Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports............................................................. F-10

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ F-11

Activities:

Education innovation and research................................................................................... F-14

Teacher and school leader incentive grants...................................................................... F-23

American history and civics academies ............................................................................ F-31

Supporting effective educator development ...................................................................... F-34

School leader recruitment and support ............................................................................. F-38

Charter schools grants...................................................................................................... F-45

Magnet schools assistance............................................................................................... F-57

Ready to learn programming ............................................................................................ F-63

Arts in education............................................................................................................... F-69

Javits gifted and talented education.................................................................................. F-75
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out activities authorized by subpart 1 of part B and section 2242 of title II and 

parts C and D and subpart 1 of part F of title IV of the ESEA, $1,208,026,000:1 Provided, That 

$241,563,000 shall be for subpart 1 of part B and section 2242 of title II and shall be made 

available without regard to sections 2201 and 2241:2 Provided, That $596,463,000 shall be for 

parts C and D of title IV and shall be made available without regard to sections 4311 and 

4409(a):3 Provided further, That of the funds available for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall 

use not more than $100,000,000 to carry out section 4304 and not more than $155,000,000 to 

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

activities in section 4305(a)(3):4 Provided further, That $370,000,000 shall be available through 

December 31, 2018 for subpart 1 of part F of title IV:5 Provided further, That funds provided 

under subpart 1 of part F of title IV may be used to support the demonstration and evaluation of 

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

including a private religious school, selected by their parents that meets other requirements 

established by the Secretary.6

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254). 

The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 For carrying out activities authorized by 

subpart 1 of part B and section 2242 of title II 

and parts C and D and subpart 1 of part F of 

title IV of the ESEA, $1,208,026,000:

This language appropriates funds for 

Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants, Supporting Effective Educator 

Development, Charter Schools Grants, 

Magnet Schools Assistance, and Education 

Innovation and Research.

2Provided, That $241,563,000 shall be for 

subpart 1 of part B and section 2242 of title II 

and shall be made available without regard to 

sections 2201 and 2241:

This language provides funds for Teacher 

and School Leader Incentive Grants and 

Supporting Effective Educator Development 

without regard to the sections of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under Part B of Title II. 

3Provided, That $596,463,000 shall be for 

parts C and D of title IV and shall be made 

available without regard to sections 4311 and 

4409(a): 

This language provides funds for Charter 

Schools Grants and Magnet Schools 

Assistance without regard to the sections of 

the ESEA that specify the distribution of 

funds appropriated under Parts C and D of 

Title IV.

4Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

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

section 4304 and not more than 

$155,000,000 to carry out section 4305, of 

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

used to carry out the activities in section 

4305(a)(3):

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a maximum 

amount for facilities grants; a maximum total 

amount for Charter Management 

Organization grants, Developer grants, and 

national activities (collectively authorized 

under ESEA section 4305).

5Provided further, That $370,000,000 shall 

be available through December 31, 2018 for 

subpart 1 of part F of title IV:

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research and also extends the period of 

Federal availability 3 months beyond the year

of appropriation. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

F-3

Language Provision Explanation

6Provided further, That funds provided under 

subpart 1 of part F of title IV may be used to 

support the demonstration and evaluation of 

projects awarding scholarships to students 

from low-income families to attend a private 

school, including a private religious school, 

selected by their parents that meets other 

requirements established by the Secretary.

This language permits the Secretary to make 

awards under the Education Innovation and 

Research program for projects providing 

scholarships to students from low-income 

families to attend private schools.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-4

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Discretionary:

Discretionar yAppropriation............................................ $1,181,226 0 $1,208,026

Discretionar yAnnualized CR (P.L. 114-254) ................. 0 $1,178,981 0

Total, discretionary appropriation........ 1,181,226 1,178,981 1,208,026

Discretionar yComparative transfer from:

School Improvement Programs for:

Supporting effective educator 

development....................................... 93,993 93,814 0

Discretionar yComparative transfer to:

Education for the Disadvantaged for:

Innovative approaches to literacy........ -27,000 -26,949 0

Discretionar yComparative transfer to:

Safe Schools and Citizenship 

Education for:

Full service community schools .......... -10,000 -9,981 0

Total, comparable discretionary 

appropriation .................................. 1,238,219 1,235,865 1,208,026
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2017 Annualized CR ........................................................................ $1,235,866

2018................................................................................................. 1,208,026

Net change................................................................ -27,840

Increases:

2017

Annualized

CR base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for the Education Innovation and Research 

program to support efforts to test and build evidence for 

the effectiveness of private school choice as a strategy for

expanding school choices for parents who wish to send 

their children to high quality private schools. $119,772 +$250,228

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

especially students from low-income families or attending 

low-performing schools, by creating and expanding 

effective charter schools. 332,539 +167,461

Subtotal, increases +417,689

Decreases:

2017

Annualized 

CR base

Change

from base

Program:

Decrease to Teacher and School Leaders Incentive 

Grants (formerly the Teacher Incentive Fund) to support 

only continuation awards in 2018, allowing the Department 

to focus on monitoring performance and providing needed 

technical assistance to grantees receiving new awards in 

2016 and 2017. $229,563 -$30,000

Eliminate funding for American History and Civics 

Academies because the program has limited national 

impact and program activities can be more appropriately 

supported with State, local, or private funds. 1,812 -1,812

Decrease to Supporting Effective Educator Development 

(SEED) because the Department would fund only 

continuation awards. 93,814 -51,814
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

F-6

Decreases:

2017

Annualized 

CR base

Change

from base

Eliminate funding for School Leader Recruitment and 

Support (formerly the School Leadership Program) 

because the program has demonstrated minimal national 

impact and other Federal funds are available to support 

school leadership activities in high-need schools. $16,337 -$16,337

Eliminate funding for Ready to Learn Programming (RTL) 

because with the rise of the internet and the ready 

availability of a wide range of digital games and devices 

that support early learning, the RTL program is less 

relevant and less necessary to provide funding to public 

television networks and stations. 25,692 -25,692

Eliminate funding for Advanced Placement because this 

program is no longer authorized. 28,429 -28,429

Eliminate funding for Preschool Development Grants 

because this program is no longer authorized under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 249,525 -249,525

Eliminate funding for Arts in Education because the 

program has limited impact and funds activities that are 

more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, 

local, or private funds. 26,949 -26,949

Eliminate funding for the Non-Cognitive Skills initiative 

because this program is no longer authorized. 2,994 -2,994

Eliminate funding for Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

because the program has limited national impact and 

program activities can be more appropriately supported 

with State, local, or private funds. 11,977 -11,977

Subtotal, decreases -445,529

Net change -27,839
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-7

F-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized footnote

2017

Annualized CRfootnote

2018

Authorizedfootnote

2018

Request

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) (1) $119,772 (1) $370,000

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) (2) 229,563 (2) 199,563

American history and civics academies (ESEA II-B-3, 

section 2232) (2) 1,812 (2) 0

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) (2) 93,815 (2) 42,000

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

section 2243) (2) 16,337 (2) 0

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) $270,000 332,539 $270,000 500,000

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 94,000 96,463 96,820 96,463

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

section 4643) (1) 25,692 (1) 0

Advanced placement (ESEA I-G; struck by P.L. 114-95) 0 28,429 0 0

Preschool development grants (ESEA V-D subpart 1; 

repealed by P.L. 114-95) (3) 249,525 (3) 0

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) (1) 26,949 (1) 0

Non-cognitive skills initiative (ESEA V-D, subpart 1; 

repealed by P.L. 114-95) 0 2,994 0 0

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

section 4644)

 

. (1) 11,977 (1) 0

Total definite authorization 364,000 366,820

Total appropriation 1,235,866 1,208,026

Portion of request not authorized 529,533
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

F-8

F-8

1 A total of $200,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved 

for Subpart 3 and of the remainder, for fiscal year 2017, 36 percent is authorized for the Education Innovation and Research program; 36 percent is authorized for 

Subpart 2; and 28 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, which includes the Arts in Education, Ready to Learn Programming, and Javits Gifted and Talented 

programs. 2 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Of the funds appropriated for Part B, 49.1 percent is authorized for 

Subpart 1, the Teacher and School Leader Incentive program; 34.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 2; 1.4 percent is authorized for Subpart 3, of which not less 

than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics Academies; and 15.4 percent is authorized is authorized for Subpart 4, of which not less than 74 

percent is reserved for Supporting Effective Educator Development, not less than 22 percent is reserved for School Leader Recruitment and Support, not less than 

2 percent is reserved for technical assistance and national evaluation, and not more than 2 percent for the STEM Master Teacher Corps. 3 The program is authorized under the Department of Health and Human Services per section 9212 of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-9

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation

Foot

note

2009 Discretionary $867,517 $976,8461 $944,3141 $996,425

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(PL 111-5) (Discretionary) 0 225,000 0 200,000

2010 Discretionary 1,489,949 1,347,363 1,234,7872 1,389,065

Rescission (PL 111-226) 

