Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................F-1

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

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

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................F-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................F-8

Appropriations History........................................................................................................... F-10

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports............................................................. F-11

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ F-12

Activities:

Opportunity grants ............................................................................................................ F-15

Education innovation and research................................................................................... F-20

Teacher and school leader incentive grants...................................................................... F-29

American history and civics education .............................................................................. F-37

Supporting effective educator development ...................................................................... F-41

School leader recruitment and support ............................................................................. F-46

Charter schools grants...................................................................................................... F-52

Magnet schools assistance............................................................................................... F-63

Ready to learn programming ............................................................................................ F-68

Arts in education............................................................................................................... F-72

Javits gifted and talented education.................................................................................. F-77
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out activities authorized under this heading and by parts C and D and subpart 1 

of part F of title IV of the ESEA, $1,277,647,000: Provided, That $597,647,000 shall be for parts 

C and D of title IV and shall be made available without regard to sections 4311 and 4409(a):1

Provided further, That of the funds available for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use not 

more than $100,000,000 to carry out section 4304 and not more than $150,000,000 to carry out 

section 4305, of which not more than $25,000,000 shall be used to carry out the activities in 

section 4305(a)(3):2 Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 301 of this Act, funds 

awarded to an eligible local education agency, or consortium of such agencies, under part D of 

title IV may be used for the purposes in section 4407(a)(9):3 Provided further, That 

$180,000,000 shall be available through December 31, 2019 for subpart 1 of part F of title IV:4

Provided further, That notwithstanding section 4611(a)(1)(A), the Secretary may establish 

priorities that apply to all funds awarded under section 4611:

5 Provided further, That 

$500,000,000 shall be available for grants, under such requirements as the Secretary may 

establish, that enable students to attend a school selected by their parents: Provided further, 

That the Secretary may award grants described in the preceding proviso to States, local 

educational agencies and nonprofit organizations to support the demonstration and evaluation 

of projects awarding scholarships to students from low-income families to attend a private 

school, including a private religious school: Provided further, That the Secretary may also award 

grants described in the sixth proviso to establish or expand public school open enrollment 

systems in local educational agencies that have entered into a demonstration agreement with 

the Secretary under part E of title I of the ESEA: Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to $10,000,000 of the amount in the sixth proviso for national activities, including 

technical assistance, evaluation, and information dissemination.

6
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-2

NOTES

A full-year 2018 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, 2018 (Division D of 

P.L. 115–56, as amended). The amounts included for 2018 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 appropriation language.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1Provided, That $597,647,000 shall be for 

parts C and D of title IV and shall be made 

available without regard to sections 4311 and 

4409(a): 

This language provides funds for Charter 

Schools Grants and Magnet Schools 

Assistance without regard to the sections of 

the ESEA that specify the distribution of 

funds appropriated under Parts C and D of 

Title IV.

2Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

not more than $100,000,000 to carry out 

section 4304 and not more than 

$150,000,000 to carry out section 4305, of 

which not more than $25,000,000 shall be 

used to carry out the activities in section 

4305(a)(3):

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a maximum 

amount for facilities grants; a maximum total 

amount for Charter Management 

Organization grants, Developer grants, and 

national activities (collectively authorized 

under ESEA section 4305).

3Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 301 of this Act, funds awarded to an 

eligible local education agency, or 

consortium of such agencies, under part D of 

title IV may be used for the purposes in 

section 4407(a)(9):

This language overrides language that 

prohibits the use of appropriated funds for 

the transportation of students or teachers in 

order to overcome racial imbalance in any 

school or school system, thereby allowing 

funding for this activity as authorized under 

the Magnet Schools Assistance program

statute. 

4Provided further, That $180,000,000 shall 

be available through December 31, 2019 for 

subpart 1 of part F of title IV:

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research and also extends the period of 

Federal availability 3 months beyond the year

of appropriation. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

F-4

Language Provision Explanation

5Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 4611(a)(1)(A), the Secretary may 

establish priorities that apply to all funds 

awarded under section 4611:

This language provides greater flexibility to 

the Department in making awards under the 

Education Innovation and Research program.

6Provided further, That $500,000,000 shall 

be available for grants, under such 

requirements as the Secretary may establish, 

that enable students to attend a school 

selected by their parents: Provided further, 

That the Secretary may award grants 

described in the preceding proviso to States, 

local educational agencies and nonprofit 

organizations to support the demonstration 

and evaluation of projects awarding 

scholarships to students from low-income 

families to attend a private school, including 

a private religious school: Provided further, 

That the Secretary may also award grants 

described in the sixth proviso to establish or 

expand public school open enrollment 

systems in local educational agencies that 

have entered into a demonstration 

agreement with the Secretary under part E of 

title I of the ESEA: Provided further, That the 

Secretary may reserve up to $10,000,000 of 

the amount in the sixth proviso for national 

activities, including technical assistance, 

evaluation, and information dissemination.

This language authorizes the Department to 

award grants to State educational agencies, 

local educational agencies, and nonprofit 

organizations for projects to enable students 

to attend a private selected by their parents. 

The language also allows funds to be used 

for grants to establish or expand open 

enrollment systems in local educational 

agencies that have entered into a Flexibility 

for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding 

demonstration agreement with the 

Department under Title I, Part E of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

Finally, the language permits the Department

to use up to $10 million for national activities.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-5

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2017

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Discretionary:

Discretionar yAppropriation............................................ $887,575 0 $1,277,647

Discretionar yAnnualized CR (P.L. 115–56)................... 0 $881,548 0

Total, discretionary appropriation........ 887,575 881,548 1,277,647
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2018 Annualized CR ........................................................................ $881,548

2019................................................................................................. 1,277,647

Net change................................................................ +396,099

Increases:

2018

Annualized

CR base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase to create an Opportunity Grants program to 

support grants to State educational agencies, local 

educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations for 

projects to enable students to attend a private or public 

school selected by their parents. 0 +$500,000

Increase for the Education Innovation and Research 

program for activities to promote innovation and reform in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education and computer science. $99,321 +80,679

Increase for Charter Schools Grants to expand highquality public educational options available to students, 

especially students from low-income families or attending 

low-performing schools, by creating and expanding 

effective charter schools. 339,848 +160,152

Increase funding to reflect the President’s Budget request 

to fund the Magnet Schools Assistance program at the 

FY 2017 enacted level. This amount would restore the 

cut resulting from the 0.6791 percent across-the-board 

reduction included in the FY 2018 Annualized CR Level. 96,984 +663

Subtotal, increases +741,494

Decreases:

2018

Annualized 

CR base

Change

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for Teacher and School Leader 

Incentive Grants because program results have been 

disappointing and States and LEAs may use other 

Federal, State, and local resources, including Title I 

Grants to LEAs, for similar activities. $198,642 -$198,642
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

F-7

Decreases:

2018

Annualized 

CR base

Change

from base

Eliminate funding for American History and Civics 

Education because the program has limited national 

impact and program activities can be supported with other 

Federal, State, local, or private funds. $3,491 -$3,491

Eliminate funding for Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) because the program supports

activities that are core responsibilities for States, school 

districts, and institutions of higher education and can be 

supported with other Federal, State, and local funding. 64,559 -64,559

Eliminate funding for School Leader Recruitment and 

Support because the program has demonstrated minimal 

national impact and other Federal funds are available to 

support school leadership activities in high-need schools. 14,402 -14,402

Eliminate funding for Ready to Learn Programming (RTL)

because with the rise of the internet and the ready 

availability of a wide range of digital games and devices 

that support early learning, the RTL program is less 

relevant and less necessary to providing high-quality 

digital learning resources for young children and their 

families. 25,566 -25,566

Eliminate funding for Arts in Education because the 

program has limited impact and funds activities that are 

more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, 

local, or private funds. 26,817 -26,817

Eliminate funding for Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

because the program has limited national impact and 

program activities can be supported with other Federal, 

State, local, or private funds. 11,918 -11,918

Subtotal, decreases -345,395

Net change +396,099
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-8

F-8

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2018

Authorized footnote

2018

Annualized CRfootnote

2019

Authorizedfootnote

2019

Request

Opportunity grants (proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined $500,000

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) (1) $99,321 (1) 180,000

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) (2) 198,642 (2) 0

American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) (2) 3,491 (2) 0

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) (2) 64,559 (2) 0

School leader recruitment and support (ESEA II-B-4, 

section 2243) (2) 14,402 (2) 0

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) $270,000 339,848 $300,000 500,000

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 99,820 96,984 102,387 97,647

Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, 

section 4643) (1) 25,566 (1) 0

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) (1) 26,817 (1) 0

Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, 

section 4644)

 

. (1) $11,918

 

. (1) 0

Total definite authorization $369,820 $402,387

Total appropriation 881,548 $1,277,647

Portion of request not authorized 788,440

1 For Part F of Title IV, a total of $200,741 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2018 and a total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2019. For 

fiscal year 2018, of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3 and of the remainder 36 percent is authorized for the Education 

Innovation and Research program; 36 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; and 28 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, which includes the Arts in Education, Ready 

to Learn Programming, and Javits Gifted and Talented programs. For fiscal year 2019, of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved for 

Subpart 3 and of the remainder 42 percent is authorized for the Education Innovation and Research program; 32 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; and 26

percent is authorized for Subpart 4.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

F-9

F-9

2 For Part B of Title II, a total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2018 and a total of $469,168 is authorized fiscal year 2019. Of the funds 

appropriated for Part B, 49.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 1, the Teacher and School Leader Incentive program; 34.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; 

1.4 percent is authorized for Subpart 3, of which not less than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics Academies; and 15.4 percent is authorized is 

authorized for Subpart 4, of which not less than 74 percent is reserved for Supporting Effective Educator Development, not less than 22 percent is reserved for 

School Leader Recruitment and Support, not less than 2 percent is reserved for technical assistance and national evaluation, and not more than 2 percent for the 

STEM Master Teacher Corps.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-10

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation

Foot

note

2010 Discretionary $1,489,949 $1,347,363 $1,234,7871$1,378,365

Rescission (PL 111-226) 

(Discretionary) (10,700)

2011 Discretionary 6,330,000 1,870,1232 2,224,8431 1,856,1793

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,4114 1,740,2124 1,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,1335 1,545,9665 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A6 1,331,598 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A6

868,7217852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A6 07 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0008694,61681,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 08 08 0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556 632,9389 942,7439 887,575

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982 09 09 0

2018 Discretionary 1,208,026 747,90410 880,37510 881,54810

2019 Discretionary 1,277,647

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

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

Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). 4 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance 

reflects Senate Committee action only.

5 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 

appropriations bill, which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and 

the Senate Committee.

6 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 7 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

8 The levels for the 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.

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

appropriation bill.

10 The levels for the House reflect floor action on an Omnibus appropriation bill; Senate allowances reflect 

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

Continuing Resolution level.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-11

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports

Education Innovation and Research (EIR)

Senate: The Committee notes that the EIR program is authorized to fund evidencebased, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement for high-need 

students. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to ensure that 

funds are used for projects in a range of topic areas, based on the needs of local 

communities as determined by field initiated proposals, and that funds are not 

focused or designated for any particular intervention. 

Response: The Department plans to conduct a competition in fiscal year 2018 for EIR 

projects in a range of topic areas.
F-12

F-12

Click here for accessible version Summary of R equ est

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

Innovation and Improvement

 1. Opportunity Grants (proposed legislation) D 0 0 500,000 500,000 ---

 2. Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) D 100,000 99,321 180,000 80,679 81.23%

 3. Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) D 200,000 198,642 0 (198,642) -100.00%

 4. American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) D 3,515 3,491 0 (3,491) -100.00%

 5. Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) D 65,000 64,559 0 (64,559) -100.00%

 6. School leader recruitment and support (ESEA II-B-4, section 2243) D 14,500 14,402 0 (14,402) -100.00%

 7. Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) D 342,172 339,848 500,000 160,152 47.12%

 8. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) D 97,647 96,984 97,647 663 0.68%

 9. Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) D 25,741 25,566 0 (25,566) -100.00%

 10. Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 27,000 26,817 0 (26,817) -100.00%

 11. Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4644) D 12,000 11,918 0 (11,918) -100.00%

Total D 887,575 881,548 1,277,647 396,099 44.93%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2019 President's Budget 

Category Compared to 2018 Annualized CR 

Code

2017 

Appropriation 

2018 

Annualized CR

2019 

President's 

Budget
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-13

Summary of Request

Programs in the Innovation and Improvement account support improving student achievement 

in two key ways: (1) providing parents with expanded public and private school options for the 

education of their children, including high-quality charter schools and magnet schools; and 

(2) helping State and local entities to test, evaluate, and expand innovative educational 

strategies and practices, particularly strategies related to improving science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, including computer science. For fiscal year 

2019, the Administration requests a total of $1.3 billion for these activities. A full-year fiscal year 

2018 appropriation was not enacted at the time the fiscal year 2019 Budget was prepared; 

therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L 115–56, as amended). The amounts included for fiscal year 2018

reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

Expanding Educational Options

The Administration requests $500.0 million for Opportunity Grants that would enable students 

to attend a school selected by their parents. Funds would be used for grants to State 

educational agencies, local educational agencies, and nonprofit organizations to support the 

demonstration and evaluation of projects awarding scholarships to students from low-income 

families to attend a private school, including a private religious school. Additionally, funds may 

be used for grants to establish or expand open enrollment systems in local educational 

agencies that have entered into a Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding demonstration 

agreement with the Department under Title I, Part E of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act.

