Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................ G-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers ............................................................................. G-3

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................. G-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................ G-5

Appropriations History............................................................................................................. G-6

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports............................................................... G-7

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ G-11

Activities: 

Education innovation and research................................................................................... G-13

Teacher and school leader incentive grants...................................................................... G-22

American history and civics education .............................................................................. G-30

Supporting effective educator development ...................................................................... G-35

Charter schools grants...................................................................................................... G-39

Magnet schools assistance............................................................................................... G-50

Ready to learn programming ............................................................................................ G-55

Arts in education............................................................................................................... G-59

Javits gifted and talented education.................................................................................. G-65

Statewide family engagement centers .............................................................................. G-68

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-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, $1,103,815,000: Provided, That 

$284,815,000 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 $629,000,000 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:3Provided further, That

of the funds available for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use $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), $140,000,000, to remain available through March 31, 2021, to carry out section 

4305(b), and not more than $15,000,000 to carry out the activities in section 4305(a)(3):4

Provided further, That notwithstanding section 4601(b), $190,000,000 shall be available through 

December 31, 2020 for subpart 1 of part F of title IV.]5 (Department of Education Appropriations 

Act, 2020.)

NOTES 

The appropriations language for the Innovation and Improvement account is deleted because the fiscal year 

2021 President’s Budget Request would consolidate most formula and competitive grant programs authorized by the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, and related programs, into an Elementary and Secondary 

Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant in a new Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

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

G-2 

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 [Provided, That $284,815,000 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, and 

Supporting Effective Educator Development

without regard to the sections of the ESEA 

that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under title II of the ESEA. 

2 [Provided further, That $629,000,000 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, 

and Education Innovation and Research 

without regard to the sections of the ESEA 

that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under title IV of the ESEA. 

3 [Provided 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. 

4 [Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

$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), 

$140,000,000, to remain available through 

March 31, 2021, to carry out section 4305(b), 

and not more than $15,000,000 to carry out 

the activities in section 4305(a)(3):]

This language establishes, within the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a specific 

funding amount for facilities grants and for 

Charter Management Organization grants

and a maximum funding amount for State 

Facilities Incentive grants and for national 

activities. 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. 

5 [Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 4601(b), $190,000,000 shall be 

available through December 31, 2020 for 

subpart 1 of part F of title IV.]

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research (EIR) overriding the authorized 

level. It also extends the period of Federal 

availability 3 months beyond the year of 

appropriation. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-3 

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2019 2020 2021 

Discretionary:

DiscretionaryAppropriation......................................... $1,035,556 $1,103,815 0

Total, discretionary appropriation ..... 1,035,556 1,103,815 0 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-4 

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2020 .............................................................................................. $1,103,815

2021 .............................................................................................. _______0

Net change............................................................. -$1,103,815

Decreases: 2020 base

Change

from base

Program: 

Eliminate separate funding for the programs in this 

account because the fiscal year 2021 President’s Budget 

Request would consolidate most elementary and 

secondary formula and competitive grant programs into an 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant) in a new 

Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account. 

The ESED Block Grant would provide States with more 

flexible resources to allow them to determine how best to 

serve their students. $1,103,815 -$1,103,815

Subtotal, decreases -1,103,815

Net change -1,103,815
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-5G-5 

G-5 

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2020

Authorized footnote

2020

Estimatefootnote

2021

Authorizedfootnote

2021

Request

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) (1) $190,000 $90,6112 0

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) (3) 200,000 (2,3) 0

American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) (3) 4,815 (2,3) 0

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) (3) 80,000 (2,3) 0

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) 300,000 440,000 300,0002 0

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 108,530 107,000 108,5302 0

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

section 4643) (1) 29,000 (1,2) 0

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) (1) 30,000 (1,2) 0

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

section 4644) 

. (1) 13,000 . (1,2) 0

Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) 

. 10,000 10,000

 

. 10,0002 0

Total definite authorization 799,472 799,472

Total appropriation 1,103,815 0

1 For Part F of Title IV, a total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2020, 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 applies through September 30, 2021.

3 For Part B of Title II, a total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2020, of which 47 percent is authorized for Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants, 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-6 

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands) 

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation

Foot

note

2012 Discretionary $4,995,000 $821,4111 $1,740,2121 $1,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,1332 1,545,9662 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A3 1,331,5984 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A3 868,7214 852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A3 04 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0005 694,6165 1,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 05 05 0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556 632,9386 942,7436 887,5756

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982 06 06 06

2018 Discretionary 1,208,026 757,9047 880,3757 982,2567

2019 Discretionary 1,777,647 1,058,4418 1,042,2568 1,035,5568

2020 Discretionary 1,107,000 1,224,315 1,055,5569 1,103,8159

2021 Discretionary 0

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

Committee action only.

2 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.

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

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

5 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.

6 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. 7 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). 8 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). 9 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

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

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports—continued 

G-7

Significant Items in FY 2020 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 2020 funding 

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

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

Managers’

Statement: Grant Priorities – 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. EIR should continue to support diverse and field-initiated interventions. 

The Department is directed to brief the Committees on the fiscal year 2020 

funding opportunities available under this program, including any specified 

priorities, not less than 30 days prior to releasing a notice inviting applications.

Response: The Department will brief the Committees by the specified deadline.

House: The Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to fund professional 

development vouchers for teachers and directs that no funds are to be used for 

that purpose.

Response: Although this restriction was included in the House appropriations bill, it was not 

included in the Senate bill nor the final bill that was enacted into law. Therefore, 

the Department intends to use a portion of the funds available for the EIR 

program for projects that provide professional development vouchers. 

House: 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 the total for EIR, the agreement includes $65,000,000 to provide grants for 

social and emotional learning (SEL). Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the 

Department is directed to brief the Committees 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.

Response: The Department will brief the Committees by the specified deadline.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports—continued 

G-8

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED)

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. Within 

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

Committees on plans for supporting SEL within SEED. In addition, the 

Department shall provide notice to the Committees at least seven days before 

grantees are announced.

House: The Committee recognizes the importance of integrating SEL into educator 

professional preparation and ongoing professional support and provides 

resources to expand access to these competencies. 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 SEED competition. In addition, the Department 

shall provide notice to the Committees at least seven days before grantees are 

announced.

Response: The Department will brief the Committees by the specified deadline.

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: [T]he Committee directs the Secretary to use a portion of funds made available 

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

Response: The Department will comply with this request.

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.

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

awarded to a diverse set of eligible entities, including national non-profit 

organizations implementing evidence-based activities (as defined in section 

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

evidence-based programs of national significance across the country.

