondary programs for the continuation of 

instruction in an academic subject; or (3) achieve statewide impact in one or more States. The 

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

evidence or that use technology to address student learning challenges and increase student 

engagement and achievement or teacher effectiveness.

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

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

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

assistance, and dissemination. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $25 million for fiscal year 2015 for the proposed Effective Teaching 

and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level for 

Arts in Education. The request would support the first year of the program under a reauthorized 

ESEA.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

E-31E-31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of their students and teachers across a wellrounded curriculum while focusing funding on programs that improve student achievement, 

especially in high-need LEAs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consistently outperforming their peers on each section of the SAT.

The Department would use a portion of the 2015 request for Effective Teaching and Learning 

for a Well-Rounded Education to pay fiscal year 2015 continuation costs for grants made prior 

to ESEA reauthorization under Arts in Education. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education

E-32E-32

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $6,085

Number of new awards 5-10

Peer review of new award applications $250

National activities $2,500

Continuation awards for grants under Arts in Education $16,165

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

E-33

Arts in education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

Period of Fund Availability 2014 2015 Change 

$25,000 0 -$25,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regular elementary school and secondary school curriculum. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

visual arts educators. 

Beginning with the fiscal year 2011 appropriation, the Department initiated a new National Arts 

in Education competition to make grants to one or more national nonprofit arts organizations to 

carry out high-quality arts education programs for children and youth, with particular emphasis 

on serving students from low-income families and students with disabilities. The Department 

conducted a second competition in fiscal year 2012.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-34E-34

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2013..........................................................23,648

2014..........................................................25,000

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

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

year 2015. In place of this and other narrowly targeted programs focused on student 

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

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

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

education as an authorized activity. This new program would address the need to strengthen 

instruction and increase student achievement, especially in high-need LEAs, across a range of 

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

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

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

Department. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eligible under the current Arts in Education program. 

The fiscal year 2015 request for Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education 

would include funds to pay 2015 continuation costs for Arts in Education grants made in 

previous years.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-35E-35

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

National Demonstration and Leadership Activities

Model Arts Program

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Total funds available $11,054 $11,362 0

Amount for new awards $2,231 $8,656 0

Number of new awards 6 28 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $8,396 $2,231 0

Number of continuation 

awards 28 6 0

Interagency transfer to 

support the Arts 

Education Partnership $334 $350 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $93 $125 0

Professional Development for Arts Educators

Measures

Total funds available $5,408 $6,452 0

Amount for new awards 0 $4,792 0

Number of new awards 0 16 0

Amount for continuation 

awards $5,408 $1,560 0

Number of continuation 

awards 14 5 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $100 0
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-36E-36

National Arts in Education Program

Measures 2013 2014 2015

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

Amount for continuation 

awards $6,700 $6,700 0

Number of continuation 

awards 1 1 0

Evaluation $486 $486 0 _________________________

NOTE: Fiscal year 2015 continuation costs of approximately $16,165 thousand would be provided from the 

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

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

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

content standards in the arts.

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

arts education for all participants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

completion of 75 percent of the total number of professional development hours offered by the 

PDAE-funded project during the reporting period; and completion of these professional 

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

PDAE grantees developed their own definitions of sustained and intensive professional 

development.) Data collected in 2011 represent the baseline for this indicator and are the basis 

for targets for subsequent years. The Department continues to work with grantees to ensure 

that the same definition of “sustained and intensive” is used consistently across projects. In 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Arts in education

E-37E-37

2011, 27 percent of teachers participating in PDAE received professional development that was 

sustained and intensive and in 2012, 84 percent of teachers participating in PDAE received 

professional development that was sustained and intensive.

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

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

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

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

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

performance reports. In 2011 and 2012, 100 percent of projects that submitted complete 

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

knowledge.

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2010 53.9% 51.4%

2011 53.7 48.4

2012 64.0 55.0

2013

2014

2015

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2010 48.9% 47.3%

2011 47.7 42.2

2012 57.0 43.0

2013

2014

2015

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

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

students who demonstrate proficient levels of achievement on State assessments in 

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

2009-2010, the students in the treatment groups performed better than those in the control 

groups on both reading and mathematics measures. The Department expects to have finalized 

2012 performance data, representing school year 2011-2012, available in spring 2014.

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

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

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

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

Arts in education

E-38E-38

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

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

in standards-based arts education sponsored by the grantee. In 2013, on performance 

measure 1, the grantee targeted 697,632 students for participation; 1,006,004 actually 

participated in standards-based arts education sponsored by the grantee. On performance 

measure 2, the grantee’s target was 22.0 percent; 20.3 percent of teachers participating in the 

grantee’s program received professional development that was sustained and intensive. On 

performance measure 3, the grantee targeted 244,845 students from low-income families and 

served 519,110. On performance measure 4, the grantee targeted 86,397 students with 

disabilities and served 257,512.

Other Performance Information

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

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

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

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

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

education in 2009–10. The results from this report are expected later in 2014.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-39

College pathways and accelerated learning

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

0 $74,750 +$74,750

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schools.

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

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

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

continuously improve proposed project activities.

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

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

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

fees for students from low-income families.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $74.8 million in fiscal year 2015 for the proposed College Pathways 

and Accelerated Learning program, which would be created through the Administration’s 

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

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

College pathways and accelerated learning

E-40E-40

programs that offer accelerated learning opportunities or that seek to prevent students from 

dropping out of school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

out, not just those who are already high achievers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and graduating from college early or on time.

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

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

to graduate from high school with 2 years of college credit already earned. A 2008 Early 

College High School Initiative report funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that 

early college high school students scored significantly higher than comparable high school 

students on State assessments and that early college high school classes often demonstrate 

higher levels of rigor than their college equivalents.

The College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program would also support other efforts to 

prevent students from dropping out and to re-engage out-of-school youth, including early 

warning systems and comprehensive dropout prevention and reentry plans. Early warning 

systems would seek to identify effectively those students at risk of not graduating on time and 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

College pathways and accelerated learning

E-41E-41

would provide schools and LEAs with the information necessary to target interventions of the 

type and level necessary to support students’ on-time graduation.

In fiscal year 2015, the Department would use College Pathways and Accelerated Learning 

funds to meet, in full, States’ requests for grants for advanced course test fee costs. The 

Department would also use a portion of the request to pay fiscal year 2015 continuation costs 

for grants made prior to ESEA reauthorization under Javits Gifted and Talented Education. 

College Pathways and Accelerated Learning would also complement the Administration’s efforts 

to improve the high school experience through the proposed High School Redesign program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $15,264

Number of new awards 5-15

Peer review of new award applications $748

National activities $3,738

Grants for advanced course test fee costs $50,000

Continuation awards for grants under Javits Gifted and Talented Education $5,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

Pathways and Accelerated Learning.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-42

High school graduation initiative

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$46,267 0 -$46,267

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in

FY 2015 under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The High School Graduation Initiative provides competitive grants to State educational agencies 

and local educational agencies to support the implementation of effective, sustainable, and 

coordinated dropout prevention and re-entry programs in high schools with annual dropout rates 

that exceed their State average annual dropout rate. Funds may also be used to support 

activities at middle schools that feed into such high schools. Grants are awarded for up to 

5 years and may be used for activities such as early identification of students who are at risk of 

not graduating; services for at-risk students designed to keep them in school and on track to 

graduate, including counseling and mentoring; programs to identify youth who have left school 

without graduating and assist them in reentering and graduating, including through remedial 

education; and other comprehensive dropout prevention approaches.

The Department is required to use 10 percent of program funds for national activities, including 

technical assistance, evaluation, and information dissemination.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$50,000

2011.............................................................48,902

2012.............................................................48,809

2013.............................................................46,267 

2014.............................................................46,267

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting fiscal year 2015 funding for the High School Graduation 

Initiative, which under current law is in the Education for the Disadvantaged account. In place of 

this and other narrowly targeted programs that seek to improve student achievement in high 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-43E-43

school or provide an accelerated curriculum, the Administration has proposed to create, through 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization, a broader program, 

College Pathways and Accelerated Learning. This program would support efforts to increase 

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

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

and high schools and in high schools with low graduation rates. The program would also 

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

graduate.

Students at risk of dropping out would be a critical target population for the new program. 

Educators find that giving such students the opportunity to enroll and succeed in demanding 

courses can be an effective approach to dropout prevention, as many students lose interest in 

and subsequently leave school because they are unchallenged by the standard curriculum. 

Further, research shows that students who participate in an accelerated high school curriculum 

are more likely to enroll in higher education. According to the Department’s 2000 follow-up of 

the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88/2000), 96 percent of students in 

the lowest socio-economic status quintile who participated in AP courses enrolled in 

postsecondary education programs, compared to 39 percent of those who did not participate.

The Department would also continue to provide significant assistance to high schools with low 

graduation rates through the School Turnaround Grants (formerly School Improvement Grants) 

program, which, under the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal, would serve Title I 

secondary schools with a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number of years.