The request also includes $500.0 million for Charter Schools Grants, an increase of 

$160.2 million, or 47 percent, to support the opening of new charter schools and the replication 

and expansion of high-quality charter schools. The proposed increase is a central element of 

the Administration’s efforts to empower States and communities to increase the number of highquality educational options available to meet the needs of students and their families, 

particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds. The request would also provide significant 

increases for grants to States and nonprofit entities to improve charter schools’ access to 

facilities and for expanded national activities.

In addition, the Administration requests $97.6 million for Magnet Schools Assistance to LEAs 

to establish and operate magnet schools that are part of an approved desegregation plan and 

that are designed to increase racial integration and expand the range of educational options 

available to parents and students.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

The request also includes $180.0 million for the Education Innovation and Research program, 

an increase of $80.7 to promote innovation and reform in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) education, including computer science, reflecting the Administration’s 

strong commitment, to expand the STEM workforce in order to maintain American economic 

competitiveness.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

F-14

Discontinued Programs

The Administration is not requesting funding for Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants, American History and Civics Education, Supporting Effective Educator 

Development, School Leader Recruitment and Support, Ready to Learn Programming, 

Arts in Education, and Javits Gifted and Talented Education because these programs are 

narrowly focused or fund activities that can be supported through other Federal, State, local, or 

private funds.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-15

Activities:

Opportunity grants

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

0 $500,000 +$500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Opportunity Grants program would significantly increase options that empower 

more families to choose a private or public school that meets the unique needs of their children, 

with a priority for grantees serving low-income students and students enrolled in low-performing 

schools identified for improvement under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

The program would include two components: Scholarships for Private Schools and Open 

Enrollment Grants.

This program, coupled with expanded flexibility in the use of Title I funds to enhance public 

school choice and significant funding for the Charter Schools and Magnet School Programs, 

reflects a comprehensive approach to supporting the long-term goal of giving every student the 

chance to attend a school of his or her choice. 

Scholarships for Private Schools

Scholarships for Private Schools (SPS) would make competitive grants for up to 5 years to 

State-based entities or non-profit organizations currently operating private school voucher 

programs in order to scale up and validate private school choice as a strategy for: 

(1) expanding school choices for parents who wish to send their children to high quality private 

schools; (2) improving educational outcomes for students from low-income families or students 

enrolled in persistently low-performing schools; and (3) increasing competition in order to 

improve the quality and performance of all schools. While most funds would be used to cover 

the costs of attending private school for eligible students, grantees could also use funds for 

related activities such as developing or enhancing systems for sharing information on 

participating private schools, including performance data, and addressing obstacles that 

students or parents may face in taking advantage of available educational options (e.g., 

transportation).

SPS grantees would have considerable flexibility to integrate grant activities with existing private 

school choice programs, including vouchers, tax-credit scholarships and Education Savings 

Accounts used for private school tuition. These grantees would have to describe in their 

applications how they would: (1) give priority to low-income students and/or students in 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Opportunity grants

F-16

attendance areas where a high percentage of public schools are identified as low-performing 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, (2) ensure meaningful accountability for 

student outcomes, including public transparency related to such key metrics as student 

academic achievement and graduation rates that can help parents select the right school for 

their children, (3) rigorously evaluate the impact of their private school choice programs, and 

(4) ensure that participating schools comply with all applicable Federal civil rights laws. The 

Department also may give priority to States proposing to use Federal funds to expand private 

school options for students with disabilities and students in rural areas.

Open Enrollment Grants

Open Enrollment Grants (OEG) would make competitive awards to local educational agencies 

approved to operate Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding pilots authorized by Part E of 

Title I of the ESEA. These pilots, which the Department expects to announce in early 2018, 

provide flexibility to LEAs to consolidate Federal funds together with State and local funds to 

generate weighted per-pupil allocations, better known as weighted student funding (WSF) 

systems. To receive this flexibility, an LEA must agree to allocate a significant portion of its total 

funding (based on school-level actual personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures, including staff 

salary differentials for years of employment) to schools through the WSF system. The WSF 

system must use weights that result in substantially higher per-pupil allocations for students 

from low-income families, English learners, and other disadvantaged students identified by the 

LEA, compared to other students. Under the statute, the LEA must ensure that, in its first year of 

flexibility, each high-poverty school receives more per-pupil funding for students from lowincome families, and at least as much per-pupil funding for English learners, than in the prior 

year. The Department enters into initial flexibility agreements with LEAs for a period of up to 

3 years and may waive any ESEA requirement that would prevent an LEA from using Federal 

funds in its system. Under the ESEA, the Department may approve up to 50 pilots for school 

year 2018-2019; this cap would be lifted beginning in school year 2019-2020. 

The Administration’s OEG proposal would provide grants to pilot participants that agree to 

combine the funding flexibility in Title I, Part E with an open enrollment policy to enhance public 

school choice. The grantees would establish or expand student-centered systems that: 

(1) differentiate funding based on student characteristics, providing disadvantaged students 

more funding on a per-pupil basis than other students; (2) offer students a range of viable public 

school options, which may include public charter schools, and enable the Federal, State, and 

local funds to follow a student to a public school of his or her choice; (3) make school 

performance and funding data easily accessible to parents; and (4) empower school leaders to 

use funds flexibly to address student and community needs. The Department would establish 

minimum requirements for open enrollment systems aimed at maximizing opportunities for all 

students, particularly those from low-income families, to select, attend, and succeed in a highquality public school. Such requirements could include making school information available to 

parents in a clear and timely manner, demonstrating a capacity to enroll students in their 

preferred schools, supporting school integration efforts, arranging or paying for transportation to 

schools of choice, and giving priority to students from low-income families or students in schools 

identified for improvement under Title I. The Department also may give priority to applicants 

proposing to serve one or more rural schools or to consortia of LEAs that agree to provide interdistrict choice to all students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Opportunity grants

F-17

OEG grants would cover the period of applicants’ initial flexibility agreements (up to 3 years). 

Funds would be used primarily for activities related to developing, implementing, and sustaining 

their open enrollment systems, which could include temporary payments to individual schools to 

offset reduced funding due to system transition, developing or enhancing systems for providing 

families with information on public school options, including performance data, and developing 

or enhancing administrative systems, needed to implement an open enrollment system. A 

portion of funds also could be used to refine or expand WSF systems.

Allocation of funds between SPS and OEG would be demand-driven, though the Department 

may set a floor for each component to ensure appropriate balance of public and private school 

choice projects are funded by Opportunity Grants. All grant funds must be used to supplement, 

not supplant, other Federal or State funds available to carry out allowable activities.

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $500 million for the proposed Opportunity 

Grants program that would support State and local efforts to create student-centered education 

systems that prioritize educational choices made by parents and students as a strategy to 

improve student academic and life outcomes, particularly for students from low-income families 

and students attending schools identified for improvement under the ESEA. In concert with 

other Federal education funds, including the Charter Schools and Magnet School programs and 

the $15.5 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, the request would 

provide an initial investment toward the President’s goal of making $20 billion available annually 

to support school choice within the next 10 years. The Administration believes that expanding 

both public and private school choice through student-centered reforms is necessary to ensure 

that students from low-income families have access to a high-quality education that will prepare 

them for further education and entering the workforce. Opportunity Grants includes two 

components: Scholarships for Private Schools and Open Enrollment Grants.

Scholarships for Private Schools (SPS)

States have taken the lead in recent years in expanding school choice options to include private 

schools, with 14 States currently operating private school voucher programs, 17 States 

operating scholarship tax credit programs, and 5 States implementing Education Savings 

Account programs. Most of these programs are designed to serve students with disabilities, 

students from low-income backgrounds, or students attending underperforming schools. The 

SPS proposal would support the expansion of these existing programs, potentially enabling 

them to provide high-quality private school choice options to a significant proportion of students 

from low-income families, with a priority on students attending low-performing Title I schools.

The growing popularity of school choice programs, including private school voucher programs, 

is reflected in data showing that a larger percent of parents are happy with their child’s school if 

they can choose the school. Specifically, the 2015 Digest of Education Statistics reported that in 

2012, students who attended a private school had the highest percentage of parents who were 

very satisfied with their children’s school. Gallup’s Education and Work survey data published in 

2016 showed that an average of 62 percent of parents who reported their oldest child attends a 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Opportunity grants

F-18

private school said they were completely satisfied with their oldest child’s education, compared 

with 28 percent of public school parents; there was no difference by household income. 

Other studies confirm that allowing students from low-income families to use vouchers to attend 

private schools can help improve both parent satisfaction with their children’s schools and some 

student outcomes. For example, the Congressionally mandated evaluation of the DC 

Opportunity Scholarships Program (OSP), published in 2010, found that the program 

significantly improved students’ rate of graduation from high school, even though it did not raise 

reading or math scores. Also, parents of participating students offered a scholarship reported 

that they were more satisfied with the schools and felt that the school was safer than did parents 

who were not offered a scholarship. Most recently, a report from the current evaluation of the 

OSP published in April 2017 found that, while the OSP had a statistically significant negative 

impact on mathematics achievement after 1 year, the program had a statistically significant 

positive impact on parents’ perceptions of safety at the school their child attended in that first 

year. According to a 2012 evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice program, the voucher 

program had a positive effect for reading scores for students who attended private schools for 

four years. A 2015 study of the New York City School Choice Scholarship Program found that 

receiving vouchers resulted in increased enrollment in college and bachelor’s degree attainment 

for African-American students. While these studies indicate private school choice programs can 

produce positive student outcomes, further evaluations are needed to determine the most 

effective programs. Recent findings in private school choice programs in Louisiana and Ohio 

underscore the importance of identifying and funding models that work.

Open Enrollment Grants (OEG)

OEG is intended to support crucially needed, locally driven efforts to make public school choice 

a meaningful reality for more students, especially the poor and minority students that are the 

focus of Title I. The request reflects the Administration’s commitment to placing the power to 

drive effective school reform back in the hands of students and their families. Although the 

number of LEAs that permit students to attend a school other than their assigned school has 

increased significantly in recent decades, school choice continues to exist for many students in 

name only, if at all. Under the Brookings Institution’s 2016 Education Choice and Competition 

Index—which assigns letter grades to LEAs based on the extent of school choice in the LEA, 

the process by which parents become informed of their options and make choices, the degree 

to which LEA funding and management policies favor the growth of schools frequently chosen 

by families, and the availability to low-income families of transportation and other subsidies—

only 37, or one-third, of the Nation’s 112 largest LEAs received a grade of C or better.1 Findings 

such as this suggest that more can be done to make real school choices available to all 

students. Moreover, persistent achievement gaps for poor and minority students demand that 

we provide more opportunities for students trapped in underperforming schools to enroll in highquality schools capable of meeting their needs.

1 See https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/the-2016-education-choice-and-competition-index/.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Opportunity grants

F-19

OEG would build on the funding flexibility enabled by the development and implementation of 

WSF systems under the Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding pilot program by supporting 

the adoption of strong open enrollment policies such as those implemented by Minneapolis 

Public Schools, which allows parents to choose any school in the LEA upon kindergarten and 

high school entry and gives priority for seats in certain schools to low-income students residing 

in areas of concentrated poverty. Another example is the Hartford Region Open Choice 

Program, which allows students to move among schools in Hartford and surrounding suburban 

LEAs, with transportation provided to Hartford students at no cost. Funds could also help 

develop or replicate rigorous parent information activities and simplified school selection 

processes, such as the comprehensive Choices and Enrollment website of the New York City 

Department of Education and the common application for traditional and charter schools used in 

the District of Columbia.

The Administration’s request includes language permitting the Department to reserve up to 

$10 million for national activities including technical assistance, information dissemination, and 

evaluation.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019

Amount for grants $489,000

Range of awards $5,000–50,000

Number of awards 10–100

Peer review of new award applications $1,000

Technical assistance, dissemination, 

and evaluation $10,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-20

Education innovation and research

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$99,321 $180,000 +$80,679

1 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F, 

$5,000 thousand is reserved to carry out Subpart 3, of the remainder, 42 percent is available for programs under 

Subpart 1.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Innovation and Research (EIR) program—the successor to the Investing in 

Innovation (i3) program—supports the creation, development, implementation, replication, and 

scaling up of evidence-based, field-initiated innovations designed to improve student 

achievement and attainment for high-need students. Like i3, the EIR program supports 

innovative and proven approaches that address persistent education challenges while also 

building knowledge of what works in education. The reauthorized program expanded the entities 

eligible to receive funds, created a new rural set-aside, and increased flexibility around matching 

funds. In particular, State educational agencies (SEAs) now are eligible to apply for funding.

The EIR program incorporates a tiered-evidence framework that supports larger awards for

projects with the strongest evidence base as well as promising earlier-stage projects that are 

willing to undergo rigorous evaluation. Funds may be used for: (1) early-phase grants for the 

development, implementation, and feasibility testing of an intervention or innovation which prior 

research suggests has promise, in order to determine whether the intervention can improve 

student academic outcomes (similar to Development grants under i3); (2) mid-phase grants for 

implementation and rigorous evaluation of interventions that have been successfully 

implemented under early-phase grants or have met similar criteria for documenting program 

effectiveness (similar to Validation grants under i3); and (3) expansion and replication of 

interventions or innovations that have been found to produce a sizable impact under a midphase grant or have met similar criteria for documenting program effectiveness (similar to 

Scale-up grants under i3). All grantees must carry out a rigorous independent evaluation of the 

effectiveness of their project. 

