Department of Education

F. INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes........................................................................ F-2

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers............................................................................... F-4

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................... F-5

Authorizing Legislation.............................................................................................................. F-7

Appropriations History............................................................................................................... F-9

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports ............................................................. F-10

Summary of Request .............................................................................................................. F-16

Activities:

Education innovation and research .....................................................................................F-19

Teacher and school leader incentive grants........................................................................F-28

American history and civics education ................................................................................F-35

Supporting effective educator development ........................................................................F-39

Charter schools grants ........................................................................................................F-43

Magnet schools assistance .................................................................................................F-52

Ready to learn programming...............................................................................................F-57

Arts in education..................................................................................................................F-62

Javits gifted and talented education ....................................................................................F-69

Statewide family engagement centers.................................................................................F-72

School leader recruitment and support................................................................................F-76

Fostering diverse schools....................................................................................................F-79

Expanding opportunities for teacher leadership development.............................................F-83

Answer the call – supporting in-demand credentials for teachers .......................................F-85
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out activities authorized by subparts 1, 3 and 4 of part B of title II, and parts C, 

D, and E and subparts 1 and 4 of part F of title IV of the ESEA, [$1,114,250,000]

$1,184,250,000: Provided, That [$285,250,000] $315,250,000 shall be for subparts 1, 3 and 4 of 

part B of title II and shall be made available without regard to sections 2201, 2231(b) and 2241:1

Provided further, That [$635,000,000] $675,000,000 shall be for parts C, D, and E and subpart 4 

of part F of title IV, and shall be made available without regard to sections 4311, 4409(a), and 

4601 of the ESEA:

2 Provided further, That section 4303(d)(3)(A)(i) shall not apply to the funds 

available for part C of title IV:

3 Provided further, That of the funds available for part C of title IV, 

the Secretary shall use not less than $60,000,000 to carry out section 4304, of which not more 

than $10,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 4304(k), not more than $140,000,000, 

to remain available through March 31, [2022] 2023, to carry out section 4305(b), and not [more] 

less than $15,000,000 to carry out the activities in section 4305(a)(3):4 Provided further, That 

notwithstanding section 4601(b), $194,000,000 shall be available through December 31, [2021] 

2022 for subpart 1 of part F of title IV.

5 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2021.)

NOTE

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-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1Provided, That [$285,250,000]

$315,250,000 shall be for subparts 1, 3 and 4 

of part B of title II and shall be made 

available without regard to sections 2201, 

2231(b) and 2241:

This language provides funding for Teacher 

and School Leader Incentive Grants,

American History and Civics Education, 

Supporting Effective Educator Development, 

and School Leader Recruitment and Support 

without regard to the sections of the ESEA 

that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under title II of the ESEA. 

2Provided further, That [$635,000,000]

$675,000,000 shall be for parts C, D, and E 

and subpart 4 of part F of title IV, and shall 

be made available without regard to sections 

4311, 4409(a), and 4601 of the ESEA:

This language provides funds for Charter 

Schools Grants, Magnet Schools Assistance, 

Ready to Learn Programming, Arts in 

Education, Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education, and Statewide Family 

Engagement Centers without regard to the 

sections of the ESEA that specify the 

distribution of funds appropriated under title 

IV of the ESEA. 

3Provided further, That section 

4303(d)(3)(A)(i) shall not apply to the funds 

available for part C of title IV:

This language overrides the statutory 

provision under the Charter Schools Grants 

program that requires the Department to 

award at least 3 grants to State entities and 

to frontload funding for year 2 of those 

awards. 

4Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

not less than $60,000,000 to carry out 

section 4304, of which not more than 

$10,000,000 shall be available to carry out 

section 4304(k), not more than

$140,000,000, to remain available through 

March 31, [2022] 2023, to carry out section 

4305(b), and not [more] less than 

$15,000,000 to carry out the activities in 

section 4305(a)(3):

This language establishes, within the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a minimum

funding amount for facilities grants and for 

national activities and a maximum funding 

amount for State Facilities Incentive grants 

and for Charter Management Organization 

grants. This language also extends the 

period of availability 6 months beyond the 

end of the appropriation year for the funds 

provided for Charter Management 

Organization grants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

Language Provision Explanation

5Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 4601(b), $194,000,000 shall be 

available through December 31, [2021] 2022

for subpart 1 of part F of title IV.

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research overriding the authorized level. It 

also extends the period of Federal availability 

3 months beyond the year of appropriation. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-4

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2020 2021 2022

Discretionary:

DiscretionaryAppropriation.......................................... $1,103,815 $1,114,250 $1,284,250

Mandatory:

MandatoryAppropriation .......................................... 0 0 1,800,000

Total, discretionary and mandatory 

appropriation ............................... 1,103,815 1,114,250 3,084,250
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2021 Discretionary .......................................................................... $1,114,250

2021 Mandatory .............................................................................. 0

2022 Discretionary .......................................................................... 1,284,250

2022 Mandatory .............................................................................. 1,800,000

Net change...........................................................................

1,970,000

Discretionary:

Increases: 2021 base Change

from base

Program:

Increase funding for Magnet Schools Assistance to 

support local educational agencies in the desegregation of 

schools by establishing and operating magnet schools that 

offer special curricula or instructional programs that 

appeal to parents and students from diverse backgrounds.

$109,000 $40,000

Provide funding for School Leader Recruitment and 

Support to improve the recruitment, preparation, 

placement, support, and retention of effective principals or 

other school leaders in high-need schools.

0 30,000

Provide funding for the proposed Fostering Diverse 

Schools program to support the development and 

implementation of comprehensive plans by local 

educational agencies to increase school racial and 

socioeconomic diversity in preschool through grade 12.

0 100,000

Subtotal, discretionary increases 170,000

Mandatory:

Increases: 2021 base Change

from base

Program:

Provide funding for a new Expanding Opportunities for 

Teacher Leadership Development competitive grant 

program that would allow master teachers to take on 

mentoring and other job-embedded leadership roles, with 

0 200,000
G. INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

H. Summary of Changes—continued 

F-6

additional compensation, while remaining in the 

classroom.

Provide funding for a new Supporting In-Demand 

Credentials for Teachers State grant program, which 

would help over 100,000 educators earn additional 

certifications in high-demand areas like special education, 

bilingual education, career and technical education, and 

STEM.

0 1,600,000

Subtotal, mandatory increases 1,800,000

Net change 1,970,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-7F-7

F-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2021

Authorized footnote

2021

Appropriationfootnote

2022

Authorizedfootnote

2022

Request

Discretionary Programs:

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) (1) $194,000 (2) $194,000

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) (3) 200,000 (2) 200,000

American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) (3) 5,250 (2) 5,250

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) (3) 80,000 (2) 80,000

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) 300,000 440,000 (2) 440,00

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 108,530 109,000 (2) 149,000

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

section 4643) (1) 29,500 (2) 29,500

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) (1) 30,500 (2) 30,500

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

section 4644) 

. (1) 13,500 . (2) 13,500

Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) 10,000 12,500 (2) 12,500

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

section 2243) (3) 0

 

. (2) 30,000

Fostering diverse schools (proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined4 100,000

Mandatory Programs:

Expanding Opportunities for Teacher Leadership 

Development (proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined4 200,000

Supporting in-Demand Credentials for Teachers 

(proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined4 1,600,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

F-8

F-8

Activity

2021

Authorized footnote

2021

Appropriationfootnote

2022

Authorizedfootnote

2022

Request

Total definite authorization 871,493 0

Total appropriation 1,114,250 3,084,250

1 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV, of which $5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3. Of the remainder, 42 percent is authorized 

for Education Innovation and Research and 26 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, which includes Ready to Learn Programming, Arts in Education, and Javits 

Gifted and Talented Education. 2 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022. 3 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II, of which 47 percent is authorized for Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants, 1.4 percent is 

authorized for American History and Civics Education, and 14.8 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, of which not less than 74 percent is reserved for Supporting 

Effective Educator Development and not less than 22 percent is reserved for School Leader Recruitment and Support. 4 Authorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-9

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation

Foot

note

2013 Discretionary $4,332,166 $799,1331 $1,545,9661 $1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A2 1,331,5983 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A2 868,7213 852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A2 03 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0004 694,6164 1,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 04 04 0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556 632,9385 942,7435 887,5755

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982 05 05 05

2018 Discretionary 1,208,026 757,9046 880,3756 982,2566

2019 Discretionary 1,777,647 1,058,4417 1,042,2567 1,035,5567

2020 Discretionary 1,107,000 1,224,315 1,055,5568 1,103,8158

2021 Discretionary 0 1,076,315 1,085,8159 1,114,2509

1 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.

2 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

4 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.

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

bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 6 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). 7 The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

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

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245). 8 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). 9 The level for the Senate Allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects Division H of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-10

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports

Education Innovation and Research (EIR)

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to brief the Committees on Appropriations 

of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the fiscal year 2021 funding 

opportunities available under this program, including any specified priorities, not 

less than 30 days prior to releasing a notice inviting applications.

House: The Committee is encouraged by the robust, growing evidence base behind SEL 

strategies, trauma-informed services, and whole child approaches to learning, 

and makes funding for these interventions a top priority. Children across the 

country have been significantly impacted by disruptions related to COVID–19, 

including school closures. The increase to EIR in fiscal year 2021 is intended to 

address these concerns and provide additional support for the social and 

emotional learning (SEL) initiative, which can include trauma-informed practices 

and services within schools. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the 

Department is directed to brief the Committees on Appropriations on plans for 

carrying out the SEL competition. In addition, the Department shall provide notice 

to the Committees at least seven days before grantees are announced.

Managers’

Statement: Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Department is directed to brief the 

Committees on plans for carrying out the SEL and science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) competitions. In addition, the Department 

shall provide notice of grant awards to the Committees at least seven days 

before grantees are announced.

Managers’

Statement: Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Department is directed to brief the 

Committees on plans for carrying out the SEL and STEM competitions. In 

addition, the Department shall provide notice of grant awards to the Committees 

at least seven days before grantees are announced.

Response: The Department briefed Committee staff on its plans for fiscal year 2021 

competitions on April 7, 2021. The Department will notify the Committees about 

grant awards at least seven days before grantees are announced, as requested.

House: Given the significant Federal investment in the EIR program (and its predecessor 

program, Investing in Innovation), the Committee directs the Department to take 

stronger steps to publicly release and widely publicize the research findings from 

this critical program. More specifically, the Department should post research 

findings on its own website and issue related press releases and Dear Colleague 

letters.

House: The Committee directs the Secretary to better showcase those programs that 

have demonstrated, through rigorous research as required by the ESEA, that 

their innovations show specific evidence of achievement in educational 

outcomes. The Department should also communicate any research findings that 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports—continued

F-11

demonstrate successful outcomes to outside stakeholders, particularly chief 

State school officers and district superintendents. The Committee believes that 

publicizing these research findings will provide critical information for State 

governments, State and local education agencies, and others, particularly in 

unserved and underserved communities.

Response: The Department is developing a new technical assistance plan focused on 

dissemination of findings and lessons learned and will incorporate activities 

mentioned in these directives. As a first step, the Department is currently 

updating the program website to add in all available evaluation reports as well as 

relevant What Works Clearinghouse links.

House: The Committee is aware that certain criteria for evaluating EIR grants, such as 

the use of randomized control trials, are more difficult for rural-based applicants 

to successfully fulfill. The Committee requests that the Department consider 

additional assistance for rural applicants in fulfilling evaluation requirements in 

future grant competitions.

Response: The Department has been working with various rural experts within and outside 

of the Department to enhance technical assistance for rural applicants. Based on

their feedback the Department has revised pre-application materials to include 

additional considerations, supports, and resources for rural applicants on 

implementing high quality evaluations in rural settings. The Department plans to 

update these materials regularly. This activity also helped the Department foster 

stakeholder relationships that can be leveraged to conduct outreach plan once 

the notices inviting applications are released.

