Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language..............................................................................................................1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers....................................................................................5

Summary of Changes ...................................................................................................................6

Authorizing Legislation..................................................................................................................7

Appropriations History...................................................................................................................8

Significant Items in FY 2022 Appropriations Reports .................................................................10

Summary of Request ..................................................................................................................14

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants ..........................................................................16

21st Century community learning centers ..............................................................................21

State assessments .................................................................................................................28

Education for homeless children and youths..........................................................................34

Native Hawaiian education.....................................................................................................40

Alaska Native education.........................................................................................................45

Training and advisory services ...............................................................................................49

Rural education ......................................................................................................................55

Supplemental education grants ..............................................................................................62

Comprehensive centers..........................................................................................................65

Student support and academic enrichment grants .................................................................72

School-Based Health Professionals .......................................................................................79

Account Summary Table.............................................................................................................83

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2021 allocations and 2022 and 2023 estimates are posted on the 

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

1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of title I, part A of title II, 

subpart 1 of part A of title IV, part B of title IV, part B of title V, and parts B and C of title VI of the 

ESEA; the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; section 203 of the Educational Technical 

Assistance Act of 2002; the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; and the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, $5,525,982,000, of which $3,844,541,000 shall become available on 

July 1, 2023, and remain available through September 30, 2024, and of which $1,681,441,000 

shall become available on October 1, 2023, and shall remain available through September 30, 

2024, for academic year 2023-2024: Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be for part B of title I1: 

Provided further, That $1,309,673,000 shall be for part B of title IV2: Provided further, That 

$37,397,000 shall be for part B of title VI, which may be used for construction, renovation, and 

modernization of any public elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to a 

public elementary school or secondary school that serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian 

student body, and that the 5 percent limitation in section 6205(b) of the ESEA on the use of 

funds for administrative purposes shall apply only to direct administrative costs3: Provided 

further, That $36,453,000 shall be for part C of title VI, which shall be awarded on a competitive 

basis, and may be used for construction, and that the 5 percent limitation in section 6305 of the 

ESEA on the use of funds for administrative purposes shall apply only to direct administrative 

costs4: Provided further, That $52,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 203 of the 

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

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

services provided under this section5: Provided further, That $24,463,218 shall be available to 

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

and the Republic of the Marshall Islands6: Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up 
2

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

the implementation of these grants7: Provided further, That $202,840,000 shall be for part B of 

title V8: Provided further, That $1,220,000,000 shall be available for grants under subpart 1 of 

part A of title IV9.

NOTES

A full-year 2022 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the Budget was 

prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2022 (Division A of Public Law 117-43, as amended). The amounts included 

for 2022 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

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

3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1... of which $3,844,541,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2023, and remain 

available through September 30, 2024, and 

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

available on October 1, 2023, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2024, for academic year 2023-2024: 

Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be for part 

B of title I

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded 

basis. This language also provides that a 

portion of funds for Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants is available on an 

advance-funded basis. This language also 

specifies the funding level for State 

Assessments.

2... Provided further, That $1,309,673,000 

shall be for part B of title IV

This language specifies the funding level for 

21st Century community learning centers.

3 ...Provided further, That $37,397,000 shall 

be for part B of title VI, which may be used 

for construction, renovation, and 

modernization of any public elementary 

school, secondary school, or structure 

related to a public elementary school or 

secondary school that serves a 

predominantly Native Hawaiian student body, 

and that the 5 percent limitation in section 

6205(b) of the ESEA on the use of funds for 

administrative purposes shall apply only to 

direct administrative costs

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Native Hawaiian education program,

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

school construction, renovation, and 

modernization, and specifies that the 

administrative cost limitation applies only to 

direct administrative costs.

4 ...Provided further, That $36,453,000 shall 

be for part C of title VI, which shall be 

awarded on a competitive basis, and may be 

used for construction, and that the 5 percent 

limitation in section 6305 of the ESEA on the 

use of funds for administrative purposes shall 

apply only to direct administrative costs

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Alaska Native education program, 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

construction, and specifies that the 

administrative cost limitation applies only to 

direct administrative costs.

5 ...Provided further, That $52,000,000 shall 

be available to carry out section 203 of the 

Educational Technical Assistance Act of 

2002 and the Secretary shall make such 

arrangements as determined to be necessary 

to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education

has access to services provided under this 

section

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program and 

authorizes the Secretary to provide the 

Bureau of Indian Education access to 

program services.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

4

Language Provision Explanation

6 ... Provided further, That $24,463,218 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.

7 ... Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the amount 

referred to in the previous proviso to provide 

technical assistance in the implementation of 

these grants

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.

8 ... Provided further, That $202,840,000 

shall be for part B of title V

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program.

9 ... Provided further, That $1,220,000,000 

shall be available for grants under subpart 1 

of part A of title IV

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment grants program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2021 2022 2023

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation $5,444,217 $5,444,217 $6,525,982

Total, discretionary appropriation 5,444,217 5,444,217 6,525,982

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority 5,444,217 5,444,217 6,525,982

Mandatory:

Mandatory appropriation -Supplemental, ARP Act (P.L 117-02) 170,000 0 0

Total, mandatory appropriation 170,000 0 0

Total, discretionary and mandatory 

appropriation

5,614,217 5,444,217 6,525,982
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2022 Estimate $5,444,217

2023 6,525,982

Net change +1,081,765

Increases: 2022 base

Change

from base

Program:

Supporting effective instruction State grants $2,143,080 +$5,500

21st Century Community Learning Centers 1,259,673 +50,000

Education for homeless children and youths 106,500 +3,500

Rural Education 187,840 +15,000

Supplemental Education Grants 16,699 +7,765

School-Based Health Professionals 0 +1,000,000

Subtotal, increases +1,081,765

Net change +1,081,765
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2022

Authorized

footnote

2022

Estimate

footnote

2023

Authorized

footnote

2023

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A) 01 $2,143,080 To be determined1 $2,148,580

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) 01 1,259,673 To be determined1 1,309,673

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 1201-1203) 01 378,000 To be determined1 378,000

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) 01 106,500 To be determined1 110,000

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 01 37,397 To be determined1 37,397

Alaska Native education equity (ESEA VI-C) 01 36,453 To be determined1 36,453

Training and advisory services (CRA IV) Indefinite 6,575 Indefinite 6,575

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 01 187,840 To be determined1 202,840 

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) $23,6902 16,699 $24,4642 24,464

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 03 52,000 To be determined3 52,000

Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A-1) 0 1 1,220,000 To be determined1

 

1,220,000

School-Based Health Professionals (Proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined 1,000,000

Total definite authorization 23,690 24,464

Total appropriation 5,444,217 6,525,982

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations action. 2 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.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

20141 $1,075,559 N/A $4,676,862 $4,397,391

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

20152 966,923 N/A 4,402,674 4,402,671

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

20163 4,693,171 $3,500,720 4,134,746 4,443,629

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

20174 4,658,409 4,799,912 4,177,239 4,408,567

(2017 Advance for 2018) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,670,022)

20185 697,321 2,369,964 4,458,567 5,158,467

(2018 Advance for 2019) (0) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

20196 645,214 5,258,467 5,291,967 5,246,967

(2019 Advance for 2020) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

20207 675,614 6,016,470 5,305,9678 5,404,967

(2020 Advance for 2021) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

20219 392,374 5,453,617 5,449,967 5,444,217

(2021 Advance for 2022) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

1 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. The level for the Senate 

allowance reflects Committee action only.

2 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. The level for the Senate 

allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

3 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

4 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 appropriation bill; 

the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

5 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

reflects Committee action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).

6 The levels for the House and Senate Allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

bill; the Appropriation reflects enactment of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).

7 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).

8 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).

9 The level for the Senate Allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects Division H of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

9

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2021 Mandatory Supplemental,

ARP Act (P.L. 117-02)1 0 0 0 $170,000

20222 $6,532,675 $5,803.539 $5,760.835 5,444,217

(2022 Advance for 2023) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2023 6,525,982

(2023 Advance for 2024) (1,681,441)

1 The Appropriation reflects the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-02). 2 The House allowance reflects floor action on the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act; the Senate allowance 

reflects the Chairman’s mark; and the Appropriation reflects the annualized continuing resolution level.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

10

Significant Items in FY 2022 Appropriations Reports

Teaching Commission

Senate: The Committee requests a briefing for the authorizing and appropriations 

committees of Congress on the structure, objectives, stakeholder engagement 

and selection criteria for commission membership, not later than 30 days prior to 

any obligation of funds or public notice related to the commission.

Response: The Department will comply with this request.

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Senate: The Committee notes ESEA requires SEAs and LEAs to address whether lowincome and minority students served by Title I, Part A are taught at 

disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced educators 

compared to their peers. The Committee is concerned that the Department does 

not have reliable performance information from States on important measures 

such as the number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of 

inexperienced teachers in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty 

quartile schools and the number of States that decrease the gap between the 

percentage of teachers with emergency or provisional credentials in the highest 

poverty quartile schools. The Committee appreciates the Department’s review of 

alternative sources of information and measures for understanding, reporting,

and improving equitable access to effective educators for all students. The 

Committee requests the Department describe actions taken and planned on this 

issue in the fiscal year 2023 and future CJs.

Response: Please see the performance section of the program’s budget justification 

narrative for the Department’s new measures for the Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants program.

Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Senate: The Committee strongly encourages the Department of Education to support 

technical assistance to SEAs in effectively using the sub state grant priority for 

applicants demonstrating that services would not otherwise be accessible to 

students. Such assistance could expand the availability of afterschool and other 

authorized programs using evidence-based practices to successfully assist 

vulnerable populations in rural afterschool programs. The Committee requests an 

update in the fiscal year 2023 CJ on actions taken and plans for supporting such 

technical assistance.

Response: In recent years, the Department has hosted several webinars for State 

Coordinators of the Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

program that provide guidance to the SEAs on completing their applications. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

11

Among the topics covered is implementation of the subgrant priorities, including 

the priority for eligible entities that demonstrate that the proposed activities would 

provide services to students who currently cannot otherwise access them.

State Assessments

Senate: The Committee recommendation includes $58,811,000 for competitive grants to 

SEAs or consortia of SEAs to carry out activities designed to improve the quality, 

validity, and reliability of State academic assessments. The Committee believes 

assessments must provide aligned, comparable, statewide data for all students 

and produce assessment data for use as a tool for improvement of student and 

school outcomes, particularly for improving equity and educational achievement 

for underserved students. The Committee is particularly interested in grants that 

measure student academic achievement of all ESEA subgroups of students 

using multiple measures from multiple sources or evaluate achievement through 

the development of comprehensive instruments that emphasize mastery of 

academic standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based 

education model. The Committee notes the CJ also identifies these as potential 

priorities for competitive grants in fiscal year 2022. The Committee directs the 

Department to prioritize applications that address these issues for all ESEA 

subgroups of students and requests a briefing not later than 14 days prior to the 

posting of a notice inviting applications for such grants.

Response: The notice inviting applications for Competitive Grants for State Assessments 

was published on February 16, 2022.

Alaska Native Education

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to make every effort to ensure that grants 

are awarded well in advance of the school year, to maximize grantees’ ability to 

hire the necessary staff and have their programs ready to go with the start of 

Alaska’s school year in mid-August. The Committee continues to direct the 

Department to ensure that Alaska Native tribes, Alaska Native regional nonprofits, and Alaska Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to 

successfully compete for grants under this program by providing these entities 

multiple opportunities for technical assistance in developing successful 

applications for these funds, both in Alaska and via various forms of 

telecommunications. The Committee also encourages the Department to include 

as many peer re-viewers as possible who have experience with Alaska Native 

education and Alaska generally on each peer review panel.

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

assistance to ensure that Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native regional 

nonprofits, and Alaska Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to 

successfully compete for grants under this program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

12

Training and Advisory Services

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to brief House and Senate authorizing 

and appropriations committees not later than 30 days prior to publishing a notice 

inviting applications for new awards under this program.

Response: The fiscal year 2022 notice inviting applications for awards under this program 

was published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2022.