Response: The SEED statute specifies that institutions of higher education, national 

nonprofit entities, the Bureau of Indian Education, or partnerships of one or more 

of those entities are eligible to receive awards, and requires the Department to 

ensure that, to the extent practicable, grants are distributed amount eligible 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports—continued 

G-9

entities that will serve geographically diverse areas. The Department will abide 

by these requirements.

Charter Schools Grants

Senate: 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 request.

House: The Committee is deeply concerned that the Department does not intend to be a 

responsible steward of taxpayer dollars when it comes to CSP funding, as it has 

rejected the multiple ED–OIG audit recommendations. Therefore, the Committee 

directs the Department, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, to 

implement all of the recommendations included in the September 2018 ED–OIG 

report and brief the Committees on Appropriations on plans for implementation 

within 30 days of enactment of this Act.

Response: The Department has implemented actions that address each of the three 

recommendations in the September 2018 report and is working with the Office of 

Inspector General to conclude this audit.

House: The Committee directs the Department to include in their evaluation of State 

entity Charter School grant programs the extent to which State entities are 

utilizing this seven percent to ensure that charter schools receiving CSP grants 

are equipped to appropriately serve students with disabilities and, by extension, 

prepared to become high-quality charter schools. Further, the Committee directs 

the Department to include a summary of its findings in its fiscal year 2021 

Congressional Budget Justification.

Senate: The Committee encourages the Department to include in their review of State 

entity grantees a review of how State entities are utilizing this 7 percent setaside, including but not limited to the extent to which State entities are using it to 

ensure that charter schools receiving CSP grants are equipped to appropriately 

serve all students, including students with disabilities. The Committee further 

requests that the Department include in its CJs, starting with submissions for the 

2021 fiscal year, a summary of those findings.

Response: The Department’s actions in response to these requests are discussed in the 

Charter Schools Grants program narrative.

House: In addition, the Committee notes widespread findings of waste and abuse in the 

for-profit virtual charter school sector and directs the Department to provide the 

Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, the 

amount of CSP funding this sector received between fiscal years 2014 through 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2020 Appropriations Reports—continued 

G-10

fiscal year 2019. In addition, the Department shall provide the total funding for all 

of the agency’s programs that goes to for-profit, virtual charter schools.

Response: The Department will comply with this request.

Statewide Family Engagement Centers

Managers’

Statement: The Committee is aware that the Department did not score a valid application for 

funding under the Statewide Family Engagement Centers program prior to 

making initial awards under the program at the end of fiscal year 2018. The 

Department subsequently scored this application and then awarded funding out 

of fiscal year 2019 resources since the application scored high enough to have 

been awarded a grant among those initially selected for an award in fiscal year 

2018. This action created an approximately $1,000,000 shortfall in funding for 

fiscal year 2019 with each fiscal year 2018 funded grantee receiving a notice 

from the Department that their second-year grant funding would be reduced by 9 

percent. The Committee opposes this stated policy because of the impact of 

these cuts on the ability of centers to robustly engage families just as centers are 

beginning to ramp up their work as indicated in approved grant applications. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to avoid imposing such cuts and to work with 

the Committee using available flexibility and resources to implement a solution 

for this problem.

Response: The Department corrected the shortfall in fiscal year 2019 by reprogramming 

Charter School Program funds to the Statewide Family Engagement Centers 

program.
G-11

G-11

Summary of R equ est

 Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2021 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat 

Code

2019

Appropriation

2020

Appropriation

2021 President's 

Budget

2021 President's Budget Compared to 

2020 Appropriation

Amount Percent

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Total D 1,035,556 1,103,815 0 (1,103,815) -100.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

1 The 2019 Appropriation column reflects a reprogramming of $12,141 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Magnet Schools Assistance ($6,700 thousand) and Statewide Family Engagement Centers ($5,440 

thousand).

Innovation and Improvement

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) D 130,000 190,000 0 (190,000) -100.00%

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

American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) D 4,815 4,815 0 (4,815) -100.00%

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) D 75,000 80,000 0 (80,000) -100.00%

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) 1 D 427,859 440,000 0 (440,000) -100.00%

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 1 D 113,701 107,000 0 (107,000) -100.00%

Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) D 27,741 29,000 0 (29,000) -100.00%

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 29,000 30,000 0 (30,000) -100.00%

Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4644) D 12,000 13,000 0 (13,000) -100.00%

Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) 1 D 15,440 10,000 0 (10,000) -100.00%
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-12

Summary of Request

The Administration is not requesting any funds for the programs in the Innovation and 

Improvement account for fiscal year 2021. Instead, the request proposes to consolidate most 

formula and competitive grant programs authorized by the ESEA (including all the programs in 

this account) as well as related programs into an Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant). This proposal builds on the 2015 Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the ESEA and sought to restore State and 

local control over education by significantly reducing the mandates from Washington 

accompanying Federal education funds. The ESED Block Grant would further right-size the 

Federal role in education and allow States to decide how best to use ESEA funds to address 

local educational needs and circumstances and improve outcomes for all students. The request 

would consolidate more than 30 Federal elementary and secondary education programs into a 

single $19.5 billion formula grant program. State educational agencies and local educational 

agencies would have discretion to use ESED Block Grant funds for any purpose authorized by 

the ESEA, including activities currently funded by programs in this account.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-13

Activities:

Education innovation and research

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021 

$190,000 0 -$190,000

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

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

Subpart 1.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 students. The EIR 

program supports 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 are willing to 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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-14

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

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

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

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

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

disseminate best practices.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Education Innovation and Research 

program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block 

Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as well as several related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies, which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported by EIR. In 

particular, States could use the 10 percent reservation for State-level activities under the ESED 

Block to support evidence-building activities similar to those currently funded by EIR. For more 

information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education 

account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing EIR grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods. While initial EIR awards are frontloaded and do not entail continuation costs, the 

Department may reserve ESED Block Grant funds to pay 2-year renewal awards for particularly 

promising EIR projects.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-15

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

EIR competition

EIR com petition Amount for grants $124,737 $178,600 0

EIR com petition Number of new awards 42 35-50 0

EIR com petition Range of new awards $2,105–8,659 $3,000–15,000 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $527 $1,900 0

National activities $4,736 $9,500 0

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 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

G-16

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

students served.

Year Target Actual

2016 66% 66%

2017 66 75

2018 66

2019 66

2020 66

2021 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

2016 65% N/A

2017 65 N/A

2018 65

2019 65

2020 65

2021 65

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

students served.

Year Target Actual

2016 68% 52%

2017 68 50

2018 68

2019 68

2020 68

2021 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

2016 65% N/A

2017 65 80%

2018 65

2019 65

2020 65

2021
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-17

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

final performance reports submitted through March 2018. One of the goals of Mid-phase and 

Expansion grants is to expand the implementation of interventions for which there is evidence of 

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

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

important measure of success for these projects. 