House: In addition, within the total for EIR, the Committee recommendation includes 

$85,000,000 for States, school districts, and school-based afterschool programs 

to provide or strengthen instruction in STEAM fields, including computer science. 

In particular, these funds must be used by the Secretary to direct additional PreK–12 computer science and STEAM grants to underrepresented students such 

as minorities, girls, and youth from families living at or below the poverty line to 

help reduce the enrollment and achievement gap. Supporting education in the 

STEAM fields, particularly computer science, is critical to ensure that our nation 

continues to lead in innovation. As computer science is a basic skill in the 21st 

century global economy, the Committee encourages the Department to support 

Pre-K–12 computer science education in schools across the country. Funds 

should also be used within these amounts to increase teacher training, 

proficiency, and knowledge of STEAM and computer science courses, with a 

particular interest in coding.

Senate: The Committee notes there is significant demand from the field to test many 

types of strategies and to examine promising techniques that can be scaled-up in 

different settings. The Committee expects funds to continue to support diverse 

and field-initiated interventions, rather than a single nationwide program or award 

focused solely on one area of educational innovation.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports—continued

F-12

Senate: The Committee recommendation includes $75,000,000, an increase of 

$10,000,000, for STEM and computer science education. Within this amount, the 

Committee directs the Department to prioritize funding for computer science 

education and applicants seeking to improve diversity and address disparities in 

access to participation in high-quality STEM education programs. In addition, the 

Committee encourages the Department to fund activities that will help inspire the 

next generation of STEM professionals, including engaging students in space 

exploration.

Managers’

Statement: Within the total for EIR, the agreement includes $67,000,000 to provide grants for

SEL. In addition, within the total for EIR, the agreement includes $67,000,000 for 

STEM and computer science education activities. Within the STEM and 

computer science set-aside, awards should expand opportunities for 

underrepresented students such as minorities, girls, and youth from families 

living at or below the poverty line to help reduce the enrollment and achievement 

gap. Further, the agreement continues to support the Department's prioritization 

of computer science education for the STEM set-aside in recent EIR grant 

competitions. To fulfill both set-asides, the agreement encourages prioritization of 

SEL and STEM for both the early- and mid-phase evidence tiers.

Response: The Department intends to follow the directive included in the Managers’ 

Statement.

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED)

House: The Committee is supportive of the Department’s competitive preference priority 

for SEL in the fiscal year 2020 SEED competition and directs the Department to 

include the competitive preference priority in any new SEED competition in fiscal 

year 2021.

Response: The Department is not holding a competition in 2021 but will take the language 

into account when developing plans for 2022.

Managers’

Statement: Within SEED, the Department is directed to support professional development 

that helps educators incorporate SEL practices into teaching, and to support 

pathways into teaching that provide a strong foundation in child development and 

learning, including skills for implementing SEL strategies in the classroom. In 

addition, the SEED program is an ideal vehicle for helping ensure that more 

highly trained school leaders are available to serve in traditionally underserved 

LEAs. Therefore, the Secretary shall use a portion of funds made available for 

SEED to support the preparation of principals and other school leaders.

House: Further, the Committee directs the Department to ensure that SEED grants are 

awarded to a diverse set of eligible entities, including national nonprofit 

organizations implementing evidence-based activities (as defined in section 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports—continued

F-13

8101(21)(A)(i) of the ESEA) across a number of sites which can help bring to 

scale evidence-based programs of national significance across the country.

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to ensure grants are awarded to a 

diverse set of eligible entities operating programs of national significance, 

consistent with Congressional intent. The Committee strongly encourages the 

Department to include National non-profits and institutes of higher education that 

implement high evidence-based activities (as defined in section 8101(21)(A)(i) of 

the ESEA) that support a significant number of educators in multiple States and a 

number of sites to help bring to scale evidence-based programs of National

significance and ensure a significant number of educators and students across 

the country are served by this program.

Response: The Department made 12 new grant awards in 2020 to recipients in nine States. 

Seven of the grantees were IHEs: California State University Dominguez Hills 

(CA), Clemson University (SC), Georgia State University (GA), the University of 

Alabama at Tuscaloosa (AL), the University of North Florida (FL), Alder Graduate 

School of Education (CA), and Voorhees College (SC). The other five grantees 

were the Center for Collaborative Education (MA), the National Institute for 

Excellence in Teaching (TN), Teach for America (NY), Unbounded Learning, Inc. 

(NY), and the Urban Teaching Center (MD). These grantees will be serving 

participants from a wide variety of communities across the nation.

The competition included two absolute priorities, one of which, Supporting 

Effective Teachers, required successful applicants to implement activities that 

are supported by Moderate Evidence and the other one of which, Supporting 

Effective Principals or Other School Leaders, required successful applications to 

implement activities that are supported Promising Evidence. Applicants identified 

one or two citations to demonstrate that proposed activities met the evidence 

requirements; these citations were reviewed to ensure they met What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards.

Managers’

Statement: In addition, the SEED program is an ideal vehicle for helping ensure that more 

highly trained school leaders are available to serve in traditionally underserved 

LEAs. Therefore, the Secretary shall use a portion of funds made available for 

SEED to support the preparation of principals and other school leaders.

Senate: The Committee recognizes the significant impact of effective principals and other 

school leaders on student achievement and other student outcomes. The SEED 

program is an ideal vehicle for helping ensure that more highly trained school 

leaders are available to serve in traditionally underserved LEAs and directs the 

Secretary to use a portion of funds made available for SEED to support the 

preparation of principals and other school leaders.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports—continued

F-14

Response: The 2020 competition included two absolute priorities, one of which was 

Supporting Effective Principals or Other School Leaders. Two of the successful 

applicants addressed this priority.

Charter Schools Grants

Senate: Within the total, the Committee recommendation includes $215,000,000 for State 

Entity Grants to support high quality charter schools under section 4303 of 

ESEA; not less than $150,000,000 for Charter Management Organization Grants 

for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools under section 

4305(b); not less than $70,000,000 for Facilities Grants under section 4304, of 

which not less than $60,000,000 shall be for the Credit Enhancement program; 

and $15,000,000 for national activities to provide technical assistance, 

disseminate best practices, and evaluate the impact of the charter school 

program. In addition to standard reprogramming requirements, the Committee 

directs the Department to notify and brief the Committees on Appropriations of 

the House of Representatives and the Senate as soon as possible of any need to 

reprogram funds between the activities specified above.

Response: The Department will comply with this directive.

Senate: The Committee appreciates information included in the fiscal year 2021 CJ on 

activities to strengthen charter school authorizing and oversight practices, 

including through monitoring of and technical assistance on the use of State 

entity set-aside funds. The Committee requests that the Department effectively 

review the extent to which State entities are using such funds to ensure that 

charter schools receiving CSP grants are equipped to appropriately serve all 

students, including students with disabilities, and include a summary of findings 

of such reviews in the fiscal year 2022 CJ.

Managers’

Statement: The Department is directed to review the extent to which State entities are using 

set-aside funds to ensure that charter schools receiving CSP grants are 

equipped to appropriately serve all students, including students with disabilities, 

and include a summary of findings of such reviews in the fiscal year 2022 

congressional justification.

Response: The Department has conducted the requested review and provided a summary of 

findings in the Charter Schools Grants program narrative.

Magnet Schools Assistance

Senate: The Committee strongly encourages the Department to include a priority for a 

portion of new grant funds in fiscal year 2021 for Magnet Schools Assistance 

applications that are connected to a nearby public housing redevelopment 

project, including developments funded through the HUD Choice Neighborhoods 

Initiative and the HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration. The notice inviting 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports—continued

F-15

applications [NIA] shall prioritize MSAP applications that seek to provide an 

opportunity for children in the public housing redevelopment to attend a racially 

and economically integrated school in or near their neighborhood. The 

Department of Education is, to the extent feasible, directed to coordinate with 

HUD and the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, and to issue any 2021 

MSAP NIA on or about the same date as the HUD Choice Neighborhoods notice 

of funding availability.

Response: The Department ran a competition for new grants in fiscal year 2020 but 

extended the application deadline due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 

Department awarded new grants from the competition that began in fiscal year 

2020 in fiscal year 2021 and will not make additional new awards in fiscal year 

2021. We will consider options for responding to the directive with funds for new 

awards in fiscal year 2022.
F-16

F-16

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2022 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat

Code

2020

Appropriation

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

2022 Request Compared to

2021 Appropriation

Amount Percent

1. Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) D 190,000 194,000 194,000 0 0.00%

2. Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) D 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0.00%

3. American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) D 4,815 5,250 5,250 0 0.00%

4. Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) D 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 0.00%

5. Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) D 440,000 440,000 440,000 0 0.00%

6. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) D 107,000 109,000 149,000 40,000 36.70%

7. Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) D 29,000 29,500 29,500 0 0.00%

8. Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 30,000 30,500 30,500 0 0.00%

9. Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4644) D 13,000 13,500 13,500 0 0.00%

10. Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) D 10,000 12,500 12,500 0 0.00%

11. School Leader Recruitment and Support (ESEA II-B-4, section 2243) D 0 0 30,000 30,000 ---

12. Fostering Diverse Schools (proposed legislation) D 0 0 100,000 100,000 ---

13. Expanding Opportunities for Teacher Leadership Development (proposed legislation) M 0 0 200,000 200,000 ---

14. Supporting in-Demand Credentials for Teachers (proposed legislation) M 0 0 1,600,000 1,600,000 ---

Total D 1,103,815 1,114,250 3,084,250 1,970,000 176.80%

Discretionary D 1,103,815 1,114,250 1,284,250 170,000 15.26%

Mandatory M 0 0 1,800,000 1,800,000 ---

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Innovation and Improvement

Click here for accessible version
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-17

Summary of Request

Programs in the Innovation and Improvement account support the goal of improving student 

achievement in three key ways: providing incentives to test, evaluate, and expand innovative 

educational strategies and practices; increasing the supply of effective teachers and principals; 

and increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity in schools. The Administration requests a 

total of $3.1 billion, including $1.3 billion in discretionary funding and $1.8 billion in mandatory 

funds.

Supporting Innovation

The Administration requests funding to support efforts to drive State and local innovation. 

Specifically, the request includes:

• $194.0 million for the Education Innovation and Research program to build on the 

program’s demonstrated success in using program funds to build an evidence base that will 

help ensure that educators, schools, and districts have access to innovative strategies and 

practices that are effective in improving educational outcomes for students.

• $29.5 million for the Ready to Learn Programming program to support the development 

and distribution of educational video programming for preschool and elementary school 

children and their parents, caregivers, and teachers to facilitate student academic 

achievement.

• $13.5 million for the Javits Gifted and Talented Education program to support 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 educational needs, particularly students 

traditionally underrepresented in gifted and talented education programs.

Supporting Educators

The Administration requests funding for programs that would provide both formula grants and 

competitive awards to help States and local educational agencies (LEAs) increase the 

effectiveness of teachers and principals.

• $1.6 billion in mandatory funding for a new Supporting In-Demand Credentials for

Teachers State grant program, which would help over 100,000 educators earn additional 

certifications in high-demand areas like special education, bilingual education, career and 

technical education, and STEM.

• $200.0 million in mandatory funding for a new Expanding Opportunities for Teacher 

Leadership Development competitive grant program that would allow master teachers to

take on mentoring and other job-embedded leadership roles, with additional compensation, 

while remaining in the classroom.

• $200.0 million for Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand human capital management systems, especially in high-need schools.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

I. Summary of Request—continued

F-18

• $80.0 million for Supporting Effective Educator Development to provide competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education, national nonprofit entities, and the BIE to provide 

educators with evidence-based professional development and to support pathways that 

allow educators with nontraditional preparation and certification to obtain employment in 

traditionally underserved local educational agencies

• $30.0 million for the School Leader Recruitment and Support program for grants to 

improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective 

principals and other school leaders in high-need schools. 