Rural Education

Senate: The Committee directs the Department, in collaboration with the U.S. Census 

Bureau, to provide a briefing and related material for the authorizing and 

appropriations Committees of Congress within 180 days of enactment of this act 

that includes: analysis of the accuracy and effectiveness of U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates as a measurement of 

student enrollment from families with incomes below the poverty line for the RLIS 

and Small Rural Schools Achievement programs; analysis of the accuracy and 

effectiveness of other poverty measurements, including State-provided poverty 

data for measuring student enrollment from families with incomes below the 

poverty line for the RLIS and Small Rural Schools Achievement programs; and 

any recommendations for improving measurements of poverty in rural LEAs.

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants

House: Menstrual Health.—The Committee is concerned about the disruptions to 

educational opportunities that children living in period poverty experience. 

Industry reports found that one in five school age children have missed school 

due to lack of access to safe and affordable menstrual products. The Committee 

directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance to LEAs and SEAs on 

effective strategies for offering information about free menstrual product 

programs, as an option for safe and healthy student programming under SSAE.

Response: The Department is considering how best to respond to this directive, including by 

engaging the program technical assistance center in providing assistance to 

SEAs and LEAs on this topic.

House: School Diversity.—The Committee strongly encourages the Department to use 

the 2 percent set-aside for technical assistance and capacity building under 

SSAE to award capacity-building grants to LEAs and SEAs to reduce racial and 

socioeconomic segregation across and within school districts.

Response: The Department is considering how best to support efforts to reduce racial and 

socioeconomic segregation using funds from this program’s set-aside for 

technical assistance and capacity building, including fiscal year 2022 funds 

carried over into fiscal year 2023.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

13

Senate: The Committee appreciates the information provided in the fiscal year 2022 CJ 

on current expenditures for the 2 percent set-aside for technical assistance and 

capacity building and requests additional information about planned activities or 

the process for identifying the technical assistance and capacity needs of SEAs 

and LEAs also be included in future CJs.

Response: The Department’s response to this directive is provided in the Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants program narrative.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

14

Summary of Request

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

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

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including through professional development and other 

support for teachers and school leaders, before- and after-school programs, flexible formula 

funding to support State and local needs, additional funding for school districts in rural areas, 

improving the quality of the State assessments required by the ESEA, and addressing the 

particular educational needs of special populations. 

The Administration is requesting approximately $6.5 billion, $1.1 billion more than a fiscal year 

2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 appropriation, for the following programs in 

this account:

• $2.1 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants to support ongoing State 

and local efforts to improve teacher and principal effectiveness and help ensure that all 

students have equitable access to well-prepared, qualified, and effective teachers and 

principals. Since the beginning of the pandemic, SEAs and LEAs have faced unprecedented 

challenges in resuming in-person instruction in a safe manner and teachers and school 

leaders need continued support to ensure that students are able to recover from lost 

instructional time. 

• $1.3 billion, an increase of $50 million, for 21st Century Community Learning Centers as 

part of the Administration’s commitment to expanding access to high-quality, evidencebased afterschool programs as a core equity strategy for closing achievement and 

attainment gaps between students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and 

other students. Expanded access to before- and after-school programs are a critical, 

evidence-based strategy for recovering from lost instructional time due the COVID-19 

pandemic.

• $378.0 million for State Assessments to help States continue to administer high-quality

assessment systems as a cornerstone of successful ESEA implementation. The request 

includes $8.9 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment program to help 

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

developing and implementing new or improved assessment systems. 

• $110.0 million, an increase of $3.5 million, for Education for Homeless Children and 

Youths to help maintain services and support for the increased numbers of children and 

youth from families experiencing homelessness due to the ongoing disruption and 

dislocation caused by the pandemic.

• $37.4 million for Native Hawaiian 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.

• $36.5 million for Alaska Native Education to support the development and operation of 

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

Summary of Request—continued

15

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

centers that provide technical assistance upon request to school districts in addressing 

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

• $202.8 million, an increase of $15 million, for Rural Education to provide resources to rural 

LEAs and schools that often face unique challenges in meeting the needs of their students.

• $24.5 million, an increase of $7.8 million for Supplemental Education Grants program, 

including the first inflation increase in over a decade, 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.

• $52.0 million for Comprehensive Centers, to provide comprehensive technical assistance 

to grantees. Funds would support the continuation costs of 19 Regional Centers and a 

National Center that provide intensive capacity-building services to help SEAs and other 

recipients identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that improve 

instruction and student outcomes.

• $1.2 billion for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants to improve academic 

achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

provide students with access to a well-rounded education and improve school conditions 

and use of technology.

• $1.0 billion for a proposed School-Based Health Professionals program to provide formula 

grants to State educational agencies, which would then make competitive grants to highneed local educational agencies to support the goal of doubling the number of health 

professionals, including school counselors, nurses, school psychologists, and social 

workers, in our Nation's schools.

Activities:

Summary of Request
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

16

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

Annual appropriation $461,639 $467,139 +$5,500

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

Total 2,143,080 2,148,580 +5,500

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants provide formula grants to State educational 

agencies (SEAs), which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support 

activities designed to increase educational opportunity and student achievement by improving 

the effectiveness of teachers, principals, and other school leaders; increase the number of 

teachers, principals, and other school leaders who are effective in improving student academic 

achievement in schools; provide students from low-income backgrounds and students of color 

greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders; and reduce class size. 

SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to carry out a wide variety of activities based on identified needs.

Funds are distributed to States by a formula that uses the number of children aged 5 to 17 and 

the number of children aged 5 to 17 from poor families. For the past two decades a “hold 

harmless” provision took into account the amount of money received under two antecedent 

programs, but the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

established a multi-year phase-out of this provision by fiscal year 2022. Fiscal year 2023 is the 

first year in which all appropriated funds are to be allocated strictly by the formula, which is 

weighted 80 percent for children from low-income backgrounds and 20 percent according to 

States’ relative shares of the population aged 5 to 17. 

The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of the Interior and the Outlying Areas 

each receive one-half of 1 percent of the appropriation. The Department may reserve up to onehalf of 1 percent of funding for evaluation. Each State must reserve at least 95 percent of its 

funds for subgrants to LEAs and may use up to 1 percent for administration and the remainder 

for State-level activities. The statute further authorizes States to reserve up to an additional 

3 percent of the amount otherwise reserved for subgrants to LEAs for a range of State-level 

activities aimed at improving the effectiveness of principals and other school leaders. In making 

subgrants to LEAs, 20 percent of allocations are based on LEAs’ share of children aged 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

17

17

5 through 17 and 80 percent on the LEAs’ share of children aged 5 through 17 from low-income 

backgrounds. The reauthorization also provided greater flexibility for States and districts in how 

they use Title II-A funds, by expanding the option to transfer funds to other ESEA programs; in 

2018-19, no States transferred funds from Title II-A to other programs and only four transferred 

funds to Title II-A from other programs. However, 23 percent of districts transferred funds out of 

Title II-A to other programs, and 6 percent of districts transferred funds to Title II-A from other 

programs.

States may use their State-level funds for a variety of activities, including:

• improving equitable access to effective teachers;

• strengthening teacher and principal preparation programs including through high-quality 

residencies;

• improving teacher, principal, and other school leader certification and licensing 

standards and requirements;

• technical assistance to LEAs; improving professional development; improving State 

reciprocity of teacher and principal certification or licensing;

• creating or improving alternative routes to certification including for paraprofessionals, 

mid-career professionals, and former military personnel and through Grow Your Own 

programs;

• training teachers and school staff on the appropriate and effective use of student data; 

and

• helping LEAs design and implement teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation 

and support systems that are based in part on evidence of student academic 

achievement and include multiple measures of educator performance and provide clear, 

timely, and useful feedback to teachers, principals, or other school leaders.

LEAs may use funds to:

• develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to improve 

teacher and school leader effectiveness;

• implement initiatives to assist in recruiting, hiring, supporting and retaining effective 

teachers and paraprofessionals, especially in underserved schools;

• promote teacher leadership;

• reduce class size;

• provide high-quality, research-based professional development, including through 

professional learning communities; and

• develop feedback and collaboration mechanisms to improve school working conditions.

Professional development was a priority for both SEAs and LEAs in 2019-20, the most recent 

year for which use of funds data are available. SEAs spent more of their funds on professional 

development (18 percent) than on any activity other than administrative costs. Eighty-one 

percent of LEAs reported using Title II-A funds for short- and long-term professional 

development; overall, 59 percent of all Title II-A spending at the district level—approximately 

$1 billion—was used for this purpose. Other common uses were for recruiting, hiring, and 

retaining educators (34 percent of districts and 15 percent of district funds); class-size reduction 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

18

18

(21 percent of districts and 15 percent of funds), and evaluation systems (12 percent of districts 

and 2 percent of funds). (See https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2021011/.)

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $2,055,830

2019 2,055,830

2020 2,131,830

2021 2,143,080

2022 Estimate 2,143,080

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $2.15 billion for the Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants program, $5.5 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR 

based on the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request would support ongoing State and local 

efforts to improve teacher and school leader effectiveness and help ensure that all students 

have equitable access to well-prepared, qualified, experienced, and effective teachers and 

principals. Since the beginning of the pandemic, SEAs and LEAs have faced unprecedented 

challenges, and teachers and school leaders need continued support to ensure that students 

are able to recover from lost instructional time. 

Funds allow States and LEAs to support activities designed to improve teacher effectiveness 

and student outcomes. A large majority of LEAs use funds for professional development, with 

many LEAs supporting long-term teacher professional development (77 percent of LEAs) and 

job-embedded professional development (52 percent of LEAs). LEAs also use funds for 

professional development for principals: 84 percent of districts reported using funds for shortterm training or conferences, 61 percent for longer-term professional development or education, 

and 38 percent for collaborative of job-embedded professional development. LEAs also can use 

funds to help recruit, hire, and retain effective educators, including supporting programs to 

mentor new teachers and recruiting people in other fields or currently working in other schoolbased positions, such as paraprofessionals, who want to become teachers or leaders through 

high quality pathways.

The Department would reserve up to 0.5 percent of the appropriation for evaluation.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

19

19

Commission on the Future of the Teaching Profession

The request includes appropriations language for the Program Administration account to enable 

the Secretary to support a Commission on the Future of the Teaching Profession, to address 

the factors and pressing needs impacting the field. Issues to be taken up by the Commission 

include: strengthening the recruitment, preparation, and retention of diverse and talented 

educators; making the compensation of educators competitive with similarly educated 

professionals; supporting educators in their professional development, learning, and leadership; 

enhancing and providing competitive teacher compensation; addressing educator shortages, 

particularly in underserved schools and school districts; enhancing opportunities for educator 

growth and advancement; and supporting positive and inclusive environments that improve 

educator satisfaction and improve outcomes for students. 

The Commission, which would be comprised of 12-18 public members appointed by the 

Secretary, would review local data, such as State and regional labor market data, as well as 

seek input from a wide variety of stakeholders, including pre-service, current, and retired 

teachers, spanning diverse geographies and experiences. The Commission would submit a final 

report to the Secretary with recommendations for action at the Federal, State, and local levels 

on an expedited timeline.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Funding for State awards $2,111,041 $2,111,041 $2,116,459

Funding for Outlying Areas 10,662 10,662 10,689

Funding for BIE 10,662 10,662 10,689

Funding for evaluation 10,715 10,715 10,743

Range of State awards $10,421 – 234,750 $10,488 – 231,425 $10,582 – 236,090

Average State award $40,597 $40,597 $40,701

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

including SEI State Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department pooled 

$8,101 thousand in fiscal year 2021 and may pool funds in fiscal year 2022 or fiscal year 2023.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

20

20

The Department developed new measures for the program following reauthorization of the 

ESEA in late 2015:

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of inexperienced 

teachers in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty quartile of schools.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of teachers with 

emergency or provisional credentials in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty 

quartile of schools.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between teachers who are not teaching in the 

subject or field for which they are certified or licensed teaching in the highest poverty 

quartile and the lowest poverty quartile of schools.