If the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to enactment of fiscal year 2015 

appropriations, the Administration will request authority through appropriations language to use 

funds from the required 10 percent set-aside for national activities under High School 

Graduation Initiative to make grants for activities to improve school dropout prevention and 

reentry.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for continuation awards $41,640 $41,640 0

Number of continuation awards 28 28 0

National activities $4,627 $4,627 0
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-44E-44

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

In 2011, the Department established performance measures for the fiscal year 2010 grantee 

cohort. The 2011 data are used as the baseline for the targets in subsequent years. The 2013 

data for the measures are expected to be available in spring 2014.

Goal: To increase the number of students who graduate from high school with a regular

high school diploma.

Objective: To increase the average daily attendance of returning high school dropouts.

Measure: The average daily attendance of students served by the program who had not 

attended school for 60 or more instructional days immediately prior to their participation in the 

program.

Year Target Actual

2011 76.4%

2012 77.9% 71.7

2013 79.5

2014 81.1

2015 82.7

Additional Information: Data for this measure represent the average daily rate of school 

attendance by applicable students. The 2012 data are reported for 27 of the 29 fiscal year 2010 

grantees.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-45E-45

Objective: To accelerate the credit accumulation of under-credited high school students.

Measure: The percentage of participating students who were two or more years behind their 

expected age and credit accumulation in high school who earned one half or more of the credits 

they needed to graduate with a regular diploma.

Year Target Actual

2011 47.7%

2012 48.7% 45.7

2013 49.6

2014 50.6

2015 51.6

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 26 of 29 grantees.

Objective: To increase the on-time graduation rate of high schools. 

Measure: The percentage of high school students served by the program who, during the most 

recent school year, earned one quarter of the credits necessary to graduate from high school 

with a regular diploma.

Year Target Actual

2011 65.9%

2012 69.2% 65.2

2013 72.7

2014 76.3

2015 80.1

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 25 of 29 grantees.

Measure: The average on-time graduation rate of high schools served by the program.

Year Target Actual

2011 58.4%

2012 59.6% 61.6

2013 60.8

2014 62.0

2015 63.2

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 28 of 29 grantees.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

High school graduation initiative

E-46E-46

Objective: To increase the percentage of eighth grade students who transition successfully to 

high school.

Measure: The average daily attendance of schools served by the program that include an 

eighth grade.

Year Target Actual

2011 92.9%

2012 93.4% 91.8

2013 93.8

2014 94.3

2015 94.8

Additional Information: Data for this measure represent the average daily rate of attendance 

of students enrolled in the applicable school. The 2012 data are reported for 10 of the 14 fiscal 

year 2010 grantees that serve middle schools.

Measure: The percentage of eighth grade students attending schools served by the project 

who enrolled in ninth grade at the start of the following school year.

Year Target Actual

2011 91.6%

2012 92.1% 88.9

2013 92.5

2014 93.0

2015 93.4

Additional Information: The 2012 data are reported for 10 of the 14 grantees that serve 

middle schools.

Other Performance Information

Reviews of rigorous research conducted for the Department’s What Works Clearinghouse 

(WWC) show variation in the effectiveness of dropout prevention interventions. Since 

September 2006, reports on 19 dropout prevention interventions have been published on the 

WWC website that include reviews of studies meeting WWC evidence standards with or without 

reservations. Of those 19 interventions, 13 were reported to have positive or potentially positive 

effects on one or more of the following: students’ staying in school, progressing in school, and 

completing school; 12 were determined to have no discernible effects in at least one of those 

areas; and one was found to have mixed effects on staying in school.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-47

Advanced placement

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$28,483 0 -$28,483

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2015 under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I, Part G of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes two 

programs: the Advanced Placement Test Fee program and the Advanced Placement Incentive 

program. The purpose of both programs is to support State and local efforts to increase access 

to Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and other approved advanced 

courses and tests (collectively referred to as “advanced placement courses and tests”) for 

students from low-income families. The statute requires the Department to give priority to 

funding the Advanced Placement Test Fee program, with remaining funds allocated to 

Advanced Placement Incentive grants.

Advanced Placement Test Fee Program: The Department makes 1-year noncompetitive 

awards to State educational agencies to enable them to cover all or part of the cost of test fees 

for students from low-income families who are enrolled in an advanced placement course and 

plan to take an advanced placement test. By subsidizing test fees, the program encourages 

students from low-income families to take advanced placement tests and obtain college credit 

for their courses, thereby reducing the time and cost required to complete a postsecondary 

degree.

Advanced Placement Incentive Program: The Department makes 3-year competitive awards to 

State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and national nonprofit educational 

entities with expertise in providing advanced placement services. Grants must be used to 

expand access for students from low-income families to advanced placement courses and 

programs. Authorized activities include, but are not limited to, teacher training, development of 

pre-advanced placement courses, activities to enhance coordination and articulation between 

grade levels in order to prepare students for academic achievement in advanced placement 

courses, the purchase of books and supplies, and activities to enhance the availability of and 

expand participation in online advanced placement courses. 

In fiscal year 2013, available funds were not sufficient for grants under both the Test Fee and 

Incentive programs. As a result, Incentive program grantees did not receive continuation 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-48E-48

funding for the third (and final) year of their projects. Further, to prevent a funding shortfall 

under the Test Fee program (stemming from the rapid growth in the number of advanced 

placement tests taken annually by students from low-income families), the Department 

significantly scaled back its grant support by eliminating our coverage of test registration fees 

(i.e., one-time per-student fees that are separate from and in addition to the fees for individual 

tests) and reducing the maximum amount of our per-test subsidy by $10. In a number of States 

receiving Test Fee grants, the latter policy resulted in students from low-income families having 

to pay a share of advanced placement test fee costs for the first time. 

The Department expects that, even under the reduced coverage policies initiated in fiscal year 

2013, demand for grants under the Test Fee program in fiscal year 2014 will continue to exceed 

significantly the level of support available in program appropriations. As of March 2014, the 

Department is considering options to avoid another potential shortfall, such as further reducing 

the amount of the Federal contribution per test. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$45,840

2011.............................................................43,253

2012.............................................................30,0551

2013.............................................................28,890 2

2014.............................................................28,483

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance and 

$200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced Placement.

2 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2013 of $407 thousand from the Fund for the Improvement of 

Education: Programs of National Significance.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department is not requesting fiscal year 2015 funding for the Advanced Placement 

program, which under current appropriations law is included in the Innovation and Improvement 

account. In place of this and other narrowly targeted programs that seek to improve student 

achievement in high schools or provide an accelerated curriculum, the Administration has 

proposed to create, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, a 

broader program, College Pathways and Accelerated Learning. This program would support 

efforts to increase preparation for college matriculation and success through the introduction 

and expansion in high-poverty secondary schools of Advanced Placement (AP) and 

International Baccalaureate (IB) courses as well as other accelerated curriculum options such 

as dual-enrollment and early college high school programs. It would also provide grants to 

States for payment of advanced course test fees for students from low-income families.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-49E-49

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Test Fee program

Amount for new awards $28,890 $28,483 0

Number of new awards 42 43 0

_________________

NOTE: Test fee costs of approximately $50,000 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for College 

Pathways and Accelerated Learning in fiscal year 2015.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To increase the numbers of low-income high school students prepared to pursue 

higher education.

Objective: Encourage a greater number of low-income and other underrepresented categories 

of students to participate in the AP and IB programs and pass the exams.

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by low-income public school 

students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2010 435,013 483,624

2011 500,265 596,241

2012 600,318 710,100

2013 781,110 768,010

2014 859,221

2015 945,143
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-50E-50

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3-5) by 

low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2010 174,875 172,005

2011 203,108 210,870

2012 222,118 268,860

2013 300,727 289,283

2014 335,955

2015 375,221

Measure: The percentage of Advanced Placement tests passed (tests receiving scores of 3-5) 

by low-income public school students nationally.

Year Target Actual

2010 40.2% 35.6%

2011 40.4 35.4

2012 37.0 37.9

2013 38.5 37.7

2014 39.1

2015 39.7

Additional Information: The data for these measures are obtained from the College Board 

and capture the effects of efforts to increase low-income public school students’ participation in 

AP courses and success on AP exams. The targets for these measures have been revised 

beginning with the 2013 targets based on actual performance in 2012.

The International Baccalaureate Organization reported that, in 2012, 35,414 IB exams were 

taken by low-income public school students, with 19,295 of those exams, or 54.5 percent, 

receiving passing scores of 4-7.

Measure: The number of Advanced Placement tests taken by minority (Hispanic, Black, Native 

American) public school students nationally.

Additional Information: The data for this measure are obtained from the College Board and 

capture the effects of efforts to increase minority public school students’ participation in AP 

Year Target Actual

2010 626,423 616,992

2011 675,520 700,872

2012 721,562 751,428

2013 788,999

2014 828,449

2015
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Advanced placement

E-51E-51

programs. The targets for this measure have been revised beginning with the 2013 target 

based on actual performance in 2012.

The International Baccalaureate Organization reported that, in 2012, 49,791 IB exams were 

taken by minority public school students.

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The cost per passage of an Advanced Placement test by a low-income public school 

student.