Eligible applicants include: (1) local educational agencies (LEAs); (2) SEAs; (3) the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE); (4) consortia of LEAs or SEAs; (5) nonprofit organizations; or (6) SEAs, 

LEAs, or the BIE in consortia with a nonprofit organization, a business, an educational service 

agency, or an institution of higher education. At least 25 percent of the funds appropriated for 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-21

the program must be used for awards to serve rural areas, contingent on receipt of enough 

applications of sufficient quality. Grantees must provide matching funds equal to 10 percent of 

their grant award (in cash or in-kind) from Federal, State, local, or private sources. The 

Department may waive this requirement under certain circumstances. In addition, the 

Department may reserve up to 5 percent of program funds to provide technical assistance and 

disseminate best practices.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014.................................................................................$141,602

2015...................................................................................120,000

2016...................................................................................120,000

2017...................................................................................100,000

2018.....................................................................................99,321

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2019, the Administration requests $180 million for the EIR program, an increase 

of $80.7 million over the fiscal year 2018 annualized CR level. The request includes 

appropriations language that would focus all funds on a competition to promote innovation and 

reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, including 

computer science. Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on STEM education, the 

Budget provides a path forward to direct at least $200 million to STEM education, across a 

broad range of activities that could include, for example, teacher professional development, 

personalized learning, and hands-on, project-based curricula, of which $180 million is requested 

for EIR. 

Supporting STEM education is imperative to better equip America’s young people with the 

relevant knowledge and skills that would enable them to secure high-paying, stable jobs 

throughout their careers. As the role of technology grows in driving the American economy, 

many jobs increasingly require skills in STEM. However, not all students are on a pathway to 

acquire those skills and secure those jobs. In particular, women and other underrepresented 

groups are less likely to attain STEM degrees. For example, in academic year 2013-14, the 

percentages of STEM bachelor’s degrees awarded to Black, Hispanic, Native American, and 

Pacific Islander students were lower than the percentage awarded to students overall. In 

addition, a lower percentage of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields were awarded to females 

than to males, even though a higher percentage of bachelor’s degrees overall were awarded to 

females than to males.1 Targeting the EIR program on STEM education is aimed at expanding 

access to evidence-based, effective STEM programs and increasing the participation of all 

Americans in STEM fields. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that job opportunities in STEM occupations will 

grow faster over the next 10 years than the average for all occupations. In addition, wages in 

1 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_reg.asp
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-22

STEM occupations are higher than the median for all occupations, and STEM jobs pay more at 

all levels of education compared with other occupations.1

 In particular, the BLS Occupational 

Outlook Handbook (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm) 

notes that employment in computer and information technology occupations is projected to grow 

13 percent from 2016 to 2026, adding over 500,000 new jobs over that period and reflecting the 

strong growth of innovations such as cloud computing, big data, the “Internet of things,” and 

mobile computing. Moreover, the median annual wage for such jobs was $82,860 in May 2016, 

compared to a median of $37,040 for all occupations.

Importantly, the likelihood of students completing postsecondary education (including technical 

programs and industry-recognized certifications) that enable them to pursue STEM occupations 

starts with the quality of their education in STEM subjects in elementary and secondary 

education. A 2013 study published by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 

precollege academic preparation was one factor correlated with STEM attrition at the 

postsecondary level; i.e, students pursuing postsecondary STEM majors switching to nonSTEM majors or leaving postsecondary education without attaining a degree or certificate.2

 

The EIR program is well-structured to provide the investment needed to improve elementary 

and secondary STEM education, including computer science education, because of its 

emphasis on the development and testing of new, innovative programs as well as the expansion 

of programs that have been determined to be effective. 

Examples of projects funded under this program that focused on STEM education include the 

following:

• Teach to One: Math, led by New Classrooms Innovation Partners, Inc., in Elizabeth, New 

Jersey, is designed to expand and evaluate a personalized instructional math model to meet 

the needs of middle school students regardless of their current learning level. 

• Distance Learning through Game-based 3D Virtual Learning Environments: Mission Hydro 

Science, led by the University of Missouri, is developing a virtual learning environment for 

distance learning (including in small and rural schools) and blended learning in middleschool STEM subjects focused on hydrological systems and scientific argumentation.

• Teaching English Learners Early Mathematics (TEEM), led by California State University, 

San Bernardino, is using interactive notebooks to help English Learners in pre-K through 

sixth-grade learn mathematics while also developing language and metacognitive skills. 

The second year evaluation report found that English learners who had participated in the 

treatment group for 2 years and were in grades 3-5 during the first year of the project made 

1 Vilorio, D. 2014. "STEM 101: Intro to Tomorrow's Jobs." Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2 Che, X. (2013). “STEM Attrition: College Students’ paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.” (NCES 2014-0001). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-23

small but statistically significant gains in mathematics and English/language arts 

assessments. 

Identifying STEM education models that work, as determined through the rigorous project-level 

evaluations required under the EIR program, also would help States and school districts meet 

ESEA requirements to implement evidence-based interventions in schools identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and improvement. The 2019 

request would support the twin goals of building the evidence base for improved STEM 

education and helping to ensure that LEAs have the tools they need to address the persistent 

challenges in their lowest-performing schools. 

Consistent with the authorizing statute, the Department would reserve $9 million in fiscal year 

2019 for technical assistance, including technical assistance to help grantees develop and 

implement rigorous evaluations, and dissemination.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

EIR competition

EIR competition Amount for grants $95,278 $93,362 $169,200

EIR competition Number of new awards 16 10-15 25-35

EIR competition Range of new awards $3,000–20,000 $3,000–20,000 $3,000–20,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $630 $993 $1,800

National activities $4,092 $4,966 $9,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

year 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Performance measures

Goal: To improve educational outcomes for students by developing, identifying, and 

scaling up effective practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on student 

achievement and other student outcomes.

Objective: To validate and scale effective solutions for persistent educational challenges across 

the country to serve a substantially larger numbers of students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-24

Measure: The percentage of Scale-up grantees that reached their annual target of students

served.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 40%

2015 60 50

2016 66 66

2017 66

2018 66

2019 66

Measure: The percentage of Scale-up grantees that reached the targeted number of students 

specified in the application by the end of the project.

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 50%

2016 65 N/A

2017 65

2018 65

2019 65

Measure: The percentage of Validation grantees that reached their annual target of students

served.

Year Target Actual

2014 60% 57%

2015 65 52

2016 68 52

2017 68

2018 68

2019 68

Measure: The percentage of Validation grantees that reached the targeted number of 

students specified in the application by the end of the project.

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 80%

2016 65 N/A

2017 65

2018 65

2019 65

Additional information: The source of the data is annual grantee performance reports and 

final performance reports submitted through March 2017. One of the goals of Validation and 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-25

Scale-up grants is to expand the implementation of interventions for which there is evidence of 

effectiveness while continuing to evaluate it to ensure that it is implemented well and continues 

to be effective in a larger scale. Therefore, reaching the targeted number of students is an 

important measure of success for these projects.

Actual percentages are based on partial data; while all three Scale-up grants reported on 

students served, 21 of 23 Validation grants had complete data. The two Validation grants not 

included did not serve students in the reporting year. The Department will continue to develop 

and refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance to grantees in order to 

improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 2017 will be 

available by December 2018.

No Scale-up grants ended their grants in the reporting period through March 2017, so there is 

no cumulative data on students served to report for Scale-up. Likewise, no Validation grants 

completed their grant projects by March 2017, so none are included in this measure. 

Objective: To promote rigorous evaluation of i3-funded projects that will generate significant 

new information about the effectiveness of diverse strategies, practices, and products that 

address persistent educational challenges.

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Scale-up grant 

with ongoing, well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their 

effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale and would meet the WWC Evidence 

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 100%

2015 80 100

2016 83 100

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with ongoing, well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of 

their effectiveness at improving student outcomes and would meet the WWC Evidence 

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2014 94% 100%

2015 75 97

2016 78 96

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-26

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that provide evidence of promise for improving student 

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2014 96% 99%

2015 96 98

2016 96 98

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Additional information: The source of the data is grantee evaluation plans. The Department 

will continue to develop and refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance 

to grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for 

fiscal year 2017 will be available by December 2018. 

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Scale-up grant 

with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data and performance 

feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 100%

2015 80 100

2016 83 100

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant 

with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data and performance 

feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2014 90% 100%

2015 90 100

2016 93 96

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-27

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data and 

performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2014 90% 99%

2015 90 99

2016 95 98

2017 100

2018 100

2019 100

Additional information: The source of the data is grantee evaluation plans. The Department 

will continue to develop and refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance 

to grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for 

fiscal year 2017 will be available by December 2018. 

Efficiency measures

The Department established cost per student as the efficiency measure for the i3 program. 

Aggregate program costs were used to calculate costs per student due to inconsistencies in the 

data grantees reported. The Department developed a reporting format and provided technical 

assistance to grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the 

data. Data for this measure are based on total project costs minus evaluation costs divided by 

the number of students served by all grantees. Separating the evaluation costs is critical 

because evaluation costs for projects under this program tend to be large due to the complexity 

of the evaluation designs and the goal of meeting WWC standards. Data for 2016 represent 

grants that submitted an annual performance report and include 3 out of 3 Scale-up grants, 21 

out of 23 Validation grantees, and 50 out of 55 Development grants. Data for the second 

efficiency measure represent grantees that submitted a final performance report and are 

cumulative costs per student for the entire grant and include 15 out of 15 Validation grants and 

26 out of 30 Development grants. Data for fiscal year 2017 will be available by December 2018. 

Measure: The cost per student served by the Scale-up, Validation, or Development grant.

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2013 $237 $181 $140

2014 201 21,463 633

2015 99 874 1,137

2016 135 5,329 1,887

Additional information: The increase in the cost per student served for 2016 for Scale-up 

grants is due to the fact that the 3 Scale-up grants were awarded in 2015, and cost per student 

is generally higher in the first year of project implementation as implementation gears up. The 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-28

significant increase in the cost per student reported for 2016 for Validation grants is due to one 

project, which has significant cost per student because it is an internship program, and that the 

grant only reached 60 percent of its target number of students to be served. The cost per 

student reported for 2016 for Development grants is slightly higher than 2015 but within the 

same range.

Measure: The cost per student for the Scale-up, Validation, or Development grant for programs, 

practices, or strategies that were proven to be effective at improving educational outcomes for 

students. 

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2015 $375 $1,154 $928

2016 N/A N/A 347

Additional information: No Scale-up or Validation projects ended in 2016, so this measure is 

not application for that year. For Development, 8 grant projects ended in 2016, and 6 have 

provided complete cost per student data. The cost per student for Development grants for 2016 

reflects a much smaller number of grantees reporting these data than for 2015.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-29

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 1, 

Section 2212)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$198,642 0 -$198,642

1 A total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

49.1 percent is available for Subpart 1 activities.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive Grants program was authorized by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act as the successor to the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which was 

operated under appropriations language authority from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2016. The 

program makes competitive awards to help eligible entities develop, implement, improve, or 

expand human capital management systems or performance-based compensation systems in 

schools served by the grantees.

Eligible entities include local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are 

LEAs; State educational agencies or other designated State agencies; the Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE); and partnerships of LEAs, State agencies, and the BIE with nonprofit or forprofit entities. The grant period is 3 years, with the option of renewal for an additional 1 or 

2 years if the grantee demonstrates success. In making grants, the Department is required to 

give priority to applicants that support teachers, principals, and other school leaders in highneed schools and to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of grants, including the 

distribution of grants between rural and urban areas. An LEA is permitted to receive (whether 

individually or as part of a consortium) a grant under this program only twice.

The statute defines high-need schools as public elementary or secondary schools located in an 

area in which at least 30 percent of students are from low-income families. Human capital 

management systems (HCMSs) are defined as systems by which an LEA makes and 

implements human capital decisions, such as decisions on hiring, professional development, 

dismissal, tenure, and promotion and that include a performance-based compensation system. 

Performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) mean systems of compensation for 

teachers, principals, or other school leaders that differentiate levels of compensation based in 

part on measureable increases in student academic achievement. The systems also may 

include differentiated levels of compensation for positions in hard-to-staff schools and subject 

areas, as well as for recognition of skills and knowledge of teachers, principals, and other 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-30

school leaders demonstrated through additional responsibilities and evidence of professional 

achievement.

Grantees may use funds for a wide variety of activities designed to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand an HCMS or PBCS, including:

• Developing or improving evaluation and support systems that are based in part on 

demonstrated improvement in student achievement;

• Conducting outreach to gain information on how to construct evaluation and support 

systems;

• Providing principals with the tools necessary to make school-level decisions, including 

staffing decisions, in order to build high-performing instructional leadership teams for highneed schools;

• Implementing a differentiated salary structure for teachers who teach in high-needs schools 

or teach high-need subjects, raise student academic achievement, or take on additional 

leadership responsibilities, or for principals or other school leaders to serve in high-need 

schools and raise student academic achievement;

• Improving LEA processes for recruiting, selecting, placing, supporting, and retaining 

effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders in high-need schools; and

• Instituting career advancement opportunities that reward effective teachers, principals, or 

other school leaders in high-need schools.

Grantees must provide matching funds, in cash or in kind, from non-Federal sources equal to 

50 percent of the amount of their grants. Grant funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, 

other Federal or State funds available to carry out activities.