• $30.5 million for the Arts in Education program to support State and local efforts to improve 

arts education, including arts programming in high-poverty schools, through the 

development and implementation of high-quality, cohesive, and innovative strategies for arts 

instruction; development and dissemination of instructional materials and programming; and 

professional development for arts educators.

• $5.3 million for the American History and Civics Education program for competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education and other entities with demonstrated expertise to 

improve the quality of teaching and learning in American history, civics, and government.

Increasing Diversity in Schools

The Administration’s Fostering Diverse Schools proposal would provide $100.0 million for 

competitive grants to LEAs to develop and implement comprehensive plans for improving 

school racial and socioeconomic integration in preschool through grade 12. Funds would 

support grants for planning and for implementation. 

In addition, the Administration requests $149.0 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 attract students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds.

Finally, the Administration requests $440.0 million for Charter Schools Grants to support the 

start-up, replication, and expansion of successful charter schools and to improve charter 

schools’ access to facilities. The request embraces the focus under the amended ESEA on 

strengthening charter school authorizing and oversight practices and ensuring access to 

high-quality schools for historically underserved student groups. 

.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-19

Education innovation and research

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from 

2021 to 2022 

$194,000 $194,000 0

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY22.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Innovation and Research (EIR) 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 and underserved 

students. The overall goal is to demonstrate innovative and proven approaches that address 

persistent education challenges while also building knowledge of what works in education. 

The EIR program incorporates a tiered-evidence framework that ties the size of the Federal 

investment to the evidence base for funded interventions. For example, the program may 

provide $3 million in start-up funding to test promising innovations that will undergo rigorous 

evaluation, while investing $15 million for large-scale replications of proven interventions to 

assess their effectiveness in multiple settings with diverse student populations. Types of awards 

include: (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; (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; and (3) expansion and replication of interventions or innovations that have been 

found to produce a sizable impact under a mid-phase grant or have met similar criteria for 

documenting program effectiveness. All grantees must carry out rigorous, independent 

evaluations of the effectiveness of their projects.

Eligible applicants include: (1) local educational agencies (LEAs); (2) State educational 

agencies (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. 

Awards length varies from 3 to 5 years. At least 25 percent of the funds appropriated for 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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-20

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) 

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

2018....................................................................................120,000

2019....................................................................................130,000

2020....................................................................................190,000

2021....................................................................................194,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $194 million for fiscal year 2022 for Education Innovation and 

Research, the same as the fiscal year 2021 level. The request would build on the Department’s 

success in using program funds to build an evidence base that will help ensure that educators, 

schools, and districts have access to innovative strategies and practices that are effective in 

improving educational outcomes for students.

The request would also support the President’s goal of advancing equity in education through 

the development and use of evidence-based practices to support and advance student learning, 

with a focus on underserved students. To date, innovation projects have been funded in a wide 

range of areas to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for students— including 

social and emotional learning, supporting teachers and principals, and science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 

For fiscal year 2022, the Department looks forward to a dialogue with Congress about the 

appropriate priorities for EIR competitions. In the past, the Department’s strategy for choosing 

competition priorities has included alignment with Administration policy goals and funding

projects in areas where few or no projects have been funded previously in order to build out the 

“portfolio” of solutions developed under the program. For fiscal year 2022, the Administration is 

considering using priorities for projects proposing to address the impact of the COVID-19 

pandemic on underserved students and educators and promoting equity and adequacy in 

student access to educational resources and opportunities – both with goal of improving 

outcomes for underserved students.

Consistent with the authorizing statute, the Department would reserve up to $9.7 million in fiscal 

year 2022 for technical assistance, including technical assistance to help grantees develop and 

implement rigorous evaluations, and dissemination. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-21

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2020 2021 2022

Grants

EIR grantsAmount for new awards $185,915 $184,297 $113,494

EIR grantsNumber of new awards 28 20-32 15-25

EIR grantsRange of new awards $3,500–12,000 $3,000–15,000 $3,000–15,000

EIR grantsAmount for continuation awards 0 0 $68,866

EIR grantsNumber of continuation awards 0 0 41

EIR grantsRange of continuation awards 0 0 $750-4,000

Peer review of new award 

applications

$675 $1,043 $1,940

National activities $3,410 $8,660 $9,700

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 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance goals, objectives, 

and measures for the EIR program for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with 

Administration policy.

The measures reported in this section include data for grants under both the predecessor 

Investing in Innovation (i3) program and EIR. Thus, the measures for Expansion grants include 

data for i3 Scale-up grants that were still active in the reporting year; the measures for Midphase grants include data for i3 Validation grants; and the measures for Early-phase grants 

include data for i3 Development grants. However, in the text below only the current terminology 

is used. 

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-22

Measure: The percentage of Expansion grantees that reached their annual targets of 

students served.

Year Target Actual

2017 66% 75%

2018 66 100

2019 66 90

2020 66

2021 66

2022 66

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

students specified in their applications by the end of the project.

Year Target Actual

2017 65% N/A

2018 65 N/A

2019 65 N/A

2020 65

2021 65

2022 65

Measure: The percentage of Mid-phase grantees that reached their annual targets of 

students served.

Year Target Actual

2017 68% 50%

2018 68 64

2019 68 50

2020 68

2021 68

2022 68

Measure: The percentage of Mid-phase grantees that reached the targeted number of 

students specified in their applications by the end of the project.

Year Target Actual

2017 65% 80%

2018 65 71

2019 65 50

2020 65

2021 65

2022 65
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-23

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

final performance reports submitted through March 2020. One of the goals of Mid-phase and 

Expansion grants is to expand the implementation of each intervention for which there is 

evidence of effectiveness while continuing to evaluate it to ensure that it is implemented well 

and continues to be effective on a larger scale. Therefore, reaching the targeted number of 

students is an important measure of success for these projects. 

Two Mid-phase grants did not serve students in 2019 and are thus excluded from the 

calculation for reaching annual targets. 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, including the accurate setting of yearly 

targets for students served. Data for fiscal year 2020 will be available by September 2021.

No Expansion grants ended their grants in the reporting period through March 2020, so there is 

no cumulative data on students served to report for Expansion. Four Mid-phase grants ended 

their grants in the reporting period and provided data on students served. 

Objective: To promote rigorous evaluation of 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 an Expansion 

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 What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 100%

2018 100 100

2019 100 100

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Mid-phase 

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

2017 100% 100%

2018 100 100

2019 100 95

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-24

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by an Early-phase 

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 98%

2018 100 100

2019 100 93

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Additional information: The source of the data is grantee evaluation plans. During the 2019 

reporting period one Mid-phase grantee and four Early-phase grantees were implementing 

evaluation plans that that were not likely to meet WWC standards because they might not 

produce reliable, credible evidence. The Department will continue to provide technical 

assistance on appropriate evaluation design and implementation to the grantees to improve the 

likelihood that their evaluations meet WWC standards by the end of the projects. Data for fiscal 

year 2020 will be available by December 2021. 

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by an Expansion 

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

2017 100% 100%

2018 100 100

2019 100 100

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Mid-phase 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

2017 100% 100%

2018 100 100

2019 100 100

2020 100

2021 100

2022 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-25

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by an Early-phase 

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

2017 100% 98%

2018 100 100

2019 100 100

2020 100

2021 100

2022 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 2020 will be available by December 2021. 

Efficiency measures

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

significant evaluation costs for projects under this program. 

Data for 2019 represent grants that submitted an annual performance report and include all 

10 Expansion grants, 15 out of 18 Mid-phase grantees (two not included did not serve students 

and, therefore, do not have a cost per student, and one did not provide cost data), and 33 out of 

35 Early-phase grants (two did not serve students and, therefore, do not have a cost per 

student, and one had incomplete data at this time). 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 all four Mid-phase grants and 18 Early-phase grants. 

Data for fiscal year 2020 will be available by December 2021.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-26

Measure: The cost per student served by grant type.

Year Cost per student, 

Expansion grants

Cost per student, 

Mid-phase grants

Cost per student, Earlyphase grants

2014 $201 $21,463 $633

2015 99 874 1,137

2016 135 5,329 1,887

2017 278 962 1,049

2018 222 1,812 3,446

2019 416 1,467 1,904

Measure: The cost per student by grant type for programs, practices, or strategies that were 

proven to be effective at improving educational outcomes for students. 

Year Cost per student, 

Expansion grants

Cost per student, 

Mid-phase grants

Cost per student, Earlyphase grants

2015 $375 $1,154 $928

2016 N/A N/A 347

2017 N/A 728 776

2018 N/A 618 3,446

2019 N/A 2,087 1,904

Additional information: No Expansion projects ended in 2019, so the cumulative measure is 

not applicable for that year. For Mid-phase, four projects ended in 2019, and all provided 

complete cost per student data. For Early-phase, 18 grant projects ended in 2019, and all 

provided complete cost per student data. 

Other Performance Information

In June 2018, the Department published The Investing in Innovation Fund: Summary of 67 

Evaluations Final Report, which examined the extent to which the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program, the predecessor to the EIR program, succeeded in its goal of building credible 

evidence that can be used to identify effective interventions that can improve student academic 

outcomes. This report examined 67 i3 impact evaluations and reached the following 

conclusions:

• Overall, nearly three-quarters of the 67 i3 impact evaluations unofficially met What 

Works Clearinghouse evidence standards.

• Almost 80 percent of the i3 implementation evaluations found that the interventions were 

implemented with adequate fidelity to the program models, with 18 percent evaluations 

finding positive impacts.

• Overall, nine evaluations (13 percent) met the long-term goal of i3 by finding evidence of 

both adequate fidelity and positive impacts on student academic outcomes.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-27

• The findings from these evaluations, whether positive or negative, were sufficiently 

robust to help ED policymakers decide which educational programs warrant additional 

funding and testing.

• The i3 evaluations provide credible evidence to local decision makers considering 

whether to adopt particular interventions.

Additional information may be found at 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184013/pdf/20184013.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-28

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 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$200,000 $200,000 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive Grants 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 and the Department has discretion to provide up to an 

additional 2 years of funding 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 high-need 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 backgrounds. Human capital 

management systems (HCMSs) are defined as systems that enable the LEA to make and 

implement human capital decisions (such as decisions related to hiring, professional 

development, dismissal, tenure, and promotion) and that include a performance-based 

compensation system. Performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) are systems of 

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

compensation based in part on measurable 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 school leaders demonstrated through additional responsibilities and 

evidence of professional achievement.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-29

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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

2018....................................................................................200,000

2019....................................................................................200,000

2020....................................................................................200,000

2021....................................................................................200,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-30

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2022, the Administration is requesting $200 million, level with the fiscal year 

2021 appropriation. At the request level, the Department would use approximately $38.2 million 

for new awards, $159.6 million for continuation awards, and $2.0 million for evaluation and 

technical assistance. New awards are likely to be focused on providing opportunities for 

educators to take on leadership roles in their schools and districts, and be compensated for 

those additional responsibilities, and to promote greater diversity in the educator workforce. On 

April 20, 2021, the Department published proposed two priorities for grant programs that may be 

used in TSL competitions in 2021 and later years. The first priority is designed to promote the 

continued development and growth of educators, including providing leadership opportunities. 

The second priority is to improve educator diversity—including racial, cultural, and linguistic 

diversity—to help all students learn to high standards and be prepared to live and work in a 

diverse society.

In addition, on April 9, 2021, the Department published a proposed priority to clarify the extent to 

which TSL-funded grant project activities are concentrated in high-need schools and to refine 

the definition of a high-need school. The proposed priority would require applicants to 

demonstrate that the majority of schools participating in the project would be in high-need 

schools and would define a high-need school as one with 50 percent or more of its enrollment 

from low-income backgrounds, based on free- or reduced-price lunch data, comparable data 

from another source, or, for middle and high schools, poverty data from feeder schools.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-31

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Funding

New awards funding $63,674 $88,162 $38,170

Continuation awards funding 103,601 79,982 159,630

Grant renewal awards 30,614 29,616 0

Peer review of new award 

applications funding 111 240 200

Evaluation and technical assistance funding 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total funding 200,000 200,000 200,000

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 13 12−20 5−7

Range of new awards $1,463−$9,496 $1,500−$9,000 $1,500−$9,000

Number of continuation awards 14 14 25−33

Range of continuation awards $648−$13,635 $1,551−$10,142 $1,500−$10,735

Number of renewal awards 5 5 0

Range of renewal awards $3,060−$7,859 $3,116−$7,668 −

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

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

funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2020 or 2021 but may do so in fiscal year 2022. Any amount pooled under section 

8601 would not exceed the 1 percent evaluation and technical assistance reservation authorized for the TSL 

program.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

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

and those requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts 

invested by those served by the program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program 

performance goals, objectives, and measures for Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 

for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

Current performance measures for the TSL program include the following:

• 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-32

• 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 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.