Year Target Actual

2010 $91.29 $115.89

2011 91.29 151.45

2012 91.29 93.16

2013 91.29 123.48

2014 91.29

2015 91.29

Additional Information: The results for this measure are calculated by dividing the total 

amount of Federal funds that States receiving AP Test Fee grants report spending on AP test 

fees by the total number of such tests passed by low-income students in those States. The 

increase in cost per passage in 2011 could be explained, in part, by the fact that California 

stopped partially subsidizing test fee costs with State funds that year, thus increasing the 

Federal share of test fee costs in that State. The decrease in cost per passage in 2012 could 

be explained, in part, by the fact that the Department’s Test Fee grants were sufficient to cover 

only approximately 75 percent of States’ requests for test fee support.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-52

Assessing achievement

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$378,000 $378,000 0

_________________

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires States to test all 

students annually in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in reading (or language arts) 

and mathematics, and to administer annual assessments in science for each of three grade 

spans specified in the law. Furthermore, States must assess the English proficiency of all 

limited English proficient students annually. Under current law, the annual assessments in 

reading and mathematics are used to determine whether States, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), and schools are making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of all students 

attaining proficiency by 2013-2014; the science and language proficiency assessments are not 

required for the determination of adequate yearly progress. Under ESEA flexibility, the 

Department’s initiative to provide States, districts, and schools with flexibility from current law in 

order to improve academic achievement and improve the quality of instruction for all students, 

all of the 42 States approved thus far, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, use these 

annual assessments to measure the progress of schools toward annual measurable objectives 

set as part of their systems of differentiated accountability, recognition, and support.

All assessments must be valid and reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking 

skills and understanding of challenging content, and enable achievement results to be 

disaggregated by major racial and ethnic group, gender, poverty, disability, English proficiency, 

and migrant status. The annual assessments can be a critical diagnostic tool for teachers and 

parents to use in improving instruction and meeting specific student needs. 

The Grants for State Assessments program, authorized by Section 6111 of ESEA, provides 

formula grants to States to pay the costs of developing the standards and assessments required 

by ESEA Title I. Once a State has put in place those standards and assessments, it may use 

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

ensuring that the State’s schools and LEAs are held accountable for results. Such activities 

may include, among other things, developing standards and assessments in subjects other than

those required by Title I, expanding the range of testing accommodations for students with 

disabilities and for limited English proficient students, professional development aligned with 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-53E-53

State standards and assessments, and developing multiple measures to ensure the validity and 

reliability of State assessments. Funds also may be used to acquire and to train teachers and 

other staff to use the educational technology needed to implement new, computer-based 

assessments, and to purchase add-ons and diagnostic information related to such 

assessments.

Under the funding formula, 0.5 of 1 percent of the appropriation is reserved for the Department 

of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and 0.5 of 1 percent goes to the Outlying Areas. 

From the remaining funds, each State receives $3 million and then a share of any remaining 

funds based on its proportion of students ages 5 through 17.

Section 6112 of the ESEA authorizes Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments, a 

competitive grant program under which the Department makes awards to support efforts by 

States, or consortia of States, to: (1) improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State 

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

measures from multiple sources; (3) chart student progress over time; and (4) use 

comprehensive instruments such as performance- and technology-based assessments. To 

date, the Department has made 50 awards under the program; those grants have supported 

projects to increase the accessibility and validity of assessments for students with disabilities or 

limited English proficiency; develop English language proficiency assessments; use technology 

to improve State assessments; and provide intensive, high-quality professional development for 

using assessment data to improve instruction. 

Assessing Achievement is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on 

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

through September 30 of the following year.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...................................................................................$410,732

2011.....................................................................................389,951

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

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2015, the Administration requests $378 million for Assessing Achievement (currently State 

Assessments), the same amount as the 2014 appropriation. The request would support one of 

the major reforms included in the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): the implementation of college- and career-ready (CCR) 

standards and aligned assessments in order to ensure that all students graduate from high 

school with the knowledge and skills they need to be successful in college and the workplace. 

The Department would award $369.1 million to States through the same formula as in current 

statute, and the remaining $8.9 million would be awarded on a competitive basis. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-54E-54

Funding for the reauthorized Assessing Achievement program would support the transition to 

and implementation of common assessments aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards in English-language arts and mathematics. A new generation of assessments is 

needed because existing State assessments generally fail to capture the full spectrum of what 

students know and can do. They focus on concepts that are easy to measure; rely mainly on 

multiple-choice items with fill-in-the-bubble answers; and provide time-sensitive data and results 

months later, generally too late to inform instructional changes. Educators need high-quality 

assessment systems that more broadly and validly measure student achievement and provide 

more timely results. They need assessment systems that appropriately assess all students, 

including students with disabilities and English Learners, and that assess a range of content 

areas to support a well-rounded curriculum. 

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would require States to adopt college- and careerready standards and to administer assessments aligned with those standards in order to receive 

program funds. Currently States are voluntarily collaborating to develop common assessments 

aligned with rigorous college- and career-ready standards in English-language arts and 

mathematics. The resources provided through the reauthorized Assessing Achievement 

program would also support the improvement of other assessments and the reporting of 

assessment data. These resources would increase the number of States implementing 

assessment systems that measure whether students are on track to being college- and careerready by the time they graduate from high school.

In addition, the proposal would allow States to use formula funds to improve their own 

technological capacity, as well as that of their districts and schools, to implement computerbased assessments and use technology to implement other elements of their assessment 

systems (such as scoring and reporting). 

Starting with fiscal year 2015, funds would flow only to States that (1) have adopted and are 

implementing a set of high-quality K-12 standards that build toward college- and careerreadiness and, consistent with the principles of ESEA flexibility currently being implemented by 

42 States, are common to a significant number of States or are approved by a State network of 

institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not 

need remedial course work at the postsecondary level; and (2) are implementing, or have 

committed to implement, assessments in English-language arts and in mathematics in grades 

3-8 and at least once in high school that are aligned with those standards. 

States could use their formula funds to support the transition to English-language arts and 

mathematics assessments aligned to college-and career-ready standards that are held in 

common by a number of States, to measure student attainment against college-and careerready standards, or to measure student growth and to inform determinations of individual 

teacher and principal effectiveness for purposes of evaluation. States could also use formula 

funds to administer assessments; develop and implement assessments that are aligned with 

college- and career-ready standards in other subjects, including science, engineering, and 

technology; develop or improve assessments of English-language proficiency; develop or 

improve native language assessments; expand the range of accommodations available to 

English Learners and students with disabilities; provide professional development to teachers 

on administering assessments; or carry out other related activities. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-55E-55

The reauthorization proposal would also continue to authorize a program to award competitive 

grants to consortia of States, or partnerships of States and other organizations, for research on, 

or development, evaluation, and improvement of, assessments that are aligned with collegeand career-ready content and achievement standards that are held in common by a significant 

number of States. The Department would set aside $8.9 million of the fiscal year 2015 request 

to address pressing needs States identify with their assessments, which could include improving 

the accessibility of assessments, developing computer-enhanced or other new assessments or 

assessment items, providing high-quality professional development for teachers using 

assessment data to improve instruction, obtaining technology to help administer or analyze 

assessments, or conducting research to contribute to assessment knowledge and quality.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Grants for State Assessments:

Amount for State Grants $356,565 $365,361 $365,361

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,260-$27,712 $3,272-$28,795 $3,272-$28,795

Average award $6,857 $7,026 $7,026

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,602 $3,691 $3,691

Grants for Enhanced 

Assessment Instruments:

Funding for new awards $8,703 $8,919 $8,919

Number of new awards 3 1-2 1-2

Range of new awards $2,800-$4,000 $5,000-$8,400 $5,000-$8,400

Peer review of applications 0 $30 $30

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 

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The goal of the program is to support States in the development of the State assessments 

required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The 

performance measure is the number of States (including DC and PR) that have 

reading/language arts and mathematics assessments that align with the State's academic 

content standards for all students in grades three through eight and in high school and science 

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

grade span (grades 3 through 5, 6 through 8, and high school). The determination of whether a 

State has met these requirements is based on formal peer reviews of State standards and
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-56E-56

assessment systems that began in 2005; the Department determines whether to approve State 

assessment systems based on the outcome of those reviews. Below is a chart showing the 

current approval status of State assessment systems:

Approval Status of State Assessment Systems as of December 12, 2012

Number of States with approved reading/language arts, mathematics, and 

science assessments 33

Number of States with approved reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments (but not science) 5

Number of States that do not have approved reading/language arts or 

mathematics assessments, or both, because of changes to a previously 

approved assessment system 5

Number of States that have never received approval for their assessment 

systems 9

In December 2012, the Department notified States that it was suspending the peer reviews of 

State assessment systems under Title I in order to review and revise the current peer review 

process within the context of other initiatives in the Department that affect State assessment 

systems, in particular ESEA flexibility. The Department is reconsidering the peer review 

process for State assessment systems at this time in order to determine what changes may be 

necessary. Besides considering how well the existing peer review process addresses the 

requirements for State assessment systems for States participating in ESEA flexibility or the 

Race to the Top-Assessment grant projects, the Department is revising the peer review process 

to help improve the technical quality, validity, and reliability of all State assessment systems. 