The Department collected data on these measures from SEAs via the EDFacts reporting 

system. Because two years of data are required to determine whether gaps are decreasing or 

increasing, baseline data could not be determined until data for both school years 2017-18 and 

2018-19 were available; however, initial analyses of these data in the fall of 2020 found 

significant impediments to using the data, in part because nearly two-fifths of SEAs had missing 

data and in part because of unanticipated methodological challenges resulting from the 

measures themselves.

Because of these problems, the Department considered a range of options and established 

three new measures in 2022:

• Measure 1: The difference between the lowest and highest LEA poverty quartile in 

percentage of teachers with provisional credentials.

• Measure 2: The difference between lowest and highest LEA poverty quartile in 

percentage of teachers teaching out of field.

• Measure 3: The percentage of LEAs indicating that one of their top two uses of Title II, 

Part A professional development funds was for professional development that is 

sustained, job-embedded, and/or collaborative.

Data for teachers teaching out of field and teachers with provisional credentials come from an 

annual EDFacts collection to meet reporting requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA. 

LEA-level poverty data come from the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates. Data for Measure 3 come from a longstanding annual survey of LEAs. The 

Department will have baseline data for these measures in summer 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$1,259,673 $1,309,673 +$50,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers program (21st CCLC) enables 

communities to establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning and 

enrichment opportunities through before- and after-school programs and summer school 

programs aimed at improving student academic outcomes. Centers, which also may offer 

training in parenting skills and family literacy services, must target their services primarily to 

students who attend schools identified for improvement under Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or other schools determined by local educational agencies 

(LEAs) to be in need of assistance. The program currently provides funding to approximately 

10,500 centers serving 1.6 million students and 290,000 adults and family members. In the 

2019–2020 program year, approximately 600,000, or 50 percent, of the 1.2 million school year 

participants attended a center for 30 or more days during the academic year.

Program funds may be used for a broad range of activities, such as those that support a wellrounded education; cultural programs; financial and environmental literacy programs; programs 

that support a healthy and active lifestyle; programs for students who have been chronically 

absent, suspended, or expelled; services for individuals with disabilities; activities for 

multilingual learners; telecommunications and technology education programs; expanded library 

service hours; family engagement and literacy programs; drug and violence prevention 

activities; programs that focus on in-demand fields of the local workforce; and programs that 

build skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Funds also may support inschool activities as part of an expanded learning time program under which the regular school 

day has been extended to include at least 300 additional program hours.

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

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

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

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

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

22

22

received the previous fiscal year under Part A of Title I of the ESEA, except that each State 

receives at least one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States.

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

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

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

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

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

implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and 

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

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

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

by the program or would expand access to high-quality services. States must make awards of at 

least $50,000 per year for a period of 3 to 5 years. An SEA may reserve up to 2 percent of its 

allocation for administrative expenses, including the costs of conducting its grant competition, 

and up to 5 percent for monitoring local programs, providing technical assistance and training, 

and evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s program.

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

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

of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $1,211,673

2019 1,221,673

2020 1,249,673

2021 1,259,673

2022 Estimate 1,259,673

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST 

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $1.31 billion for the 21st CCLC program, 

$50 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. The request reflects the importance of out-of-school programming in the 

development of elementary and secondary school students, as well as the Administration’s 

commitment to expanding access to high-quality, evidence-based afterschool programs as a 

core equity strategy aimed at closing the opportunity, achievement, and attainment gaps 

between students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and other students. With a 

broad array of authorized activities and delivery models, the program allows grantees to meet

locally identified needs, from academic enrichment and tutoring to help students meet 

challenging State standards to programming that improves students’ social and emotional 

wellbeing and provides students with access to a well-rounded education. 

21st CCLC complements Title I, Part A of the ESEA by serving and prioritizing underserved 

students. The program’s State allocations are based on Title I, Part A allocations, States must 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

23

23

give priority to projects serving students attending schools that are implementing 

comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement 

activities under ESEA section 1111(d) and students who may be struggling academically or at 

risk of not graduating from high school. 

The Department would continue to reserve the 1 percent authorized for national activities 

focused on research, developing and updating professional development resources, data 

collection, technical assistance, outreach, dissemination, and an annual institute that enables 

grantees to share effective practices. National activities funds also would support continuation 

awards under a demonstration program that provides opportunities to students outside regular 

school hours to participate in a high-quality career pathways program that leads to an industryrecognized credential in existing and emerging in-demand industry sectors and occupations 

identified by the State, including through completion of an apprenticeship or internship.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Funding for States awards $1,234,480 $1,234,480 $1,283,480

SA Range of State awards $6,172–148,460 $6,172–149,692 $6,417–148,876

SA Average State award 23,740 23,740 24,682

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) 61,724 61,724 64,174

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) 24,690 24,690 25,670

National activities 12,597 12,597 13,097

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 12,597 12,597 13,097

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

including this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department did not reserve 

funds for this purpose from 21st CCLC in fiscal year 2021, but may do so in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

24

24

The Department revised the program’s performance measures in 2020. Grantees began 

collecting data on the new measures in program year 2021–2022 and baseline data will be 

available in early 2023. The new measures focus on improvements in student achievement on 

State assessments, grade point average (GPA), school day attendance, student behavior, and 

student engagement:

• Measure 1a: The percentage of students in grades 4–8 participating in 21st CCLC 

programming during the school year and summer who demonstrate growth in 

reading/language arts on State assessments.

• Measure 1b: The percentage of students in grades 4–8 participating in 21st CCLC 

programming during the school year and summer who demonstrate growth in math on 

State assessments.

• Measure 2: The percentage of students in grades 7–8 and 10–12 attending 21st CCLC 

programming during the school year and summer with a prior-year unweighted GPA less 

than 3.0 who demonstrated an improved GPA.

• Measure 3: The percentage of youth in grades 1–12 participating in 21st CCLC during 

the school year and summer who had a school-day attendance rate at or below 

90 percent in the prior school year and demonstrated an improved attendance rate in the 

current school year.

• Measure 4: The percentage of students grades 1–12 attending 21st CCLC 

programming during the school year and summer who experienced a decrease in inschool suspensions compared to the previous school year.

• Measure 5: The percentage of students in grades 1–5 participating in 21st CCLC 

programming in the school year and summer who demonstrated an improvement in 

teacher-reported engagement in learning. 

Grantees continued to collect data on the old performance measures through program year 

2020–2021. The Department is currently reviewing 2021 data but reports the existing data 

below.

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

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

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

offer families of students opportunities for educational development.

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

and exhibit positive behavioral changes.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

25

25

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

from fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2017 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 51.4% 47.6% 50.0%

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 51.3 46.5 49.7

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0 48.5 45.6 47.6

2020 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 51.7 49.7

2021 50.0 50.0 50.0

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

fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2017 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 50.0% 48.1% 49.4%

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.1 46.2 48.8

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0 48.2 46.7 47.7

2020 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 53.9 51.5

2021 50.0 50.0 50.0

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

program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year (approximately 39 percent of 

all student participants). To report data by grade span for this measure, the program’s data 

system sorts performance data by analyzing participant demographic information at the center 

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

all ages are not included in columns disaggregated by grade level, which applies to this 

measure and the student behavior measure below. Data for 2021 will be available in 

spring 2022.

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

proficient or above on State assessments.

Year

Target 

Elementary

Reading

Target 

Middle and High 

School Math

Actual 

Elementary

Reading

Actual 

Middle and High 

School Math

2017 15.0% 25.0% 25.4% 19.1%

2018 30.0 25.0 25.5 18.6

2019 30.0 25.0 26.0 19.2

2020 30.0 25.0

2021 30.0 25.0

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

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

21st Century community learning centers

26

26

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

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

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

State assessment results. The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019–2020 

school year due to widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does 

not expect to report actual data for this measure for 2020.

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

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2017 60% 75% 75% 62.2% 58.8% 60.4%

2018 60 60 60 63.1 60.7 62.4

2019 60 60 60 62.0 62.1 62.0

2020 60 60 60 63.6 62.8 63.4

2021 60 60 60

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

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

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

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

columns disaggregated by grade level. 

Efficiency measures

The Department has three operational efficiency measures for 21st CCLC.

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2017 95% 98%

2018 95 100

2019 95 93

2020 95 93

2021 95

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

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

Year Target Actual

2017 35 45

2018 35 55

2019 35 42

2020 35 41

2021 35
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

27

27

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2017 4 24

2018 4 13

2019 4 26

2020 4 17

2021 4

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

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

action within 30 days. Changes in data for the efficiency measures are due in part to the volume 

and severity of the findings for each year. Ongoing issues with a small number of States have 

made the average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings significantly 

higher in recent years. 

. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

28

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

State assessments

Period of fund availability: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$378,000 $378,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and progress to parents and educators, which can be used to help identify where additional 

instructional and other support is needed.

More specifically, as part of the statewide accountability and improvement systems required by 

the ESEA, the results of annual assessments in reading and mathematics must be used as a 

factor in determining whether States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools are 

meeting long-term goals and interim measures of progress and to differentiate annually and 

meaningfully the performance of all schools. All assessments must be used only for purposes 

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

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

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

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

appropriations levels for the State Assessments program. Under section 1111(b)(2)(I) of the 

ESEA, for any year for which Congress appropriates less than a “trigger amount” of 

$369.1 million, States may defer the commencement or suspend the administration of State 

assessments required by the ESEA.

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

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

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

29

29

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

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

improving the quality and utility of those assessments. Such activities may include, among other 

things, refining State assessments to ensure continued alignment with standards, expanding the 

range of testing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English learner students, 

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

developing or improving models to measure student progress or growth, and using 

performance-based assessments or computer adaptive assessments to better reflect complex, 

real world tasks. 

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

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

and local assessment systems as part of a State plan to eliminate unnecessary or low-quality 

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

efficiency, and assist LEAs in streamlining local assessment systems, including the 

establishment of a regular process to review and evaluate local assessments to help ensure 

that all assessments are worth taking. This authority has not been implemented since it was 

added to State Assessments in the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and use comprehensive assessment instruments, such as performance-based or extended 

performance task assessments, which may include computer adaptive assessments, that allow 

for new and improved methods for measuring critical thinking, writing, and problem solving 

skills.

After reserving 0.5 percent of funds equal to or less than the trigger amount of $369.1 million for 

the Bureau of Indian Education and 0.5 percent for the Outlying Areas, the Department 

allocates a minimum of $3 million to each State, plus a portion of any funds remaining for grants 

under this program based on each State’s share of students ages 5–17, for the Grants for State 

Assessments program. The Department must use any funds appropriated above the trigger 

amount for Competitive Grants for State Assessment.

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

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

through September 30 of the following year.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

30

30

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $378,000

2019 378,000

2020 378,000

2021 378,000

2022 Estimate 378,000

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $378 million for State Assessments, level with

a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request 

would provide $369.1 million for State grants along with $8.9 million for awards under the 

Competitive Grants for State Assessment program. The $369.1 million proposed for State 

grants is the minimum “trigger amount” needed to ensure that States continue to administer the 

assessments required under Title I, Part A; States may stop administering these assessments if 

the appropriation for the program is less than this amount.

Annual, high-quality, statewide assessments fully aligned to challenging State academic 

standards are an important element of the statewide accountability and improvement systems 

that each State must establish under the ESEA, providing parents and educators with 

information they need to understand whether students are meeting State-determined collegeand career-ready academic standards. State assessments also help identify schools that are 

meeting these standards and schools where additional resources and supports may be needed 

to improve educational opportunity and academic achievement. In addition, regular 

administration of high-quality State academic assessment systems can help identify and 

address the impact of lost instructional time related to COVID-19 on student academic 

achievement, particularly for those students most at risk for falling behind due to school closures 

and uneven access to virtual or hybrid instructional alternatives.

The fiscal year 2023 request will help States continue to administer high-quality assessment 

systems as a cornerstone of successful ESEA implementation. Funds may be used to improve 

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

across multiple levels of proficiency, including through the incorporation of portfolios, projects, or 

extended performance tasks; appropriately assess all students, including students with 

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

educators, and parents. States may also use funds to develop comprehensive academic 

assessment instruments such as performance-based assessments and technology-based 

assessments, including computer adaptive assessments. 