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

other non-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.

Grantee reporting has been problematic. Department staff are reviewing grantee performance 

reports but data are not yet available.

Other performance information 

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

on effective practices relevant to the TSL program:

The Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems1 examined 

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

classroom practice and student achievement in eight districts. The study provided resources 

and support to implement three performance measures: a classroom practice measure that 

provided feedback sessions four times per year, a student growth measure of teacher

contributions to student achievement (i.e., “value-added” scores), and a principal leadership 

measure with feedback sessions twice a year. No formal stakes were attached to the measures; 

instead, they were used to provide educators and their supervisors with information on 

performance. Both treatment and control schools continued to implement existing district 

performance evaluations and measures, with the treatment schools additionally implementing 

the study’s performance measures and feedback. The study, which cost $21.5 million over 

6 years, was completed in December 2017. The key findings were:

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-33

• Performance evaluations were implemented generally as planned. For instance, in both 

study years, teachers and principals received multiple rounds of ratings and feedback on 

their practices. 

• On average, teachers received nearly the four intended feedback sessions per year. Most 

teachers had classroom observation overall scores in the top two performance levels, 

limiting the potential of the information to signal a need for teachers to improve. A majority of 

the teachers said the study’s feedback on classroom practice was more useful and specific 

than their district’s existing feedback.

• Principals’ scores tended to be lower than teachers’: many received scores indicating a 

need for improvement. Even so, nearly three-quarters of principals in the treatment group 

said the study’s feedback on their leadership was more objective and actionable than 

feedback received in the past. The goal of the principal feedback was to improve leadership 

skills, and the study measured two aspects of leadership: instructional leadership and 

teacher-principal trust. The intervention had a positive impact on teacher-principal trust in 

year 1 and on both instructional leadership and trust in year 2.

• While educator evaluation systems provided some information to identify educators who 

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

needing improvement.

• The study’s performance evaluation system 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. There was no impact on reading/English language arts 

achievement in either study year, but the mathematics impact in year 1 was the equivalent 

of about 4 weeks of learning. In year 2, the mathematics impact was similar, but not 

statistically significant.

In September 2018, IES began a new Impact Evaluation to Inform the Teacher and School

Leader Incentive Program1 that is designed to answer the following questions:

• What are the implementation experiences of the 2017 TSL grantees? What are their 

educator satisfaction, recruitment, and retention experiences with TSL, particularly among 

those grantees funding teacher leader roles?

• What is the effect on student achievement, educator satisfaction, recruitment, and retention 

of a teacher leader role strategy? Is the teacher leader strategy cost effective?

The evaluation will provide implementation information from all 2017 grantees, including 

information about strategies supported by grant funds. For those grantees supporting a teacher 

leader role, information will include teacher leader responsibilities and their teaching load, the 

stipend amount, how grantees select and train their teacher leader, the types of teachers 

targeted for support, and district and school contexts that facilitate or hinder the teacher leader 

role implementation. In addition, the evaluation will recruit approximately 100 schools to 

1 https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_leader.asp
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-34

participate in an impact evaluation of funding teacher leaders to support their peers using 

activities similar to that funded within the TSL grantees.

Data collection will include a TSL grantee survey of all 14 TSL grantees receiving awards in 

2017 to gather information about their TSL program; teacher and principal surveys to collect 

program implementation information as well as educator satisfaction and teacher recruitment 

activities and outcomes; teacher leader activity forms to provide information about teacher 

leader roles and activities; teacher and principal school assignment records to look at mobility 

and retention; student administrative records to look at student outcomes. The study has been 

delayed due to the pandemic, which required IES to recruit study schools over two school years 

instead of one to get a sufficiently large sample for a portion of the evaluation. The first report 

from the study now is expected in 2022, not 2021, and the study is scheduled for completion in 

August 2024, one year later than originally planned.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-35

American history and civics education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined(1)

Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$5,250 $5,250 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

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

Presidential Academies for the Teaching of American History and Civics offer intensive 

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. 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-36

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 backgrounds and 

underserved students. 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 

students. 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)

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

2018 ....................................................................................... 3,515

2019 ....................................................................................... 4,815

2020 ....................................................................................... 4,815

2021 ....................................................................................... 5,250

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $5.25 million for the American History and Civics Education 

programs for fiscal year 2022, the same as the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. Funds would be 

used to continue awards initiated in prior years, including new awards under both programs in 

fiscal year 2021.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

American History and Civics Academies 

grants

American History and Civics Academies grants Amount for new awards 0 $1,664 0

American History and Civics Academies grants Number of new awards 0 3–6 0

American History and Civics Academies grants Amount for continuation awards $1,815 $316 $1,664

American History and Civics Academies grants Number of continuation awards 2 1 3–6

National Activities grants

National Activities grants Amount for new awards 0 $2,157 0

American National Activities grants Number of new awards 0 4–7 0

National Activities grants Amount for continuation awards $3,000 $1,060 $3,586

American National Activities grants Number of continuation awards 4 4 8–11
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-37

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Peer review of new award applications 0 $53 0

NOTE: 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 2020, but may do so in fiscal 

years 2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance 

goals, objectives, and measures for American History and Civics Education for possible revision 

in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

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.

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

Presidential Academy.

Year Target Actual

2018 10% 15%

2019 10 14

2020 10 12

2021 10

2022 10

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

Congressional Academy.

Year Target Actual

2018 10% 15%

2019 10 11
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-38

Year Target Actual

2020 10 18

2021 10

2022 10

Additional information: Data are from assessments created by the grantees’ evaluators 

drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests. The table excludes data from 

a 2017 grantee that were deemed not comparable to performance data from other grantees due 

to the assessment instruments used. The 2017 grantee, which did not use traditional testing 

instruments but rather conducted pre- and post-assessments of teacher lesson plans (in the 

case of the Presidential Academy) and student research papers (for the Congressional 

Academy) using a rubric developed by an external evaluator, reported average content 

knowledge gains of 28 percent for Presidential Academy teachers and 24 percent for 

Congressional Academy students in 2020. 

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.

Year Target Actual

2018 10% 28%

2019 10 21

2020 10 12

2021 10

2022 10

Additional information: Data are from assessments of participating teachers created by the 

grantees’ evaluators drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-39

Supporting effective educator development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$80,000 $80,000 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022.

.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

The Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) 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. Allowable activities must be evidence-based and include:

• Providing support to teachers, principals, or other school leaders from nontraditional 

preparation and certification routes or pathways who serve in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

• Providing evidence-based professional development that addresses literacy, numeracy, 

academic support, or other needs of LEAs and the students they serve;

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

early college high school settings;

• Making professional development and related learning opportunities freely available to 

LEAs, including through publicly accessible electronic means; or

• Providing 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; the Department has the discretion to renew awards 

for an additional 2-year period if grantees demonstrate 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 25 percent of project costs each year. The Department may waive or 

modify this cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-40

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

2018 ................................................................................... 75,000

2019 ................................................................................... 75,000

2020 ................................................................................... 80,000

2021 ................................................................................... 80,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2022, the Administration requests $80.0 million for SEED, level with the fiscal 

year 2021 appropriation. The SEED program is an effective vehicle for supporting evidencebased educator preparation and development efforts. At the request level, the Department 

would use approximately $60.0 million for new grant awards, nearly $12.0 million for renewal 

awards (extending 3-year grants for an additional 2 years), and approximately $7.9 million for 

continuation grant awards.

The 2020 competition included competitive priorities addressing Congressional report language 

directives, including projects that improve instruction in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) and projects that enhance educators’ ability to improve students’ social 

and emotional skills, such as developing positive personal relationships, and problem-solving 

skills.

There were 12 successful applicants in the 2020 competition, 5 from national non-profit 

organizations and 7 from institutions of higher education. Examples of funded grants include:

• The University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, which will help elementary educators deliver 

appropriate SEL instruction to students in grades K-3, including those with or at risk for 

emotional and behavioral disorders. The project expects to develop a digitally-delivered 

curriculum as well as to craft digital and in-person professional learning to train teachers and 

provide ongoing support as they implement the program.

• Vorhees College, an HBCU located in South Carolina, plans to help raise student 

achievement in rural and urban high-need schools throughout the state by increasing the 

number of STEM and computer science teachers, by both establishing pathways for current 

teachers in other content areas to move into these fields (e.g., by competency-based 

teaching endorsements and micro-credentials) and by attracting STEM, computer science, 

and other mid-career professionals to the teaching profession through a non-traditional 

alternative licensure pathway.

The Administration is developing supplemental priorities for use in a wide variety of fiscal year 

2022 competitions, including SEED, that will reflect President Biden’s equity agenda and 

commitment to evidence-based practices. For example, there may a stronger focus on building 

and enhancing the instructional skills of a more diverse educator workforce. The Administration 

also plans to work with Congress to develop and refine priorities for the fiscal year 2022 SEED 

competition.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-41

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures

2020

2021 2022

Project Funding:

New grant awards $23,818 0 $60,012

Continuation grant awards 49,965 $61,974 7,861

Renewal awards 6,058 17,994 11,952

Peer review of new award 

applications

 159 32 175

Total 80,000 80,000 80,000

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 12 0 15 − 20

Range of new awards $882 − 

$5,201

─ $1,000 − 

$5,000

Number of continuation awards 15 13 3

Range of continuation awards $833 − 

$9,132

$925 − $5,764 $1,000 − 

$5,000

Number of renewal awards 4 7 − 8 3 − 4

Range of renewal awards $989 − 

$2,275

$970 − $3,056 $970 − $3,056

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 pool evaluation funds from SEED in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 but may do so in 

fiscal year 2022.

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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by the program. Targets were not set for the program 

measures because obtaining baseline data has proved problematic.

The Department established five performance measures for SEED grantees:

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of 

underserved students;

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of 

underserved students and are highly effective; 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-42

• The percentage of teacher and principal participants who serve concentrations of 

underserved students, are highly effective, and serve for at least 2 years;

• The cost per participant who was highly effective and who taught in high need schools for 

2 years; and

• The number of grantees with evaluations that meet the What Works Clearinghouse

standards with reservations.

Data for the FY 2017 and 2018 cohorts funded after the reauthorization of ESEA are available 

for three of these measures; the most recent data was received in the fall of 2020. 

• Based on data from 22 of the 25 grantees who were expected to report, 92 percent of 

program participants (9,275 out of 10,644 participants) served concentrations of 

underserved students.

• Based on data from these 22 grantees, 3,875 of these participants, or 36 percent, served 

underserved students and were rated as highly effective.

• Based on data from 7 of the 25 grantees, 55 percent (766 out of 1,398 participants) served 

concentrations of high-need students, were highly effective, and served for at least two 

years. (Data for this measure are available later in the grant period, so fewer grantees 

reported on the measure.)

Data on the cost per participant will be available for the 2017 cohort in the spring of 2022; data 

for the 2018 and 2020 cohorts will be available in the spring of 2023 and the spring of 2025, 

respectively.

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

for SEED for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy. All 

25 grantees from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts reported that they have evaluations that they 

believe will meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards with reservations; these 

grantees are conducting a total of 36 such evaluations. Determination of whether the 

evaluations do meet WWC standards will be made after the studies are completed.