In addition, the regulations pertaining to State assessment systems under Title I issued on 

April 9, 2007, that allowed States the option of developing alternate assessments based on 

modified standards for students with disabilities that meet certain criteria are being revised to 

remove the States’ authority to administer such assessments after the 2013-2014 school year. 

The Department expects to issue final regulations on this matter in 2014. Sixteen States 

administered alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards during the 

2010-2011 school year, but only 12 intend to continue the practice into school year 2013-14. 

The Department conducted a pilot review of products from grantees that received fiscal year 

2005 funding in order to obtain baseline data for the performance measures for the Grants for 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments program. These measures assess the extent to which 

funded projects produce significant research on assessments, in particular regarding 

accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities, and whether grantees 

disseminate information on the advances in assessment that result from their grants. The 

grantee’s final products were reviewed by expert panels. The review found that five of the eight 

grants funded in fiscal year 2005 produced significant research, methodologies, products, or 

tools relating to assessment systems or assessments, and five of the eight grants also produced 

significant research, methodologies, products, or tools specifically relating to accommodations 

and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Assessing achievement

E-57E-57

Efficiency Measures

The Department adopted an efficiency measure that tracks the average number of days per 

peer review session it takes the Department to issue an initial standards and assessment 

decision letter to a State after receiving a submission. 

Year Target Actual

2008 90 78.23

2009 90 100.9

2010 90 183.4

2011 90 127.3

2012 90 111.3

Additional information: The Department began formal peer reviews of State standards and 

assessment systems in 2005 in order to determine whether a State has met each of the 

requirements specified in the authorizing statute. At this time every State has submitted 

evidence for review multiple times. Since the Department has announced suspension of peer 

reviews for State assessment systems, there will be no updates for this measure until a new 

peer review process for State assessment systems is implemented.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-58

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$6,598 $6,598 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, gender, and national 

origin. To carry out those activities, the Department awards 3-year grants to regional Equity 

Assistance Centers (EACs) in each of the 10 Department of Education regions.

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, and national origin in educational programs. 

Other activities include training designed to develop educators' skills in such areas as the 

identification of race and sex bias in instructional materials and technical assistance in the 

identification and selection of appropriate educational programs to meet the needs of a diverse 

student body.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010..................................................................................$6,989

2011....................................................................................6,975

2012....................................................................................6,962

2013....................................................................................6,598

2014....................................................................................6,598

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $6.6 million for the Training and Advisory 

Services program, the same as the 2014 level. The fiscal year 2015 funds would likely support 

the first year of multi-year grants to 10 regional Equity Assistance Centers. 

The fiscal year 2011 competition included four priorities for projects that would support the goal 

of equal access to a high-quality education for all students: (1) a competitive preference priority 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-59E-59

on improving the effectiveness and distribution of teachers or principals; (2) a competitive 

preference priority on strategies to improve school engagement, school environment, school 

safety, family and community engagement; (3) an invitational priority on enabling more databased decision-making; and (4) an invitational priority on promoting science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. The Department is reviewing the 

effectiveness of these priorities in consideration of priorities for the next competition.

The Department is also considering lengthening the project period for grant awards in future 

competitions as a way to provide more continuity of service to the field and realize greater costefficiencies. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for continuation awards $6,575 $6,575 0

Number of continuation awards 10 10 0

Amount for new awards 0 0 $6,509

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $66

Number of new awards 0 0 10

Data collection $23 $23 $23

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program. 

The Department gathers data to inform the program’s performance measures through customer 

surveys administered by the Library of Congress’s Federal Research Division. 

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, and national origin.

Objective: Provide high-quality technical assistance and training to public school districts in 

addressing equity in education.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-60E-60

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) who develop, 

implement, or improve their policies or practices, or both, in eliminating, reducing, or preventing 

harassment, conflict, and school violence.

Year Target Actual

2010 70% 36%

2011 71 42

2012 72 62

2013 73 51

2014 74

2015 75

Additional information: “Actual” data reflect results from the prior program year. Changes in 

positive responses for this measure could be explained by more or fewer customers seeking 

this type of assistance since the denominator includes all customers. The percentages for 

individual EACs ranged from 20 percent to 80 percent in 2013.

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers who develop, implement, 

or improve their policies and practices, or both, for ensuring that students of different race, sex, 

and national origin have equitable opportunity for high-quality instruction.

Year Target Actual

2010 75% 77%

2011 76 82

2012 77 85

2013 78 78

2014 79

2015 80

Additional information: Changes in positive responses for this measure could be explained 

by more or fewer customers seeking this type of assistance since the denominator includes all 

customers. The percentages for individual EACs ranged from 11 percent to 100 percent in 

2013. 

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2010 90% 90%

2011 90 96

2012 90 94

2013 90 94

2014 90

2015 90

Additional information: Customers have responded very positively on the quality of the 

products and services they have received, and 94 percent of the respondents gave the products 

and services a “very high” or “high” rating of quality in 2013. The percentages for individual 

EACs receiving a rating of “high” or “very high” ranged from 85 percent to 100 percent in 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-61E-61

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high usefulness to their policies and 

practices.

Year Target Actual

2010 89% 85%

2011 90 90

2012 90 92

2013 90 93

2014 90

2015 90

Additional information: Customers have responded positively to this measure for 8 years in a 

row, and the program has generally met or exceeded its targets. In 2013, 93 percent of the 

respondents gave the products and services a “very high” or “high” rating of usefulness. The 

percentages for individual EACs receiving a rating of “high” or “very high” ranged from 

85 percent to 100 percent.

Efficiency Measures

The Department has implemented a measure of administrative efficiency to assess the Training 

and Advisory Services program and other technical assistance programs. A second efficiency 

measure was established specifically for Training and Advisory Services. 

Measure: The percentage of Equity Assistance Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2010 10% 2%

2011 10 5

2012 10 6

2013 10 2

2014 10

2015 10

Additional information: The percentage of funds carried over is calculated as the expected 

carryover reported by grantees in the annual performance report, divided by the total funds 

awarded during the current grant cycle.

Measure: The number of working days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to 

grantees after monitoring visits. 

Year Target Actual

2010 45 184

2011 45 60

2012 45 30

2013 45 30

2014 45

2015 45
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

E-62E-62

Additional information: The program office conducted 2 monitoring visits in late fiscal 

year 2013. One of the reports was sent 30 days after the visit, which was within 

fiscal year 2013.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-63

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$169,840 $169,840 0

_________________

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Part B of Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Rural Education 

Achievement program (REAP), authorizes two programs to assist rural school districts in 

carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program provides funds to rural local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of poor students, 

regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between the 

SRSA and the RLIS programs.

The two programs have similar accountability requirements. Participating LEAs are required to 

administer an assessment that is consistent with the ESEA Title I assessment requirements. An 

LEA has 3 years to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) as defined by the State under ESEA 

Title I. If, after 3 years, an LEA is making AYP, it may continue to participate in the program. If 

it does not make AYP, an LEA may continue to participate only if it agrees to use all of its 

applicable funding to carry out Title I school improvement activities.

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

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

September 30 of the following year.

SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM (Subpart 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) (a) have a total 

average daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students; or (b) serve only schools that are 

located in counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and 

(2) serve only schools that (a) have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale 

code of 7 (rural) or 8 (rural near an urban area); or (b) are located in an area of the State 

defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-64E-64

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated under 

the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants, and State Grants for Innovative Programs,

in the previous fiscal year (since fiscal year 2011, only the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program has been funded).

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under: (1) Part A of Title I 

(Grants to Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants); (3) Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State Grants); (4) Title III (Language 

Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students); (5) Part A of Title IV (Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants); (6) Part B of Title IV (21st Century 

Community Learning Centers); and (7) Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs). 

Eligible LEAs also may (under the “REAP-Flex” authority) consolidate funds they receive from 

these sources (except for Title I, Part A) to carry out effective activities under any of the 

authorized programs including under Title I, Part A. 

RURAL AND LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent and (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 6 (small town), 7 (rural), or 8 (rural near an urban area). States have the option of 

allocating funds to eligible LEAs competitively or through a formula based on the number of 

children in ADA in eligible LEAs within the State. A State may also use an alternative formula to 

allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an alternative method would better target funds to 

eligible LEAs that serve the highest concentrations of poor students. 

LEAs use program funds for: (1) teacher recruitment and retention; (2) teacher professional 

development; (3) educational technology; (4) parental involvement activities; (5) activities 

authorized under Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); 

(6) activities authorized under Part A of Title I (Grants to LEAs); and (7) activities authorized 

under Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students).