All five active Expansion grants and all 18 Mid-phase grants provided data on the GPRA 

measure. One Expansion grant and two Mid-phase grants did not serve students in the 

reporting year and are thus excluded from the calculation. 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 2018 will be available by 

September 2020.

No Expansion grants ended their grants in the reporting period through March 2018, so there is 

no cumulative data on students served to report for Expansion. Five 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

2016 83% 100%

2017 100 100

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-18

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

2016 78% 96%

2017 100 100

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021 100

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

2016 96% 98%

2017 100 98

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021 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 2019 will be available by December 2020. 

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

2016 83% 100%

2017 100 100

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-19

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

2016 93% 96%

2017 100 100

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021 100

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

2016 95% 98%

2017 100 98

2018 100 100

2019 100

2020 100

2021

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 2019 will be available by December 2020. 

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 2017 represent grants that submitted an annual performance report and include four 

out of five Expansion grants (the fifth did not serve students and, therefore, does not have a 

cost per student), 16 out of 18 Mid-phase grantees (the two not included did not serve students 

and, therefore, do not have a cost per student), and 37 out of 45 Early-phase grants (four did 

not serve students and, therefore, do not have a cost per student, and four had incomplete data 

at this time). An additional 11 Early-phase grantees were not required to submit annual 

performance reports due to short no-cost extensions and instead will submit final performance 

reports at a later date. Data for the second efficiency measure represent grantees that 

submitted a final performance report and are cumulative costs per student for the entire grant 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-20

and include 15 out of 15 Mid-phase grants and 26 out of 30 Early-phase grants. Data for fiscal 

year 2018 will be available by September 2020.

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

2013 $237 $181 $140

2014 201 21,463 633

2015 99 874 1,137

2016 135 5,329 1,887

2017 278 962 1,049

Additional information: The increase in the cost per student served for Expansion grants 

appears to be due to one grant that had a lower number of students served than targeted. It 

appears that schools included in the project either served only a portion of students in the 

targeted grade or enrolled fewer students than initially estimated. The decrease in the cost per 

student reported for 2017 for Mid-phase grants is due to fewer new grants, which generally have 

higher start up implementation costs, as well as most grants having lower actual costs per 

student than expected. The cost per student reported for 2017 for Early-phase grants is similar 

to previous years.

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

Additional information: No Expansion projects ended in 2017, so this measure is not 

applicable for that year. For Mid-phase, eight projects ended in 2017, and six provided complete 

cost per student data. For Early-phase, 10 grant projects ended in 2017, and six provided 

complete cost per student data. The cost per student for Early-phase grants for 2017 is 

reflective of the scope of students served under these grants as well as estimated costs.

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:
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

G-21

• 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.

• 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

G-22

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 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$200,000 0 -$200,000

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

47 percent is available for Subpart 1 activities.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 families. 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, 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-23

principals, and other school leaders demonstrated through additional responsibilities and 

evidence of professional achievement.

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

improve, or expand an HCMS or PBCS, including:

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

demonstrated improvement in student achievement;

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

systems;

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

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

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

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

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

schools and raise student academic achievement;

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

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

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

other school leaders in high-need schools.

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

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

other Federal or State funds available to carry out activities.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

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

2020.................................................................................. 200,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-24

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the TSL program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as several related 

programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported by the TSL 

program. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and 

Secondary Education account. 

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing TSL grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs would be 

approximately $104 million. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding

New awards fundi ng $6,100 $65,795 0

Continuation awards fundi ng 191,900 103,687 0

Grant renewal awards 0 28,198 0

Peer review of new award applications fundi ng

0 320 0

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

Total fundi ng 200,000 200,000 0

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 1 8−12 0

Range of new awards $6,100 $5,000−$10,000 0

Number of continuation awards 27 14 0

Range of continuation awards $781−$14,703 $680−$$13,635 0

Number of renewal awards 0 5-7 0

Range of renewal awards 0 $5,000−$7,000 0

NOTES: 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 2019 but may do so in fiscal year 2020. Any amount pooled under section 8601 

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

Continuation costs of approximately $104,222 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-25

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. No targets are provided for 2021 because 

baseline data for the current measures are not yet available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final year for which data were reported for the 2012 cohort of grantees is 2017 and those 

data have not yet been analyzed.

Changes in performance data from year to year should be interpreted with caution. Grantees 

partner with LEAs for their projects, and although the number of grantees in the 2012 cohort 

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

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

data to report in the first 2 years of their projects because the participating LEAs did not have an 

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

represent the same LEAs over time.

Goal: Improve student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness by 

reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals 

are rewarded for increases in student achievement.

Objective: Show an increase in the percentage of teachers and principals in high-need schools 

who have a record of effectiveness.

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

effectiveness under their district’s evaluation system.

Year Actual for Teachers Actual for Principals

2014 17% 20%

2015 21 26

2016 26 14

2017

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

between 2014 and 2015 for both teachers and principals; between 2015 and 2016 the 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-26

percentage rose for teachers but declined for principals. As noted above, data are not 

comparable across years. 

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

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

Year Actual

2014 13%

2015 18

2016 17

2017

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

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

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

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

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

largest9 percentage pointsin 2016.

Measure: The percentage of school districts participating in a Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF, the 

predecessor of the TSL program) grant that use educator evaluation systems to inform key 

personnel decisions.

Personnel decision 2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Actual

Recruitment 81% 79% 80%

Hiring 87 89 89

Placement 74 70 86

Retention 66 95 93

Dismissal 67 93 90

Tenure 17 43 33

Career advancement 89 87 90

Professional development 100 97 93

Personnel decisi on: All of the above 7 30 28

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

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

80 percent for all areas except tenure.

The grantees in the 2016 TIF and 2017 TSL cohorts are reporting performance data based on 

the following measures, which were published in the notices inviting applications:

• 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

G-27

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

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

educators participate in the project.

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

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

tenure, and promotion.

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

other non-TIF or TSL Federal resources.

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

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

effectiveness rating.

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

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

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

and promotion. Department staff are reviewing year 1 data from the 2016 and 2017 cohorts and 

anticipate completing analyses in the early spring of 2020. The Department anticipates 

completing the analysis of year 2 data in the summer of 2020.

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, which cost 

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

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

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

feedback on their practices.

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

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

improvement.

• The 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. However, there was limited impact on student 

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-28

achievement: there was no impact on reading/English language arts achievement in either 

study year and a mathematics impact in only 1 of the 2 study years. The mathematics 

impact was the equivalent of about 4 weeks of learning.

The Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund1 examined the characteristics of 

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

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

$13.7 million over 8 years, was published in December 2017.

Key findings from all participating districts in the 2010 TIF cohort are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

taking on extra roles or responsibilities (74 percent).

For the 10 districts that participated in the random assignment study, there was a small positive 

effect on student achievement. On average, pay-for-performance bonuses led to slightly higher 

reading and mathematics achievement (1 to 2 percentile points) in schools that offered such 

bonuses than in schools that did not. This difference was equivalent to a gain of 3 to 4 additional 

weeks of learning.

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

Leader Incentive Program2 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 

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

G-29

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

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 first report from the study is expected in 2021 and the study is scheduled for completion 

in August 2023.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-30

American history and civics education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$4,815 0 -$4,815

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

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

Academies.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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.

To maximize both the impact of the Federal investment and benefits for participants, the 

Department has required that grantee projects include both a Presidential and a Congressional 

Academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

G-31

National Activities

National Activities grants promote evidence-based instructional methods and professional 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grants for an additional 2 years.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the American History and Civics Education

program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block 

Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as well as several related programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, 

which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 

programs, including activities similar to those supported by the American History and Civics 

Education program. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving 

Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing American History and Civics Education grantees 

through the end of their approved project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department 

anticipates the continuation costs would be approximately $4 million. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

G-32

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

American History and Civics Academies 

grants

American History and Civics Academi es grants Amount for continuation awards $1,815 $1,815 0

American History and Civics Academi es grants Number of continuation awards 3 3 0

National Activities grants

National Activiti es grants Amount for new awards $1,822 0 0

American Nati onal Activi ties grants Number of new awards 31 0 0

National Activiti es grants Amount for continuation awards $1,178 $3,000 0

American Nati onal Activi ties grants Number of continuation awards 2 5 0

NOTES: 

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

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

Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 

2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $3,994 thousand would be provided for projects with outstanding continuation 

costs under the fiscal year 2021 request for the ESED Block Grant, including $1,018 thousand for American History 

and Civics Academies grants and $2,976 thousand for National Activities grants.

1 New National Activities awards with fiscal year 2019 funds included two grants from a prior-year slate as well as a 

one-time award, supported through an interagency agreement with the National Endowment for the Humanities, for a 

set of convenings of subject-matter experts and practitioners to highlight innovative and evidence-based practices. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

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

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

government, and geography in elementary and secondary schools.

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

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

the Presidential or Congressional academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

G-33

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

Presidential Academy.

Year Target Actual

2017 10% 13%

2018 10 15

2019 10 14

2020 10

2021 10

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

Congressional Academy.

Year Target Actual

2017 10% 10%

2018 10 15

2019 10 11

2020 10

2021 10

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

drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests. 

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 25 percent for Presidential Academy teachers and 20 percent for 

Congressional Academy students in 2018, and gains of 23 and 15 percent, respectively, in 

2019. 

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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

G-34

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

2021 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

G-35

Supporting effective educator development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$80,000 0 -$80,000

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total appropriated for Title II, Part B, 14.8 

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

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

The Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grant 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:

• Supporting non-traditional preparation and certification pathways that allow teachers, 

principals, or other school leaders to obtain employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

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

remedial education, 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

G-36

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the SEED program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as several related 

programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported by SEED. For 

more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to current SEED grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs for the 

SEED grantees will be approximately $45.3 million.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

G-37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Project Funding:

New grant awards $8,444 $22,260 0

Continuation grant awards 66,556 50,051 0

Renewal awards 0 7,419 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 270 0

Total 75,000 80,000 0

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 1 8 0

Range of new awards NA $750-$1,500 0

Number of continuation awards 24 15 0

Range of continuation awards $481-$5,417 $810-$8,203 0

Number of renewal awards 0 2-3 0

Range of renewal awards NA $2,473-$3,710 0

NOTES: 

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 in fiscal year 2019 but may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $45,345 thousand in fiscal year 2021 for projects with outstanding continuation 

costs would be paid from a reservation for that purpose from the Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant.

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.

The Department published four performance measures in the notice inviting applications for 

fiscal year 2015 SEED grantees:

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

students;

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

students and are highly effective; 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

G-38

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

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

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

2 years.

Year 1 data on the first two measures are available for this cohort of grantees.

• Nine of the 13 2015 grantees provided data on both the number of participants and the 

number of participants who served concentrations of high-need students. These grantees 

served a total of 8,170 participants (with a range of 3 to 4,100), 6,956 of whom were in 

schools with concentrations of high-need students (range of 2 to 4,100), for an overall 

percentage of 85 percent. Across grants, the percentage ranged from 67 to 100 percent.

• The largest of these grantees (in terms of participants served) provided data on the second 

measure and reported that 28 percent of the participants served in schools with 

concentrations of high-need students and were highly effective. Data on this measure are 

not yet available for the other grantees.

No data are yet available for the remaining two measures. The Department will have final 

performance reports for the entire 2015 cohort by the end of 2020 so will be able to summarize 

performance information for the cohort by early 2021.

The four measures used in the 2015 competition also were used in the 2017 and 

2018 competitions. In addition, beginning with the 2017 competition the following new measure 

was used: the number of grantees with evaluations that meet the What Works Clearinghouse

standards with reservations. Years 1 and 2 performance information for the 2017 and 

2018 cohorts will be available in late 2020. The Department also expects to receive information 

from 2-year evaluation extension awards made in 2016 to three of the 2013 grantees, the 

National Writing Project, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the 

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-39

Charter schools grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $300,0001

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021

Request 

Change from

2020 to 2021

$440,000 0 -$440,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 and evaluation activities.

Grants for the Opening of New Charter Schools and the Replication and Expansion of 

High-Quality Charter Schools

State Entity Grants

Section 4303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes the 

Department to make competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), State charter 

school boards, State governors, and statewide charter school support organizations. Recipients 

of State Entity grants must use not less than 90 percent of grant funds to make subgrants to 

charter school developers to enable them to open new charter schools or to replicate or expand 

high-quality charter schools, not less than 7 percent to provide technical assistance to 

developers and to conduct activities to improve the quality of charter school authorizing and 

oversight, and not more than 3 percent for administrative costs. 

Developers—individuals and public and private nonprofit entities, which may include charter 

management organizations (CMOs)—may receive subgrants for up to 5 years, of which they 

may use not more than 18 months for planning and program design, including hiring and 

compensating school leaders and instructional staff. Developers may also use funds for 

activities such as providing professional development, making necessary renovations to school 

buildings, acquiring equipment and supplies, engaging the community, and developing student 

transportation systems.