During the last year, program staff have intensified efforts to improve the quality of performance 

information for the SEED program. Activities have included development and dissemination of a 

revised guidance document that provides detailed information on what data are to be reported 

and how the data are to be analyzed, technical assistance webinars for SEED project directors 

and their evaluators, and emphasizing to grantees the importance of submitting timely and 

accurate data.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-43

Charter schools grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1 

Budget Authority:

2021 

Appropriation

2022

Request 

Change from

2021 to 2022

$440,000 $440,000 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Charter Schools Grants support 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, grantee technical assistance, 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 subgrant 

applicants and to provide technical assistance to charter school authorizers and carry out other 

activities to improve authorizer quality, including developing capacity for, and conducting, fiscal 

oversight and auditing of charter schools; 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 apply for subgrants. In an application for a 

subgrant, a developer must describe, among other things, the quality controls agreed to 

between it and its school’s authorizer, such as a contract or performance agreement; how its 

school’s performance in the State’s accountability system and impact on student academic 

achievement or growth will be one of the most important factors for renewal or revocation of the 

school’s charter; how its school’s authorizer will reserve the right to revoke or not renew its 

school’s charter based on financial, structural, or operational factors involving the management 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-44

of the school; how it will solicit and consider input from parents and other community members 

and support the use of effective parent, family, and community engagement strategies in the 

operation of its school; and how it will ensure that its school meets the educational needs of its 

students, including children with disabilities and English learners. Subgrants are for a period of 

up to 5 years, of which developers 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. 

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, 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.

CMO Grants

Under section 4305(b), the Department makes competitive grants to nonprofit CMOs to replicate 

and expand high-quality charter schools. 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.

Since fiscal year 2018, funds for CMO grants have been available for obligation by the 

Department for an 18-month period, or until March 31 of the fiscal year following the year in 

which they are appropriated.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-45

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. 

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.

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 uses funds 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. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-46

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017 .............................................................................$342,172

2018 ...............................................................................400,000

2019 ...............................................................................427,8591

2020 ...............................................................................440,000

2021 ...............................................................................440,000

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $12,141 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to other programs in the Innovation 

and Improvement account, including $6,700 thousand to Magnet Schools Assistance and $5,440 thousand to 

Statewide Family Engagement Centers.

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $440 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2022, the 

same as the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The request includes appropriations language that 

would largely maintain the same within-program allocations as in fiscal year 2021 but provide 

the Department greater flexibility to adjust spending in response to demand across the program 

components. Specifically, the request includes:

• Up to $225 million for State Entity and Developer grants;

• Up to $140 million for CMO grants;

• Not less than $60 million for facilities grants, of which up to $10 million is for State 

Facilities Incentive grants; and

• Not less than $15 million for national activities.

Charter schools can deliver innovative solutions to meet student social, emotional, and 

academic needs. However, additional steps are required to ensure that charter schools are 

subject to rigorous transparency (including fiscal transparency) requirements, accountability, 

and oversight expected of many traditional public schools. The Department will work to ensure 

that Charter Schools Grants funds support schools that are opened and operated with 

demonstrated family and community support, serve students from diverse racial and 

socioeconomic backgrounds, provide meaningful access to instruction for students with 

disabilities and English learners, maintain diverse educator workforces, and are subject to 

strong accountability, transparency, and oversight. The Administration also supports 

appropriations language to ensure that program funds are not provided to schools that are 

substantially operated or managed through a contract with a for-profit entity.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-47

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

State Entity grants

State Entity grants:Amount for new awards $81,833 0 $98,631

State Entity grants: Number of new awards 8 0 5–10

State Entity grants:Amount for continuation awards $132,251 $218,676 $115,000

State Entity grants::Number of continuation awards 20 27 19

Developer grants

Developer grants:Amount for new awards $5,120 0 $5,000

Developer grantsNumber of new awards 7 0 8–12

Developer grantsAmount for continuation awards $5,815 $6,324 $6,169

Developer grantsNumber of continuation awards 35 33 32

Peer review of new State Entity and 

Developer award applications $118 0 $200

CMO grants

CMO grants:Amount for new awards 0 0 $51,974

CMO grantsNumber of new awards 0 0 11–15

CMO grantsAmount for continuation awards $139,625 $140,000 $87,901

CMO grants:Number of continuation awards 56 41 26

CMO grantsAmount for supplemental awards $375 0 0

CMO grants:Number of supplemental awards 1 0 0

CMO grants:Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $125

Credit Enhancement grants

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for new awards $44,521 $42,731 $56,950

Credit Enhancement grantsNumber of new awards 4 3–5 4–6

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for supplemental awards $10,479 $13,229 0

Credit Enhancement grantsNumber of supplemental awards 1 1 0

State Facilities Incentive grants

State Facilities Incentive grants :Amount for continuation awards $5,000 $4,000 $3,000

State Facilities Incentive grantsNumber of continuation awards 1 1 1
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-48

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Peer review of new Credit Enhancement 

and State Facilities Incentive award 

applications 0 $40 $50

National activities $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

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 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 

2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance 

goals, objectives, and measures for Charter Schools Grants for possible revision in future years 

to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

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

2017 8,480 7,014

2018 8,950 7,196

2019 9,420 7,434

2020 9,890

2021 10,360

2022 10,830

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. Data for this 

measure for 2020 are expected to be available in late fall 2021.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-49

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

2017 84.2% 49.8%

2018 89.2 48.6

2019 94.2 48.2

2020 99.2

2021 100.0

2022 100.0

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

2017 81.4% 46.8%

2018 86.4 45.0

2019 91.4 44.7

2020 96.4

2021 100.0

2022 100.0

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

2017 86.6% 52.3%

2018 91.6 48.7

2019 96.6 49.9

2020 100.0

2021 100.0

2022 100.0

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

2017 73.7% 43.2%

2018 78.7 40.2

2019 83.7 40.8

2020 88.7

2021 93.7

2022 98.7
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-50

Additional information: Analysis of the data has found notable variation in performance 

among funded schools. Data for these measures for 2020 are unavailable because the 

Department waived for all States the requirements in ESEA section 1112(b)(2) to administer 

State assessments in school year 2019-2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 2014 Cohort Actual 2019 Cohort Actual

2017 6.10 : 1

2018 6.12 : 1

2019 6.51 : 1

2020 2.25 : 1

2021 2.50 : 1

2022

Additional information: The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant 

and the State match) compared to the Federal grant for a given year. The State match amount 

excludes State and local funds that would otherwise be used to provide charter school per-pupil 

facilities aid in absence of participation in the program.

The Department also tracks the amount of funds leveraged and the number of schools served 

under Credit Enhancement grants. In 2019, Credit Enhancement grants leveraged $675 million 

in facilities financing for 46 schools. Between program inception and 2019, Credit Enhancement 

funds have helped enable approximately $6.5 billion in financing for facilities of 837 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 2017 show an average cost of $1,168, for 2018 an average cost of 

$1,078, and for 2019 an average cost of $1,060. 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

2019 Charter Schools Grants Data Analysis

In July 2019, 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 

1 See https://oese.ed.gov/files/2019/12/CSP-Data-Overview-WestEd-7.22.2019.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-51

performance reports, the Department’s Common Core of Data, and the Civil Rights Data 

Collection, the analysis found, among other things, that:

• Of the 7,014 charter schools in operation in the 2016-2017 school year, 3,138 (or 

45 percent) had received funding under the competitions between the 2006-2007 and 

2016-2017 school years;

• Of the 5,712 charter schools that opened between the 2006-2007 and 2016-2017 school 

years, 3,351 (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.

State Entity Grantee Use of Funds Reserved for Technical Assistance

The Department, through the National Charter School Resource Center, has conducted a 

review of State Entity grantees’ current and planned use of funds reserved for technical 

assistance, including the extent to which grantees use funds for activities to ensure that charter 

schools receiving CSP funds are equipped to appropriately serve all students, including 

students with disabilities and English learners. The review consisted of reviews of approved 

applications of grantees in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 State Entity cohorts, a survey of the 

grantees in spring 2020, and a follow-up survey in January 2021. The review found that, of the 

19 grantees:

• Eighteen use or plan to use funds for technical assistance on charter school authorizing 

and oversight;

• Eighteen use or plan to use funds for technical assistance to subgrant applicants;

• Fourteen use or plan to use funds to support subgrantees in meeting the needs of 

students with disabilities; and

• Thirteen use or plan to use funds to support subgrantees in meeting the needs of 

English learners. 

The review also found that, on average, grantees use or plan to use more funds for technical 

assistance to subgrant applicants than on charter school authorizing and oversight. 

A report with more-detailed information on State Entity grantee use of funds, including 

quantitative data on common technical assistance activities and descriptive information on 

activities of individual grantees, is expected to be available in summer 2021.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-52

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2021 

Appropriation

2022 

Request

Change from 

2021 to 2022

$109,000 $149,000 +$40,000

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance program provides Federal resources to assist eligible local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in the desegregation of schools by supporting the elimination, 

reduction, and prevention of racial isolation in elementary and secondary schools with 

substantial proportions of students of color.1

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 isolation of groups of students of color 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 offer special curricula or instructional programs that appeal to parents and students 

from diverse backgrounds.

Grantees receive 5-year awards 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 

up to 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.2

1 In this justification, we generally use “students of color” in place of “minority students” in the program statute.

2 Beginning with fiscal year 2019 appropriations, appropriations acts have not included a prior general prohibition on 

the use of Department funds for the transportation of students or teachers to overcome racial imbalance or carry out 

a plan of racial desegregation in schools.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-53

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 

$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)

2017........................................................... $97,647

2018........................................................... 105,000

2019........................................................... 113,7001

2020........................................................... 107,000

2021........................................................... 109,000

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $6,700 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Magnet Schools Assistance.

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $149 million for Magnet Schools Assistance, $40 million more than 

the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The request would support continuation awards as well as an 

expanded cohort of new awards to support the creation of schools that can attract students from 

racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds. The requested increase would support an 

estimated 80 additional schools.

Consistent with President Biden’s Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 

Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, the Administration is committed to 

renewing and expanding efforts to reverse the well-documented, persistent negative educational 

effects of isolation of groups of students of color and concentrated poverty. Magnet Schools 

Assistance plays a central role in these efforts and would complement the proposed Fostering 

Diverse Schools program, which would provide grants to LEAs to develop and implement 

comprehensive plans to improve student outcomes by increasing school racial and 

socioeconomic diversity in preschool through grade 12.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-54

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for new awards 0 $49,927 $88,427

Number of new awards 0 18-19 32-33

Amount for continuation awards $105,789 $58,003 $58,934

Number of continuation awards 36 36 22-23

National activities $1,068 $1,070 $1,490

Peer review of new award 

applications $143 0 $149

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

including Magnet Schools Assistance, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The 

Department did not reserve funds for this purpose from Magnet Schools Assistance in fiscal year 2020, but may do 

so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

The Department ran a competition for new grants in fiscal year 2020 but extended the application deadline due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. The Department frontloaded continuation awards for prior year cohorts in fiscal year 2020 and 

awarded new grants from the competition that began in fiscal year 2020 in fiscal year 2021.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. 

The Department does not set aggregate performance targets for this program; rather, each 

grantee sets project-level performance targets. Data are from annual performance reports.

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

for Magnet Schools Assistance for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with 

Administration policy.

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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-55

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance reporting enrollment data 

demonstrating success in reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority-group isolation (MGI).

Year 2016 Cohort 2017 Cohort 2018 Cohort

2017 39.0%

2018 21.1 45.2%

2019 10.5 36.3 52.4%

2020 27.0 23.8

Additional information: In 2020, 33 of the 122 schools in the 2017 cohort fully met their 

annual MGI performance targets. Of the 89 schools that did not meet their annual MGI 

performance targets, two schools partially met their targets. For the 2018 cohort, five of 21 

schools met their annual MGI targets in 2020. No schools in this cohort had more than one 

racially isolated group, so none partially met their targets.

The Department will examine factors that may be associated with the decreases over time in the 

percentage of schools meeting MGI targets in the respective cohorts. 