Lastly, the Department allocates one-half of 1 percent of RLIS funds to the Bureau of Indian 

Education of the Department of the Interior and an equal amount to the Outlying Areas. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-65E-65

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2010 .........................................................$174,882

2011 ...........................................................174,532

2012 ...........................................................179,193

2013 ...........................................................169,840

2014 ...........................................................169,840

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration is requesting $169.8 million for REAP, the same amount 

as fiscal year 2014. The budget request would be implemented under the Administration’s 

ESEA reauthorization proposal, which would update the criteria by which a district is designated 

as rural to align with the most recent criteria developed by the Office of Management and

Budget and the Census Bureau, extend “REAP-Flex” authority to RLIS subgrantees, and 

authorize national support for technical assistance, research, and other activities, including 

demonstration grants to help rural districts overcome the unique challenges they face. In fiscal 

year 2015, all funds would be used for SRSA and RLIS formula grants. The request would 

provide an average local education agency (LEA) award of approximately $19,000 under SRSA 

and an average LEA subgrant of approximately $35,000 under RLIS.

The Administration supports continued funding for REAP because of the significant challenges 

that rural LEAs face in meeting the objectives of the ESEA. According to the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), in school year 2010-11, 32 percent of the Nation’s public schools 

were located in rural areas, with 24 percent of all public school students enrolled at these 

schools. The small size and remoteness of many rural schools and districts creates a different 

set of challenges from those of urban schools and districts. For example, rural schools and 

districts generally do not benefit from economies of scale and, thus, can face greater per-pupil 

costs in areas such as staffing or transportation. This may explain, in part, why rural school 

districts often are not able to offer their students the same level of access to advanced 

coursework as other districts.

In addition, because of size and location, many small, rural districts have faced difficulty in 

meeting the ESEA requirement that students receive instruction in the core academic subjects 

from teachers who are fully certified by the State and have demonstrated competency in the 

subjects they teach. These districts also face challenges recruiting and retaining effective 

teachers. Rural teachers are frequently called upon to teach multiple subjects, which, in turn, 

requires teachers to obtain multiple certifications in order to meet the statutory definition of 

“highly qualified.” REAP funds can help rural LEAs meet the challenge of recruiting and 

retaining a staff of highly qualified and effective teachers.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal is designed to support the unique needs of rural 

communities. It would make it easier for teachers to teach multiple subjects because it would 

define teacher quality not based exclusively on paper credentials, but on how well a teacher 

performs in the classroom, and would thus help rural schools keep effective teachers in the 

classrooms in which they are needed most. It would also provide greater local flexibility in 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-66E-66

designing interventions in schools that are not meeting their performance targets, so that rural 

communities can decide what works best for their schools. 

Rural districts frequently receive allocations under the Department’s formula grant programs 

that are too small to allow the LEA to address effectively the purposes for which the funds are 

appropriated. For example, among districts eligible for SRSA in fiscal year 2013, the fiscal year 

2012 median sum of allocations under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program was 

$13,162. Recognizing that rural districts frequently receive small allocations from Federal 

formula grants, the “REAP-Flex” authority—which would be continued for SRSA and expanded 

to include RLIS under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal—gives SRSA-eligible LEAs 

the flexibility to make more effective use of their small Federal formula allocations. An eligible 

LEA may use its formula allocation under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program 

to carry out authorized activities or for activities authorized under Part A of Title I, Part D of 

Title II (Educational Technology), Title III (English Language Acquisition), Part A of Title IV (Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities), Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning 

Centers), or Part A of Title V (Innovative Programs). An estimated 31 percent of eligible districts 

notified their respective State of their intention to take advantage of this authority in school year 

2011-12. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under these programs, 

they typically do not have enough money to provide effective educator professional 

development, strengthen school safety, or address the other statutory objectives in a meaningful 

manner. REAP funds help to make up the difference and assist rural LEAs in financing and 

implementing approaches to meeting ESEA requirements and addressing the other challenges 

they face.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

RSATotal funding $84,920 $84,920 $84,920

Number of LEAs receiving grants 4,304 4,304 4,458

SRSAverage LEA grant $20 $20 $19

SRSAverage award per student (whole $) $75 $75 $73

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0 - $60 0 - $60 0 - $46

Rural and low-income schools(RLIS)

RLISTotal funding $84,920 $84,920 $84,920

RLISAmount for State grants $84,070 $84,070 $84,070

RLISAmount for BIE $425 $425 $425

RLISAmount for Outlying Areas $425 $425 $425

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 45 45 45
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-67E-67

Measures 2013 2014 2015

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,088 2,088 2,386

RLISAverage State grant $1,868 $1,868 $1,868

RLISAverage LEA subgrant $40 $40 $35

RLISAverage award per student (whole $) $20 $20 $17

RLISRange of awards to States $12 - $6,395 $12 - $6,395 $10 - $8,397

RLISEstimated range of subgrants to LEAs $1 – $448 $1 – $448 0 – $307 _________________

Note: The fiscal year 2015 data assume the introduction of new locale codes, as provided for in the ESEA 

reauthorization proposal.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Local educational agencies (LEAs) participating in REAP programs will make 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) after the third year.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-participating LEAs that make adequate yearly progress 

after 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2010 97% 78%

2011 98 69

Measure: The percentage of RLIS-participating LEAs that make adequate yearly progress 

after 3 years.

Year Target Actual

2010 88% 43%

2011 94 31

Additional information: SRSA and RLIS grantees with 3 or more years in the program have 

shown a significant decrease in meeting AYP in recent years. SRSA has consistently had a 

greater proportion of grantees making AYP than RLIS, perhaps reflecting the fact that (1) RLIS 

districts are poorer, and poverty is highly correlated to low academic achievement; and (2) RLIS 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-68E-68

districts are larger and thus likely to have more subgroups that are counted in AYP 

determinations. (Note that, as shown in the tables that follow, the gap in proficiency rates for 

SRSA compared to RLIS districts is not as wide as their gap in the percentage of LEAs making 

AYP.) The declines for both programs in 2011 are likely attributable, in part, to increases in 

States’ “annual measureable objectives” (the percentage of children achieving proficiency that 

an LEA must attain in order to make AYP) rather than declines in proficiency rates which have 

remained relatively stable as shown in the measures below. The Department will not report on 

this measure beyond the 2011 data, as more than half the States are now under ESEA 

Flexibility and, therefore, success in making AYP is no longer a meaningful measure for this 

program.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics in each year through 

the 2013-2014 academic year.

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year. 

Year Target Actual

2010 82% 74%

2011 86 75

2012 90 72

2013 94

2014 100

2015 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2010 81% 72%

2011 86 71

2012 91 68

2013 96

2014 100

2015 100
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-69E-69

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2010 84% 67%

2011 88 68

2012 92 67

2013 96

2014 100

2015 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and LowIncome School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics in each year through the 2013-2014 academic year.

Year Target Actual

2010 80% 63%

2011 85 66

2012 90 64

2013 95

2014 100

2015 100

Additional information: The performance targets for these measures reflect the ESEA goal 

that 100 percent of students enrolled in districts participating in both the SRSA and RLIS 

programs will be proficient by 2014. Data for 2013 are expected in October 2014. 

Objective: Eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority.

Year Target Actual

2010 65% 56%

2011 65 51

2012 65 34

2013 65

2014 65

2015 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible districts actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of districts reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-70E-70

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. The large decrease in 2012 is likely, in part, the result of 

incomplete data from some States. Data for 2013 are expected in October 2014.

Program Efficiency Measure

Measure: The percentage of SRSA program grants awarded by August 30 of each fiscal 

year.

Year Target Actual

2010 80% 100%

2011 80 100

2012 80 100

2013 80 100

2014 80

2015 80

Additional information: Due to difficulty in processing over 4,000 SRSA grants to LEAs in a 

timely manner in the early years of the program, the Department established a measure to track 

the efficiency of this task. The Department has had great success since creating the measure, 

and now has made 100 percent of SRSA awards by August 30 in each of the past 3 years. 

Data for 2014 are expected in October 2014.

Other Performance Information

The Department is conducting a study of REAP, with fiscal year 2012 funding, which is 

examining implementation at the State and LEA levels. Specifically, the Department will obtain 

information on the practices REAP grantees are using to target their greatest needs; how they 

assess effectiveness in key areas, such as teacher recruitment, professional development, and 

retention, strategies for school improvement, and the use of technology; how and to what extent 

they combine or coordinate the use of REAP funding with other Department or Federal funds; 

and what challenges they face in spending their REAP funding within the grant period. 

Respondents include State, LEA, and school level administrators, as well as professional 

development and technical assistance providers. The final report is expected to be available in 

early 2015.

The Department released an evaluation report of the RLIS program in June 2010, which can be 

accessed at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/rural/rlis-report.doc. The purpose of this study 

was to examine implementation at the State and district levels. Specifically, the Department 

obtained information on State RLIS priorities and monitoring, State progress toward achieving 

RLIS goals, characteristics of RLIS districts, uses of RLIS funds, and student achievement and 

AYP trends in participating districts. The report found that the coordinators saw RLIS as a 

supplemental program, rather than as a stand-alone program, and that they believed that their 

subgrantee LEAs used their funds to support efforts to make AYP. All nine States in the sample 

were requiring RLIS districts to engage in a comprehensive planning process and to address 

gaps identified through local needs assessments, and seven of the States implemented RLIS 

through an integrated planning process that required LEAs to show how they planned to use 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

E-71E-71

funding from Federal programs. Survey respondents indicated that funds were primarily used to 

purchase technology, support professional development, and support Title I, Part A activities. 