The Department is required to submit an annual report to Congress that provides information on 

grant award amounts and grantee activities, as well as student academic achievement 

information for participating schools. In addition, the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) must 

evaluate the effectiveness of the program; the Department may reserve up to 1 percent of each 

year’s appropriation for this purpose as well as to provide technical assistance to grantees.

The predecessor program, TIF, also supported the development and implementation of 

performance-based compensation systems and human capital management systems that were 

designed to measure and improve educator effectiveness and provide effective educators with 

incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles. The reauthorized program 

places a greater focus on the development of comprehensive human capital management 

systems that include performance based compensation systems, while adding a new emphasis 

on the role principals and school leaders in promoting effective instruction in high-need schools.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-31

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2014.................................................................................$288,771

2015.................................................................................. 230,000

2016.................................................................................. 230,000

2017.................................................................................. 200,000

2018.................................................................................. 198,642

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the TSL program in fiscal year 2019. While the 

TSL program and its TIF predecessor have received strong support over the past decade due to 

the anticipated promise of performance-based compensation systems and human capital 

management systems for improving teacher and school leader effectiveness and student 

academic outcomes, the overall results have been mixed. Grantees have found it difficult to 

implement with fidelity the complex elements of a PBCS or HCMS, to explain the systems 

clearly to participating educators and obtain the buy-in necessary for creating meaningful 

incentives for improved instructional performance, and to build the capacity needed to sustain 

systems beyond the Federal grant period. Consequently, the program has delivered limited 

evidence of improved teaching or learning. In addition, States and LEAs may use other Federal, 

State, and local resources—including funds provided to nearly all school districts and more than 

55,000 schools through the $15.5 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program—to pilot or demonstrate 

the types of incentives and supports authorized under the TSL program.

The Department will use all fiscal year 2018 funds for continuation awards, but the 13 fiscal year 

2016 grantees will not receive their final 2 years of funding in fiscal years 2019 and 2020 and 

the 14 fiscal year 2017 grantees will not receive their final year of funding scheduled for fiscal 

year 2019.

While the Department’s usual practice is to avoid early termination of existing grants, given the 

limited evidence of effectiveness for the activities funded by TIF and TSL, the Administration is 

proposing program funding elimination in order to provide strong support for State formula grant 

programs while maintaining the fiscal discipline required to meet the President’s deficit reduction 

goals. Moreover, the Department anticipates that many grantees will continue to benefit from 

the changes in performance-based compensation systems and human capital management 

systems made in the early years of their respective grant periods even if Federal funding is 

eliminated.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-32

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Project funding

New awards fundi ng $95,888 0 0

Continuation awards fundi ng 101,803 $196,656 0

Peer review of new award applications fundi ng

309 0 0

Evaluation and technical assistance fundi ng 2,000 1,986 0

Total fundi ng 200,000 198,642 0

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 14 0 0

Range of new awards $535−$12,880 0 0

Number of continuation awards 13 27 0

Range of continuation awards $830−$18,720 $799−$14,576 0

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

including Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department did not reserve funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal year 

2018. The reauthorized ESEA includes separate authority for the Department to use up to 1 percent of TSL program 

funds for evaluation and technical assistance; any amount pooled under section 8601 would be part of this 1 percent.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data that help provide an 

assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program 

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

the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department established four measures for the 2012 grant competition for use beginning in 

2013; 35 applicants received awards and all were expected to report using these measures. 

The teacher and principal evaluation ratings for these measures are based, in significant part, 

on evidence of improved student outcomes. Selected information (e.g., data for only those 

teachers and principals rated at the highest level of effectiveness, and not at each level) are 

presented below. The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance reports, 

and the final year for which data will be available for the 2012 cohort of grantees is 2017.

The changes in performance data from year to year should be interpreted with caution. 

Grantees partner with LEAs for their projects, and although the number of grantees remained 

the same over time, the number of participating LEAs dropped from 169 in year 1 to 136 in 

year 2, and continued to decline to 90 in year 5. In addition, some grantees did not have data to 

report in the first 2 years of their projects because the participating LEAs did not have an 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-33

evaluation system for either teachers or principals, or both. Thus, the data presented do not 

represent the same LEAs over time. Results for 2017 are expected to be available in the late 

spring 2018.

Measure: The percentage of teachers and principals who were rated at the highest level of 

effectiveness under their district’s evaluation system.

Year Actual for Teachers Actual for Principals

2014 17% 20%

2015 21 26

2016 26 14

2017

2018

Additional information: The percentages rated at the highest level of effectiveness rose 

between 2014 and 2015 for both teachers and principals; between 2015 and 2016 the 

percentage rose for teachers but declined for principals. As noted above, changes may be due 

to the fact that different LEAs are included each year.

Measure: The percentage of teachers of high-need fields or subjects who were rated at the 

highest level of effectiveness under their district’s evaluation system.

Year Actual

2014 13%

2015 18

2016 17

2017

2018

Additional information: The percentage of teachers of high-needs fields or subjects who were 

rated at the highest level of effectiveness, like the percentage of all teachers, increased 

between 2014 and 2015. However, it dropped slightly in 2016. In each year, the percentage of 

teachers of high-need fields or subjects who were rated at the highest level of effectiveness was 

lower than the percentage of all teachers who were rated at that level. The gap was 

largest9 percentage pointsin 2016.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-34

Measure: The percentage of school districts participating in a TIF grant that use educator 

evaluation systems to inform key personnel decisions.

Personnel decision 2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Actual

Recruitment 81% 79% 80%

Hiring 87 89 89

Placement 74 70 86

Retention 66 95 93

Dismissal 67 93 90

Tenure 17 43 33

Career advancement 89 87 90

Professional development 100 97 93

Personnel decisi on: All of the above 7 30 28

Additional information: The Department assesses the use of educator evaluation systems to 

inform personnel decisions in eight areas. By 2016, the percentages were at or above 

80 percent for all areas except tenure. Results for 2017 are expected to be available in the late 

spring 2018.

The Department developed measures for the 2016 TIF and 2017 TSL competitions that were

published with the notices inviting applications. These measures are:

• The percentage of educators in all schools who earned performance-based compensation.

• The percentage of educators in all high-need schools who earned performance-based 

compensation.

• The gap between the retention rate of educators receiving performance-based 

compensation and the average retention rate of educators in each high-need school whose 

educators participate in the project.

• The number of school districts participating in a grant that use educator evaluation systems 

to inform recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, professional development, 

tenure, and promotion.

• The percentage of performance-based compensation paid to educators with State, local, or 

other non-TIF or TSL Federal resources.

• The percentage of teachers and principals who receive the highest effectiveness rating.

• The percentage of teachers and principals in high-needs schools who receive the highest 

effectiveness rating.

The 2017 TSL competition included one additional measure, the number of high-need schools 

within districts participating in a TSL grant that use educator evaluation and support systems to 

inform recruitment, hiring, placement, retention, dismissal, professional development, tenure, 

and promotion.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-35

Other performance information

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) conducted two recent studies that provide information 

on effective practices:

The Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems1 examined 

districts’ and educators’ experiences with performance evaluation systems and their impact of 

classroom practice and student achievement in eight districts. The study, which cost 

$21.5 million over 6 years, was completed in December 2017. The key findings were:

• The study’s performance measures were implemented generally as planned. For instance, 

in both study years, teachers and principals received multiple rounds of ratings and 

feedback on their practices.

• While the study’s measures provided some information to identify educators who needed 

support, they provided limited information to indicate the areas of practice most needing 

improvement.

• The intervention had a positive impact on teachers’ classroom practice on one of the two 

observation measures, and it also had a positive impact on both of the principal leadership 

measures. However, there was limited impact on student achievement: there was no impact 

on reading/English language arts achievement in either study year, and there was a 

mathematics impact in only one of the two study years. The mathematics impact was the 

equivalent of about 4 weeks of learning.

The Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund2 examined the characteristics of 

144 districts participating in 2010 TIF grants during 2013−2014 school year and assessed the 

effect of pay-for-performance on educators in a subset of 10 districts. The study, which cost 

$13.7 million over 8 years, ended in December 2017. 

Key findings from all participating districts that were part of the 2010 grants are:

• Implementation was similar across the 4 years of the study, with most districts implementing 

at least three of the four required components for teachers (measures of teacher 

effectiveness, pay-for-performance bonuses, additional pay opportunities, and professional 

development) for teachers. Only about half implemented all four requirements.

• Many districts reported that sustaining their program was a major challenge, and slightly 

fewer than half planned to offer pay-for-performance bonuses after their grant ended.

However, most districts reported that they planned to continue three key components of TIF: 

professional development based on teachers’ performance ratings (90 percent), measures 

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp 2 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_incentive.asp
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-36

of performance similar to those used in TIF (at least 80 percent), and additional pay for 

taking on extra roles or responsibilities (74 percent).

For the 10 districts that participated in the random assignment study:

• There was a small positive effect on student achievement. On average, pay-for-performance 

bonuses led to slightly higher reading and mathematics achievement (1 to 2 percentile 

points) in schools that offered such bonuses than in schools that did not. This difference was 

equivalent to a gain of 3 to 4 additional weeks of learning.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-37

American history and civics education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 3)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$3,491 0 -$3,491

1

Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B (authorized at $469,168 thousand), 1.4 percent is available for 

Subpart 3, of which not less than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics Academies.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

American History and Civics Education is designed to improve the quality of teaching and 

learning in American history, civics, and government. Funds support Presidential Academies for 

teachers, Congressional Academies for students, and National Activities to promote innovative 

instruction and professional development for teachers and school leaders.

American History and Civics Academies

The American History and Civics Academies program supports efforts to improve the quality of 

American history and civics education by providing intensive workshops for teachers and 

students. The Presidential Academies for the Teaching of American History and Civics offer 

workshops of at least 2 weeks to elementary and secondary school teachers to strengthen their 

knowledge through instruction and interaction with primary scholars and accomplished teachers 

in these fields. The Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics offer 

similar workshops to secondary school students to enrich their understanding of American 

history and civics.

The Department makes competitive awards for up to 5 years to institutions of higher education 

and nonprofit educational organizations, museums, libraries, and research centers with 

demonstrated expertise in historical methodology or the teaching of American history and civics. 

The Department may make no more than 12 grants in a fiscal year and must give priority for 

Presidential Academies grants to applicants that propose to use the resources of the National 

Parks and coordinate or align their projects with the National Park Service National Centennial 

Parks initiative. Grantees must provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in an amount 

equal to 100 percent of the grant amount.

To promote a seamless delivery of training and instruction and to maximize project benefits for 

participants, the Department has required that grantee projects include both a Presidential and 

a Congressional Academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-38

National Activities

National Activities grants promote evidence-based instructional methods and professional 

development programs in American history, civics and government, and geography, particularly 

those methods and programs that benefit students from low-income families and underserved 

student populations. Grants support the development, implementation, expansion, evaluation, 

and dissemination of methods and programs that show potential to improve teaching and 

learning and demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved 

student populations. Grant projects may include civic engagement activities and educational 

programs on the history and principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Department 

makes competitive grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit or for-profit 

organizations with demonstrated expertise for an initial period of up to 3 years, and may renew 

grants for an additional 2 years.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014..............................................................................................0

2015..............................................................................................0

2016.....................................................................................$1,815

2017.....................................................................................$3,515

2018.....................................................................................$3,491

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for American History and Civics Education for fiscal year 

2019. This program supports only a few awards, and American History and Civics Academies

grants reach a very limited number of teachers and students each year: under the statute, an 

academy may select no more than 300 teachers or students for participation annually. The 

Administration believes that such small, narrowly targeted programs do not reflect an 

appropriate Federal role and are better supported with State, local, or private funding sources. 

In addition, local educational agencies (LEAs) can use funds from other Federal programs to 

improve instruction in American history and civics, including Title I Grants to LEAs.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-39

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

American History and Civics Academies 

grants

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Amount for new awards $1,704 $1,398 0

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Number of new awards 1 1 0

National Activities grants

National Acti viti es grants Amount for new awards $1,780 $1,964 0

American Nati onal Acti vi ties grants Number of new awards 1 1 0

National Acti viti es grants Amount for supplemental awards 0 $129 0

American Nati onal Acti vi ties grants Number of supplemental awards 0 1 0

Peer review of new award applications $31 0 0

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

including American History and Civics Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. 

The Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal 

year 2018.

Consistent with the Administration’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2019, the output 

measures for fiscal year 2018 reflect the use of fiscal year 2018 annualized CR funds to frontload new awards to pay, 

to the extent possible, the full costs of projects over the 5-year grant period for American History and Civics 

Academies grants and the initial 3-year grant period for National Activities grants.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To improve the quality of teaching and learning in American history, civics and 

government, and geography in elementary and secondary schools.

Objective: Participants will demonstrate through pre- and post-assessments an increased 

understanding of American history and civics that can be directly linked to their participation in 

the Presidential or Congressional academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-40

Measure: The average percentage gain on a teacher assessment after participation in a 

Presidential Academy.

Measure: The average percentage gain on a student assessment after participation in a 

Congressional Academy.

For the 2016 grantee, there was a 13 percent gain on teacher assessments after participation in 

a Presidential Academy and a 10 percent gain on student assessments after participation in a 

Congressional Academy in 2017. 

Additional information: Data are from assessments created by the grantee's evaluator 

drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests. The Department will establish 

targets for future years for the 2016 grantee using 2017 data as the baseline. The 2018 data for 

these performance measures for the fiscal year 2017 grantee are expected to be available in fall 

2018. 