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 2016 Cohort

2017 35.4%

2018 39.3

2019 41.2

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score at the 

proficient level or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year 2016 Cohort

2017 34.1%

2018 35.9

2019 38.8

Based on lessons learned in measuring grantee performance, the Department introduced two 

new performance measures beginning with the 2017 cohort focused on the percentage increase 

in students scoring at the proficient level or above on State assessments in reading/language 

arts and mathematics. Data for these measure for 2020 are unavailable because the 

Department waived for all States the requirements in ESEA section 1112(b)(2) to administer 

State assessments in school year 2019-2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-56

Measure: Percentage increase of students who scored proficient or above on State 

assessments in reading/language arts.

Year 2017 Cohort 2018 Cohort

2018 5.7%

2019 9.3 4.9%

Measure: Percentage increase of students who scored proficient or above on State 

assessments in mathematics.

Year 2017 Cohort 2018 Cohort

2018 9.4%

2019 9.6 11.5%

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.

Year 2016 Cohort

2017 $722

2018 1,235

2019 1,084

Additional information: The Department has discontinued this measure beginning with the 

2017 cohort because it has not proven to be a useful indicator of grantee performance.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-57

Ready to learn programming

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$29,500 $29,500 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

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 underserved 

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 

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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-58

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 fiscal year 2020 competition included two invitational priorities, one for projects that focus 

on literacy content in ways that go beyond vocabulary and basic reading skills to include 

functional literacy, use of language in contexts, and other areas reflective of current literacy 

frameworks and research, and one for projects that focus on content that meets young 

children's developmental needs and exposes them to future career and workforce options. The 

Department awarded two 5-year grants in 2020:

• Twin Cities Public Television is using RTL funds to produce Mashopolis, which will 

employ research-based strategies around executive functions to increase workforce 

and career readiness for children ages 5-8. Mashopolis will use the power of narrative 

storytelling, interactive media, intergenerational learning and equity to engage children 

in building the critical skills they need to join—and lead—the 21st century workforce.

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will create new transmedia experiences 

(including television and learning games) for children ages 2 to 8 that expose young 

learners to a range of career and workforce opportunities in ways that inspire them 

to explore the world of work, and introduce, model, and promote the development 

of key skills; innovate on new media platforms that hold promise for extending the 

reach and impact of quality learning content, and open up new avenues of 

accessibility; and build new engagement models and resources that empower 

adults and communities to support early learning, with an emphasis on 

intergenerational learning.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2017 ................................................................................... $25,741

2018 ..................................................................................... 27,741

2019 ..................................................................................... 27,741

2020 ..................................................................................... 29,000

2021 ..................................................................................... 29,500

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $29.5 million for Ready to Learn Programming in fiscal year 2022, 

the same as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. With these funds, the Department expects to 

continue supporting awards made in fiscal year 2020. Children, particularly children in highpoverty communities, may spend considerable time watching television and using digital media. 

Researchers in many fields have looked carefully at whether and how television viewing might 

contribute to the “literacy gap,” and, conversely, whether and how television and digital media 

can be used as a tool to promote literacy development. Recent research suggests that 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-59

television and transmedia can have a positive impact on children’s literacy and learning, 

provided certain conditions are in place. Producers and developers must understand how 

children learn, and how programming content can facilitate such learning. Individual episodes 

should reflect what research tells us about effective educational programming. For example, 

programs that succeed in helping children learn tend to help children understand how to watch 

and make sense of what they see. Such programs also develop familiarity by using recurring 

characters and situations, repeat key tasks and information, link knowledge to what children 

already know, and are carefully paced to keep children cognitively engaged throughout each 

episode. 

Early childhood, preschool, and elementary school curricula typically emphasize foundational 

skills in math and reading. RTL content is specifically designed to reinforce young children’s 

literacy skills, emphasizing letter recognition, vocabulary, fluency, rhyming, and comprehension. 

Through targeted outreach and marketing campaigns, grantees actively reach out to parents 

and caregivers, particularly in high-poverty rural and urban communities, to encourage the use 

of RTL programming to support the skills that children need to succeed in school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Number of new awards 2 0 0

New award funding $28,710 0 0

Number of continuation awards 0 2 2

Continuation award funding 0 $29,500 $28,950

Evaluation (review of grant products) 0 0 $550

Peer review of new award applications $290 0 0

Total $29,000 $29,500 $29,500

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 2020, it may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-60

goals, objectives, and measures for RTL for possible revision in future years to ensure 

alignment with Administration policy.

The Department uses the following performance measures to assess RTL’s effectiveness in 

improving what children learn, the quality of RTL-funded transmedia products, and the number 

of children RTL is reaching: 

(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, that will provide data on the first 

performance measure. However, both grantees experienced delays in production. The 

Department received the first two of the studies in 2020, but neither of them demonstrated 

positive and statistically significant gains that met What Works Clearinghouse standards with 

reservations.

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, while the other received a score of 3.74, just 

under the cutoff for high quality. In 2018, the Department received one transmedia product suite 

from one grantee to review, which received a high-quality score of 4.02. In 2019, the 

Department received one transmedia suite from each grantee to review, which received highquality scores of 4.52 and 3.85, respectively. In 2020, the Department received one transmedia 

suite to review that received a high-quality score of 3.9.

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

RTL-produced products, by type of product. In 2018, 22.0 million users accessed RTL-produced 

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

22.0 million users, of which 14.0 million watched CPB television shows and 8.0 million used 

Web-based games. Twin Cities Public Television (TPT) did not report any users for 2018. In 

2019, 19.0 million users accessed RTL-produced products, 19.0 million for CPB and 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-61

1.2 thousand for TPT. In 2020, CPB reported 33.1 million users and TPT reported 9.5 million 

users for a total of 42.6 million RTL users.

Efficiency Measure

The Department uses 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. 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. In the third year of 

the 2015 grants, the two grantees leveraged $8.8 million of non-Federal support compared to 

$12.0 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.73 of non-Federal dollars for every 

Federal dollar spent. In the fourth year of the 2015 grants, the two grantees leveraged 

$11.8 million of non-Federal support compared to $11.6 million in Federal dollars spent on 

production, or $1.02 of non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. In the fifth year of the 

2015 grants, the two grantees leveraged $17.9 million of non-Federal support compared to 

$16.7 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $1.07 of non-Federal dollars for every 

Federal dollar spent. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-62

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$30,500 $30,500 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

activities to promote arts education for students, including underserved 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 LEAs in 

which 20 percent or more of the students are from low-income backgrounds; 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. Prior to 2021, the Arts in Education program supported three 

separate grant competitions: Arts Development and Dissemination, Professional Development 

for Arts Educators, and Arts in Education National Program. The Department reviewed the 

implementation of the three programs offered and found a large overlap in the applicant and 

grantee pool, and in the services provided across the various programs. In addition, the three 

separate competitions required applicants to design narrower projects to fit each program's 

specific requirements and to submit separate applications to each of the three grant 

competitions. Beginning in 2021, in an effort to recognize and encourage different, creative, and 

innovative applications, the Department offers the Arts in Education program as one, single 

competition.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-63

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2017 ................................................................................... $27,000

2018 ..................................................................................... 29,000

2019 ..................................................................................... 29,000

2020 ..................................................................................... 30,000

2021 ..................................................................................... 30,500

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $30.5 million for Arts in Education in fiscal year 2022, the same as 

the fiscal year 2021 appropriation.

Instruction and involvement in the arts, including the visual arts, music, dance, theater, and the 

media arts, are widely recognized as vital to a well-rounded education and may contribute to 

improved student achievement and success for all students. Federal and State education 

policies have recognized the value of arts. At the Federal level, the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) includes the arts as one of the components of a well-rounded education. 

Similarly, at the State level, 45 States have arts instructional requirements for elementary 

school, 50 have arts education standards, and 42 have arts requirements for high school 

graduation. However, only 27 States have defined arts as a core academic subject. Results 

from the 2016 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) arts assessment show that 

in 2016, 63 percent of 8th-graders reported taking a music class in school and 42 percent 

reported taking a visual arts course in school, which is not significantly different than the results 

from the 2008 NAEP arts assessment. However, in both music and visual arts in 2016, there are 

significant score gaps between certain student groups. Female students scored higher on 

average than their male peers (15 point gap for music and 14 point gap for visual arts); higher 

income students (as measured by eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)) 

scored higher on average than lower income students eligible for NSLP (26 point gap for music 

and 22 point gap for visual arts); students in suburban schools scored higher on average than 

those in city schools (13 point gap for music and 8 point gap for visual arts); and students in 

private schools scored higher on average than those in public schools (14 point gap for music 

and 16 point gap for visual arts).

The Administration’s request would support State and local efforts to improve and expand arts 

education, including arts programming for underserved students, through the development and 

implementation of high-quality, cohesive, and innovative strategies for art instruction.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-64

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Assistance for Arts Education

 emination:Total funds available 0 $17,282 $29,959

Amount for new awards 0 $16,437 $12,697

Number of new awards 0 23 18

 emination:Amount for continuation awards 0 0 $16,437

 emination:Number of continuation awards 0 0 23

Peer review of new award applications 0 $300 $300

 emination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $525 $545 $525

Arts Development and Dissemination

 emination:Total funds available $14,659 $12,311 0

 emination:Amount for continuation awards $14,659 $12,311 0

 emination:Number of continuation awards 23 23 0

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE)

 ucators:Total funds available $6,258 $375 0

 ucators:Amount for continuation awards $6,258 $375 0

 ucators:Number of continuation awards 21 1 0

Arts in Education National Program 

(AENP)

 rogram: Total funds available $8,000 0 0

 rogram: Amount for continuation awards $8,000 0 0

 rogram: Number of continuation awards 1 0 0

Evaluation $558 $532 $541 _________________________

NOTE: 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 2020, it may do so in fiscal 

years 2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-65

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance 

goals, objectives, and measures for Arts in Education for possible revision in future years to 

ensure alignment with Administration policy.

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 (PDAE) program who receive professional development that is sustained and 

intensive.

Year Target Actual

2017 60% 74%

2018 65 81

2019 70 60

2020 65 62

2021 65

2022 70

Additional Information: Sustained and intensive professional development for the PDAE 

program is defined as completion of 40 or more of the professional development hours offered 

by the PDAE-funded project during the reporting period; completion of 75 percent of the total 

number of professional development hours offered by the PDAE-funded project during the 

reporting period; and completion of these professional development hours over at least a 

6-month period during the reporting period.

The fiscal year 2018 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, 

and that may explain the lower actual reported for the 2019 data.

For 2020, sixteen out of seventeen performance reports submitted by grantees had data for this 

measure. Some grantees had issues completing the professional development planned for the 

year due to COVID-19 pandemic-related issues causing schools to close and grantees to 

rethink how they were able to provide professional development to teachers. Given challenges 

in 2020, grantees were still able to exceed last year’s results and come close to meeting the 

target.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-66

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 100%

2018 100 90

2019 100 74

2020 75 76

2021 80

2022 80

Additional Information: 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 fiscal 

year 2018 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, and that may 

explain the lower actual reported for the 2019 data.

For 2020, fourteen out of seventeen performance reports submitted by grantees had data for 

this measure. Some grantees had issues completing the professional development planned for 

the year due to issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic causing schools to close and 

grantees to rethink how they were able to provide professional development to teachers. Given 

challenges in 2020, grantees were still able to exceed last year’s results as well as the target.

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Arts Development and Dissemination 

programs who demonstrate proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or 

comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2017 38% 31%

2018 37 32

2019 40 39

2020 21 18

2021

2022

Additional information: For 2020, only one of 21 grantees was able to provide data on this 

measure due to issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including waiver of State 

assessment requirements. Grantees are working towards being able to provide data in 2021.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-67

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Arts Development and Dissemination 

programs who demonstrate proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison 

groups.