From the 2002–03 school year to the 2007–08 school year, the rate of academic improvement 

in mathematics and reading for districts that received RLIS funding was significantly greater 

than for non-RLIS rural districts; however, the evaluation did not examine causality, and 

achievement gains cannot be attributed to the RLIS program. The report also found that, on 

average, RLIS districts had more students than other rural LEAs but fewer students than all 

LEAs nationally, that student-to-teacher ratios in RLIS LEAs were higher than in other rural 

LEAs but similar to the national average, and that per-pupil expenditures were substantially 

lower in RLIS LEAs than in other rural LEAs and the national average. 

Section 6224(c) of ESEA requires the Department to prepare a biennial report to Congress on 

the RLIS program. The report must describe the methods SEAs have used to award grants and 

provide technical assistance, how LEAs and schools have used RLIS funds, and the progress 

made toward meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the SEA applications. In 

December 2011, the Department submitted to Congress its biennial report for school years 

2008-09 and 2009-10. The report includes the finding that of the 41 States receiving fiscal year 

2009 funds, all but 5 awarded funds to eligible LEAs by formula based on each eligible LEA’s 

share of students in average daily attendance. One State used a modified formula that targeted 

a greater share of program funds to LEAs with poverty rates greater than 40 percent, and four 

States awarded funds on a competitive basis. The report had findings that were consistent with 

the evaluation report, in that technology, professional development, and Title I, Part A activities 

were the most frequently reported uses of funds. Finally, it is difficult to link LEA progress 

toward goals to activities specifically supported with RLIS funds, but the report does include 

examples provided by the States of LEA progress toward program goals.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-72

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: $21,0341

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 2014 2015 Change

$16,699 $16,699 0

_________________

1 The 2015 authorization is based on the fiscal year 2005 authorization level, adjusted for inflation in accordance 

with statutory requirements.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, 

beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount 

that is roughly equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 

2004 under the Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible. These grants 

augment the funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general education assistance under 

their Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies; Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants; Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants; and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) 

of the Workforce Investment Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four cabinet 

agencies and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM 

and the RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the 

local school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

E-73E-73

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

and the transition from high school to postsecondary education and careers. They may not be 

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. Past year’s appropriations acts have also permitted the FSM and the 

RMI to reserve up to 5 percent of their grants to pay for such technical assistance as well as for 

administration of their grants.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010..................................................................................... $17,687

2011....................................................................................... 17,652

2012....................................................................................... 17,619

2013....................................................................................... 16,699

2014....................................................................................... 16,699

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16.7 million, the same as the 2014 level, to maintain funding for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the RMI and the FSM. The request would ensure the 

continuation of services for residents of the RMI and the FSM. The Administration also is 

seeking appropriations language that would allow the Department of Education to reserve up to 

5 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical assistance to support effective use of 

program funds to improve educational outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

A majority of the funding in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was used to support early childhood 

education. The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grants for education 

improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional development. Both the 

RMI and the FSM are also using funds to prepare students for jobs that may result from the 

Guam military build-up. For example, funds to the RMI have supported an Accelerated Boot 

Camp Trades Academy in collaboration with the College of the Marshall Islands while funds to 

the FSM have supported projects developed in partnership with the Guam Trades Academy. 

The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2015 funding would be used for similar purposes.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

E-74E-74

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,142 $11,142 $11,142

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,557 5,557 5,557

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has not established performance measures for this program because it is 

operated by the Department of the Interior.

A December 2006 General Accounting Office report, entitled “Compacts of Free Association: 

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring 

Progress, and Ensuring Accountability,” documented both the continuing need for improvement 

in the public education systems of the Freely Associated States and the difficulties in obtaining 

and reporting performance data for this program. The RMI, according to the report, was not 

able to measure progress towards its educational goals because the data the Republic collected 

were inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests the Republic used were not aligned with 

the curriculum used in RMI schools and thus were not adequate measures of student 

achievement. The FSM also lacked consistent performance outcomes and measures; 

measures and outcomes had been established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to 

track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior covering the 5-year period between 

2004 and 2009 highlights the continuing challenges faced by both entities in improving the 

quality of education due to a lack of qualified teachers, poor facilities, and a high absentee rate 

among students and teachers. While access to elementary and secondary education has 

increased in the RMI and student enrollment has also increased despite significant outmigration, the RMI continues to have few standardized tests for assessing student achievement, 

a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of highly qualified teachers. The FSM continues to 

struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out rates, and problematic 

teacher attendance. 

Both entities began tracking 20 education indicators and established data collection systems 

between 2004 and 2006 and have continued to track data on their indicators. However, the 

most recent GAO study from 2013 entitled “Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and 

Marshall Islands Continue to Face Challenges Measuring Progress and Ensuring 

Accountability”, found that in reviewing subsets of the education indicators that eight of nine 

indicators for FSM and three of five indicators for RMI were not sufficiently reliable to assess 

progress primarily due to missing, incomplete, or inconsistent data.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-75

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$48,445 $48,445 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) authorizes support for not less than 20 

comprehensive centers to provide training, technical assistance, and professional development 

in reading, mathematics, science, and technology, particularly to low-performing local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. By statute, the Department is required to establish at 

least one center in each of the 10 geographic regions served by the regional educational 

laboratories (RELs). Allocations for regional centers are to be determined on the basis of the 

number of school-aged children, the proportion of disadvantaged students in the various 

regions, the higher cost of service delivery in sparsely populated areas, and the number of 

schools identified for improvement under Section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA). 

In order to provide assistance to LEAs and schools in the most efficient and sustainable 

manner, in 2005 the Department established a system of technical assistance that includes 

regional and content centers that, rather than providing services directly to LEAs and schools, 

focuses on building the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs) to meet the needs of the 

LEAs and schools in the State. The existing cohort of comprehensive centers, first funded in 

2012, is organized into 15 regional centers that work with the SEAs within their geographic 

regions to help the SEAs implement school and district improvement measures and objectives. 

In addition, instead of requiring each regional center to have in-depth knowledge of all aspects 

of school improvement – from school turnaround to teacher and leader quality to assessment 

design – the Department has funded seven content centers, with one center specializing in each 

of the following seven content areas: standards and assessment implementation; innovations in 

learning; promoting great teachers and leaders; school turnaround; enhancing early learning 

outcomes; college- and career-readiness and success; and building State capacity and 

productivity. Each content center brings together resources and expertise to provide analyses, 

information, and materials in its focus area for use by the regional centers and SEAs. 

Each center developed a 5-year plan for carrying out authorized activities. The plan of each 

regional center addresses the needs of its SEAs in meeting the student achievement goals of 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-76E-76

the ESEA, as well as priorities established by the Department and the States. Each center has 

an advisory board that advises the center on: (1) allocation of resources; (2) strategies for 

monitoring and addressing the region’s educational needs (or the regional centers’ needs in the 

case of the content centers); (3) maintaining a high standard of quality in the performance of its 

activities; and (4) carrying out the center’s activities in a manner that promotes progress toward 

improving student academic achievement. 

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences, to carry out an independent 

evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers to determine the extent to which each center meets 

its objectives.

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

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$56,313

2011.............................................................51,210

2012.............................................................51,113

2013.............................................................48,445

2014.............................................................48,445 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $48.4 million for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, the same as the 2014 level, to support the fourth year of funding for the second cohort 

of comprehensive centers funded under the ETAA.

The Department provided the first year of funding to 22 Comprehensive Center grantees in 

2012. The 2012 competition restructured the program slightly, changing the configuration of the 

regions and reducing the number of regional centers from 16 to 15, while adding 2 content 

centers to bring the number of those centers to 7. The regions are aligned with the 

Department’s REL regions, such that one or two regional centers are located in each of the 10 

REL regions.

Regional centers must provide technical assistance that aligns with the work of the content 

centers and builds the capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives 

statewide that are designed to improve student outcomes. This technical assistance must also 

focus on key reform priorities, which include (1) implementing college- and career-ready 

standards and aligned, high-quality assessments for all students; (2) identifying, recruiting, 

developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders; (3) turning around the lowestperforming schools; (4) ensuring the school readiness of preschool-age children and their 

successful transition to kindergarten; (5) building rigorous instructional pathways that support 

the successful transition of all students from secondary education to college and careers; 

(6) identifying and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and learning that significantly 

improve student outcomes; and (7) using data-based decision-making to improve instructional 

practices, policies, and student outcomes.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-77E-77

The content centers will continue to supply research-based products and services for the 

regional centers and the States they serve.

Four of the 22 centers continue to receive additional funds from other programs. The Center on 

Great Teachers and Leaders receives additional funding from the Special Education Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination program as well as from the Career and Technical Education 

National Activities program. These contributions support the provision of technical assistance 

on serving students with disabilities and on effective instruction and leadership in career and 

technical education. The Indian Education National Activities program provides support to three 

regional centers that serve States with the largest populations of American Indian/Alaska Native 

(AI/AN) students, for technical assistance designed to increase the capacity of SEAs to lead and 

support their LEAs and schools in improving student outcomes for AI/AN students.