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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-40

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.

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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-41

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. Consistent with this authority, the Department currently uses national 

activities funds to, among other things, support a National Charter School Resource Center and 

administer National Dissemination grants, through which State entities, charter school 

authorizers, and nonprofit organizations that operate, manage, or support charter schools can 

receive funds to disseminate information on issues of national significance.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2016............................................................................ $333,172

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

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

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

2020.............................................................................. 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-42

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Charter Schools Grants program into 

the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the ESEA, as well as several related programs, into a single State 

formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including activities currently funded by Charter Schools Grants. For example, an SEA could 

operate a State Entity Grant program without the burden and uncertainty of applying for a 

competitive grant for that purpose from the Department. For more information on the ESED 

Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During the initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve 

sufficient funds to pay continuation awards to existing Charter Schools grantees through the end 

of their approved project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the 

continuation costs will be approximately $270 million.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

State Entity grants

State Entity grants:Amount for new awards $25,840 $81,551 0

State Entity grants: Number of new awards 3 3–8 0

State Entity grants:Amount for continuation awards $105,269 $132,999 0

State Entity grants::Number of continuation awards 22 20 0

State Entity grants:Amount for supplemental awards $85,488 0 0

State Entity grants::Number of supplemental awards 9 0 0

Developer grants

Devel oper grants:Amount for new awards $5,533 $3,930 0

Devel oper grantsNumber of new awards 8 8–12 0

Devel oper grantsAmount for continuation awards $291 $6,070 0

Devel oper grantsNumber of continuation awards 32 36 0

Peer review of new State Entity and 

Developer award applications $439 $450 0

CMO grants

CMO grants:Amount for new awards $66,225 0 0

CMO grantsNumber of new awards 15–22 0 0

CMO grantsAmount for continuation awards $68,775 $139,800 0

CMO grants:Number of continuation awards 54 60–67 0

CMO grants:Peer review of new award applications 01 $2001 0
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-43

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Credit Enhancement grants

Credit Enhancem ent grants: Amount for new awards $43,721 $44,421 0

Credit Enhancem ent grantsNumber of new awards 5 3–5 0

Credit Enhancem ent grants: Amount for supplemental awards $5,078 $10,479 0

Credit Enhancem ent grantsNumber of supplemental awards 1 1 0

State Facilities Incentive grants

State F acilities Incentive grants:Amount for new awards $6,000 0 0

State F acilities Incentive grants : Number of new awards 1 0 0

State F acilities Incentive grants :Amount for continuation awards 0 $5,000 0

State F acilities Incentive grantsNumber of continuation awards 0 1 0

Peer review of new Credit Enhancement 

and State Facilities Incentive award 

applications $201 $100 0

National activities $14,999 $15,000 0

NOTES: 

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 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $270,102 thousand would be provided for projects with outstanding continuation 

costs under the fiscal year 2021 request for the ESED Block Grant, including $146,000 thousand for State Entity 

grants, $6.324 thousand for Developer grants, $113,778 thousand for CMO grants, and $4,000 thousand for State 

Facilities Incentive grants.

1 Fiscal year 2020 funds will support peer review of new award applications for CMO grants made with fiscal year 

2019 funds, which are available through March 31, 2020.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

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

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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-44

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation.

Year Target Actual

2016 8,010 6,859

2017 8,480 7,014

2018 8,950 7,196

2019 9,420

2020 9,890

2021 10,360

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.

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

2016 79.2% 49.4%

2017 84.2 49.8

2018 89.2 48.6

2019 94.2

2020 99.2

2021 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

2016 76.4% 45.8%

2017 81.4 46.8

2018 86.4 45.0

2019 91.4

2020 96.4

2021 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

2016 81.6% 53.8%

2017 86.6 52.3

2018 91.6 48.7
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-45

Year Target Actual

2019 96.6

2020 100.0

2021 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

2016 68.7% 40.6%

2017 73.7 43.2

2018 78.7 40.2

2019 83.7

2020 88.7

2021 98.7

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

among funded schools.

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 Target 2014 Cohort Actual

2016 1.25 : 1 3.99 : 1

2017 1.67 : 1 6.10 : 1

2018 2.50 : 1 6.12 : 1

2019 5.00 : 1 6.51 : 1

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 2018, Credit Enhancement grants leveraged $493 million 

in facilities financing for 34 schools. Between program inception and 2018, Credit Enhancement 

funds have helped enable approximately $5.8 billion in financing for facilities of 791 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 2016 show an average cost of $1,173, for 2017 an average cost of 

$1,168, and for 2018 an average cost of $1,078. Data for this measure, collected through 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-46

grantee annual performance reports, assist the Department in understanding the different costs 

per student for different types of charter schools.

Other Performance Information

Supporting Efforts to Strengthen Charter School Authorizing

Strong authorizing practices are essential to the success of the schools supported under 

Charter Schools Grants. In its effort to help strengthen school authorizing and oversight, the 

Department employs a multi-faceted approach that includes activities focused specifically on 

State Entity grantees and those designed to benefit States and authorizers more generally.

The Department’s efforts to assist State Entity grantees begin by ensuring, through a thorough 

budget review prior to making awards, that they reserve between 7 and 10 percent of funds, as 

required by statute, for activities to improve authorizer quality and to assist charter school 

developers. The Department, both directly and through contracts, monitors grantees for 

compliance with these set-aside requirements and provides general and individualized technical 

assistance as needed in developing and improving set-aside activities. In particular, the 

Department’s National Charter School Resource Center (Resource Center) has developed an 

authorizer evaluation protocol (based in part on the Principles and Standards for Quality Charter 

School Authorizing published by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers) and is 

available to assist State Entity grantees in implementing the protocol for authorizers in their 

States. In 2020, the Resource Center will begin providing other enhanced support to State 

Entity grantees and hosting an online exchange for grantee practices on its website. 

State Entity grantees are still in the early phases of designing and carrying out their set-aside 

activities. The Department (through the Resource Center) is conducting a summary and 

analysis of those activities, with initial results expected in spring 2020. However, notable 

activities as reflected in grantee applications have included: providing authorizer training or 

stipends for training; developing and implementing authorizing standards, principles, and 

frameworks; developing authorizer report cards; providing technical assistance on authorizing 

practices specifically to LEAs that are authorizers; and providing training on authorizer closure.

The Department’s general support for authorizer quality includes the National Dissemination 

grants: four of the program’s eight inaugural awards in fiscal year 2018 were made under an 

absolute priority for projects that disseminate information to strengthen charter school 

authorizing and oversight.1

 These projects are intended to target dissemination efforts where 

they are needed most, including toward States that recently enacted charter school laws, 

authorizers with fewer than 10 charter schools (i.e., authorizers that generally are new or have 

limited resources), and authorizers with multiple schools experiencing significant low 

performance or compliance issues. The Department will provide more information on the 

implementation and effects of these projects in future budget requests.