The request also would provide $8.9 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment

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

for developing and implementing new or improved assessment systems. Potential priorities for 

the fiscal year 2023 competition could include activities to support and improve high-quality 

assessment systems, such as measuring student academic achievement using multiple 

measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources and evaluating student 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

31

31

academic achievement and growth through the development of comprehensive academic 

assessment instruments (such as performance and technology-based academic assessments, 

computer adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that 

emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based 

education model.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Grants for State Assessments:

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

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,330-28,152 $3,330-28,152 $3,330-28,152

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

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,691 $3,691 $3,691

Competitive Grants for State 

Assessments:

Funding for new awards $8,811 $8,811 $8,811

Number of new awards 3-4 3-4 3-4

Range of new awards $3,800-3,900 $3,800-3,900 $3,800-3,900

Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $89 $89

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

and implementation of the State assessments required under Title I of the ESEA. The 

performance measure is the number of States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico) that have reading/language arts and mathematics assessments that align with the State's 

academic content standards for all students in grades 3–8 and in high school and science 

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

three grade spans (grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12). Beginning in school year 2018-19, each State 

must also demonstrate that assessments used to measure English Language Proficiency (ELP) 

of all English Learners are aligned with their State ELP standards. States that develop alternate 

assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities must also demonstrate 

that such assessments are based on alternate academic achievement standards. Success in 

meeting these requirements is determined primarily by formal peer reviews of State assessment 

systems by panels of external assessment experts.

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

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

six additional States in 2017, and the final eight States submitted academic assessments for 

review in 2018. Additionally, States reviewed in 2016 submitted additional evidence in 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

32

32

succeeding years based on their peer review outcomes (5 in 2017 and 33 in 2018). In 2019, 

48 States submitted evidence for peer review for their ELP assessments and 13 States 

submitted evidence for academic assessments. In 2020, the Department conducted peer 

reviews for 35 states across all subject areas. During 2021, 17 States participated in 

assessment peer reviews.

The tables below show the number of States that were determined to have partially met, 

substantially met, or met all requirements by assessment subject, grade, and type (general or 

alternate) as of December 31, 2021, and also indicate the number of States where the outcome

was pending (i.e., the Department is still reviewing the State documentation and peer 

recommendations to provide a formal determination to the State). In 2022, the Department is 

reviewing both academic and ELP assessments from another 29 states. 

Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments Status as of December 31, 2021

Outcome Grades 3-8 General High School General Grades 3-8 and High 

School Alternate

Met All Requirements 16 10 8

Substantially Met 32 34 26

Partially Met 4 8 5

Does not meet 0 0 3

Pending Outcome 

Notification 6 6 1

Science Assessments Status as of December 31, 2021

Outcome Grades 3-8 General High School General Grades 3-8 and High 

School Alternate

Met All Requirements 1 2 0

Substantially Met 14 13 14

Partially Met 8 9 3

Does not meet 0 0 4

Pending Outcome 

Notification 1 1 1

English Language Proficiency Assessments Status as of December 31, 2021

Outcome ELP General ELP Alternate

Met All Requirements 0 0

Substantially Met 6 0

Partially Met 43 35

Does not meet 0 0

Pending Outcome 

Notification 6 3

States must revise their assessments periodically and undergo peer review each time they 

make significant changes to their Standards or the assessments themselves. For example, at 

least four States that received “met all requirements” designations in 2017, 2018 or 2019 have 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

33

33

changed their assessments since then, thus triggering new peer review cycles in 2019, 2020 

and 2021.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

34

Education for homeless children and youths

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1 Education for homeless children and youths

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$106,500 $110,000 +$3,500

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program helps ensure that all children and 

youth experiencing homelessness have equal access to the same free, appropriate public 

education available to other children and youth through grants to States to: (1) establish or 

designate an Office of Coordinator of Education of Homeless Children and Youth; (2) develop 

and carry out a State plan for the education of children and youth experiencing homelessness; 

and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the education of those 

children and youth. 

The Department allocates program funds to States through a formula based on each State's 

share of funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A 

State may not receive less than $150,000, 0.25 percent of the funds appropriated, or the 

amount of the State’s fiscal year 2001 allocation, whichever is greatest. Program funds are also 

reserved for the outlying areas (0.1 percent of a fiscal year’s appropriation) and the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (1 percent). In addition, the Department 

is authorized to reserve funds to provide technical assistance (if requested by a State) and 

conduct evaluation and dissemination activities.

A State may reserve up to 25 percent (or in the case of a State receiving the minimum award, 

50 percent) of its allocation for State-level activities and must use remaining funds to make 

subgrants to LEAs. LEAs may use subgrant funds for such activities as providing enriched 

supplemental instruction, transportation, professional development, referrals to health care, and 

other services to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of children, 

including preschool-aged children, and youth experiencing homelessness.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth is a forward-funded program. Funds become 

available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain 

available through September 30 of the following year.

1 The GEPA extension expired through September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through 

appropriations action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

35

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $85,000

2019 93,500

2020 101,500

2021 106,500

2022 Estimate 106,500

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $110 million for Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, $3.5 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the 

fiscal year 2021 appropriation. This funding, which would become available to States and

districts after much of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds that were appropriated to provide 

support for these students during the COVID-19 pandemic have been committed or used, would 

help maintain services and support for the increased numbers of children and youth from 

families experiencing homelessness due to the ongoing disruption and dislocation caused by 

the pandemic. 

Although the number of identified students experiencing homelessness reported to the 

Department decreased by nearly 8 percent between school years 2018-19 and 2019-20, data

from other sources indicate that this figure may be misleading. A survey of local liaisons under 

the program by SchoolHouse Connection and Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan 

identified an “undercount” in the number of children and youth identified as experiencing 

homelessness at the start of school year 2020-21. Respondents to that survey attributed the 

lower numbers to the difficulty of identifying families and youth due to the prevalence of school 

building closures and distance learning.1

These data also do not account for the possible impact of COVID-19. The full effect of the 

COVID-19 pandemic on homelessness is not yet known, as the pandemic disrupted Federallevel data collection on homelessness. The United States Interagency Council on

Homelessness has reported that, as a result, data on homelessness for 2021 reflect a more 

limited snapshot of homelessness than normal, particularly for unsheltered individuals and 

families. Further, a recent analysis of economic data supported by the Economic Roundtable2

noted that homelessness tends to lag behind joblessness. The report forecasts that chronic 

homelessness could increase as much as 49 percent over the next 4 years because of the 

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment. Furthermore, an increase in individuals and 

families who are homeless is expected by fiscal year 2023 because the Federal level temporary 

moratorium of residential evictions in communities with substantial or high levels of community 

transmission of COVID-19 ended in fall of 2021.

1 https://schoolhouseconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Lost-in-the-Masked-Shuffle-and-Virtual-Void.pdf 2 https://economicrt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Locked-Out.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

36

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program supports a broad set of activities to 

help reduce and eliminate the barriers to educational success faced by children and youth 

experiencing homelessness, including transportation and healthcare needs, and ensure they 

have access to academic services available to other children, such as preschool programs, 

special education, gifted and talented programs, and career and technical education. 

Approximately 1.28 million students were identified as homeless in school year 2019-20, of 

which approximately 17 percent were English learners, 19.1 percent were eligible to receive 

services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and 8.8 percent were 

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

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

Children and Youths program with other programs that serve students experiencing 

homelessness, in particular the ESEA’s Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. 

Title I, for which students experiencing homelessness are automatically eligible, authorizes 

recipients to provide homeless children and youth with services not ordinarily provided to other 

students, such as supporting LEA liaisons for children and youth experiencing homelessness 

and providing transportation. 

For fiscal year 2023, at the requested level, the Department plans to reserve approximately 

$1.8 million for national activities to support projects to improve educational services and 

outcomes for youth experiencing homelessness through the National Center for Homeless 

Education (NCHE). The Department will also continue to seek opportunities to work with other 

agencies that administer programs that serve family and youth experiencing homelessness. For 

example, the Department currently works with the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) to facilitate collaboration among school districts, institutions of higher 

education, and grantees under HUD’s Youth Homeless Demonstration program to address the 

educational needs of unaccompanied homeless youth and provide them with pathways to 

postsecondary education, training, and careers. In March 2021, NCHE released a brief 

discussing lessons learned from Round 3 of that program1. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Amount for State grants $103,579 $103,579 $107,040

Amount for State Grants Range of State awards $266–12,925 $266–12,363 $275–12,760

Amount for State Grants Average State award 1,992 1,992 2,058

Amount to BIE 1,065 1,065 1,100

Amount to Outlying Areas 107 107 110

National activities 1,749 1,749 1,750

1 https://nche.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/yhdp-round3-summary-profile.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

37

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance goals, objectives, and measures 

for the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program for possible revision in future. This 

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

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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Goal: To ensure access of children and youth experiencing homelessness to the same 

free, appropriate public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Children and youth experiencing homelessness will have greater access to a free 

and appropriate public education.

Measure: The percentage of assessed students experiencing homelessness, grades three 

through eight, enrolled in all LEAs, who meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in 

reading and mathematics.

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

2019 29.6% 24.5%

2020 Not available Not available

2021 29.9% 24.8%

2022 30.2 25.1

2023 30.5 25.4

Measure: The percentage of assessed students experiencing homelessness, grades three 

through eight, who meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and 

mathematics, as reported by LEA subgrantees.

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

2018 80% 27.5% 80% 23.4%

2019 80 27.5 80 23.5

2020 80 Not available 80 Not available

2021 27.5 23.5

2022 27.8 23.7

2023 28.1 23.9

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on proficiency of students experiencing 

homelessness enrolled in all LEAs was a new measure for 2022. The new proficiency measures 

are focused on the academic achievement of all students experiencing homelessness in a 

State, as opposed to the other measures the Department has been reporting on, which focus 

exclusively on the performance of students experiencing homelessness in LEAs receiving 

subgrants under the program. In 2021 the Department re-set targets for the measures of 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

38

proficiency pertaining to LEA subgrantees when it started implementing the measures for 

proficiency for all students experiencing homelessness. Data for 2020 are not available because 

the Department waived assessment requirements for 2019-20 due to widespread closures 

related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for 2021 will be available in late summer of 2022.

Measure: The percentage of students who were identified as homeless at any time in 

grades 9-12 and who graduated in 4 years with a regular high school diploma (4-year Adjusted 

Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)).

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2019 67.8% 

2020 68.2

2021 69.2%

2022 69.9

2023 70.6

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on ACGR for students experiencing 

homelessness is a new measure for 2022. Note that the ESEA provides flexibility for how a 

State defines the students in cohorts, including the homeless ACGR and, as a result, States 

have different ways for accounting for students experiencing homelessness in high school and 

the data they report for this measure are not necessarily comparable. Some States reported that 

they only track students who were identified as homeless in Grade nine. Data for 2021 will be 

available in late summer 2022.

Measure: The percentage of students who experienced homelessness in grades pre-K-13 at 

some point in the school year who were reported at the school-level as being chronically absent.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2019 36.7% 

2020 33.0

2021 34.8%

2022 33.8

2023 32.8

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on chronic absenteeism for students 

experiencing homelessness was a new measure for 2022. Chronic absenteeism is a measure of 

the number of students who have missed 10 percent or more of their instructional time during 

their period of enrollment in half-day increments, and is often a better indicator than measures 

such as average daily attendance for which students need more intervention and support to 

attend school regularly and persist. About two-thirds of States chose chronic absenteeism as a 

measure of School Quality and Student Success as part of their statewide accountability and 

improvement systems under their ESEA Consolidated State Plans. Note that this measure may 

include duplicate data as chronically absent students experiencing homelessness may have 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

39

been enrolled in more than one school during the school year. Data for 2021 will be available in 

late summer 2022.

Efficiency Measure

The Department established the following efficiency measure for the program: 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to 

States after monitoring events.

Year Target Actual

2018 40 39

2019 40 36

2020 40 Not applicable

2021 60 180

2022 60

2023 60

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

In 2020, the Department revised its monitoring procedures and incorporated monitoring for the 

program into a consolidated monitoring process with other programs. The target was re-set to 

reflect the new process. The increase in 2021 was due to the Department conducting 

consolidated monitoring for 10 programs, which required more staff time to coordinate 

compilation and clearance of monitoring reports.