Objective: Participants will demonstrate through pre- and post-assessments an increased 

understanding of American history, civics and government, and geography that can be directly 

linked to their participation in National Activities grant activities.

Measure: The average percentage gain on an assessment after participation in National 

Activities grant activities.

The 2018 data for this performance measure for the fiscal year 2017 grantee are expected to be 

available in fall 2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-41

Supporting effective educator development

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, Section 2242)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$64,559 0 -$64,599

1 A total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

15.4 percent is available for Subpart 4, of which 74 percent must be used for Section 2242.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

The Supporting Effective Education Development (SEED) grant program was authorized from 

fiscal years 2011−2016 through appropriations language as a set-aside under the Title II, Part A 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. Separate authority for SEED as a distinct 

program was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The program provides competitive grants to institutions of higher 

education (IHEs), national nonprofit entities, and the Bureau of Indian Education, or to 

partnerships of one or more IHEs and national nonprofit organizations with a for-profit entity, to:

• Support pathways that allow teachers, principals, or other school leaders with nontraditional 

preparation and certification to obtain employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

• Provide evidence-based professional development activities that address literacy, 

numeracy, remedial education, or other needs of LEAs and the students they serve;

• Provide professional development to improve instruction in dual enrollment programs or 

early college high school settings;

• Make services and learning opportunities freely available to LEAs, including through publicly 

accessible electronic means; or

• Provide teachers, principals, or other school leaders with evidence-based professional 

enhancement activities, which may include activities that lead to an advanced credential.

Grants may be awarded for up to 3 years and may be renewed for one additional 2-year period 

if the grantee demonstrates success. To the extent practicable, the Department must ensure 

that grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse areas. 

The statute requires grantees to use non-Federal sources, in cash or in kind, to cover at least 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-42

25 percent of project costs each year. The Department may waive or modify this cost-sharing 

requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2014...................................................................................$46,997

2015.....................................................................................54,046

2016.....................................................................................93,993

2017.....................................................................................65,000

2018.....................................................................................64,559

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the SEED program in fiscal year 2019. Teacher 

recruitment, training, placement, and ongoing professional development are core responsibilities 

for States, school districts, and institutions of higher education, which are best positioned to 

identify and respond to local and regional needs for effective educators. In the Federal context, 

SEED duplicates and has a much more limited impact than, for example, the Title I Grants to 

LEAs program, which makes available $15.5 billion annually to more than 14,000 LEAs and 

55,000 schools that can be used for all SEED-authorized activities. The Administration expects

many providers previously or currently funded by the SEED program will likely continue their 

activities by marketing their services to States and LEAs, which can pay for such services with 

other Federal, State, or local funds. In particular, LEAs can be expected to turn to providers of 

evidence-based teacher quality supports when implementing the evidence-based school 

improvement plans required by the ESEA and supported by more than $1 billion in annual Title I 

school improvement funding. For this reason, and consistent with the fiscal discipline required to 

maintain support for higher priority State formula grant programs serving the most vulnerable 

student populations while meeting the President’s deficit reduction goals, the request would 

terminate funding for the SEED program.

Grants awarded in fiscal year 2017 under the authority provided in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will receive a proportional share of their remaining 

continuation costs in 2018; at the 2018 annualized continuing resolution level, this will amount to 

nearly 87 percent of the original continuation amount. This amount should be sufficient to allow 

them to carry out the main activities of their grants. (The two grants awarded in fiscal year 2017 

under authority provided under bill language included in the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2016, were fully funded using fiscal year 2016 funds and will not need 

continuation funding in fiscal years 2018 or 2019.)
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-43

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Project Funding:

New awards $28,484 0 0

Continuation awards 36,290 $64,559 0

Peer review of new applications 226 0 0

Total 65,000 64,559 0

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 10 0 0

Range of new awards $580−$5,906 NA NA

Number of continuation awards 9 13 0

Range of continuation awards $1,918−$6,734 $3,171−$9,339 0

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

including Supporting Effective Educator Development, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department did not reserve funds in fiscal year 2017 but may do so in fiscal year 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data that help provide an 

assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program 

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

the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department first conducted a competition for SEED grants in fiscal year 2012 and 

established two performance measures for the program, the first of which was applicable to 

grantees addressing the priorities on recruitment, selection, and preparation and on professional 

development, and the second of which was applicable to grantees addressing the priority on 

advanced certification and advanced credentialing:

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of high-need 

students, are highly effective, and serve for at least two years, and the cost per such 

participant (for grantees addressing priorities on teacher and principal recruitment, selection, 

and preparation and on professional development for teachers of English language arts).

• The percentage of teacher participants who receive advanced certification or advanced 

credentialing and are highly effective, and the cost per such participant (for grantees 

addressing the priority on advanced certification and advanced credentialing).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-44

Three grantees received awards in 2012, all of which addressed the first two priorities. 

Establishing measures that can be used across very different types of projects is difficult, and 

due to differences in interpretation of the terms used (e.g., what constituted effectiveness) and 

the length of some of the grants, performance data for these grantees are limited. All 

participants in one project served concentrations of high-need students, and nearly two-thirds of 

participants in the second project served such students. Seventeen percent of the participants in 

this project served high concentrations of high-need students and were highly effective.

The same performance measures were used in the 2013 competition, which resulted in five 

awards. Again, due to differences in reporting and grant length, data are limited. However, data 

for all five grantees suggest that most participants serve schools with concentrations of highneed students, with percentages (across grantees and reporting years) ranging from 58 to 

100 percent. Data on the percent serving high-need students who were highly effective were 

available for two grantees, which reported values of 31 and 54 percent.

The Department published four performance measures in the notice inviting applications for 

fiscal year 2015 SEED grantees:

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of high-need 

students;

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of high-need 

students and are highly effective; 

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of high-need 

students, are highly effective, and serve for at least 2 years; and 

• The cost per participant who was highly effective and who taught in high need schools for 

2 years.

Year 1 data are available for this cohort of grantees. Nine of the 13 grantees from 2015 

provided data on both the number of participants and the number of participants who served 

concentrations of high-need students. These grantees served a total of 8,170 participants (with 

a range of 3 to 4,100), 6,956 of whom were in schools with concentrations of high-need 

students (range of 2 to 4,100), for an overall percentage of 85 percent. Across grants, the 

percentage ranged from 67 to 100 percent. The largest of these grantees (in terms of 

participants served) reported that 28 percent of the participants served in schools with 

concentrations of high-need students and were highly effective. Additional grantees are 

expected to report on this measure next year. Data are not yet available for the remaining two 

measures.

The four measures used in the 2015 competition also were used in the 2017 competitions. In 

addition, the 2017 competition that was held under the reauthorized ESEA included an 

additional measure, the number of grantees with evaluations that meet the What Works 

Clearinghouse standards with reservations. Information for the 2017 grantees is expected to be 

available in late 2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-45

Additional information should be available in late 2018 from 2-year evaluation extension awards 

made in 2016 to three of the 2013 grantees, the National Writing Project, the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-46

School leader recruitment and support

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, 

Section 2243)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$14,402 0 -$14,402

1 A total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

15.4 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, of which 22 percent must be used for Section 2243.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

School Leader Recruitment and Support grants fund activities to improve the recruitment, 

preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools. The program is the successor to the School Leadership program. Activities 

may include:

• Developing or implementing leadership training programs designed to prepare and support 

principals or other school leaders in high-need schools, including through new or alternative 

pathways or school leader residency programs;

• Developing or implementing programs or activities for recruiting, selecting, and developing 

aspiring or current principals or other school leaders to serve in high-need schools;

• Developing or implementing programs for recruiting, developing, and placing school leaders 

in schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted 

support and improvement activities required by section 1111(d) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA);

• Providing continuous professional development for principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools;

• Developing and disseminating information on best practices and strategies for effective 

school leadership in high-need schools; and

• Developing other evidence-based programs or activities focused on principals or other 

school leaders in high-need schools that can be used by State educational agencies (SEAs) 

and local educational agencies (LEAs) implementing Title II Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-47

Funds are awarded competitively to eligible entities, which include LEAs that serve high-need 

schools, SEAs, the Bureau of Indian Education, or any of those entities in consortia with 

nonprofit organizations or institutions of higher education (IHEs). For this program, high-need 

schools are defined as elementary schools with at least 50 percent of enrolled students from 

families below the poverty line or secondary schools with at least 40 percent of enrolled 

students from families below the poverty line.

In awarding grants, the Department must give priority to applicants that will implement evidencebased activities and that have a demonstrated ability to prepare or develop principals who 

(1) have improved school-level student outcomes, (2) have become principals in high-need 

schools, and (3) remain principals in such schools for multiple years. The Department also must 

ensure that, to the extent practicable, grants are distributed among eligible entities that will 

serve geographically diverse areas, including urban, suburban, and rural areas. Grants are 

awarded for up to 5 years, with an optional 2-year extension. Entities may receive only one 

grant during a single competition.

The statute requires cost sharing and grantees must use non-Federal sources, in cash or in 

kind, to cover at least 25 percent of the project costs each year. The Department may waive or 

modify the cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship. Federal grant 

funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be 

used for such activities.

Under the antecedent School Leadership program, high-need LEAs, nonprofit organizations, 

and IHEs could receive grants to recruit and retain individuals to serve as principals in highneed LEAs by (1) providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, (2) providing stipends 

to principals who mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional development programs in 

instructional leadership and management, and (4) providing incentives for teachers or 

individuals from other fields who want to become principals. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2014.................................................................................$25,763

2015...................................................................................16,368

2016...................................................................................16,368

2017...................................................................................14,500

2018...................................................................................14,402

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funds for the School Leader Recruitment and Support 

Program in fiscal year 2019. The program supports a small number of grantees and has minimal 

national impact. While school leadership is important, other Federal funds are available to 

support improved leadership in high-need schools. In particular, both regular Title I Grants to 

Local educational agencies (LEAs) and Title I funds reserved for school improvement, which are 

available to more than 14,000 school districts and 55,000 public elementary and secondary 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-48

schools, may be used to recruit, prepare, support, and retain effective principals and other 

school leaders in Title I participating schools. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Funding for continuation awards $14,500 0 0

Number of continuation awards 18 0 0

Range of continuation awards $212−$2,208 0 0

Funding for new awards 0 $14,302 0

Number of new awards 0 3−5 0

Range of new awards 0 $2,500−$5,000 0

Peer review of new grant applications 100 0

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

including School Leader Recruitment and Support, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. 

The Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2017 but may in fiscal year 

2018 if the program is funded.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The information provided is for the antecedent School Leadership program (SLP). Grantees 

report data for each year of their 5-year projects. Data are reported by participant year cohort 

and updated annually. For example, for the 2013 grants (i.e., the 20 grants awarded in fiscal 

year 2013), all of a grantee’s participants who first received services in the first year of the grant 

(school year 2013-2014) are reported the “year 1” cohort. All participants first receiving services 

in the second year of the grant (school year 2014-2015) are the “year 2” cohort; and so forth 

through the final year of the grant (school year 2017-2018). The Department summarizes the 

data across participant cohorts. Thus, the 2014 information in the tables below includes 

information for only the “year 1” cohort, the 2015 information includes data for the “year 1” and 

“year 2” cohorts, and the 2016 information includes data for the “year 1”, “year 2”, and “year 3” 

cohorts. The Department did not establish targets for these measures.

Each year, the grantees provide updates for each participant cohort, and the Department 

calculates updated percentages for each cohorts. Thus, for example, if a grantee had 

10 participants who began working towards certification in school year 2013-2014 and 

4 completed their work in that year, the grantee would have had a 2014 cohort completion 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-49

percentage of 40 percent at the end of the first year. However, if another three participants 

completed certification in the second year, the 2014 cohort completion rate would have 

increased to 70 percent. Grantees continue to track participants and update information 

throughout the project.

Not all performance measures are relevant for all grantees, and not all grantees report data for 

all years. (For example, a grantee may not enroll new participant cohorts in each year of the 

project.)

Goal: To increase the number of new, certified principals and assistant principals and to 

improve the skills of current practicing principals and assistant principals, all serving in 

high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Objective: To recruit, prepare, and support teachers and individuals to become principals, 

including assistant principals, in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Measure: The percentage of participants who meet certification requirements to become a 

principal or assistant principal.

Year

2013 Grantee

Target

2013 Grantee

Actual

2014 75%

2015 71

2016 74

2017

2018

Additional information: This measure is based on the cumulative number of participants who 

sought certification to become a principal or assistant principal and the number who became 

certified. No targets were set for this measure.

Fifteen grantees reported both the number of grantees seeking certification and the number 

meeting certification requirements for at least one participant cohort. Based on data for cohorts 

where both values were reported, 350 of 474 participants, or 74 percent, were certified by the 

end of year 3. The numbers of participants per grant ranged from 6 to 162, with completion 

percentages of 0 to 100 percent.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-50

Measure: The percentage of participants who are certified through the funded projects and 

hired as a principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA.

Year

2013 Grantee

Target

2013 Grantee

Actual

2014 27%

2015 43

2016 52

2017

2018

Additional information: Based on data for 11 grantees that reported on the number of 

participants who met certification requirements and who were hired by a high-need LEA, 

52 percent (100 out of 193) of such participants were hired by a high-need LEA by the end of 

the third year. Data for this measure include only grantees reporting on both certification and 

hiring, and where the number reported being hired was less than or equal to the number 

certified. Participants generally take 18 to 24 months to attain certification, although this varies 

by grantee, so additional participants may gain certification and find employment in high-need 

LEAs during the remainder of the grant projects. No targets were set for this measure.