1 See https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/charter-school-programs/expandingopportunity-through-quality-charter-schools-program-csp-national-dissemination-grants/awards/.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-47

The Resource Center is also engaged in ongoing general efforts to improve authorizing, with the 

most recent Resource Center contract featuring a task devoted explicitly to the topic and 

including, among other activities, a compilation of State authorizing initiatives and a framework 

for high-quality authorizing and oversight, both of which are expected to be released in spring 

2020.

Lastly, the Department has initiated development of a set of in-depth profiles of exemplary 

charter school practices, including practices related to school authorizing. The profiles, which 

are expected to be released beginning in spring 2020, will be on topics identified based on a 

research review and recommendations of an expert panel, and will include descriptive data and 

information from schools identified through a “beating-the-odds” analysis as outperforming other 

schools with similar characteristics.

2015 Charter Schools Grants Data Analysis

In December 2015, the Department released an analysis of data on grantees and subgrantees

under the State Entity, Developer, and CMO competitions.1

 Using data from grantee annual 

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

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

• Of the 6,467 charter schools in operation in the 2013-2014 school year, 2,676 (or 

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

2013-2014 school years;

• Of the 4,582 charter schools that opened between the 2006-2007 and 2013-2014 school 

years, 2,626 (or nearly 60 percent) had received funding; and

• Compared to traditional public schools, schools that received funding served higher 

percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, Black students, and 

Hispanic students, and similar percentages of students with disabilities and English 

learners.

2013 CREDO National Charter School Study

The “National Charter School Study 2013,” a study by researchers at Stanford University’s 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updated and expanded CREDO’s 

2009 study “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” examined longitudinal 

student-level data from a sample of 3,620 charter schools across 25 States, the District of 

Columbia, and New York City (NYC) (treated separately from the rest of the State) to determine 

whether students who attend charter schools performed better academically than if they had 

attended a traditional public school.2

 The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools 

in the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading compared to traditional public 

schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the sample posted mathematics 

gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly below what those students 

1 See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf. 2 See https://credo.stanford.edu/studies/charter-school-studies for links to reports from the CREDO studies. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-48

would have seen if enrolled in a traditional public school. Overall, the students in sample 

charter schools have shown improvement over the results from 2009 and steady progress over 

the past 5 years, with the average student gaining an additional 8 days of learning each year in 

reading, compared with the loss of 7 days reported in 2009. The study also showed, on 

average, no gap in learning days for mathematics for students in sample charter schools, 

whereas in 2009 these students posted an average of 22 fewer days of mathematics learning 

than their peers in traditional public schools. Among the group of 16 States from the original 

study in 2009, the rise in performance was attributed in part to the closure of poorly performing 

charter schools and by declining performance in traditional public schools over the same time 

period.

The CREDO analysis also showed that, in general, charter schools have had different effects on 

students of different family backgrounds. For students from low-income families, AfricanAmerican students, and English Learners, charter schools had a larger positive effect 

academically compared to traditional public schools. The researchers also found that students 

perform better in charter schools over time, with charter school students on average 

experiencing smaller learning gains than their peers in traditional public schools in their first year 

but significant improvement in learning gains in the second year and beyond.

2015 CREDO Urban Charter School Study

In March 2015, CREDO published a report focusing on the performance of charter schools in 

urban areas. The Urban Charter School Study used a similar “virtual peer” methodology as in 

the 2013 CREDO national study to compare the performance of charter schools and traditional 

public schools in 41 major urban areas in 22 States over a 5-year period from school years 

2006–07 to 2011–2012. The researchers found that charter schools produced positive impacts 

over traditional public schools in mathematics in 63 percent of the areas, and in 56 percent of 

the areas in reading, compared to 27 and 23 percent of areas in which charter schools lagged 

traditional public schools in mathematics and reading, respectively. In the aggregate, charter 

schools in the study provided approximately 40 more days of learning in mathematics and 

28 more days in reading per year than their traditional public school counterparts. The report 

also mirrored the findings of the national study with respect to student characteristics, showing 

that charter school gains were larger for low-income students, Black students, Hispanic 

students, and students with disabilities.

2013 and 2017 CREDO Charter School Growth and Replication Studies

In January 2013, CREDO also released findings from “Charter School Growth and Replication,” 

which examined, in charter schools across 25 States, the District of Columbia, and NYC, 

changes in school performance in the years following a school’s opening and the implications of 

these changes for school replication. The study found, among other things, that schools with 

initial high performance with respect to student achievement tended to stay high performers 

over time, while the performance of initially low-performing schools remained low. The study 

also found that schools opened by a CMO typically performed at a level similar to the average of 

the other schools operated by the CMO, and that CMO schools on average produced stronger 

results for minority students and students from low-income families than did independently 

operated charter schools. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

G-49

CREDO released a second volume of this study in June 2017, largely affirming previous 

findings and providing additional analyses, including on student academic growth by type of 

school network management structure. The study found that academic growth, relative to that 

in traditional public schools, was higher on average for students in networks of charter schools 

operated by a CMO (i.e., networks of schools for which the charter holder is also the 

management entity) than for students in networks operated by a contracted vendor.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-50

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $108,5301

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$107,000 0 -$107,000

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) provides Federal resources to assist eligible 

local educational agencies (LEAs) in the desegregation of schools by providing high-quality 

educational options to the students they serve.

Grantees establish and operate magnet schools that are part of court-ordered, agency-ordered, 

or federally approved voluntary desegregation plans. The ultimate goal is to eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening 

students’ knowledge of academic subjects and equipping them with college- and career-ready 

skills. The program accomplishes this goal by supporting the creation of magnet schools that: 

(1) increase the options that parents and families have when determining the type of school that 

will best serve their children; and (2) offer special curricula or instructional programs that appeal 

to parents and students from diverse backgrounds.

Grantees receive 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.

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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

G-51

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)

2016..........................................................$96,647

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

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

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

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

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $6,700 thousand from the Charter Schools Program to MSAP.

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the MSAP program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the ESEA, as well as several related programs, into a single State formula 

grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and 

LEAs, which would have discretion to use those funds consistent with any authorized purpose of 

the consolidated programs, including the creation or expansion of magnet schools or related 

activities designed to reduce racial isolation or increase socioeconomic diversity in public 

schools. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and 

Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient

funds to pay continuation awards to existing MSAP grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs will be 

approximately $107 million.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

G-52

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for new awards 0 $25,000 0

Number of new awards 0 9-10 0

Amount for continuation awards $112,632 $80,730 0

Number of continuation awards 36 36 0

National activities $1,068 $1,070 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $200 0

NOTES: 

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

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

this purpose from MSAP in fiscal year 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $107,000 thousand would be provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the 

ESED Block Grant.