Other Performance Information

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

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program.1 The study examined State and local 

program administration and use of funds, efforts to collect data on students experiencing 

homelessness, policies to remove barriers faced by these students, and coordination of 

services. The study found that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and supplemental 

instruction were reported by district liaisons as the largest local program expenditures and that 

transportation needs and preoccupation with survival needs were most frequently identified as 

barriers to students experiencing homelessness and their enrollment and attendance in school.

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

40

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$37,397 $37,397 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. The program awards 3-year competitive grants to 

support a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher development and training, 

family-based education, gifted and talented education, early childhood education, special 

education, higher education, and community-based education learning centers. Eligible 

applicants include Native Hawaiian educational organizations and community-based 

organizations, public and private nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with 

experience in developing or operating Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in 

the Native Hawaiian language, and other entities.

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

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

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

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

$500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $36,397

2019 36,397

2020 36,897

2021 37,397

2021 Mandatory ARP Act 85,000

2022 Estimate 37,397

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $37.4 million for Native Hawaiian Education, 

level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

41

request would support the continued provision of education-related services to the Native 

Hawaiian population through 9 continuation awards and approximately 35 new competitive 

grants. 

Data on the educational performance of Native Hawaiian students demonstrate the continuing 

need for this program. In 2019, 18 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4th-grade 

students demonstrated proficiency in reading and 18 percent demonstrated proficiency in 

mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), compared to 

34 percent proficient in reading and 40 percent proficient in mathematics for all 4th-grade 

students in Hawaii. Similarly, 24 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8th-grade students 

demonstrated proficiency in reading and 16 percent demonstrated proficiency in mathematics 

on the NAEP assessment, as compared to 29 percent proficient in reading and 28 percent 

proficient in mathematics for all 8th-grade students in Hawaii. 

Program grants help address these gaps by developing programs tailored to the educational 

and cultural needs of Native Hawaiian students in order to improve their academic achievement

and support high school graduation.

The American Rescue Plan Act provided a supplemental appropriation of $85 million for new 

awards under the Native Hawaiian Education program intended to help applicants address 

needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of lost instructional time on 

student achievement and attainment outcomes, as well as to provide social, emotional, and 

mental health supports to Native Hawaiian students and their families. The Department made 

36 new awards in 2021 for projects of up to 3 years in length.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

42

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Amount for new awards $7,597 0 $28,926

Number of new awards 9 0 35

Amount for continuation awards $29,300 $36,897 $7,597

Number of continuation awards 24 32 9

Native Hawaiian Education Council $500 $500 $500

Peer review of new award applications 01 0 $374

NOTES: 

The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs, including 

this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department did not reserve such funds 

from this program in fiscal year 2021 but may do so in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to 

widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does not expect to report 

actual data for these measures for 2020. Data for 2021 will be available in winter 2022.

1 The Department funded nine new awards in fiscal year 2021 from the fiscal year 2020 slate.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

43

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in reading on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 47% 49%

2019 48 49

2020 49 Not available

2021 49

2022 49

2023 49

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in math on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 40% 41%

2019 41 42

2020 42 Not available

2021 42

2022 42

2023 42

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in science on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 28% 28%

2019 29 42

2020 41 Not available

2021 41

2022 41

2023 41

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that demonstrated school 

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2018 45% 54%

2019 45 46

2020 45 46

2021 45

2022 45

2023 45
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

44

Additional Information: Because not all grantees provide early learning services, this 

measure may not apply to all grantees in a given year.

Measure: The percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate from 

high school with a regular high school diploma in 4 years.

Year Target Actual

2018 82% 85%

2019 82 84

2020 82 85

2021 82

2022 82

2023 82
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

45

Alaska Native education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$36,453 $36,453 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services designed to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for Alaska Natives. The 

program awards 3-year competitive grants to eligible applicants, which include Alaska Native 

organizations and entities located in Alaska with experience operating Alaska Native programs 

that have been granted a charter from an Alaska Native tribe or Alaska Native organization.

Allowable activities include the development and implementation of curricula and educational 

programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population (including the use and 

preservation of Alaska Native languages), professional development for educators, the 

development and operation of home instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children 

that help support active involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy 

services, student enrichment programs in science and mathematics, and dropout 

prevention programs.

The American Rescue Plan Act provided a supplemental appropriation of $85 million for new 

awards under the Alaska Native Education program intended to help applicants address needs 

arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of lost instructional time on student 

achievement and attainment outcomes, as well as to provide social, emotional, and mental 

health supports to Alaska Native students and their families. The Department made 29 new 

awards in fall 2021 for projects of up to 3 years in length.

Grantees may use up to 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs.

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

46

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $35,453

2019 35,453

2020 35,953

2021 36,453

2021 Mandatory ARP Act 85,000

2022 Estimate 36,453

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Department requests $36.5 million for Alaska Native Education in fiscal 

year 2023, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. The request would support education-related services to the Alaska Native 

population through approximately 50 continuation awards. 

Data on the educational performance of Alaska Native students demonstrate the continuing 

need for the range of activities supported by this program. Results from the spring 2019 Alaska 

Standards-Based Assessment indicated that Alaska Native and American Indian students in the 

State continue to struggle with 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. Fifteen percent of 

AI/AN students demonstrated proficiency on the 4th-grade English language arts assessment, 

compared to 40 percent of all 4th-grade students, and 22 percent of AI/AN students achieved 

proficiency in mathematics, compared to 45 percent of all 4th-grade students. Eighth-grade 

assessments showed similar achievement gaps as 15 percent of AI/AN students demonstrated 

proficiency on the 8th-grade English language arts assessment, compared to 36 percent of all 

8th-grade students, and 12 percent of AI/AN students achieved proficiency in mathematics, 

compared to 27 percent of all 8th-grade students. 

These outcomes from State assessment data are confirmed by the results of the 2019 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress for AI/AN students in Alaska. In 4th-grade reading, 

9 percent of AI/AN students in Alaska were proficient, while the overall average for all students 

in Alaska was 25 percent. There were similar differences in 8th-grade reading (20 percent 

proficient compared to 33 percent for all students in Alaska), 4th-grade mathematics (13 percent 

proficient compared to 33 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 4.7 percent in the 

2019-2020 school year, higher than the rate for any other racial or ethnic group in the State and 

well above the statewide rate of 2.7 percent. Further, Alaska’s “Report Card to the Public: 

2019-2020” reported that the high school graduation rate for AI/AN students was 67.6 percent, 

while the statewide figure was 74.0 percent.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

47

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 

operate 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 funding extra academic supports and culturally 

responsive related services tailored to the educational needs of Alaska Native students in order 

to improve their academic success and support their successful graduation from high school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Amount for new awards $15,734 $36,008 0

Number of new awards 15 48 0

Amount for continuation awards $20,496 0 $36,453

Number of continuation awards 19 0 50

Peer review of new award applications $223 $365 0

_____________________

NOTE: 

The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs, including 

this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department did not reserve such funds 

from this program in fiscal year 2021, but may do so in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to 

widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does not expect to report 

actual data for these measures for 2020. Data for 2021 will be available in winter 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

48

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and science on the State’s 

annual assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2018 48% 49%

2019 49 51

2020 50 Not available

2021 51

2022 52

2023 53

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native children participating in early learning and preschool 

programs who demonstrate school readiness in language and literacy as measured by the 

Revised Alaska Developmental Profile.

Year Target Actual

2018 57% 62%

2019 58 64

2020 59 Not available

2021 60

2022 61

2023 62

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

graduate from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. 

Year Target Actual

2018 57% 58%

2019 58 60

2020 59 Not available

2021 60

2022 61

2023 62

Additional Information: After working with a data specialist to review data for this measure, 

the Department discovered that it had incorrectly reported prior years’ data on this measure. 

The Department has corrected the data and will provide technical assistance to grantees to 

improve performance on the high school graduation measure.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

49

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

$6,575 $6,575 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, sex, national origin, 

and religion. To carry out those activities, the Department awards grants to Equity Assistance 

Centers (EACs) in four geographic regions serving the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the Outlying Areas of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination in educational programs. Other activities include training designed to 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

50

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. Topics covered by the EACs go beyond 

a traditional view of desegregation to include areas such as school climate, disproportionate and 

exclusionary discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy, 

educator diversity, the effect of poverty on equity in educational opportunity and achievement 

gaps, and instructional practices that reach all students.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $6,575

2019 6,575

2020 6,575

2021 6,575

2022 Estimate 6,575

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $6.6 million for Training and Advisory 

Services, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. Fiscal year 2023 funds would support the second year of Equity Assistance 

Center grants made in fiscal year 2022 under a competition aligned with President Biden’s 

equity agenda.

In fiscal year 2021, the four EACs provided targeted and intensive assistance to 33 State 

educational agencies, 222 local educational agencies, and 285 schools in 35 States and 

territories in areas such as creating a positive, safe, and inclusive school climate; improving 

family engagement; increasing educator diversity; and implementing instructional practices that 

reach all students. Of the EAC clients that participated in an annual Client Satisfaction Survey, 

91 percent indicated satisfaction with the services they received, a seven-percentage point 

increase from the previous year.

The Equity Assistance Centers continue to develop and implement innovative approaches to 

technical assistance that respond to needs across States, districts, and schools, and are 

engaged in a range of evidence-based activities to improve equity and access to high-quality 

educational environments and resources. Examples of these activities include:

• Developing resources and promoting best practices to help students, educators, and 

families confront, respond to, and combat anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander 

discrimination and xenophobia.

• Providing professional development on practical instructional strategies for planning and 

delivering sheltered content for English learners within the context of standards-based 

lesson planning, instruction, and assessment.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

51

• Ensuring, through collaboratively designed lessons and ongoing implementation support, 

that students, teachers, administrators, and support personnel in schools are prepared to 

respond to individuals who experience sexual harassment in schools. 

In addition, the Equity Assistance Centers remain key thought partners and technical assistance 

providers to States and school districts across the country as they respond to disruptions and 

seek to swiftly and safely reopen their schools and maintain in-person instruction during the 

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Amount for grant awards $6,532 $6,468 $6,528

Data collection $43 $47 $47

Peer review of new award applications 0 $60 0

Number of new awards 0 4 0

Number of continuation awards 4 0 4

Average size award $1,633 $1,617 $1,632

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Except where stated otherwise below, data for the following measures are collected through an 

annual survey of EAC clients. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress 

conducts the survey under an interagency agreement with the Department.

Targets for these measures for the fiscal year 2022 cohort, using 2023 as the baseline year, will 

be developed at a later date. 

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, national origin, and religion.

Objective: Provide coordinated technical assistance and training to State educational agencies 

and public school districts in addressing equity in education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

52

Measure: The percentage of clients reporting an increase in awareness or knowledge resulting 

from technical assistance provided.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Awareness

Actual

Knowledge

Actual

2018 85% 80% 80% 75%

2019 83 84 81 84

2020 86 88 88 81

2021 90 81 80 81

2022 92

Additional information: Clients were asked whether they increased their awareness or 

knowledge and, if so to what extent, on different topics for which they received assistance. The 

“Combined Actual” percentage is the higher of the two reported percentages for Awareness and 

Knowledge. 

Measure: The percentage of clients who report changed policies or practices related to 

providing students with a full opportunity for participation in all educational programs regardless 

of their sex, race, religion, and national origin.

Year Target Actual

2018 79% 76%

2019 78 75

2020 78 73

2021 78 82

2022 80

Measure: The percentage of clients reporting an increase in capacity resulting from technical 

assistance provided.