Year Treatment Control

2017 40% 36%

2018 39 35

2019 45 49

2020 17 15

2021

2022

Additional information: For 2020, only one of 21 grantees was able to provide data on this 

measure due to issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including waiver of State 

assessment requirements. Grantees are working towards being able to provide data in 2021.

Measure: The number of accessible, arts-based instructional materials that are developed.

Year Target Actual

2019 84 84

2020 100 371

2021 200

2022 250

Additional Information: This measure was added to the Arts Development and Dissemination

program for the fiscal year 2018 cohort in response to statutory changes to the program 

authorization. Data for 2019 represents a baseline set by the fiscal year 2018 cohort.

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.

Measure: The total number of students who participate in arts education sponsored by the 

grantee.

Year Target Actual

2017 1,820,000 1,823,785

2018 1,911,000 2,151,664

2019 1,130,000 1,527,535

2020 1,240,000 1,596,693

2021

2022
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-68

Measure: The total number of low-income students who participate in arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2017 660,000 666,399

2018 693,500 693,065

2019 490,227 490,227

2020 468,012 549,839

2021

2022

Measure: The total number of children with disabilities who participate in arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2017 160,000 165,870

2018 168,000 173,195

2019 135,000 135,074

2020 100,623 117,003

2021

2022

Measure: The number of teachers participating in the grantee's program who receive 

professional development.

Year Target Actual

2017 55% 54%

2018 57 85

2019 20,000 28,598

2020 25,000 32,621

2021

2022

Additional Information: Prior to 2019, the grantee reported on the percent of teachers 

participating in the grantee’s program who receive professional development that is sustained 

and intensive.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-69

Javits gifted and talented education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4, Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined(1)

Budget Authority:

2021 

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$13,500 $13,500 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

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, typically for 

5 years, to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), 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 students from low-income backgrounds and at-risk students; 

establish and operate gifted and talented education programs, which may include 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-70

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017 ........................................... ....................................... $12,000

2018 ........................................... ......................................... 12,000

2019 ........................................... ......................................... 12,000

2020 ........................................... ......................................... 13,000

2021 ........................................... ......................................... 13,500

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $13.5 million for Javits Gifted and Talented Education for fiscal 

year 2022, the same as the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The request would support new and 

continuation awards designed to help schools identify and meet the needs of gifted and talented

students. 

Consistent with the Administration’s commitment to promote equity in access to educational 

opportunities, the Department would place special emphasis in making new awards on serving 

underserved students, including students of color, English learners, and students with 

disabilities, for whom data from the Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection1 show persistent 

underrepresentation in gifted and talented education programs. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for new awards $1,419 $531 $5,331

Number of new awards 3 1 8–12

Amount for continuation awards $10,581 $11,969 $7,069

Number of continuation awards 24 27 14

National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $100

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 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 

2021 and 2022.

1 See, for example, https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/CRDC-College-and-Career-Readiness-Snapshot.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-71

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. 

The Department has established the following new measures to assess program performance. 

Data for these measures were to be first reported for 2020, for the fiscal year 2019 cohort. Due 

to the COVID-19 pandemic, grantees had limited ability to carry out project activities in 2020. In 

addition, the Department waived for all States the requirements in ESEA section 1112(b)(2) to 

administer State assessments in school year 2019-2020. As a result, data responsive to the 

performance measures for 2020 are generally unavailable. The Department will provide 

available data for these measures for 2021 in future budget justifications.

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

for Javits Gifted and Talented Education for possible revision in future years to ensure 

alignment with Administration policy.

Measure: The number of students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program.

Measure: The percentage of students newly identified as gifted and talented under the program 

who were served under the program.

Measure: Of the students served under the program who were in tested grades, the 

percentage who made gains on State assessments in mathematics.

Measure: Of the students served under the program who were in tested grades, the 

percentage who made gains on State assessments in science.

Measure: The number of teachers and other educators who received services that enable them 

to better identify and improve instruction for gifted and talented students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-72

Statewide family engagement centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2021 

Appropriation

2022 

Request

Change from 

2021 to 2022

$12,500 $12,500 0

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program provides 5-year grants to 

statewide organizations, or consortia of such organizations, to establish statewide centers that 

carry out programs that promote parent and family engagement in education or provide 

comprehensive training and technical assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), schools, and organizations that support partnerships between 

families and schools. 

Grantees must use funds to: assist parents in effectively participating in their children’s 

education; partner with SEAs to develop and implement systemic family engagement initiatives; 

and develop and implement parental involvement policies. Grantees must use at least 

65 percent of their funds to serve LEAs, schools, and community-based organizations that serve 

high concentrations of underserved students. In addition, grantees must use at least 30 percent 

of their funds to establish or expand technical assistance for evidence-based parent education 

programs. By statute, the Department gives priority to applicants that propose to use evidencebased strategies for improving family engagement in schools in general. 

To help ensure that SFEC projects are supported in local communities and financially 

sustainable, grantees must secure matching funds from non-Federal sources after the first year 

of their projects. The Department may not award less than $500,000 to an individual project, 

and may use up to 2 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical assistance to grantees 

on the establishment, development, and coordination of statewide family engagement centers. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

F-73

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017...................................................................... 0

2018........................................................... $10,000

2019............................................................. 15,4401

2020............................................................. 10,000

2021............................................................. 12,500

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $5,440 thousand from the Charter Schools Program to SFEC.

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $12.5 million for the SFEC program for fiscal year 2022, the same 

as the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The request would support new and continuation awards 

designed to promote family engagement in education.

Strong parent and community engagement is critical to efforts to improve our Nation’s schools 

and is a priority for the Administration. By educating parents and fostering partnerships 

between families and schools, particularly schools with concentrations of underserved students, 

SFEC grants can help lay the groundwork for sustained school improvement.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for new awards 0 0 $4,991

Number of new awards 0 0 5

Amount for continuation awards $9,800 $12,300 $7,259

Number of continuation awards 11 11 11

Peer review 0 0 $50

Technical assistance $200 $200 $200

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

including SFECs, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department did not 

reserve funds from the SFEC program for this purpose in fiscal year 2020, it may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

F-74

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. Achievement of program 

results is based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those 

requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program. The Department will be reviewing GPRA program performance 

goals, objectives, and measures for Statewide Family Engagement Centers for possible revision 

in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

Measure: The number of parents who are participating in program activities designed to provide 

them with the information necessary to understand their annual school report cards and other 

opportunities for engagement under section 1116 and other related ESEA provisions.

Year Target Actual

2019 Baseline year 49,746

2020 50,000 60,046

2021 60,000

Additional information: In 2020, grantees largely pivoted to online programming for parents 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were therefore able to reach many more parents than 

anticipated. Grantees generally intend to continue offering online programming in future years 

and anticipate that performance against this measure will be sustained. 

Measure: The number of high-impact activities or services provided to build a statewide 

infrastructure for systemic family engagement that includes support for State and local 

educational agency level leadership and capacity-building.

Year Target Actual

2019 Baseline year 311

2020 350 816

2021 500

Additional information: In 2020, grantees saw increased focus at the State and local levels on 

improving family engagement capacity. As States and districts improve supports for leaders 

and build capacity at the staff level, the Department expects that performance for this measure 

will begin to level out. The grantees have worked with a technical assistance contractor to 

define “high-impact” as consistently as possible across all projects. 

Measure: The number of high-impact activities or services implemented to ensure that parents 

are trained and can effectively engage in activities that will improve student academic 

achievement, to include an understanding of how they can support learning in the classroom 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

F-75

with activities at home or outside the school generally, as well as how they can participate in 

State and local decision-making processes.

Year Target Actual

2019 Baseline year 99

2020 100 935

2021 800

Additional information: In 2020, grantees largely pivoted to online programming for parents 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were therefore able to reach many more parents than 

anticipated. Grantees generally intend to continue offering online programming in future years 

and anticipate that performance against this measure will largely be sustained. 

Measure: The percentage of parents and families receiving services who report having 

enhanced capacity to work with schools and service providers effectively in meeting the 

academic and developmental needs of their children.

Year Target Actual

2019 Baseline year 91.9%

2020 80% 87.3

2021 80

Additional information: Eight grantees reported data for this measure. The percentage of 

parents and families reported ranged from 59 to 97 percent in Year 2.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-76

School leader recruitment and support

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, Section 2243)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

0 $30,000 +$30,000

1 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

The School Leader Recruitment and Support (SLRS) grant program (previously authorized as 

the School Leadership program, last funded in fiscal year 2017) provides competitive grants to 

improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals or 

other school leaders in high-need schools. Allowable activities 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 

to improve schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities and

targeted support and improvement activities under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA);

• providing continuous professional development for principals or other school leaders in highneed schools;

• developing and disseminating information on best practices and strategies for effective 

school leadership in high-need schools; and

• supporting other evidence-based programs or activities focused on principals or other 

school leaders in high-need schools.

Eligible entities include local educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of LEAs that serve at 

least one high-need school, State educational agencies (SEAs) or consortia of SEAs, an SEA 

either alone or in partnership with one or more LEAs that serve a high-need school, the Bureau 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-77

of Indian Education, or one of those entities in partnership with one or more nonprofit 

organizations or institutions of higher education. 

Grants may be awarded for up to 5 years; the Department has the discretion to renew awards 

for an additional 2-year period if grantees demonstrate 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 25 percent of project costs each year. The Department may waive or 

modify this cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship. The statutory 

definition of “high-need” schools references the percentage of students from families with 

incomes below the poverty line, with a minimum threshold of 50 percent for elementary schools 

and 40 percent for secondary schools. Implementing this requirement may require rulemaking 

since census poverty data are not available at the school level.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2017 ...................................... ....................................... $14,500

2018 ...................................... .................................................. 0

2019 ...................................... .................................................. 0

2020 ...................................... .................................................. 0

2021 ...................................... .................................................. 0

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting in fiscal year 2022 $30 million for the first competition under 

the reauthorized School Leader Recruitment and Support program. Funds would support grants 

for high-quality professional development for principals, other school leaders, and aspiring 

principals and school leaders. 

School leaders are second only to classroom teachers among school factors that affect student 

learning.1 They play a critically important role in students’ academic success, especially in 

underserved schools, by creating cultures of high expectations for all students, as well as by 

recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers, including their role in creating positive working 

conditions.

Projects would focus on ensuring that the nation’s most underserved schools have resources to 

improve school leadership. Funded projects would help develop high-quality principal and 

school leader recruitment and preparation programs and help ensure that current principals and 

school leadership teams strengthen essential school leadership skills such as creating a 

positive school climate, developing school leadership teams, providing feedback to teachers to 

support their practice, and analyzing and responding to student data. In addition, the program 

would fund projects that support teachers serving in leadership roles.

1 Grissom, Jason A., Egalite, Anna J., and Lindsay, Constance A. “How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A 

Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research”, February 2021. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledgecenter/pages/how-principals-affect-students-and-schools-a-systematic-synthesis-of-two-decades-of-research.aspx
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-78

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Project Funding:

New grant awards 0 0 $29,700

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 300

Total 0 0 30,000

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards − − 15−30 

Range of new awards − − $500−2,500

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 may reserve School Leader Recruitment and Support funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2022.

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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by the program.

The Department would develop performance measures for the program and publish them in the 

notice inviting application. Measures could include information on the number of participants 

who meet certification requirements to become a principal or assistant principal, the number of 

such participants who obtain positions in high-need schools, and the cost per participant who 

becomes certified and obtains employment in a high-need school
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-79

Fostering diverse schools 

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022 

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

0 $100,000 +$100,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fostering Diverse Schools program would address the well-documented, persistent 

negative effects of racial isolation and concentrated poverty by supporting voluntary efforts to 

increase school racial and socioeconomic diversity in preschool through grade 12. The program 

would make competitive awards to local educational agencies (LEAs)—alone, in consortia, or in 

partnership with State educational agencies—that have significant achievement gaps and racial 

or socioeconomic segregation within or across districts. Educational service agencies or other 

regional educational authorities serving such LEAs may also apply for grants. 