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 this program 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.

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

G-53

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance reporting enrollment data 

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

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort 2017 Cohort

2016 23.5%

2017 39.0%

2018 21.1 45.2%

2019 10.5 36.3

Additional information: In 2019, about 10 percent (four schools) of the 38 schools in the 

2016 cohort met their annual MGI performance targets, and 90 percent (34 schools) did not 

meet annual MGI performance measure targets. Of the 34 schools that did not meet their 

annual MGI performance targets, 19 schools made progress in the right direction toward 

achieving their targets. For the 2017 cohort, 36 percent (45 schools) of the 124 schools met 

their annual MGI targets; 79 schools did not meet or partially met them. Of the 77 schools that 

did not meet or partially met their targets, 40 schools made progress in the right direction.

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 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2016 43.5%

2017 35.4%

2018 39.3

2019 41.2

Additional information: Based on lessons learned administering the program, the Department 

has revised the measure for the 2017 cohort to focus on the percentage increase of students 

who score proficient or above State standards in reading/language arts (see below).

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

proficient level or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2016 36.0%

2017 34.1%

2018 35.9

2019 38.8

Additional information: Based on lessons learned administering the program, the Department 

has revised the measure for the 2017 cohort to focus on the percentage increase of students 

who score proficient or above State standards in mathematics (see below).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

G-54

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 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2016 $916

2017 $722

2018 1,235

2019 1,084

Additional information:

The Department has discontinued this measure for the 2017 cohort because it has not proven to 

be a useful indicator of grantee performance.

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

new performance measures for 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.

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

assessments in reading/language arts.

Year 2017 Cohort

2018 5.7%

2019 9.3

Additional information: The reported percentage for 2019 reflects data from 119 of the 

124 cohort schools. These schools had achievement data from Years 1 and 2 available, both of 

which are required to calculate performance on this measure.

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

assessments in mathematics.

Year 2017 Cohort

2018 9.4%

2019 9.6

Additional information: The reported percentage for 2019 reflects data from 115 of the 

124 cohort schools. These schools had achievement data from Years 1 and 2 available, both of 

which are required to calculate performance on this measure.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-55

Ready to learn programming

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$29,000 0 -$29,000

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

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which 

include the Ready to Learn program.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

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

of the funding must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

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

effective use of such programming;

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

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

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

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

caregivers; and

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

programs are widely distributed.

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

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

effective use of educational video programs.

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

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

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

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

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

Ready to learn programming

G-56

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department awarded two 5-year grants in 2015:

• Twin Cities Public Television is using RTL funds to produce Superhero School, using 

narrative storytelling and interactive media, across multiple platforms, to engage children 

ages 5 to 8 from low-income families in building key science content and thinking skills, 

learning related academic vocabulary, improving their reading and writing abilities, and 

gaining experience using new technology.

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

Service, is creating a comprehensive media initiative to support the learning needs of 

children in low-income communities. The project’s primary goal is to improve science and 

literacy learning outcomes for young children, especially those from low-income families, in 

order to prepare them for success in school and in life.

The Department plans to hold a competition for new 5-year grants in fiscal year 2020.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2016...................................................................................$25,741

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

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

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

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

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the RTL program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as several related 

programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, 

which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 

programs, including support for activities similar to those funded by RTL. For more information 

on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing RTL grantees through the end of their approved 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

G-57

project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs will be 

approximately $28.7 million.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Number of new awards 0 1 0

New award funding 0 $28,710 0

Number of continuation awards 2 0 0

Continuation award funding $27,691 0 0

Evaluation (review of grant products) $50 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $290 0

Total 27,741 29,000 0

NOTES: 

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 2019, it may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $28,710 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

on the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided in previous years and future years as 

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

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; 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

G-58

(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 expects to receive the first of the studies in 2020. 

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

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

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

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

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. In 2017, the Department received two 

transmedia product suites from one grantee to review. One of the transmedia product suites 

reviewed was of high-quality, with a score of 4.41. The other suite received a score of 3.74, just 

under the cutoff for high-quality. In 2018, the Department received one transmedia product suite 

from one grantee to review. That transmedia produce suite was of high-quality, which a score of 

4.02. In 2019, the Department received one transmedia suite from each grantee to review, both 

of which were high-quality with scores of 4.52 and 3.85. 

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 1.2 

thousand for TPT. TPT does not plan to publicly release any new digital games or TV episodes 

until summer 2020.

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. Grantees did not 

report on the efficiency measure for the first year of the grant. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-59

Arts in education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

$30,000 0 -$30,000

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

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which 

include the Arts in Education program.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

activities to promote arts education for students, including disadvantaged students and students 

who are children with disabilities. The program includes the following allowable activities: 

(1) professional development for arts educators, teachers, and principals; (2) development and 

dissemination of accessible instructional materials and arts-based educational programming, 

including online resources, in multiple arts disciplines; and (3) national and community outreach 

activities that strengthen and expand partnerships among schools, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), communities, or centers for the arts, including national centers for the arts. 

The program supports a number of arts education activities through 4-year grants to LEAs in 

which 20 percent or more of the students are from low-income families; State educational 

agencies (SEAs); national nonprofit organizations; institutions of higher education; organizations 

with expertise in the arts; museums or cultural institutions; the Bureau of Indian Education; and 

partnerships of these entities. 

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2016...................................................................................$27,000

2017.....................................................................................27,000

2018.....................................................................................29,000

2019.....................................................................................29,000

2020.....................................................................................30,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

G-60

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Arts in Education program into the 

proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

several related programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including a wide range of activities to support arts education. For more information on the 

ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing Arts in Education grantees through the end of their 

approved project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs 

will be approximately $14 million.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Arts Development and Dissemination

 emination:Total funds available $12,957 $13,800 0

Amount for new awards 0 0 0

Number of new awards 0 0 0

 emination:Amount for continuation awards $12,457 $13,300 0

 emination:Number of continuation awards 23 23 0

 emination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $500 $500

0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 0

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE)

 ucators:Total funds available $7,511 $7,642 0

Amount for new awards 0 0 0

Number of new awards 0 0 0

 ucators:Amount for continuation awards $7,511 $7,642 0

 ucators:Number of continuation awards 21 21 0
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

G-61

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

National Arts in Education Program 

(AENP)

 rogram: Total funds available $8,000 $8,000 0

 rogram: Amount for new awards 0 0 0

 rogram: Number of new awards 0 0 0

 rogram: Amount for continuation awards $8,000 0 0

 rogram: Number of continuation awards 1 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 0

Evaluation $532 $558 0 _________________________

NOTES: 

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

Arts in Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department did not 

reserve funds from the Arts in Education program for this purpose in fiscal year 2019, it may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $14,031 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant.