Year Target Actual

2018 77% 71%

2019 74 89

2020 90 73

2021 76 64

2022 78

Additional information: Clients were asked whether their organizations received assistance to 

(1) build inclusive leadership, (2) identify and/or leverage mutually beneficial relationships or 

partnerships, or (3) obtain and/or leverage tangible materials or systems, and, if so, the extent 

to which their capacity increased after receiving assistance from the EAC. Data reflect the 

percentage of respondents who said their capacity increased to a moderate or great extent in at 

least one of these ways. The decline in 2020 and 2021 likely is explained by service disruptions 

and challenges in transitioning to a virtual service model during the COVID-19 pandemic.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

53

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from organizations that 

were accepted during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2018 96% 96%

2019 97 98

2020 98 97

2021 98 95

2022 98

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from new (not previously 

served by the EAC) organizations during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2018 68% 72%

2019 75 41

2020 48 69

2021 71 67

2022 73

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. The 

significantly lower percentage on this measure in 2019 may be due to the high number of 

existing clients who reported high satisfaction with the services received and requested 

additional services in this school year than in previous years. The Department is eliminating this 

measure beginning with the fiscal year 2022 cohort.

Measure: The percentage of clients willing to request additional technical assistance or refer 

another organization to an EAC for technical assistance during the performance period.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Request Additional

Assistance Actual

Refer Another 

Agency

Actual

2018 85% 86% 84% 86%

2019 88 89 89 87

2020 91 89 84 89

2021 91 89 89 84

2022 93

Additional information: Clients were asked how likely they were to request additional 

assistance from the EAC and how likely they were to refer another agency to an EAC for 

technical assistance. The “Combined Actual” percentage is the higher of the two reported 

percentages for Request Additional Assistance and Refer Another Agency.

The Department has established the following additional measure for the program beginning 

with the fiscal year 2022 cohort: The percentage of clients who report that outcomes, as 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

54

documented in memoranda of understanding with EACs, were met as a result of the technical 

assistance provided.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

55

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

$187,840 $202,840 +$15,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) includes two distinct programs to assist 

rural local educational agencies (LEAs) in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of 

teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) 

provides funds to rural LEAs that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income 

School program (RLIS) provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of students

living in poverty, regardless of the total number of students served. Funds appropriated for 

REAP are divided equally between the SRSA and the RLIS programs. 

Small, Rural School Achievement Program (Subpart 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) have a total average 

daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students or serve only schools that are located in 

counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and (2) serve 

only schools that have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 

41 (Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 43 (Rural, Remote) or are located in an area of the 

State defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated in the 

previous fiscal year under the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Part A of Title II) 

and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Part A of Title IV) programs.

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under the following Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

56

Operated by Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction 

State Grants); (3) Part A of Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of 

Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants); and (5) Part B of Title IV 

(21st Century Community Learning Centers). 

SRSA-eligible LEAs also may, under an alternative fund use authority (AFUA) previously known 

as “REAP-Flex”, consolidate any and all of their applicable funding for allowable activities 

authorized under the five programs specified above.

Rural and Low-Income School Program (Subpart 2)

Under the RLIS program, the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in eligible LEAs. An LEA is considered eligible for RLIS if it: 

(1) has a poverty rate of at least 20 percent based either on data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program or, for an LEA for which 

SAIPE data are unavailable, on the same State-derived poverty data used to determine LEA 

allocations under part A of title I of the ESEA (State-derived poverty data), and (2) serves only 

schools that have an NCES locale code of 32 (Town, Distant), 33 (Town, Remote), 41 (Rural, 

Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 43 (Rural, Remote). Each State then makes RLIS subgrants to 

eligible LEAs. Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, established a “hold 

harmless” provision that enables certain LEAs for which SAIPE poverty data are not available,

and that do not have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent based on the State-derived poverty 

data, to be considered eligible for RLIS at decreasing levels through fiscal year 2027.

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 students from lowincome backgrounds. If an RLIS-eligible LEA is in a State whose State educational agency 

(SEA) does not submit an RLIS application, the LEA may apply directly to the Department to 

receive the funding it would have generated for its State, based on its ADA, had the SEA 

applied for RLIS. These LEAs are referred to in the statute as Specially Qualified Agencies 

(SQAs).

LEAs may use RLIS program funds for: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs 

Operated by Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction 

State Grants); (3) Part A of Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of 

Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants); and (5) parental involvement 

activities.

Lastly, the Department allocates 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. 

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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

57

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $180,840

2019 180,840

2020 185,840

2021 187,840

2022 Estimate 187,840

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $202.8 million for REAP, $15 million more than 

a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request 

would support an average LEA award of approximately $24,000 under SRSA and an average 

LEA subgrant of approximately $44,000 under RLIS.

The fiscal year 2023 request for REAP recognizes the significant obstacles faced by many rural 

LEAs in ensuring that all students meet challenging State academic standards and graduate 

high school ready for college and career, consistent with the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA). Based on 2018 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, 

28 percent of the Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, while 19 percent of all 

public school students were enrolled at these schools. The small size and remoteness of many

rural schools and LEAs creates unique challenges. For example, rural schools and LEAs 

generally do not benefit from economies of scale and, thus, can face greater per-pupil costs in 

areas such as staffing or transportation compared to some urban and suburban areas. 

While rural student performance on reading and mathematics on the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) is roughly the same as the national average (for example, the 

NAEP scale scores of public school students attending rural schools and nationwide were 

roughly the same in 4th grade reading and 4th-grade mathematics), and the rural student 

adjusted cohort graduation rate is higher than the national average (90 percent compared to 86 

percent),1 resource challenges still impede academic opportunities for rural students. For 

example, rural LEAs often are not able to offer their students the same level of access to 

advanced coursework opportunities as other LEAs. In the 2015–16 school year, just 44 percent 

of rural schools serving students in grades 9 through 12 offered Advanced Placement courses, 

compared to 62 percent of comparable suburban schools.2 In addition, because of size and

location, many small, rural LEAs have faced difficulty in recruiting and retaining fully certified,

effective teachers in all fields and subjects. This can make it difficult to provide students with 

access to high-quality career and technical education, science, technology, engineering, and 

math, and advanced coursework opportunities. Rural LEAs also may face greater challenges 

than non-rural districts in providing access to educational technology, such as the high-speed, 

broadband internet required for distance learning.

1 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_219.47.asp

2 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/xls/tabn225.72.xls
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

58

REAP funds provide rural LEAs with additional resources that can be used to help meet such 

challenges.

Rural LEAs also frequently receive allocations under the Department’s other formula grant 

programs that are too small to allow the LEA to effectively address the purposes for which the 

funds are appropriated. Recognizing that rural LEAs frequently receive small allocations from 

Federal formula grants, the AFUA gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the flexibility to make more 

effective use of these small allocations by consolidating them. An estimated 30 percent of 

eligible LEAs notified their respective States of their intention to take advantage of this authority 

in school year 2019-20. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under

these programs, some do not have enough money to address statutory objectives in a 

meaningful manner. REAP funds can help ensure that such LEAs have sufficient funds to 

implement ESEA programs consistent with Congressional intent.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Small, rural school achievement program(SRSA)

RSA Total funding $93,920 $93,920 $101,420

RSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 4,255 4,255 4,255

SRSA Average LEA grant $22 $22 $24

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $83 $83 $89

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0–$66 0–$66 0–$72
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

59

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Rural and low-income school program(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $93,920 $93,920 $101,420

RLIS Amount for State and SQA grants $92,981 $92,981 $100,406

RLIS Amount for BIE $470 $470 $507

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $470 $470 $507

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 47 47 47

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,147 2,147 2,147

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving SQA grants 22 22 22

RLIS Average State grant $2,012 $2,012 $2,173

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $41 $41 $44

RLIS Average SQA grant $20 $20 $21

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $25 $25 $28

RLISRange of awards to States $3–$10,160 $3–$10,160 $4–$11,040

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0–$320 0–$320 0–$348

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

including REAP, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA programs. The Department did not reserve 

funds for this purpose from REAP in fiscal year 2021, but may do so in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

above on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

60

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 48%

2019 100 49

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 43%

2019 100 43

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts.

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 43%

2019 100 43

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 40%

2019 100 40

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Additional information: The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 

school year due to widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does 

not expect to report actual data for these measures for 2020. Data for 2021 will be available in 

spring 2022. The performance targets for these measures reflect the previous reauthorization 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

61

of the ESEA, which required all students to be proficient in reading/language arts and 

mathematics by 2014. These targets are no longer relevant under the current authorization and 

no targets are established for fiscal year 2023 because the Department plans to revise the 

program’s performance measures in 2022. 

Objective: SRSA-eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority

(known as REAP-Flex prior to 2017, now the alternative fund use authority, or AFUA).

Year Target Actual

2018 65% 43%

2019 65 39

2020 65 30

2021 65

2022 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible LEAs actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of LEAs reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

62

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: $24,4641

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

$16,699 $24,464 +$7,765

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, 

beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount 

that is roughly equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 

2004 under the Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible, adjusted for 

inflation. These grants augment the funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general 

education assistance under their Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies, Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants, and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) 

of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four agencies 

and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM and the 

1 The 2023 authorization is based on the fiscal year 2005 authorization level, adjusted for inflation in accordance with 

statutory requirements.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

63

RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the local 

school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

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. Since fiscal year 2015, appropriations acts have allowed ED to reserve up 

to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance for these 

grants, but the Department has yet to exercise this authority.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $16,699

2019 16,699

2020 16,699

2021 16,699

2022 Estimate 16,699

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $24.5 million for Supplemental Education 

Grants, $7.8 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021

appropriation. The request would include a partial inflation adjustment for the first time since the 

program was initially authorized and help ensure the continuation of services for residents of the 

RMI and the FSM. The request also includes appropriations language that would continue to 

give the Department of Education the authority to reserve up to 5 percent of appropriated funds 

to provide technical assistance to support effective use of program funds to improve educational 

outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

The RMI and the FSM have used Supplemental Education Grant funds for early childhood 

education, education improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional 

development. Both the RMI and the FSM have also used funds to prepare students for jobs 

resulting from the Guam military build-up. The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2023

funding would be used for similar purposes. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

64

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,131 $11,131 $16,323

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,568 5,568 8,141

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 collected were 

inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not administered 

in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests were not aligned with the curriculum used in RMI 

schools and thus were not adequate measures of student achievement. The FSM also lacked 

consistent performance outcomes and measures; measures and outcomes had been 

established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior (DOI) covering the 5-year period 

between 2004 and 2009 highlighted 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 had increased in the RMI and student enrollment had increased during this period 

despite significant out-migration, the RMI continued to have few standardized tests for 

assessing student achievement, a low graduation rate, and a low percentage of qualified 

teachers. The FSM continued to struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student 

drop-out rates, and problematic teacher attendance. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

65

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

$52,000 $52,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Centers program is authorized to fund not fewer than 20 Comprehensive 

Centers, including regional centers and content centers, that provide training, technical 

assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide high-quality 

education for all students, particularly those in local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools

with low rates of performance. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), 

and through them, to LEAs and schools. The Comprehensive Centers are part of a Department 

technical assistance network that includes the Regional Educational Laboratories, the What 

Works Clearinghouse, Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special Education Program-funded 

technical assistance centers, and other program-specific centers designed to provide support to 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

The statute requires that the Department fund a minimum of 10 regional centers. The program 

currently supports 19 regional centers and 1 national center that received 5-year grants in 

2019. The regional centers provide broad assistance to SEAs in their assigned States, following 

annual State service plans developed in consultation with each State’s Chief State School 

Officer. The national center develops an annual service plan in consultation with the Department 

and the regional centers. The national service plan takes into account challenges identified in 

the regional centers’ State service plans, Department monitoring and audit findings, and 

emerging national education trends. The national center also maintains the Comprehensive 

Center website and disseminates information to a wide variety of education stakeholders, 

including parents. Information on the new Centers is available at 

https://www.compcenternetwork.org/. The program also supports one content center, first 

funded in 2016, that focuses on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability. This center was re-competed in 2021.

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

66

Each regional Center serves a specific set of States, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Regional Comprehensive Centers

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) does not authorize the Comprehensive 

Centers to provide direct support to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, beginning 

in fiscal year 2017 Congress has directed the Department through appropriations language to 

ensure that BIE has access to services from the Comprehensive Centers, and the BIE currently 

receives services through the Region 13 Center (funded by an annual supplement of $400,000).