Measure: The percentage of participants certified through the funded project who are hired as a 

principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA and who remain in that position for at least 

2 years.

Most grantees have not yet reported this information. The data will be available at a later date.

Objective: To train and support principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs in order to improve their skills and increase retention.

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals who complete the SLP-funded 

professional development program and whose schools demonstrate positive change, no 

change, or negative change based on pre- and post-school site measures, of which one 

measure must include, if available, student growth (e.g., students advance at least one grade 

level in an academic year).

This measure tracks participants who are enrolled in grant-funded professional development 

activities designed to support individuals currently serving as principals and assistant principals 

in high-need LEAs. By the end of the 3rdyear of the grants, there were 1,634 such participants 

across 15 grants; pre- and post-school site data were available for 1,023 participants 

(63 percent). Grantees were asked to report on the number of participants whose schools 

demonstrated positive change, no change, or negative change based on pre- and post- school 

site measures. Data were further screened to eliminate grantee cohorts for which information 

was incomplete or inconsistent (i.e., where the numbers in each category did not equal the total 

number reported), complete information was available for 689 participants in 19 cohorts across 

11 grantees. Based on data for this subset of participants, 87 percent of participants in these 

cohorts (598 out of 689) were in school sites that showed an increase in student performance.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-51

Measure: The percentage of program graduates who are rated “effective” or “highly effective” 

as measured by a State or local principal evaluation system, if available

Additional information: At the end of the third reporting year, data were available for 13 

participant cohorts across 6 grantees. These grantees reported that 77 percent of participants 

(199 out of 257) were rated as “effective” or “highly effective”. In 10 of the 13 cohorts, all 

participants were rated as “effective” or ”highly effective”; the percentages for the other three 

were 9 percent, 13 percent, and 75 percent.

Other Performance Information

The Department began an impact evaluation of support for principals in 2014.1 The study, which 

will cost $12.2 million over 5 years, is addressing key questions about the effectiveness of 

principal professional development programs and their ability to improve leadership skills and 

school quality, including:

• What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing principals 

structured and intensive professional development?

• What are the impacts on teacher retention, the effectiveness of instructional staff, and 

student achievement of providing principals with structured and intensive professional 

development?

The study includes 100 elementary schools within 10 districts; schools were randomly assigned 

to treatment and control groups. Treatment group principals were offered intensive professional 

development by the University of Washington's Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) during 

the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 school years. CEL was competitively selected to provide the 

professional development for this study, which involves a heavy emphasis on instructional 

leadership activities such as conducting school walkthroughs and classroom observations with 

constructive feedback to facilitate teacher growth focused on improving student achievement. 

Control group principals will receive supports normally offered by the district. Data collection will 

include information about the professional development delivered and experienced by the 

participating principals; teacher and principal surveys and periodic logs of principal daily 

activities to document intermediate outcomes such as principal behaviors and school climate; 

and administrative records to document student and teacher outcomes. A report is scheduled to 

be released in spring 2019.

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-52

Charter schools grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $300,000

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$339,848 $500,000 +$160,152

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Charter schools play a critical role in American public education by increasing educational 

options for families and driving innovative instructional practices that can benefit students 

across a range of school settings. Research shows that charter schools—which, in exchange 

for stricter accountability, are generally exempt from many of the State and local requirements 

governing other public schools—can deliver impressive results for our Nation’s students, 

including those living in poverty or at risk for educational failure.

Through Charter Schools Grants, the Department supports the startup of new charter schools 

and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools serving students in 

prekindergarten through grade 12. Funds also support grants to improve charter schools’ 

access to facilities and information dissemination and evaluation activities.

Grants for the Opening of New Charter Schools and the Replication and Expansion of 

High-Quality Charter Schools

State Entity Grants

Section 4303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes the 

Department to make competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), State charter 

school boards, State governors, and statewide charter school support organizations. Recipients 

of State Entity grants must use not less than 90 percent of grant funds to make subgrants to 

charter school developers to enable them to open new charter schools or to replicate or expand 

high-quality charter schools, not less than 7 percent to provide technical assistance to 

developers and to conduct activities to improve the quality of charter school authorizing and 

oversight, and not more than 3 percent for administrative costs. Developers—individuals and 

public and private nonprofit entities, which may include charter management organizations 

(CMOs)—may receive subgrants for up to 5 years, of which they may use not more than 18 

months for planning and program design, including hiring and compensating school leaders and 

instructional staff. Developers may also use funds for activities such as providing professional 

development, making necessary renovations to school buildings, acquiring equipment and 

supplies, engaging the community, and developing student transportation systems.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-53

The Department must use 65 percent of the annual program appropriation to support State 

Entity grants, make at least 3 new grants each year, and fully fund the first 2 years of each grant 

(which may be for a period of up to 5 years) with the initial award. In making awards, the 

Department must give priority to State entities that support charter schools for at-risk students 

and that ensure all charter school authorizers implement recognized school approval and 

monitoring standards and procedures. In addition, priority must be given to State entities in 

States that: (1) have charter school authorizers that are not local educational agencies (LEAs) 

or, if only LEAs are authorizers, have an appeals process for prospective charter schools that 

initially fail to gain approval from the LEA; (2) ensure equitable funding for charter and other 

public schools; (3) provide funding or other support for charter school facilities; and (4) use best 

practices from charter schools to support traditional school and LEA improvement.

Developer Grants

If no State entity in a State receives a grant, charter school developers in the State may apply 

directly to the Department for Developer grants. Under section 4305(a)(2) of the ESEA, the 

Department must reserve not more than 2.025 percent of the annual program appropriation to 

support these grants, which are awarded under the same terms and conditions as for State 

Entity subgrants to start up new charter schools or replicate or expand high-quality charter 

schools. The Department may also make Developer grants with any State Entity grant funds 

that remain after making required new and continuation awards.

CMO Grants

The Department must reserve up to 18 percent of program funds to make competitive grants to 

nonprofit CMOs to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools, as authorized under 

section 4305(b) of the statute. Priority for these awards must be given to CMOs that: (1) plan 

to operate schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies; (2) demonstrate 

success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and 

improvement under Title I, Part A of the amended ESEA; (3) propose to replicate or expand 

schools serving high school students; or (4) propose to operate schools that focus on dropout 

recovery and academic reentry. As with Developer grants, CMO grants are awarded under the 

same terms and conditions as for State Entity subgrants, including requirements that the 

schools to be replicated or expanded have demonstrated success in increasing student 

achievement and (where applicable) graduation rates, for all students and for each student 

subgroup, and have no significant compliance issues in the areas of student safety or school 

financial or operational management.

Facilities Grants

Section 4304 authorizes two programs through which the Department makes grants to improve 

charter schools’ access to high-quality facilities: Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities (Credit Enhancement) and State Facilities Incentive grants. The Department must 

reserve 12.5 percent of the Charter Schools Grants appropriation for the facilities grants, of 

which not less than 50 percent (or 6.25 percent of the total appropriation) must be used for 

Credit Enhancement grants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-54

Credit Enhancement Grants

The Department makes annual competitive Credit Enhancement grants to public and private 

nonprofit entities (such as finance authorities and community development financial institutions) 

that assist charter schools in acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the 

availability of loan or bond financing. Grantees must deposit grant funds into a reserve account 

that is used to, among other things, guarantee and insure debt to finance charter school 

facilities and guarantee and insure leases of personal and real property. These credit 

enhancements are intended to reduce risk to lenders, thereby creating access to credit or 

lowering interest rates and costs of borrowing for charter schools.

Grantees must invest reserve account funds in low-risk securities, and any earnings on such 

investments must be re-invested. Grantees continue to implement their projects until funds 

have been fully expended for grant purposes (such as to cover debt obligations of charter 

school borrowers in the event of default) or until financing facilitated by the grant has been 

retired, whichever occurs later.

State Facilities Incentive Grants

Authorized under section 4304(k) of the ESEA, the competitive State Facilities Incentive grants 

help States establish or enhance programs that provide dedicated State per-pupil funding for 

charter school facilities. The Department makes State Facilities Incentive awards for a period of 

up to 5 years, over which States pay an increasing share of program costs. States may partner 

with other organizations to provide up to 50 percent of the State share of costs. 

National Activities

Under section 4305(a)(3), the Department must use at least 2.475 percent of the program 

appropriation to provide technical assistance to State entities in awarding subgrants and to 

recipients of facilities grants; disseminate best practices regarding charter schools; and evaluate 

the impact of Charter Schools Grants, including on student achievement. Consistent with this 

authority, the Department currently uses national activities funds to, among other things, support 

a National Charter School Resource Center and administer National Leadership Activities 

grants, through which SEAs, charter school authorizers, and nonprofit organizations with charter 

school expertise can receive funds to disseminate information on issues of national significance 

and scope.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014.................................................................................$248,172

2015...................................................................................253,172

2016...................................................................................333,172

2017...................................................................................342,172

2018...................................................................................339,848
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-55

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $500 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2019, an 

increase of $160 million over the fiscal year 2018 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR 

level). The request is a central element of the Administration’s efforts to empower States and 

communities to increase the number of high-quality educational options available to meet the 

varied needs of students and their families, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds.

The request includes appropriations language that would override both the authorized fiscal 

year 2019 funding level and the ESEA’s within-program funding allocations and allow the 

Department to use funds as follows:

• Not less than $250 million for State Entity grants, a minimum increase of $50 million over 

the amount the Department would use for these grants under the CR level.1 The 

increase would help support new, potentially larger awards consistent with the expanded 

program authority in the reauthorized ESEA, which, among other things, requires State 

Entity grantees to use between 7 and 10 percent of grant funds to provide technical 

assistance to improve charter school developer and authorizer quality, allows grantees 

to make subgrants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools in 

addition to subgrants to open new schools, increases the maximum subgrant period 

from 3 to 5 years, and broadens the range of allowable subgrantee activities to include 

necessary building renovations and transportation startup costs.

• Up to $100 million for facilities grants, a maximum increase of $35 million over the 

amount the Department would use for these grants under the CR level.2 The request 

would provide the Department flexibility to direct significantly more funding than in prior 

years to Credit Enhancement and State Facilities Incentive grants, both of which are 

designed to support cost-effective investments of Federal funds in charter school facility 

finance activities. Specifically, the request would increase the number of new Credit

Enhancement grants, further leveraging capital and expanding charter school access to 

facility loans and bonds, while providing new support for the startup of dedicated State 

charter school facility funding streams for the first time since fiscal year 2014.

• Up to $150 million for Developer grants, CMO grants, and national activities (collectively 

authorized under section 4305 of the ESEA), of which up to $25 million may be used for 

national activities. This represents a maximum increase of $75 million over the amount 

the Department would use for these purposes under the CR level.3 The request would 

maintain increased support for Developer grants, which the Department will award in 

1 Appropriations language in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 would override the ESEA’s within-program funding 

allocations but not specify the amount the Department must use for State Entity grants.

2 Appropriations language in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 would require the Department to use not less than 

$26 million for facilities grants, of which not more than $10 million may be used for State Facilities Incentive grants. 3 Appropriations language in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 would require the Department to use up to $100 million for 

CMO grants and not less than $11 million for national activities; it would not specify the amount the Department must 

use for Developer grants. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-56

fiscal year 2018 for the first time under the expanded program authority in the 

reauthorized ESEA allowing developers to receive grants for the replication and 

expansion of high-quality charter schools as well as for opening new schools. The 

request would also enable significant new investment in CMO grants, for which the 

Department intends to conduct rulemaking beginning in spring 2018.1

 The rulemaking 

would, among other things, build on the statutory priorities for CMO grants and help 

ensure that funds are targeted on applicants with experience serving concentrations of 

students from low-income families. Finally, the request would support a strengthened 

set of national activities, which could include: enhanced technical assistance to promote 

greater competition for State Entity and facilities grants; additional new National 

Leadership Activities grants on priority topics for the Administration, which may include 

identifying effective charter school authorizing practices and models for providing charter 

schools with access to high-quality facilities; and new, rigorous evaluation studies.

Charter Schools Grants have supported a significant percentage of the charter schools in 

operation today.2

 However, there is clearly room for growth and strong demand from families 

for more options. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, parents of 

approximately 2 million students would choose to enroll their children in a charter school if they 

could.3

 The requested increase for Charter Schools Grants would help ensure that more of 

these students can enroll in a high-quality public school of their choice by providing critical 

support for the startup and expansion of charter schools and for the acquisition of affordable, 

high-quality charter school facilities. At the request level, new State Entity, Developer, and 

CMO grants would support the startup or expansion of an estimated 475 schools serving 

190,000 students.

Consistent with the authority provided in the reauthorized ESEA, the Department would use 

fiscal year 2019 funds to continue grants made under the previous authorization of the ESEA 

under the terms of those awards.

1 The Department does not anticipate completing rulemaking in time to make new CMO grants prior to the end of 

fiscal year 2018.