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 this program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

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

content standards in the arts.

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

arts education for all participants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

G-62

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

2016 55% 58%

2017 60 74

2018 65 81

2019 70 60

2020 65

2021 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.

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2016 100% 86%

2017 100 100

2018 100 90

2019 100 74

2020 75

2021 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 2016 

actual is based on the 14 of 17 PDAE grantees who reported on this measure. 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

G-63

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

2016 35% 32%

2017 38 31

2018 37 32

2019 40 39

2020 42

2021 44

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

2016 39% 38%

2017 40 36

2018 39 35

2019 45 49

2020 50

2021 55

Measure: The number of accessible, arts-based instructional materials that are developed. 

Grantees will report annually on each measure.

Year Target Actual

2019 84 84

2020 100

2021 115

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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

G-64

Measure: The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2016 2,100,000 2,140,365

2017 1,820,000 1,823,785

2018 1,911,000 2,151,664

2019 1,130,000 1,527,535

2020

2021

Measure: The total number of students from low-income families who participate in standardsbased arts education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2016 800,000 806,092

2017 660,000 666,399

2018 693,500 693,065

2019 490,227 490,227

2020

2021

Measure: The total number of students with disabilities who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2016 200,000 219,316

2017 160,000 165,870

2018 168,000 173,195

2019 135,000 135,074

2020

2021

Measure: The percent of teachers participating in the grantee’s program who receive 

professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2016 50% 52%

2017 55 54

2018 57 85

Additional Information: Data for 2016 is based on teacher participation in Changing 

Education Through the Arts, one of the programs administered by the Kennedy Center.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

G-65

Javits gifted and talented education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4, Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021 

$13,000 0 -$13,000

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

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which 

include Javits Gifted and Talented Education.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 low-income 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

G-66

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2016...................................................................................$12,000

2017.....................................................................................12,000

2018.....................................................................................12,000

2019.....................................................................................12,000

2020.....................................................................................13,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block 

Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as well as several related programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including activities currently supported by the Javits program. In addition, LEAs would develop 

and submit to their States for approval plans consistent with section 1112 of the ESEA, which 

includes provisions for describing how the LEA will assist schools in identifying and serving 

gifted and talented students. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving 

Elementary and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to current Javits grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs will be 

approximately $13.5 million.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for new awards $4,048 $1,850 0

Number of new awards 10 3–4 0

Amount for continuation awards $7,881 $10,150 0

Number of continuation awards 17 24 0

National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth 01 $1,000 0
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

G-67

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Peer review of new award applications $71 0 0 _________________________

NOTES: 

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 2019, but may do so in fiscal year 

2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $13,503 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the ESED Block Grant, including $12,503 for program awards and 

$1,000 for the National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children and Youth.

1 The Department did not use fiscal year 2019 funds to support the National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth (Center), as the current Center grantee continued to operate under a no-cost 

extension.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and 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 

more frequently and effectively than previous measures, which were administered twice over 

the grant period and largely consisted of summary ratings of program performance. The first 

data for these measures, for the fiscal year 2019 cohort, are expected to be available in fall 

2020.

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

G-68

Statewide family engagement centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $10,0001

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$10,000 0 -$10,000

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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 disadvantaged 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 

evidence-based 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 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

G-69

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2016.....................................................................0

2017.....................................................................0

2018..........................................................$10,000

2019............................................................15,4401

2020............................................................10,000

1 Reflects a reprogramming of $5,440 thousand from the Charter Schools Program to SFEC.

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the SFEC program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded ESEA formula and competitive grant programs, 

as well as several related programs, into a single State formula grant program. 

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including efforts to increase parent and family involvement in their children’s education. In 

addition, under the ESED Block Grant LEAs would develop and submit to their States for 

approval plans consistent with section 1112 of the ESEA, which includes provisions describing 

how the LEA will implement effective parent and family engagement activities. For more 

information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account.

During initial implementation of the proposed ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve 

sufficient funds to pay continuation awards to current SFEC grantees through the end of their 

approved project periods. In fiscal year 2021, the Department anticipates the continuation costs 

will be approximately $9.8 million.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

G-70

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Amount for awards $15,240 $9,800 0

Number of continuation 

awards 11 11 0

Technical assistance $200 $200 0

NOTES: 

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 2019, it may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $9,800 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation costs would be 

provided under the fiscal year 2021 request for the ESED Block Grant.

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 this program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Administration established the following performance measures for grantees under 

this program. The Department is in the process of setting 2021 targets.

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

Additional information: Eight grantees reported baseline data for this measure. The number of 

parents participating in informational activities reported ranged from 0 to 31,159 in Year 1. The 

Department anticipates that grantees will generally maintain performance in Year 1 with the 

exception of two grantees for whom the Department anticipates growth. One of these grantees 

used Year 1 as a planning year, and did not provide many services, and the other grantee was 

awarded off-cycle and has not yet reported is first year of performance data. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

G-71

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

Additional information: Nine grantees reported baseline data for this measure. The number of 

high-impact activities or services reported ranged from 1 to 160 in Year 1. The grantees have 

worked with a technical assistance contractor to define “high-impact” as consistently as possible 

across all projects. The Department anticipates that grantees will generally maintain 

performance in Year 1 with the exception of two grantees for whom the Department anticipates 

growth. One of these grantees used Year 1 as a planning year and did not provide services, and 

the other grantee was awarded off-cycle and has not yet reported performance data. 

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 

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

Additional information: Nine grantees reported baseline data for this measure. The number of 

high-impact activities or services reported ranged from 0 to 43 in Year 1. The grantees have 

worked with a technical assistance contractor to define “high-impact” as consistently as possible 

across all projects. The Department anticipates that grantees will generally maintain 

performance in Year 1 with the exception of two grantees for whom the Department anticipates 

growth. One of these grantees used Year 1 as a planning year and did not provide services, and 

the other grantee was awarded off-cycle and has not yet reported performance data. 

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%

Additional information: Five grantees reported baseline data for this measure. The percentage 

of parents and families reported ranged from 83.75 to 100 percent in Year 1. The Department 

anticipates a drop in the average percentage of parents reporting enhanced capacity to work 

with schools and service providers because the percentage reported in Year 1 is based on less 

than half of grantees.