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), to carry out an 

independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers to determine the extent to which each 

center meets its objectives. The National Evaluation for the Comprehensive Centers program is 

currently under way. Data collection is set to begin late spring 2022. The final evaluation report 

is scheduled for completion fall 2023.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

67

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $52,000

2019 52,000

2020 52,000

2021 52,000

2022 Estimate 52,000

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $52.0 million for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. All funds would be used for the final year of continuation costs of the 19 Regional 

Centers and the National Center, as well as the third year of funding for the center for students 

at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

Regional Centers provide intensive capacity-building services to help SEAs and other recipients 

identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that improve instruction and 

student outcomes. The National Center provides universal and targeted capacity-building 

services to address common high-impact problems and common programmatic monitoring and 

audit findings, as well as information on emerging national education issues. The Centers’ work 

has taken on additional meaning during the COVID-19 crisis, and Centers successfully pivoted 

to provide services to help SEAs and LEAs adapt to difficult and changing situations, revising 

their service plans on an on-going basis to address changing needs. Centers raised awareness 

of existing resources and services, provided information to SEAs to inform their resource 

allocation decisions in ways that would support educational equity, improved literacy instruction, 

and the educator workforce. Regional Centers also are helping SEAs identify how to integrate 

stimulus funding into ESEA plans.

Examples of recent and ongoing Center work include:

• Regions 1 and 9 are creating a community of practice to support districts across six states—

Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont—as they assess the 

quality of remote or hybrid teaching models, focusing initially on student and parent 

engagement, and teacher working conditions.

• The Region 14 Center is working to improve underserved students’ access to effective 

educators by identifying and developing resources for the Texas SEA and its education 

service centers (ESCs).

• The Region 16 Center partnered with REL Northwest to host a 6-part series targeted to 

teachers in Alaska on teaching K-3 students to read remotely. Participants had the option of 

earning University of Alaska Anchorage credit for the series. (https://aklearns.org/teachingearly-literacy-remotely/)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

68

A collaborative project between the Regions 2, 13, and 15 Centers supports a virtual, crossstate meeting among SEA staff to develop and implement the periodic resource allocation 

reviews required by the Every Student Succeeds Act for certain schools identified for 

improvement.

The request would retain appropriations language that permits the provision of direct support to 

the BIE, allowing services for schools that are often in great need of assistance.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Funding for new grant awards $1,475 0 0

Funding for continuation grant awardsfunding 50,026 $52,000 $52,000

Evaluation 474 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 25 0 0

Total funding 52,000 52,000 52,000

Number of New Grant Awards 1 0 0

Average New Grant Award $1,475 - -

Number of Continuation Grant Awards 20 21 21

Average Continuation Grant Award $2,501 $2,476 $2,476

Range of Continuation Grant Awards $1,000−$6,270 $1,000−$6,270 $1,000-$6270

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. Targets will be set after 2 years

of baseline data are available.

The Comprehensive Centers measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers and reported in grantees’ Annual 

Performance Reports (APRs) and Annual Evaluation Reports (AERs). Each Center has 

developed a methodology for reporting which is described in its APR. Methodologies differ 

slightly across the 20 Comprehensive Centers. The data available at this time and reported for 

2021 below are for the full second year of the program performance, with a reporting period of 

October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021. Targets will be set by May, 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

69

Goal: To improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and 

improve the quality of instruction under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESEA).

Objective: Improve the quality of Comprehensive Center services.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Center Clients are satisfied with the quality, 

usefulness, and relevance of services provided.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline 91%

2021 Baseline 90%

2022

2023

Additional information: All 20 Centers provided 2021 data for this measure and were included 

in the calculation, which showed that 90 percent of clients were satisfied with services. The 

Department has established a Center evaluation workgroup to help standardize reporting on this 

measure. 

Objective: To maximize the impact of public funds and make the work of the Comprehensive 

Centers program available to as many REAs, SEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of support as 

possible.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide 

range of recipients.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline

2021 Baseline 10%

2022

2023

Additional information: Data from all 20 centers are included in the calculation of this 

measure. The calculation of this measure changed from the percentage of recipients that 

reported receiving services as planned in the 2020 AER to the number of distinct recipient 

groups that received services and products in the 2021 AER. Most frequently reported recipient 

group types by centers were SEA Leadership, other SEA staff, LEA staff, Regional Education 

Agency staff, school administrators, Institutes of Higher Education, and school educators. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

70

Objective: To improve the implementation of capacity building services provided by the 

Comprehensive Centers Program.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity building 

services were implemented as intended.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline 73%

2021 Baseline 83

2022

2023

Additional information: Data from 17 centers are included in the calculation of this measure, 

which shows that 83 percent of planned milestones were completed. 

Objective: To improve the extent to which Comprehensive Center clients achieved their 

intended outcomes and the extent to which Center services produced the intended outcomes.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that recipient outcomes 

were met.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline

2021 Baseline 86%

2022

2023

Additional information: Data from 16 centers are included in the calculation of this measure, 

which showed that 86 percent of recipient outcomes were completed. The Comprehensive 

Center Evaluation Workgroup is currently finalizing data collection tools and resources for this 

measure. No data was reported for 2020.

OTHER PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Institute of Education Sciences began a descriptive study of the Comprehensive Centers in 

December 2020 that is examining the delivery and usefulness of the Centers' technical 

assistance. Study questions include:

• What key educational problems are the Comprehensive Centers addressing?

• What capacity-building services are Comprehensive Centers providing and what types of 

capacity are these services designed to increase?

• What are the successes and challenges of program changes, including the shift in the 

number and geographic reach of the centers and new requirements to increase 

collaboration with the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories?
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

71

• How can the outcome of the Comprehensive Centers — improving SEA and LEA capacity 

— be measured accurately, validly, and reliably?

The study will be based on document reviews, surveys and interviews of SEA and LEA staff, 

and interviews with Comprehensive Center and REL project directors, and will examine ways in 

which the pandemic altered plans for the first years of the grant. The study team will develop 

measures of SEA capacity by reviewing existing survey and assessment items that gauge 

similar concepts, interviewing stakeholders, and conducting pilot testing with SEA and district 

stakeholders. The final report is scheduled for competition fall 2023.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

72

Student support and academic enrichment grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

$1,220,000 $1,220,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants are intended to improve academic 

achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

provide students with access to a well-rounded education and improve school conditions and 

use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds received under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), for the preceding fiscal year. No State may receive less than 0.5 percent of 

the total program appropriation except for Puerto Rico, which may not receive more than this

amount. The Department also reserves funds for the outlying areas and for the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (0.5 percent in each case) and to provide 

technical assistance and capacity building (2 percent).

States must use not less than 95 percent of funds to make subgrants to LEAs and not more 

than 1 percent for administrative costs and may use any remaining funds for State-level 

activities consistent with the purposes of the program, which may include providing technical 

assistance or direct support to LEAs to carry out authorized activities. States allocate subgrants 

to LEAs on the same formula basis as above (i.e., shares of Title I, Part A funds), except that no 

LEA receiving an allocation may receive less than $10,000. LEAs may form consortia and 

combine subgrant allocations to carry out activities jointly. States and LEAs must use funds to 

supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for authorized 

activities.

LEAs receiving formula allocations of $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs 

assessment and use not less than 20 percent of their allocations for activities to support wellrounded educational opportunities, not less than 20 percent for activities to support safe and 

healthy students, and a portion to support the effective use of technology. LEAs receiving less 

than $30,000 must use funds to carry out activities in at least one of these three areas. LEAs 

must prioritize support to schools with the greatest needs as determined by the LEA, schools 

with the highest concentrations of Title I formula children, schools that are identified for 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is proposed through appropriations 

language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

73

comprehensive support and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement 

plans, or schools that are identified as persistently unsafe schools. LEAs may reserve up to 

2 percent of their allocations for administrative costs.

LEAs may use funds for a range of activities to support a well-rounded education, including: 

promoting student engagement and success through music and the arts; improving instruction 

in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (including computer science); increasing 

the availability of accelerated learning courses, such as Advanced Placement and International 

Baccalaureate courses, dual or concurrent enrollment programs and early college high schools, 

and the foundational and gateway courses necessary in elementary and middle school; 

strengthening instruction in American history, civics, economics, geography, and government; 

providing foreign language instruction and environmental education; and providing college and 

career counseling, including financial literacy activities and support in completing the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: evidence-based drug and 

violence prevention programs; school-based mental health services, including through 

partnerships with mental health or health care entities; activities to support a healthy, active 

lifestyle, including physical education; activities to help prevent and address bullying and 

harassment; mentoring and school counseling; school dropout prevention, reentry, and 

reengagement programs, including early warning indicator and intervention systems; highquality training for school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, 

and conflict resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. In these areas, LEAs may use funds to 

implement pay for success initiatives (i.e., performance-based agreements under which, among 

other things, payments are made only after achievement of outcomes).

Lastly, LEAs may pursue such educational technology-related activities as: providing school and 

LEA personnel with tools and resources to use technology effectively to improve instruction, 

support teacher collaboration, and personalize student learning; building technological capacity 

and infrastructure, including by procuring content, purchasing devices, equipment, and software, 

and ensuring they are fully accessible to all students; providing specialized or rigorous 

technology-based academic courses; carrying out projects blending classroom and technologybased instruction in a way that provides students with control over the time, path, or pace of 

learning; providing professional development on the effective integration of technology into 

teaching and learning; and providing students in rural and other underserved areas with access 

to digital learning experience and resources, including online courses. Of funds supporting the 

effective use of technology, LEAs may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology 

infrastructure.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants is a forward-funded program. Funds become 

available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain 

available through September 30 of the following year.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

74

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2018 $1,100,000

2019 1,170,000

2020 1,210,000

2021 1,220,000

2022 Estimate 1,220,000

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $1.22 billion for Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal 

year 2021 appropriation. The request supports the Administration’s goal of ensuring equity in 

access to educational opportunity for all students, particularly those attending schools with high

rates of poverty or persistently underperforming schools, which receive priority for service under 

the program statute.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants provide resources for improving student 

opportunities and outcomes that can be used flexibly in response to locally identified needs. 

Funds can be used for a range of activities that promote equity in access to and success in wellrounded educational opportunities, safe and healthy learning environments, and effective use of 

technology in teaching and learning. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Amount to States $1,177,483 $1,177,483 $1,177,483

Range of State awards 5,887–144,537 5,887–145,971 5,887–136,925

Average State award 22,644 22,644 22,644

Amount to Outlying Areas 6,070 6,070 6,070

Amount to BIE 6,070 6,070 6,070

Technical assistance and capacity 

building 24,278 24,278 24,278

Evaluation 6,100 6,100 6,100

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

including Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department reserved $6,100 thousand from Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants for 

pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2021 and expects to reserve funds for this purpose in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

75

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department collects performance information for Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants primarily through the annual Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR) and descriptive implementation studies.

Consolidated State Performance Reports

Consistent with the program statute’s public reporting requirements for States and LEAs, the 

Department collects State-aggregate data on LEA uses of funds through the CSPR. 

Specifically, the Department collects data on the percentage of funds spent by LEAs in each of 

the three program content areas and the percentage of LEAs spending funds in each area. 

Available data from school year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 CSPRs that meet quality-control 

checks are provided in the tables below; data from the school year 2020-2021 CSPR are 

expected to be available in fall 2022. The Department is providing technical assistance to States 

to improve their data collection and reporting capabilities. 

Percent of Funds Spent in Each Content Area

Content Area Percent of Funds Spent in 

2018-2019 School Year

Percent of Funds Spent 

in 2019-2020 School Year

Well-Rounded Education 49% 45%

Safe and Healthy Students 38 36

Effective Use of Technology 13 19

Additional Information: Data are from 38 of 52 States (including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico) and roughly track findings on use of funds in the 2018-2019 school year from the 

“first-look” implementation study described below.

Percent of LEAs Spending Funds in Each Content Area

Content Area

Percent of LEAs Spending 

Funds in 2018-2019 School 

Year

Percent of LEAs 

Spending Funds in 2019-

2020 School Year

Well-Rounded Education 70% 73%

Safe and Healthy Students 64 66

Effective Use of Technology 47 52

Additional Information: Data for the 2018-2019 school year are from 32 of 52 States and for 

the 2019-2020 school from 36 States and roughly track findings on use of funds in the 2018-

2019 school year from the “first-look” implementation study described below. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

76

“First-Look” Implementation Study

The Department also collected information on use of funds in school year 2018-2019 based on 

State analyses of LEA applications for fiscal year 2018 program funding, as well as other basic 

program information. Key findings from this contractor-supported study, released in February 

2020,1 include the following:

• Less than one-third (31 percent) of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 formula allocation 

received at least $30,000.