2 See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf. 3 See http://www.publiccharters.org/press/national-alliance-statement-presidents-fy2018-budget/.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-57

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

State Entity grants

State Entity grants:Amount for new awards $144,681 $93,682 $120,641

State Entity grants: Number of new awards 9 3–8 3–8

State Entity grants:Amount for continuation awards $17,864 $105,666 $128,609

State Entity grants::Number of continuation awards 16 20 17–22

Developer grants

Devel oper grants:Amount for new awards $349 $15,000 $15,000

Devel oper grantsNumber of new awards 1 30–45 30–45

Devel oper grantsAmount for continuation awards $3,277 $1,783 0

Devel oper grantsNumber of continuation awards 15 8 30–45

CMO grants

CMO grants:Amount for new awards $52,412 0 $53,641

CMO grantsNumber of new awards 17 0 15–20

CMO grantsAmount for continuation awards $45,447 $46,650 $56,359

CMO grants:Number of continuation awards 37 53 43

Credit Enhancement grants

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for new awards $56,250 $55,000 $75,000

Credit Enhancement grantsNumber of new awards 8 5–10 7–11

State Facilities Incentive grants

State F acilities Incenti ve grants:Amount for new awards 0 0 $25,000

State F acilities Incenti ve grants : Number of new awards 0 0 2–6

State F acilities Incenti ve grants :Amount for continuation awards $10,000 $10,000 0

State F acilities Incenti ve grantsNumber of continuation awards 1 1 0

Peer review of new award applications $594 $500 $750 

National activities $11,297 $11,567 $25,000

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

including Charter Schools Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department 

did not reserve funds for this purpose from Charter Schools Grants in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal years 

2018 and 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-58

in fiscal year 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by this program.

The Department is considering revising the performance measures for Charter Schools Grants 

to more effectively assess performance under the reauthorized law.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: Encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that 

are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling 

students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students.

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation.

Year Target Actual

2014 7,070 6,463

2015 7,540 6,752

2016 8,010 6,859

2017 8,480

2018 8,950

2019 9,420

Additional information: Data on the total number of charter schools in operation, including 

those funded by Charter Schools Grants, are provided annually by SEAs and are verified by the 

Department. The Department is considering revising the targets for this measure due to slowerthan-anticipated growth in the number of schools in operation in recent years. The 2017 data 

for this measure are expected to be available in spring 2018.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2014 69.2% 63.4%

2015 74.2 48.3

2016 79.2

2017 84.2

2018 89.2

2019 94.2
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-59

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2014 66.4% 58.9%

2015 71.4 44.1

2016 76.4

2017 81.4

2018 86.4

2019 91.4

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2014 71.6% 67.1%

2015 76.6 52.3

2016 81.6

2017 86.6

2018 91.6

2019 96.6

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2014 58.7% 54.2%

2015 63.7 39.4

2016 68.7

2017 73.7

2018 78.7

2019 83.7

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures were revised in 2014 to 

reflect the elimination, for the large majority of States that adopted ESEA flexibility agreements, 

of the 100 percent proficiency requirement established by the No Child Left Behind Act. The

new targets for 2014 and future years are based on actual performance in 2013.

The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level in 2015 can 

be explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous assessments based on college- and 

career-ready standards. Analysis of the data has found notable variation in performance among 

funded schools. The 2016 data for these measures are expected to be available in early spring 

2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-60

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter facilities to funds awarded by the 

Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program.

Year

2009 Cohort 

Target 2009 Cohort Actual

2014 Cohort 

Target

2014 Cohort 

Actual

2014 6.3 : 1 6.5 : 1 4.3 : 1

2015 4.3 : 1 5.3 : 1

2016 4.3 : 1 7.3 : 1

2017 4.3 : 1 7.3 : 1

2018 4.3 : 1

Additional information: The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant 

and the State match) divided by the Federal grant for a given year.

The Department also tracks the amount of funds leveraged and the number of schools served 

under Credit Enhancement grants. In 2016, Credit Enhancement grants leveraged $407 million 

in facilities financing for 60 schools. Between program inception and 2016, Credit Enhancement 

funds have helped enable approximately $4.8 billion in financing for facilities of 685 charter 

schools.

The Department also developed a measure to assess the cost efficiency, across States, of the 

Federal investment in supporting charter school start-ups. The measure is defined as the 

Federal cost per student of launching a successful school (defined as a school in operation for 

3 or more years). Data for 2014 an average cost of $1,100, for 2015 an average cost of $1,129, 

and for 2016 an average cost of $1,173. Data for this measure, collected through grantee 

annual performance reports, assist the Department in understanding the different costs per 

student for different types of charter schools.

Other Performance Information

2015 Charter Schools Grants Data Analysis

In December 2015, the Department released an analysis of data on grantees and subgrantees 

under the State Entity, Developer, and CMO competitions.1

 Using data from grantee annual 

performance reports and the Department’s Common Core of Data and Civil Rights Data 

Collection, the analysis found, among other things, that:

• Of the 6,467 charter schools in operation in the 2013-2014 school year, 2,676 (or 

41 percent) had received funding under the competitions between the 2006-2007 and 

2013-2014 school years;

1 See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-61

• Of the 4,582 charter schools that opened between the 2006-2007 and 2013-2014 school 

years, 2,626 (or nearly 60 percent) had received funding; and

• Compared to traditional public schools, schools that received funding served higher 

percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, Black students, and 

Hispanic students, and similar percentages of students with disabilities and English 

learners.

The Department expects to release an updated data analysis, with data through the 2016-2017 

school year, in spring 2018.

2013 CREDO National Charter School Study

The “National Charter School Study 2013,” a study by researchers at Stanford University’s 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updated and expanded CREDO’s 

2009 study “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” examined longitudinal 

student-level data from a sample of 3,620 charter schools across 25 States, the District of 

Columbia, and New York City (NYC) (treated separately from the rest of the State) to determine 

whether students who attend charter schools performed better academically than if they had 

attended a traditional public school.1

 The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools 

in the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading compared to traditional public 

schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the sample posted mathematics 

gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly below what those students 

would have seen if enrolled in a traditional public school. Overall, the students in sample 

charter schools have shown improvement over the results from 2009 and steady progress over 

the past 5 years, with the average student gaining an additional 8 days of learning each year in 

reading, compared with the loss of 7 days reported in 2009. The study also showed, on 

average, no gap in learning days for mathematics for students in sample charter schools, 

whereas in 2009 these students posted an average of 22 fewer days of mathematics learning 

than their peers in traditional public schools. Among the group of 16 States from the original 

study in 2009, the rise in performance was attributed in part to the closure of poorly performing 

charter schools and by declining performance in traditional public schools over the same period 

of time.

The CREDO analysis also showed that, in general, charter schools have had different effects on 

students of different family backgrounds. For students from low-income families, AfricanAmerican students, and English Learners, charter schools had a larger positive effect 

academically compared to traditional public schools. The researchers also found that students 

perform better in charter schools over time, with charter school students on average 

experiencing smaller learning gains than their peers in traditional public schools in their first year 

but significant improvement in learning gains in the second year and beyond.

1 See http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html for links to reports from the CREDO studies. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-62

2015 CREDO Urban Charter School Study

In March 2015, CREDO published a report focusing on the performance of charter schools in 

urban areas. The Urban Charter School Study used a similar “virtual peer” methodology as in 

the 2013 CREDO national study to compare the performance of charter schools and traditional 

public schools in 41 major urban areas in 22 States over a 5-year period from school years 

2006–07 to 2011–2012. The researchers found that charter schools produced positive impacts 

over traditional public schools in mathematics in 63 percent of the areas, and in 56 percent of 

the areas in reading, compared to 27 and 23 percent of areas in which charter schools lagged 

traditional public schools in mathematics and reading, respectively. In the aggregate, charter 

schools in the study provided approximately 40 more days of learning in mathematics and 

28 more days in reading per year than their traditional public school counterparts. The report 

also mirrored the findings of the national study with respect to student characteristics, showing 

that charter school gains were larger for low-income students, Black students, Hispanic 

students, and students with disabilities.

2013 and 2017 CREDO Charter School Growth and Replication Studies

In January 2013, CREDO also released findings from “Charter School Growth and Replication,” 

which examined, in charter schools across 25 States, the District of Columbia, and NYC, 

changes in school performance in the years following a school’s opening and the implications of 

these changes for school replication. The study found, among other things, that schools with 

initial high performance with respect to student achievement tended to stay high performers 

over time, while the performance of initially low-performing schools remained low. The study 

also found that schools opened by a CMO typically performed at a level similar to the average of 

the other schools operated by the CMO, and that CMO schools on average produced stronger 

results for minority students and students from low-income families than did independently 

operated charter schools. 

CREDO released a second volume of this study in June 2017, largely affirming previous 

findings and providing additional analyses, including on student academic growth by type of 

school network management structure. The study found that academic growth, relative to that 

in traditional public schools, was higher on average for students in networks of charter schools 

operated by a CMO (i.e., networks of schools for which the charter holder is also the 

management entity) than for students in networks operated by a contracted vendor.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-63

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $102,387

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$96,984 $97,647 +$663

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) provides Federal resources to assist eligible 

local educational agencies (LEAs) in the desegregation of schools by providing high-quality 

educational options to the students they serve.

Grantees establish and operate magnet schools that are part of court-ordered, agency-ordered, 

or federally approved voluntary desegregation plans. The ultimate goal is to eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening 

students’ knowledge of academic subjects and equipping them with college- and career-ready 

skills. The program accomplishes this goal by supporting the creation of magnet schools that:

(1) increase the options that parents and families have when determining the type of school that 

will best serve their children; and (2) offer special curricula or instructional programs that appeal 

to parents and students from diverse backgrounds.

Grantees receive awards for up to 5 years and may not receive more than $15 million over the 

course of the project. Funds must be used for activities that will improve academic achievement 

and may be used for planning and promotional activities; acquiring books, materials, and 

equipment; and paying the salaries of effective teachers and other instructional personnel. 

Grantees may spend no more than 50 percent of project costs in the first year and 15 percent in 

the second and third years on planning activities. Additionally, the ESEA authorizes grantees to 

use funds to transport students enrolled in magnet schools, provided the costs do not consume 

a significant portion of the grant award and that the transportation strategy is sustainable at the 

end of the grant period.

By statute, the Department gives priority to applicants that: (1) demonstrate the greatest need 

for assistance; (2) propose to carry out new, evidence-based magnet school programs, 

significantly revise existing programs using evidence-based methods and practices, or replicate 

an existing magnet school program with a demonstrated record of success of increasing student 

achievement and reducing racial isolation; (3) use methods other than academic examinations 

(such as a lottery) to admit students; and (4) increase racial integration by designing and 

implementing magnet school programs that increase socioeconomic diversity. Applicants that 

did not receive a grant the previous year receive priority for any funds appropriated above 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-64

$75 million. In addition, the Department may use up to 1 percent of funds to provide technical 

assistance and disseminate best practices.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014...................................................................................$91,647

2015.....................................................................................91,647

2016.....................................................................................96,647

2017.....................................................................................97,647

2018.....................................................................................96,984

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $97.6 million for fiscal year 2019 for Magnet Schools Assistance, 

an increase of $663,000 from the 2018 annualized Continuing Resolution level, to restore 

funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The request also includes appropriations language that 

would override a decades-old general provision in the Department’s appropriations acts that 

prohibits the use of funds on transporting students to overcome a racial imbalance or carry out a 

racial desegregation plan. This prohibition conflicts with the reauthorization of the Magnet 

Schools program, which explicitly allows program funds to be used for transportation. 

Magnet schools help to expand the range of high-quality educational options for parents and 

students, putting more decision-making power in the hands of students and their families. At the 

request level, the Department would make 32 continuation awards for grants awarded in the 

2017 competition and one partial continuation award to a grantee from the 2016 competition—

the Department fully frontloaded all but one project in 2016 due to limited funds. The 

Department also would use up to 1 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical 

assistance to grantees and disseminate best practices. For example, in previous years, MSAP 

has used its national activities authority to maintain a technical assistance website, publish 

white papers on topics of interest to the magnet schools community, and aggregate and analyze 

program- and project-level performance data. The Department intends to use its funds available 

for technical assistance to conduct similar activities in 2019.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for awards $96,120 $96,014 $96,671

Number of new awards 32 0 0

Number of continuation awards 1 33 33

Peer review of new award 

applications $551 0 0

National activities $976 $970 $976
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-65

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

including Charter Schools Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department 

did not reserve funds for this purpose from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program in fiscal year 2017, but may do 

so in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

year 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

The 2017 data for these measures for the 2013 cohort are expected to be available in 

spring 2018. 

Goal: Students have access to high-quality education in desegregated magnet schools.

Objective: Federally funded magnet schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group 

isolation in targeted elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of 

minority students.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance reporting enrollment data 

demonstrating success in reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority-group isolation.

Year Target 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2014 100.0% 44.1%

2015 100.0 26.0

2016 100.0 23.5

2017 100.0 39.0%

2018 100.0

2019 100.0

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to

provide context for the performance measure.

Fourteen out of 36 schools served by the 2016 cohort met their annual minority group isolation 

targets in the first year of their projects. Many schools were beginning to implement their 

magnet programs as well as market the programs to the community, and generally did not have 

sufficient time to promote their schools in the first year of the grant before the enrollment 

period ended.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-66

Objective: Magnet school students meet their State's academic achievement standards.

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score at the 

proficient level or above on State assessments in reading/language arts.