The Department is aware that States face many challenges in implementing reforms designed 

to improve student performance and close achievement gaps and has undertaken a crossDepartment initiative, the State Support Initiative, designed to better coordinate ED-funded 

technical assistance to help meet these challenges. This initiative is intended to provide a 

consistent message about reform priorities, avoid duplication of effort, and better leverage 

existing resources. The immediate scope of these coordination efforts will focus on technical 

assistance provided by the Office of Special Education Programs’ Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Centers and the Comprehensive Centers, with plans to engage the Race to the 

Top program and the Regional Educational Laboratories. Staff from the Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, working with staff from the Office of Special Education Programs, 

manage the implementation of this initiative.

In addition to the technical assistance initiative described above, different centers have 

coordinated with Department programs to provide specific technical assistance to grantees. For 

example, the Center on School Turnaround partnered with the Department’s Office of School 

Turnaround at the annual School Improvement Grant symposium, engaging State turnaround 

leadership teams in conversations about how SEAs can better support their schools and 

districts. Also, the Office of Indian Education (OIE) has provided investments to three regional 

centers to better address the needs of the Native American population. The centers and staff 

from OIE are working with the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native 

Education in order to identify ways to better leverage center funding to provide assistance to the 

stakeholders with the greatest need. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and 

the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) continue to collaborate 

and host an annual “Leveraging Resources” conference, which includes the Comprehensive 

Centers, the Equity Assistance Centers, the RELs, and OSERS’ Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination centers. 

The Department awarded a contract for a new national evaluation of this program in 

September 2013. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-78E-78

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Comprehensive centers

Number of centers 22 22 22

Center awards $46,855 $46,939 $46,395

Average award $2,130 $2,134 $2,109

Evaluation $1,590 $1,506 $2,050

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The Department placed strong emphasis on rigorous performance measures for the centers, in 

part through a Department-wide effort to create common performance measures for technical 

assistance programs. The measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers, the extent to which each center meets the 

objectives of its respective plan, and whether their services meet the educational needs of the 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

As part of the Department’s national evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers, initiated in 2006, 

the contractor led panel reviews and conducted surveys annually beginning in 2007. An 

analysis of the results of those reviews and surveys provided data for the centers’ performance 

measures from 2007 - 2009. Grantees reported performance measurement data for 2010 and 

2011 through their individual performance reports. 

Goal: To improve student achievement in low-performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-79E-79

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2010 52% 91%

2011 59 92

2012 66 94

2013 73

2014 80

2015 80

Additional information: The data for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. 

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2010 77% 84%

2011 78 89

2012 79 94

2013 80

2014 80

2015 80

Additional information: The data for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. 

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

children in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2010 60% 88%

2011 65 89

2012 70 91

2013 75

2014 80

2015 80

Additional information: The data for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-80E-80

Efficiency Measures

The Department implemented a common measure of administrative efficiency to assess the 

Comprehensive Centers program and other technical assistance programs. The measure is the 

percentage of grant funds that the centers carry over for each year of operations. Data for the 

measure are available each year in September, after Department staff have reviewed data for 

the previous 12-month budget cycle, and are presented in the table below. The Department 

also established a second efficiency measure for the program: the number of working days 

following a monitoring visit that it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to grantees. 

Objective: Improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure: The percentage of Comprehensive Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2010 10% 2%

2011 10 2

2012 10 3

2013 10 20

2014 10

2015 10

Additional information: The centers had 40 percent carryover in 2006, the baseline year, 

which was likely the result of their receiving initial grant awards several months into the 

beginning of the first award year. A higher carryover amount in 2013 is also likely due to 

grantees carrying over more funds following the first year of their awards. 

Measure: The number of working days following a monitoring visit that it takes the Department 

to send a monitoring report to grantees. 

Year Target Actual

2010 45 78

2011 45 58

2012 45 NA

2013 45 NA

2014 45

2015 45

Additional information: The Department conducted two monitoring visits with reports due in 

fiscal year 2012. The report for the first visit was sent to the grantee within 28 working days 

after the visit, well within the target of 45 working days. Due to extensive preparations for the 

fiscal year 2012 grant competition, the report for the second visit was delayed. Since that 

grantee did not receive a new award under the fiscal year 2012 competition and thus was no 

longer a grantee beginning in fiscal year 2013, the Department will not send a report. The 

Department did not conduct monitoring visits in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 since those years 

represent the final year of the 2005 cohort and the first year of the 2012 cohort. Monitoring will 

resume in fiscal year 2014.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-81E-81

Other Performance Information

In addition to providing data for the performance measures, the national evaluation of the 

Comprehensive Centers assessed: (1) the extent to which the centers have met the objectives 

of their respective technical assistance plans and the educational needs of SEAs, and 

(2) whether the centers’ assistance has expanded SEAs’ capacity to provide technical 

assistance to help LEAs and schools meet their statutory requirements. The evaluation also 

examined how the centers respond to the changing needs of SEAs in technical assistance, 

SEAs’ reliance on the centers compared to other technical assistance sources, the overall costs 

for SEAs in providing ESEA-related technical assistance, and the estimated dollar value of the 

centers’ products and services to SEAs.

In July 2010, the first interim report from the national evaluation provided an analysis of data 

obtained through surveys of comprehensive center clients and expert reviews of comprehensive 

center projects, covering the 2006-07 program year, the second year of center operations. In 

this first round of project ratings, the content centers had higher mean ratings of technical 

quality for their sampled projects than did the regional centers, while the regional centers had 

higher mean ratings of relevance than did the content centers. There was no statistically 

significant relationship between ratings of quality and ratings of relevance or usefulness, which 

suggests that achieving high technical quality (judged on the basis of expert peer reviews) was 

unrelated to the delivery of assistance thought by clients to be highly relevant or useful. There 

was a high correlation between relevance and usefulness. 

The final report, covering the 2007-08 and 2008-09 program years, was released August 31, 

2011 (see: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114031/). The report indicated that both the regional 

centers and the content centers conducted activities consistent with their design and that, over 

the 3-year period of the study, the regional centers and content centers were increasingly 

involved in each other’s projects. Similarly, an increasing number of State managers reported 

each year that center assistance served their purposes, with “statewide systems of support” 

cited most frequently as a State priority. The proportion of State managers reporting that center 

assistance had served the State’s purposes completely rose from 36 percent in 2006-07 to 

56 percent in 2008-09. Statewide systems of support was also the topic most frequently 

addressed in center projects each year. Among the managers who reported that their States’ 

purposes were not completely served, a larger proportion in each year reported wanting more 

interaction with the centers. In 2008-09, 43 percent of those State managers said, “center staff 

are not able to spend as much time working with the State as we would like.” 

State managers confirmed that States relied upon multiple sources of technical assistance and 

that they used these sources for different purposes. The centers were cited as the top source 

for technical assistance in 2007-08 and 2008-09 when compared to the RELs, professional 

associations, senior managers from other SEAs, consulting firms or private contractors, colleges 

and universities, and the Department of Education. Across different purposes for technical 

assistance, the centers were cited as the top source for planning steps to solve a problem; 

completing tasks that the State lacked capacity to complete (either in resources or skills); and, 

developing the skills of SEA or intermediate education agency staff. The centers were cited 

second to professional associations as a resource States used to gather information or keep 

current with new ideas.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

E-82E-82

Further, State managers reported that center assistance had expanded State capacity in the 

area of statewide systems of support. Among State managers who reported statewide systems 

of support or school support teams to be a State priority for assistance in 2008-09, 82 percent 

credited center assistance with a “great” or “moderate” expansion of State capacity in this area. 

To a lesser extent, State managers also credited the centers with expanding their States’ 

capacity in other areas during the same year: from 77 percent in the areas of research-based 

curriculum, instruction, or professional development in academic subjects to 39 percent in ESEA 

provisions on supplemental educational services and choice.

On average, across each of the 3 years, the ratings for quality, relevance, and usefulness 

increased. The average quality rating was consistently higher for content center projects than 

for regional center projects while the average relevance ratings were higher for regional centers 

than content centers in the first 2 years of the study. There were no consistent differences in 

the usefulness ratings between regional centers and content centers.

The evaluation of the 2012 cohort of grantees will yield a report on the centers’ designs and 

theories of action (scheduled for May 2015); two interim reports on the centers’ implementation 

and outcomes in two priority areas (scheduled for March 2017); and a final report (scheduled for 

September 2018).
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-83

Native Hawaiian student education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1, 2

Period of Fund Availability 

2014 2015 Change 

$32,397 $32,397 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015. 2 Under current law, of the amount available to carry out Sections 7204 and 7205 of ESEA, $500 thousand is to 

be reserved for a direct grant to the Native Hawaiian Education Council to carry out Section 7204.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Student Education program supports the provision of supplemental 

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

eligible applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, familybased education, gifted and talented education, special education, higher education, and 

community-based education learning centers. Eligible applicants include Native Hawaiian 

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

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

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

entities.