• Most LEAs (74 percent) retained at least some of their fiscal year 2018 funds for use under 

the program, as opposed to transferring their entire allocation to other ESEA programs, as 

permitted under statute.

• On average, LEAs that retained fiscal year 2018 funds spent an estimated 44 percent of the 

funds for well-rounded educational opportunities, 41 percent of funds to support safe and 

healthy students, and 14 percent on the effective use of technology.

• An estimated 73 percent of LEAs used funds to support well-rounded educational 

opportunities, 70 percent used funds to support safe and healthy students, and 53 percent 

to support the effective use of technology. 

• Two percent of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 allocation operated in consortia.

Formal Implementation Study

In addition, the Department is conducting a formal implementation study that will examine local 

uses of funds, State-level program activities, and other aspects of local implementation (e.g., 

how LEAs conduct comprehensive needs assessments and use them in deciding how to spend 

program funds), including how school districts are using funds in efforts to recover from the 

COVID-19 pandemic. The study will consist of surveys of State program coordinators in all 

States, a nationally representative survey of LEAs, and, likely, site visits to a select number of 

LEAs to collect in-depth program implementation information. The Department plans to initiate 

data collection for the study in spring 2022 (covering the use of funds during school year 2021-

2022), with a descriptive report expected in early 2023. Additional study products are under 

consideration.

1 See https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-first-look-2020.pdf. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

77

Other Performance Information

Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

In fiscal year 2022, the Department plans to use fiscal year 2021 funds reserved for technical 

assistance and capacity building under Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants to 

continue the following actions initiated in prior years:

• A program technical assistance center providing general resources as well as customized 

technical assistance to States to increase their capacity to assist LEAs in carrying out

program activities, including through a network of subject matter experts who can help 

identify activities and interventions across the program content areas that are evidencebased and can be incorporated into broader school improvement efforts ($4.1 million).

• A center focused on building the capacity of States and LEAs to promote a well-rounded 

education by implementing evidence-based practices and programs in social and emotional 

learning ($1.5 million).

• A technical assistance provider assisting LEAs that seek to use Title IV-A funds to improve 

school conditions for student learning by implementing positive behavioral interventions and 

supports frameworks ($750,000).

• A national center for disseminating evidence-based practices in addressing chronic 

absenteeism, including analysis of attendance data and activities to improve student 

engagement ($725,000).

• Technical assistance to States and LEAs in implementing human trafficking prevention

activities ($250,000).

• Maintenance of the schoolhealth.ed.gov website, which provides a single point of access to 

resources from Federal partner agencies for successful implementation of activities to 

address the physical and mental health of students and promote healthy school 

environments ($100,000).

• Awards under the Trauma Recovery Demonstration Grants program, which supports model 

programs that enable low-income students who have experienced trauma to seek traumaspecific mental-health services from the provider that best meets the student’s needs, as 

well as technical assistance to award recipients ($6.6 million).

• Awards under the Expanding Access to Well-Rounded Courses Demonstration Grants

program, which supports State efforts to provide well-rounded educational opportunities 

through model course-access programs, as well as technical assistance to award recipients 

($8.1 million).

• An award under the Well-Rounded Education Through Student-Centered Funding 

Demonstration Grants program, which supports LEA efforts to provide well-rounded 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

78

educational opportunities through the development and implementation of student-centered 

funding systems based on weighted per-pupil allocations under section 1501 of the ESEA 

($215,000).

School crime and safety surveys administered or supported by the National Center for 

Education Statistics, including the School Survey on Crime and Safety, a survey of public school 

principals, and the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, a 

survey of students ages 12 through 18 ($1 million).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

79

School-Based Health Professionals

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined.

Budget Authority: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change 

0 $1,000,000 +$1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The School-Based Health Professionals (SBHP) program, initially proposed in the fiscal year 

2022 request, would provide formula grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), which would 

then make competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) with high rates of poverty to 

support the goal of doubling the number of health professionals in our public schools, including 

school counselors, nurses, school psychologists, and social workers. 

Funds would be allocated to SEAs on the basis of shares of funding received under Title I, 

Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the preceding fiscal year. 

SEAs would be permitted to reserve up to 15 percent of their allocations to address shortages of 

health professionals by establishing partnerships with institutions of higher education (IHEs) to 

recruit, prepare, and place graduate students in school-based health fields in high-need LEAs 

and to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training as applicable 

for the degree, license, or credential program of each health-based candidate. SEAs also may 

use a portion of these funds for review and revision of State licensure standards to promote 

mobility of health professionals into school settings.

SEAs would award at least 80 percent of their allocations to LEAs on a competitive basis, with a 

priority on LEAs with significant numbers of schools identified for comprehensive support and 

improvement or targeted support and improvement. The funds would be prioritized to these 

schools first, and then to LEAs with a significant number of schools that receive Title I funds or 

are Title I-eligible, to close gaps in ratios of students to health professionals that substantially 

exceed the recommended ratios for student-to-school counselor, student-to-social worker, or 

student-to-nurse.1 Funds would be used to pay recruitment costs, salaries, retention efforts 

such as additional supports, and related personnel costs. SEAs would be expected to describe 

1 The American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio 250:1; the National Association of Social Workers 

also calls for a ratio of 250:1; the National Association of School Nurses recommends 750:1; and the National 

Associations of School Psychologists recommends an overall ratio of 1000:1.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

80

how funding for personnel costs in funded schools would be sustained after the grant expires, 

including through Federal and State funding sources. 

SEAs would be required to provide a 25 percent non-Federal match for grants received under 

the SBHP program; the SEA match would be used only for subgrants to LEAs. LEAs also would 

be required to provide a 25 percent match for their formula awards and may use up to 

20 percent of funds received under Part A of Title I, Part A of Title II, and Part A of Title IV of the 

ESEA, as well as any portion of funds received under the American Rescue Plan, for this 

purpose. SEAs would be permitted to waive the matching requirement for LEAs with high rates 

of poverty that demonstrate a need for such a waiver.

SEAs also would be permitted to reserve up to 5 percent of their allocations for administration, 

technical assistance, and identification and dissemination of evidence-based practices related to 

meeting students’ social, emotional, and mental health needs.

One-half of 1 percent of SBHP appropriations would be reserved for the Bureau of Indian 

Education at the Department of the Interior and one-half of 1 percent would be reserved for the 

Outlying Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1 billion in first-time funding for the proposed School-Based 

Health Professionals (SBHP) program in fiscal year 2023, consistent with President Biden’s goal 

to double the number of school counselors, nurses, social workers, and school psychologists in 

LEAs and schools over the next decade. With the help of the Elementary and Secondary 

School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER), public schools have already seen a 65% increase in 

social workers and a 17% increase in counselors relative to average employment in these roles 

before the pandemic. However, too many students still do not have access to these services. 

This is particularly acute in underserved communities and as schools struggle to address the 

impact of the pandemic on student mental health and social and emotional development, with 

impacts on student behavior and overall wellbeing, with ripple effects across entire school 

communities. 

The request reflects this growing recognition of trauma and stress encountered by students in 

our public schools, and its impact on student mental health and outcomes, particularly for 

students from low-income backgrounds and living in communities of concentrated poverty which

can have a negative impact on the educational opportunities and supports students receive. 

This recognition was driven in part by the significant number of large-scale natural disasters 

over the past five years, such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria in 2017 and catastrophic 

wildfires in California, as well as the regular gun violence that can occur near school grounds in 

communities of concentrated poverty and which disproportionately affect communities of color, 

as recently reported in 2020 by the Government Accountability Office.1 Most recently, the 

1 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-455.pdf. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

81

COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide disruption of our education system, familial loss, 

significant economic dislocation, and related stress that has taken an unprecedented toll on the 

mental health and well-being of students and families alike. In addition, the compounded daily 

effects of racial injustice can have a negative impact on the social, emotional, and mental health 

of many students. Research shows that school-based access to health professionals can help 

identify and mitigate the impacts of these experiences. 

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP Act) of 2021, and in particular the $122 billion provided 

therein for ESSER, provides resources that can be used to meet near-term student social, 

emotional, and mental health needs. However, there continues to be a critical gap, that existed 

prior to and was only made worse by the pandemic, between the number of school-based 

health service providers needed to provide daily supports that encompass social and emotional 

learning, mental wellness, and positive and trusting relationships between students and adults 

and the number of such providers currently serving in our schools, particularly in LEAs and 

schools with high rates of poverty. The SBHP program is designed to help bridge that gap by 

providing dedicated, ongoing funding to assist LEAs in paying the salaries and related 

personnel costs of additional school-based health professionals.

The SBHP proposal also recognizes the importance of building the pipeline of providers to 

address longstanding shortages of school-based health professionals, particularly in 

underserved LEAs and schools, including LEAs and schools in rural and geographically isolated 

areas. The proposal would address this concern by allowing SEAs to reserve up to 15 percent 

of their allocations to create partnerships with IHEs focused on increasing the number of 

qualified graduates in school-based health fields.

The long-term impact of the SBHP program would be enhanced by a dual matching 

requirement, with SEAs required to provide a 25-percent non-Federal match of program funds 

and LEAs subject to a similar 25-percent match, which could be paid with other Federal 

education funds, specifically funds received under Part A of Title I, Part A of Title II, and Part A 

of Title IV of the ESEA, as well as funds received under the American Rescue Plan. The 

Administration believes that leveraging funds received under the ESEA authorities to support 

SBHP activities is consistent with the purposes of those authorities and can help to sustain 

these efforts. The SEA match would be used only for subgrants to LEAs.

The Administration estimates that the $1 billion requested for the program, together with State 

and local matching funds, would allow LEAs to hire an additional 21,000 school counselors, 

nurses, social workers, and school psychologists.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

82

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2023

Amount for grants $1,000,000

Range of awards $643–$123,016

Number of awards 57

Amount available to hire school-based health 

professionals, including State and local 

matching funds $1,250,000

Total estimated number of school-based health 

professionals hired during initial program 

implementation 21,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department anticipates developing program performances measures for the SBHP 

program similar to those initially proposed for the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant 

Program launched in fiscal year 2020 under School Safety National Activities in the Safe 

Schools and Citizenship Education account. These measures include the number of schoolbased health service providers recruited and hired, the number of school-based health service 

providers retained, the ratio of students to health service providers for underserved LEAs, and 

the annual attrition rate of school-based health service providers for high-need LEAs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

83

Account Summary Table

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2023 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat

Code

2021

Appropriation

2022

Estimate

2023

Request

2023 Request Compared to

2022 Estimate

Amount Percent

School Improvement Programs

1. Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A)

Annual appropriation D 461,639 461,639 467,139 5,500 1.19%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.00%

Subtotal D 2,143,080 2,143,080 2,148,580 5,500 0.26%

2. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,259,673 1,259,673 1,309,673 50,000 3.97%

3. State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 378,000 378,000 378,000 0 0.00%

4. Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 106,500 106,500 110,000 3,500 3.29%

5. Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 37,397 37,397 37,397 0 0.00%

6. Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 36,453 36,453 36,453 0 0.00%

7. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,575 6,575 6,575 0 0.00%

8. Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 187,840 187,840 202,840 15,000 7.99%

9. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,699 24,464 7,765 46.50%

10. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 52,000 52,000 52,000 0 0.00%

11. Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D 1,220,000 1,220,000 1,220,000 0 0.00%

12. School-Based Health Professionals (proposed legislation) D 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---

Total, Appropriation D 5,444,217 5,444,217 6,525,982 1,081,765 19.87%

Total, Budget authority D 5,444,217 5,444,217 6,525,982 1,081,765 19.87%

Current 3,762,776 3,762,776 4,844,541 1,081,765 28.75%

Prior year's advance 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.00%

NOTES:

1) D = discretionary program; M = mandatory programs

2) Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.