Year Target 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2014 100.0% 48.9%

2015 40.3

2016 43.5

2017 35.4%

2018

2019

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score at the 

proficient level or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2014 100.0% 41.8%

2015 34.5

2016 36.0

2017 34.1%

2018

2019

Additional information: Targets for these measures through the 2014 reporting year are based 

on the former ESEA goal of all students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

Despite transition to the reauthorized ESEA in 2017, the Department has elected to not set 

aggregate performance targets for these measures in future years. Grantees report their data at 

different levels (e.g., at the grantee level, at the school level), making aggregate targets less 

meaningful and more difficult to set. The program continues to work with grantees through 

technical assistance contractors in order to move toward more uniform reporting.

In 2017, a total of 5,037 out of 14,224 students in programs supported by 2016 grants (who 

participated in State reading assessments) scored proficient or above on State assessments in 

reading/language arts. A total of 4,871 out of 14,281 students in programs supported by 2016 

grants (who participated in State mathematics assessments) scored proficient or above on such 

assessments in mathematics.

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed a measure to assess the efficiency of Federal investments in 

supporting magnet schools. The measure is defined as the Federal cost per student in a magnet 

school receiving assistance.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-67

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2014 $767

2015 1,122

2016 916

2017 $722

2018

2019

Additional information: To determine the average cost per student for the program, the 

analysis sample was established by identifying the project schools that reported both the annual 

funds expended and student enrollment as of October 1, 2016. The amount of funds expended 

at each project school was summed across all schools in the analysis sample to produce a total 

program-wide dollar amount expended for the grant year. The total dollar amount expended was 

divided by the total number of schools in the analysis sample to produce an average dollar 

amount expended at funded schools. This average dollar amount is the numerator. In addition, 

the number of students served at each project school was summed across the schools in the 

analysis sample to produce the number of total students served by the program. This number 

was divided by the total number of schools in the analysis sample to produce the average 

number of students served at a funded school. The average number of students is the 

denominator. To calculate the average cost-per-student ratio, the average dollar amount 

expended was divided by the average number of students served. 

In grant year 1, the average dollar amount expended per school was $453,452, and the average 

number of students served was 587 students. The average dollar amount expended was 

divided by the average number of students served to produce an average cost per student 

of $772.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-68

Ready to learn programming

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$25,566 0 -$25,566

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $220,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which includes the Ready to 

Learn program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

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

of the funding must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

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

effective use of such programming;

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

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

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

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

caregivers; and

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

programs are widely distributed.

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

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

effective use of educational video programs.

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

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

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

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

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

Ready to learn programming

F-69

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department awarded two 5-year grants in 2015:

• Twin Cities Public Television is using RTL funds to produce Superhero School, using 

narrative storytelling and interactive media, across multiple platforms, to engage children 

ages 5 to 8 from low-income families in building key science content and thinking skills, 

learning related academic vocabulary, improving their reading and writing abilities, and 

gaining experience using new technology.

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

Service, is creating a comprehensive media initiative to support the learning needs of 

children in low-income communities. The project’s primary goal is to improve science and 

literacy learning outcomes for young children, especially those from low-income families, in 

order to prepare them for success in school and in life.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

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

2015.....................................................................................25,741

2016.....................................................................................25,741

2017.....................................................................................25,741

2018.....................................................................................25,566

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Ready to Learn (RTL) Programming in fiscal 

year 2019, $25.6 million less than the fiscal year 2018 annualized CR level. With the rise of the 

internet and the ready availability of a wide range of digital games and devices that support 

early learning, the RTL program is less relevant and less necessary. Private corporations 

increasingly produce and disseminate programming, online games, and “apps” that are both 

educational and entertaining without Federal support. 

RTL programming is more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private 

funds. Public television networks and stations may tap private and non-profit sources of funding 

to continue their work or apply for funding under other Federal programs. Such entities have a 

demonstrated ability to raise funds from non-Federal sources, as Federal funding made up just 

16 percent of public television’s total revenue in 2015.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-70

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Number of continuation awards 2 2 0

Continuation award funding $27,681 $25,516 0

Evaluation (review of grant products) $50 $50 0

Total 27,7411 25,566 0

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

including the RTL program, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department 

did not reserve funds from RTL for this purpose in fiscal year 2017, it may do so in fiscal year 2018.

1 Includes $2,000 thousand transferred from the Student Aid Administration account as required by P.L. 115-31.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Performance Measures

In 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the RTL program to better 

measure both RTL’s effectiveness in improving what children learn and the number of children 

RTL is reaching. The revised measures are: 

(1) the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

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

transmedia properties, such as applications and online educational games, are compared 

to similar non-RTL-funded digital properties or to other more traditional educational 

materials; 

(2) the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary supporting 

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

an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

(3) the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, 

disaggregated by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard 

metrics or, when available, by tracking tools.

The two 2015 grantees planned a total of four experimental or quasi-experimental research 

studies, to be conducted beginning in year 4 of the grant. The results of these studies provide 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-71

data on the first performance measure. The Department expects to receive the first of the 

studies in 2019. 

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

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

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

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

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. In 2017, the Department received two 

transmedia product suites from one grantee to review. One of the transmedia product suites 

reviewed was of high-quality, with a score of 4.41. The other suite received a score of 3.74, just 

under the cutoff for high-quality.

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

RTL-produced products, by type of product. The Department expects to have initial data on the 

third performance measure in summer 2018.

Efficiency Measure

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

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

dedicated to core non-outreach program activities. High-quality children’s television programs 

are expensive to develop, produce, and distribute. Prior to 2010, Federal support for new 

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

revenue from the private sector and program quality was directly affected by the extent to which 

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

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

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

children’s television programs and other digital media products. 

Because of changes instituted to the program in 2010, grantees have been producing fewer 

television shows and instead focusing on the creation and distribution of digital media products 

such as applications and online educational games. This makes it easier and less expensive to 

release content and requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television 

production. In the second year of the 2015 grants, the two grantees leveraged $6.9 million of 

non-Federal support compared to $19.9 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or 

$0.35 of non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. Grantees did not report on the 

efficiency measure for the first year of the grant.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-72

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$26,817 0 -$26,817

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $220,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which include the Arts in 

Education program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

activities to promote arts education for students, including disadvantaged students and students 

who are children with disabilities. The program includes the following allowable activities: 

(1) professional development for arts educators, teachers, and principals; (2) development and 

dissemination of accessible instructional materials and arts-based educational programming, 

including online resources, in multiple arts disciplines; and (3) national and community outreach 

activities that strengthen and expand partnerships among schools, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), communities, or centers for the arts, including national centers for the arts. 

The program supports a number of arts education activities through 4-year grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in which 20 percent or more of the students are from low-income 

families; State educational agencies (SEAs); national nonprofit organizations; institutions of 

higher education; organizations with expertise in the arts; museums or cultural institutions; the 

Bureau of Indian Education; and partnerships of these entities. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

2015.....................................................................................25,000

2016.....................................................................................27,000

2017.....................................................................................27,000

2018.....................................................................................26,817
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-73

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Arts in Education program in fiscal year 

2019, a reduction of $26.8 million below the fiscal year 2018 Continuing Resolution level. The 

Administration is proposing to eliminate funding for this program because it has limited impact, 

does not sufficiently target services to the highest-need students, and funds activities that are 

more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private funds. The program 

also duplicates activities that may be supported through other Federal programs, such as the 

$15.5 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program, under which LEAs and schools may support 

integrated arts instruction as part of a schoolwide Title I program. Title I also makes available $1 

billion in funding for school turnaround plans, a portion of which may be used to support the use 

of arts instruction and related activities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Arts Development and Dissemination

 emination:Total funds available $7,672 $800 0

 emination:Amount for continuation awards $7,322 $450 0

 emination:Number of continuation awards 19 1 0

 emination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $350 $350 0

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE)

 ucators:Total funds available $12,208 $23,820 0

 ucators:Amount for new awards 6,878 0 0

 cators:Number of new awards 20 0 0

 ucators:Amount for continuation awards $5,060 $23,820 0

 cators:Number of continuation awards 16 20 0

 cators:Peer review of new award applications $270 0 0

National Arts in Education Program 

(AENP)

 rogram: Total funds available $6,700 0 0

 rogram: Amount for new awards 0 $1,409 0

 rogram: Number of new awards 0 1 0

 rogram: Amount for continuation awards $6,700 0 0

 rogram: Number of continuation awards 1 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $270
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-74

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Evaluation $420 $518 0 _________________________

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

including Arts in Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department 

did not reserve funds from the Arts in Education program for this purpose in fiscal year 2017, it may do so in fiscal 

year 2018.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2019, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2018 reflect the use of fiscal year 2018 funds to pre-pay continuation costs to allow existing grantees to 

complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of newly 

funded projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based GPRA 

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2019 are not included 

because this program is proposed for elimination.

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

content standards in the arts.

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

arts education for all participants.

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

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

Year Target Actual

2014 45% 60%

2015 50 19

2016 55 58

2017 60 74

2018 65

2019

Additional Information: In 2011, the Department defined sustained and intensive professional 

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

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

of 75 percent of the total number of professional development hours offered by the PDAEfunded project during the reporting period; and completion of these professional development 

hours over at least a 6-month period during the reporting period.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-75

In 2014, five PDAE grantees from the fiscal year 2012 cohort reported data. In 2015, 19 PDAE 

grantees from the fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2012, and fiscal year 2014 cohorts reported data. 

The decline in 2015 is likely explained by the fact that fiscal year 2014 cohort grantees reported 

on the progress made in the first year of their award, which focused on planning activities rather 

than provision of professional development.

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 100%

2015 100 100

2016 100 86

2017 100 100

2018 100

2019

Additional Information: The Department requires that grantees administer a pre-test and a 

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

performance reports. The 2016 actual is based on the 14 of 17 PDAE grantees who reported on 

this measure.

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2014 43% 36%

2015 39 35

2016 35 32

2017 38 31

2018 27

2019

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2014 45% 45%

2015 43 40

2016 39 38

2017 40 36

2018 31

2019

The Department also developed the following four measures for the Arts in Education National 

Program (AENP). Targets for these measures are set annually by the AENP grantee.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-76

Measure: The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2014 788,324 1,138,491

2015 859,273 1,245,824

2016 2,100,000 2,140,365

2017 1,820,000 1,823,785

2018

2019

Measure: The total number of students from low-income families who participate in standardsbased arts education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2014 268,350 568,631

2015 322,020 769,397

2016 800,000 806,092

2017 660,000 666,399

2018

2019

Measure: The total number of students with disabilities who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2014 92,963 274,450

2015 100,028 221,859

2016 200,000 219,316

2017 160,000 165,870

2018

2019

Measure: The percent of teachers participating in the grantee’s program who receive 

professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2014 25% 61%

2015 28 48

2016 50 52

2017 55 54

2018

2019

Additional Information: Data for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is based on teacher participation in the 

Changing Education Through the Arts program administered by the Kennedy Center.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-77

Javits gifted and talented education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4, Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$11,918 0 -11,918

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $220,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which include Javits Gifted 

and Talented Education.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Javits Gifted and Talented Education supports a coordinated program of research, 

demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and other activities to build and enhance the 

capacity of elementary and secondary schools to identify gifted and talented students and meet 

their special educational needs. The Department makes grant or contract awards to State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education of the 

Department of the Interior, institutions of higher education (IHEs), and other public and private 

agencies and organizations to carry out projects to fulfill this purpose, including an award to one 

or more IHEs or SEAs to establish a National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and 

Talented Children.

Award recipients may use funds to: conduct research on methods and techniques for 

identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and on applying gifted and talented 

educational methods to all students, including low-income and at-risk students; establish and 

operate gifted and talented education programs, including innovative methods and strategies for 

identifying and teaching students traditionally underserved in such programs; and provide 

technical assistance and disseminate information. Funds may also be used for personnel 

training.

By statute, the Department gives priority in making awards to projects that include evidencebased activities or that develop new information to improve the capacity of schools to operate 

gifted and talented education programs or to assist schools in identifying and serving 

traditionally underserved students. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-78

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2014........................................... .........................................$5,000

2015........................................... .........................................10,000

2016........................................... .........................................12,000

2017........................................... .........................................12,000

2018........................................... .........................................11,918

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for Javits Gifted and Talented Education for fiscal year 

2019. The Administration appreciates the importance of engaging and developing the unique 

skills of high-ability learners but believes that limited Federal education program dollars should 

be focused on improving outcomes for our Nation’s most educationally disadvantaged children,

consistent with the longstanding Federal role in elementary and secondary education and the 

core purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Javits Gifted and 

Talented Education has limited impact, and programs serving gifted and talented students are 

more appropriately supported with State, local, or private resources. In addition, the 

Department can support research on gifted and talented education through funding for the 

Institute of Education Science’s Research, Development, and Dissemination program, including 

research on identifying and serving students traditionally underrepresented in gifted and 

talented programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Amount for new awards $5,237 $440 0

Number of new awards 13 1 0

Amount for continuation awards $5,667 $10,478 0

Number of continuation awards 21 25 0

National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth $1,000 $1,000 0

Peer review of new award applications $96 0 0

______________

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

including Javits Gifted and Talented Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The 

Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2017, but may do so in fiscal year 

2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-79

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department established three performance measures for Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education focusing on the quality of project designs, professional development, and academic 

achievement of targeted student populations. The Department reports data for these measures 

twice over the grant period (at the middle and end of the period) after convening an expert panel 

of scientists and practitioners to review information from a sample of annual performance 

reports and self-evaluations prepared by grantees. The first data reports for the 2014 cohort, 

which received 5-year grants, and for the 2015 cohort, which received 3-year grants focusing on 

professional development, are expected to be available in spring 2018.