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

uses funds directly and is authorized to make grants to facilitate its coordination of the 

educational and related services and programs available to Native Hawaiians. It also provides 

administrative support and financial assistance to island councils authorized by the statute. The 

Council receives a minimum award of $500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 ...........................................................$34,315

2011 .............................................................34,246

2012 .............................................................34,181

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

2014 .............................................................32,397
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian student education

E-84E-84

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $32.4 million for the Native Hawaiian Student 

Education program, the same amount as the fiscal year 2014 level. The budget request 

assumes enactment of the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which would require that grantees ensure that academic 

projects use evidence-based approaches and report academic achievement data for the 

students they serve. 

Data on the educational performance of Native Hawaiian students demonstrate the continuing 

need for this program. Across all assessed grades in 2012, 59.9 percent of Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students demonstrated grade-level proficiency in reading and 

46.3 percent in mathematics on Hawaii’s State assessment, compared to 71.1 percent in 

reading and 59.2 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiian students. This gap between Native 

Hawaiians and their peers remains consistent across grade levels. In the 4th grade, 

60.5 percent of Native Hawaiian students met or exceeded proficiency in reading and 51.1 

percent met or exceeded proficiency in mathematics, compared to 71.8 percent in reading and 

63.2 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiian students. In the 8th grade, 60.4 percent of Native 

Hawaiian students met or exceeded proficiency in reading and 44.3 percent met this level in 

mathematics, compared to 71.8 percent in reading and 58.8 percent in mathematics for all 

Hawaiians students. 

Data from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show similar 

achievement gaps. In 4th-grade reading, 18 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 

students in Hawaii were proficient or advanced, while the overall average for all students in 

Hawaii was 27 percent. There were similar differences in 8th-grade reading (13 percent 

proficient compared to 26 percent for all students in Hawaii), 4th-grade mathematics (29 percent 

proficient compared to 40 percent for all students in Hawaii), and 8th-grade mathematics (17 

percent proficient compared to 30 percent for all students in Hawaii). 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for new awards $263 $9,540 $21,119

Number of new awards 1 18 30

Amount for continuation awards $31,635 $22,033 $10,436

Number of continuation awards 40 30 19

Native Hawaiian Education 

Council $500 $500 $500

Peer review of new award 

applications

01 $324 $342

_________________________
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian student education

E-85E-85

1

 The Department funded new applications in fiscal year 2013 from the fiscal year 2012 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The Department established new performance measures for this program in 2008, partly in 

response to recommendations from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), to gauge 

more accurately and reliably the effectiveness of this program. The Department used the new 

measures beginning with the fiscal year 2009 cohort of new grantees. Baseline data are 

available for 2012. The new indicators measure: (1) the percentage of Native Hawaiian students 

in schools served by the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, 

mathematics, and science on the State’s annual assessments; (2) the percentage of Native 

Hawaiian children participating in early learning programs who demonstrate school readiness in 

literacy as measured by the Hawaii School Readiness Assessment (HSRA); (3) the percentage 

of students in schools served by the program who graduate from high school with a regular high 

school diploma in 4 years; and (4) the percentage of students receiving Hawaiian language 

instruction through a grant under the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in 

reading on a test of the Hawaiian language. 

In 2012, 59 percent of students served by the program met or exceeded proficiency standards

in reading, 47 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards in math, and 48 

percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards in science on the State’s annual 

assessments. The second measure regarding school readiness only applied to a two grantees; 

44 percent of participating children demonstrated school readiness in literacy. Seventy seven 

percent of students in schools served by the program graduated from high school with a high 

school diploma in 4 years. No grantees reported on the final GPRA measure regarding 

Hawaiian language proficiency. The Department expects to have year one data available in 

summer 2014.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

E-86

Alaska Native student education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII, Part C) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 

2014 2015 Change 

$31,453 $31,453 0

_________________

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Student Education program supports supplemental educational programs 

and services for Alaska Natives. The program awards competitive grants to eligible applicants 

for a variety of authorized activities, such as teacher training and student enrichment programs. 

Eligible applicants include Alaska Native organizations, educational entities with experience in 

developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of instruction conducted in Alaska 

Native languages, cultural and community-based organizations, and other entities. At least 

$1 million must be used for parenting education activities.

Activities supported by these grants include the development and implementation of curricula 

and educational programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population, 

professional development activities for educators, the development and operation of home 

instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children that help ensure the active 

involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy services, student enrichment 

programs in science and mathematics, and dropout prevention programs.

Section 7304(d)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires the 

following grants to be awarded annually: $1 million for cultural education programs operated by 

the Alaska Native Heritage Center; $1 million for a cultural exchange program operated by the 

Alaska Humanities Forum; $2 million for an Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement; and 

$2 million for the Cook Inlet Tribal Council’s Partners for Success program, a dropout prevention 

program. However, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act required that all program funds must 

be awarded competitively that year. 

All grantees may use no more than 5 percent of the funding for administrative costs.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-87E-87

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2010...........................................................$33,315

2011.............................................................33,248

2012.............................................................33,185

2013.............................................................31,453

2014.............................................................31,453

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $31.5 million for the Alaska Native Student 

Education program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level. The budget request assumes 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) consistent with the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal, and would support the continued provision of 

education-related services to the Alaska Native population while eliminating directed funding for 

particular organizations because the Administration believes that competing these funds will 

lead to higher-quality programs and improved student outcomes. 

Data on the educational performance of Alaska Native students demonstrate the continuing 

need for this program. Results from the spring 2013 Alaska Standards-Based Assessment 

indicated that Alaska Native and American Indian students in the State continue to lag behind 

their peers in academic performance. Because Alaska Natives constitute approximately 

95 percent of the State’s American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) student population, the AI/AN 

scores are good proxies for Alaska Native achievement. Fifty percent of AI/AN students 

demonstrated proficiency on the 4th-grade reading assessment, compared to 75 percent of all 

4th-grade students, and 54 percent of AI/AN students achieved proficiency in mathematics, 

compared to 75 percent of all 4th-grade students. Eighth-grade assessments showed similar 

results as 62 percent of AI/AN students demonstrated proficiency on the 8th-grade reading 

assessment, compared to 82 percent of all 8th-grade students, and 47 percent of AI/AN students 

achieved proficiency in mathematics, compared to 66 percent of all 8th-grade students. 

Data from the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show similar 

achievement gaps. In 4th-grade reading, 7 percent of AI/AN students in Alaska were proficient, 

while the overall average for all students in Alaska was 27 percent. There were similar 

differences in 8th-grade reading (12 percent proficient compared to 31 percent for all students in 

Alaska), 4th-grade mathematics (13 percent proficient compared to 37 percent for all students in 

Alaska), and 8th-grade mathematics (15 percent proficient compared to 33 percent for all 

students in Alaska). 

In addition to achievement data, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 

reported that the annual dropout rate (the proportion of students who drop out of school during 

the course of a year) among AI/AN students in grades 7 through 12 was 6.2 percent in the 

2012-2013 school year. This was higher than the rate for any other racial or ethnic group in the 

State and well above the statewide rate of 4.0 percent. Further, Alaska’s Report Card to the 

Public: 2012-2013 reported that the AI/AN high school graduation rate was 57.1 percent, while 

the statewide figure was 71.8 percent.
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-88E-88

Alaska’s geography and population patterns add to the challenge of delivering quality 

educational services to Alaska Native students. The State has many rural districts, which often 

house few schools spread out over large remote areas, and Alaska Native students are 

disproportionately enrolled in small, rural, and isolated schools.

Program grants help address these barriers by developing programs tailored to the educational 

and cultural needs of Alaska Native students in order to improve their performance in the 

classroom and increase their chances of graduating from high school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for new awards $1,044 $11,020 $19,027

Number of new awards 1 21 37

Amount for continuation 

awards

$30,409 $20,118 $12,111

Number of continuation 

awards

56 39 25

Peer review of new award 

applications

01 $315 $315

_________________________

1

 The Department funded new applications in fiscal year 2013 from the fiscal year 2012 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

fiscal year 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The Department established new and revised performance measures in 2008 that more 

accurately and reliably gauge the effectiveness of this program. The Department used these 

measures beginning with the fiscal year 2009 cohort of new grantees. Baseline data are 

available for 2012. The new indicators measure (1) the percentage of Alaska Native students in 

schools served by the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, 

mathematics, and science on the State’s annual assessments; (2) the percentage of Alaska 

Native children participating in early learning and preschool programs who demonstrate school 

readiness in language and literacy as measured by the Revised Alaska Developmental Profile 

(RADP); and (3) the percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate 

from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. 
EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native student education

E-89E-89

In 2012, 48 percent of students in schools served by the program met or exceeded proficiency 

standards for reading, 44 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards for math, 

and 22 percent of students met or exceeded proficiency standards in science on the State’s 

annual assessments. The second measure regarding school readiness applied to only three 

grantees; 25 percent of participating children demonstrated school readiness. Fifty three 

percent of students in schools served by the program graduated from high school with a high 

school diploma in 4 years. The Department expects to have year one data available in summer 

2014.
E-90E-90

State tables