Fostering Diverse Schools grants would require applicants to demonstrate strong student, 

family, teacher, and community involvement in their plans and would provide resources for 

communities to implement locally tailored school integration and improvement strategies. While 

the program would promote the use of evidence-based strategies, applicants would have 

flexibility to develop and implement school diversity plans that reflect their individual needs and 

circumstances. 

Program funds would support two types of grants: (1) planning grants for activities, for up to 

18 months, that culminate in a strategic plan for increasing school racial and socioeconomic 

diversity and creating inclusive learning environments within schools and classrooms; and (2), 

for applicants with well-designed plans that were developed as a result of strong family, 

community, and educator engagement, implementation grants for a period of up to 5 years to 

carry out activities in those plans. The Department would give special consideration in making 

awards to applicants that partner with or leverage resources of local housing or transportation 

authorities, and grantees would be encouraged to partner with other entities, such as 

community-based organizations, social service agencies, institutions of higher education, and 

early learning providers to support implementation. Priority would also be given to projects that 

are inter-district or regional in approach, as well as to applicants for implementation grants that 

successfully complete planning grant projects.

Applicants for either type of grant could pursue a variety of school enrollment policies to 

promote school racial and socioeconomic diversity. For example, applicants could allow 

parents to choose public schools within or across districts through open-enrollment or 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fostering diverse schools

F-80

controlled-choice systems, offer a common school application process that enables families to 

identify school choices and rank them by preference, or use weighted lotteries or other studentassignment policies that consider the socioeconomic status or neighborhood of residence of 

students in place of entrance examinations or other competitive application reviews. In addition, 

applicants could seek to revise school or district boundaries or feeder patterns to achieve 

greater student diversity in their schools.

Planning Grants

Planning grants would support a rigorous process that includes research and analysis, 

community engagement, and the development of an implementation plan. Required activities 

for planning grantees would include: (1) completing a comprehensive assessment of the 

geographic area to be served, including using established survey or data collection methods to 

identify areas of concentrated poverty, racial and socioeconomic stratification, student 

educational outcomes, and related barriers to socioeconomic and racial diversity at the 

classroom, school, and district levels; (2) developing and implementing a robust student, family, 

teacher, and community engagement plan, including, where feasible, public hearings or other 

open forums to inform the development of a formal strategy to improve racial and 

socioeconomic diversity; and (3) producing a strategic plan that includes specific performance 

metrics, activities, timelines, and cost estimates for improving diversity and student outcomes in 

covered schools. To these ends, planning grantees could use funds for activities such as:

• Assessing the impact on school diversity of current school and district boundaries and 

feeder patterns, and identifying strategies for assigning students to schools in ways that 

promote diversity while taking into account geographic proximity;

• Analyzing the location and capacity of existing school facilities and the adequacy of local 

or regional transportation infrastructure to support more diverse student bodies;

• Developing new school construction or siting proposals to promote racial and 

socioeconomic diversity;

• Prototyping activities designed to improve diversity and student outcomes in covered 

schools; 

• Identifying or developing strategies to evaluate and address academic and social 

desegregation within schools with diverse enrollments;

• Ensuring that an implementation plan complies with any court- or agency-ordered school 

desegregation plan; and

• Coordinating with other relevant government entities, including housing or transportation 

authorities. 

Implementation Grants

To be eligible to receive an award, an applicant for an implementation grant must submit a 

high-quality plan that includes: (1) a comprehensive set of activities that is based on the 

assessment required of planning grantees and designed to improve academic outcomes for all 

students, particularly students of color and students from low-income backgrounds, and 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fostering diverse schools

F-81

increase racial and socioeconomic integration in schools; (2) evidence of strong stakeholder 

support for these strategies, including that the applicant has engaged in meaningful student, 

family, teacher, and community outreach activities; (3) ambitious but achievable goals to 

increase racial and socioeconomic diversity over the course of the grant period; and (4) regular 

collection and analysis of performance data to provide transparency and support continuous 

improvement.

Grantees would use funds to carry out one or more activities in their plans, which could include: 

• Creating or improving systems or partnerships that make information on public school 

options easily accessible to students and families, with a focus on removing barriers to 

information access;

• Providing new or expanded access to specialized academic programs or facilities 

designed to attract students from diverse backgrounds;

• Recruiting, hiring, and supporting diverse educators in new, expanded, or restructured 

schools, including professional development activities on implementing culturally and 

linguistically responsive practices and safe and inclusive learning environments;

• Initiating a transportation plan for bringing students to and from covered schools; and

• Other innovative or promising activities designed to increase racial and socioeconomic 

diversity and close opportunity and achievement gaps within and across schools.

National Activities

The Department would reserve up to 10 percent of appropriations for the new program to 

support a wide range of national activities, including research, development, technical 

assistance, evaluation, and dissemination, and would use these funds particularly to provide 

intensive, customized technical assistance to planning grantees and to conduct a rigorous 

evaluation of implementation grants. Funds could also be used to develop and maintain a 

community of practice for information sharing among grantees and experts in the field.

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million in fiscal year 2022 for a new Fostering Diverse 

Schools program, which would be authorized through appropriations language. The 

Department would use initial funds under this program for a varied cohort of planning grants and 

a robust, coordinated set of national activities while also making a limited number of 

implementation awards.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fostering diverse schools

F-82

Fostering Diverse Schools is an integral part of the Administration’s efforts to remove the 

barriers to success that children living in racially isolated communities or concentrated poverty 

too often face. In particular this proposed program would focus national attention on the critical 

role schools that are diverse by design can play in improving outcomes for these students and 

their peers, including, as research shows, not only academic outcomes but also social and 

emotional, civic, and economic outcomes.1 

Fostering Diverse Schools would support comprehensive school diversity plans and be 

complemented by the requested increase for Magnet Schools Assistance, which supports 

efforts to desegregate schools by creating special curricula or instructional programs that appeal 

to diverse students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022

Amount for new awards $89,500

Number of new planning grants 30–35

Average planning grant award $1,500

Number of new implementation grants 2–3

Average implementation grant award $20,000

Peer review of new award applications $500

National activities $10,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish performance measures to assess the impact of the activities that 

receive support under this program, based in part on the goals established by grantees. The 

development of these measures would build on our experience in creating performance 

measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to align program measures 

for Fostering Diverse Schools with measures for related programs, including Magnet Schools 

Assistance.

1 See https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-andclassrooms/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20students%20in%20socioeconomically,have%20higher%20average%20

test%20scores.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-83

Expanding opportunities for teacher leadership development

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined

Mandatory Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$0 $200,000 $200,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Expanding Opportunities for Teacher Leadership and Development program would make 

competitive grants to States and local educational agencies to provide additional opportunities 

for teachers to serve as leaders, mentors and coaches and receive compensation for their 

additional responsibilities and service. Funds would support opportunities for teacher leaders 

have a greater impact on their school community in areas such as social and emotional 

learning, data-driven decision-making, teacher development, and family engagement.

FY 2022 BUDGET

President Biden’s American Families Plan would provide $200 million in mandatory funding for 

fiscal year 2022, and $2 billion over 10 years, for a new Expanding Opportunities for Teacher 

Leadership and Development program. This new program would make competitive awards to 

SEAs and high-poverty LEAs to support opportunities for experienced and effective teachers to 

lead and have a greater impact on their school community while remaining in the classroom 

(and be compensated for additional responsibilities). These resources would support highquality teacher mentorship programs which have been found to improve both student outcomes1

and teacher retention by providing new teachers with the support they need.2 It would also 

support job-embedded coaching and teacher leadership in areas such as social and emotional 

learning, data-driven decision-making, teacher development, and family engagement. Overall, 

the American Families Plan would invest $9 billion in America’s teachers, helping to address 

shortages, improve training and supports for teachers, and boost teacher diversity.

 

Many experienced and effective teachers have knowledge and skills to share with their 

colleagues but lack access to formal opportunities to serve as teacher leaders; conversely, 

many inexperienced teachers struggling to achieve success in the classroom, as well as their 

1 SRI International. 2020. Impact of the New Teacher Center’s New Teacher Induction Model on Teachers and 

Students. https://www.sri.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NTC_i3-Validation-eval-brief_062017_final.pdf. 2 Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter? 

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=gse_pubs. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Expanding opportunities for teacher leadership development

F-84

students, would benefit from the mentorship and coaching of a teacher leader. Programs that 

leverage teachers as leaders, such as high-quality mentorship programs for new teachers, 

including teachers of color, are proven tools to improve both student outcomes and teacher 

retention. And by providing new teachers with the support they need to develop into effective 

teachers,1 such programs are a key component of efforts to address, or rather prevent, teacher 

shortages. Teacher leadership opportunities also may extend to a broad range of priorities 

within their school buildings, such as creating positive school culture or elevating culturallyresponsive teaching practices.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

effectiveness of activities supported through the Expanding Opportunities for Teacher 

Leadership and Development. Such measures may include indicators of teacher satisfaction 

and retention as well as student academic outcomes.

1 SRI International. 2020. Impact of the New Teacher Center’s New Teacher Induction Model on Teachers and 

Students. https://www.sri.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NTC_i3-Validation-eval-brief_062017_final.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-85

Answer the call – supporting in-demand credentials for teachers

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined

Mandatory Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Answer the Call—Supporting In-Demand Credentials for Teachers program would provide 

grants to States to help eligible public school teachers obtain additional certifications in highdemand subject areas at no cost. The program would focus on critical shortage areas such as 

special education, bilingual education, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

education. Funds could also be used to allow teachers to earn additional certifications 

associated with greater teacher effectiveness. The program would include a priority for public 

school teachers with at least two years of experience at schools with high proportions of lowincome students or significant teacher shortages.

FY 2022 BUDGET

President Biden’s American Families Plan would provide $1.6 billion in one-time, mandatory 

funding for the Answer the Call—Supporting In-Demand Credentials for Teachers program. 

Under this program, the Department would make grants to States to help teachers earn indemand credentials—at no cost—in critical shortage areas such as special education, bilingual 

education, and STEM education, as well as other certifications associated with greater teacher 

effectiveness.

Few people can have a bigger impact on a child’s life than a great teacher. Unfortunately, the 

U.S. faces a large and growing teacher shortage, particularly in key fields like special education 

and critical subjects such as STEM. Before the pandemic, schools across the nation needed an 

estimated additional 100,000 certified teachers, resulting in key positions going unfilled.1

Shortages of certified teachers disproportionately impact schools with higher percentages of 

students of color and low-income students, which have a higher proportion of teachers that are 

uncertified and in their first or second year, exacerbating educational disparities. According to 

1 The teacher shortage is real, large and growing, and worse than we thought: The first report in ‘The Perfect Storm in 

the Teacher Labor Market’ series | Economic Policy Institute (epi.org)
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Answer the call – supporting in-demand credentials for teachers

F-86

the most recent data from the National Center on Education Statistics, 36% of Title I schools 

have at least one hard-to-staff subject area.1

Many teachers are eager to answer the call to obtain certifications in areas their schools need, 

like special education, bilingual education, and science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM), but are deterred due to the high cost of professional programs. Answer 

the Call would invest $1.6 billion to provide educators with opportunities to obtain additional 

certifications in high-demand areas like special education, bilingual education, and certifications 

that have been demonstrated to improve teacher performance. This funding will support over 

100,000 educators, with a priority for public school teachers with at least two years of 

experience at schools with a significant portion of low-income students or significant teacher 

shortages. 

The Answer the Call proposal is part of the American Families Plan’s $9 billion investment in 

America’s teachers, addressing shortages, improving training and supports for teachers, and 

boosting teacher diversity.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

effectiveness of activities supported through the Answer the Call—Supporting In-Demand 

Credentials for Teachers program. Potential indicators include the numbers of certifications 

earned and reductions in the proportion of uncertified teachers in high-poverty schools and 

schools serving high proportions of students of color.

1 NCES data Stats In Brief: Teaching Vacancies and Difficult-to-Staff Teaching Positions in Public Schools, 

November 2015.