(Discretionary) (10,700)

2011 Discretionary 6,330,000 1,870,1233 2,224,8432 1,856,1794

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,4115 1,740,2125 1,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,1336 1,545,9666 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A7 1,331,598 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A7 868,7218 852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A7 08 0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0009 694,6169 1,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 09 09 0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556 632,93810 942,74310 887,57510

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982 010 010 010

2018 Discretionary 1,208,026

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3 The level for the House allowance reflect the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 

6 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. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8

 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9

 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. 10 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-10

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports

Supporting Effective Educator Development

Senate: The Committee directs the department to manage these appropriations 

efficiently, in a manner that is beneficial to all potential grantees and simplifies 

administration of the program. Further, the Committee directs the Department to 

ensure a smooth transition in program costs from fiscal year 2017 through 

fiscal year 2018.

Response: The Department has developed plans to ensure that grantees receiving awards 

authorized under fiscal years 2015 and 2016 appropriations language receive 

continuation awards, pending availability of funds, to complete their work. The 

Department announced a competition for new awards under the ESSA authority 

on April 20, 2017.
F-11

F-11

Click here for accessible version

Summary of R equ est

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 


(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent Amount Percent

Innovation and Improvement

 1. Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) 1 D 120,000 119,772 100,000 370,000 250,228 208.92% 270,000 270.00%

 2. Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) D 230,000 229,563 200,000 199,563 (30,000) -13.07% (437) -0.22%

 3. American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3, section 2233) D 1,815 1,812 3,515 0 (1,812) -100.00% (3,515) -100.00%

 4. Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) 2 D 93,993 93,815 65,000 42,000 (51,815) -55.23% (23,000) -35.38%

 5. School leader recruitment and support (ESEA II-B-4, section 2243) D 16,368 16,337 14,500 0 (16,337) -100.00% (14,500) -100.00%

 6. Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) D 333,172 332,539 342,172 500,000 167,461 50.36% 157,828 46.13%

 7. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) D 96,647 96,463 97,647 96,463 0 0.00% (1,184) -1.21%

 8. Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) 3 D 25,741 25,692 25,741 0 (25,692) -100.00% (25,741) -100.00%

 9. Advanced placement (ESEA I-G; struck by P.L. 114-95) D 28,483 28,429 0 0 (28,429) -100.00% 0 ---

 10. Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE): 

(a) Preschool development grants (ESEA V-D subpart 1; repealed by P.L. 114-95) 3 D 250,000 249,525 0 0 (249,525) -100.00% 0 ---

(b) Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 27,000 26,949 27,000 0 (26,949) -100.00% (27,000) -100.00%

(c) Non-cognitive skills initiative (ESEA V-D, subpart 1; repealed by P.L. 114-95) D 3,000 2,994 0 0 (2,994) -100.00% 0 ---

(d) Javits gifted and talented education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4644) D 12,000 11,977 12,000 0 (11,977) -100.00% (12,000) -100.00%

Total 4 D 1,238,219 1,235,866 887,575 1,208,026 -27,840 -2.25% 320,451 36.10%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Investing in Innovation (i3), as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ARRA section 14007.

2 Adjusted for comparability. In the 2016 and 2017 Annualized CR columns, includes funds for Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) that were provided under Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

in the School Improvement Programs account. 

3

 Beginning with the 2017 Appropriation, this program is administered and funded under the Department of Health and Human Services.

4

 Adjusted for comparability. The 2016 Appropriation column excludes $27,000 thousand for Innovative Approaches to Literacy and $10,000 thousand for Full-Service Community Schools, shown under the Education for the Disadvantaged 

and Safe Schools and Citizenship Education accounts, respectively.

2018 President's Budget 

Compared to 2017 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity

Category 

Code

2016

Appropriation

2018 President's Budget 

2017 Annualized Compared to 2017 Annualized CR

CR 

2018 

President's 

Budget 

2017 

Appropriation 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-12

Summary of Request

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

achievement in two key ways: (1) providing parents with expanded options for the education of 

their children along with providing incentives to test, evaluate, and expand innovative 

educational strategies and practices relating to those options; and (2) increasing the supply of 

effective teachers and principals. The Administration requests a total of $1.2 billion for these 

activities. A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was 

prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the 

annualized level provided by the Continuing Resolution. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $887.6 million, a decrease of $ 256.7 million, or 22 percent 

less than the 2016 level for programs in this account.

Expanding Educational Options

The Administration requests $500.0 million for Charter Schools Grants, an increase of 

$167.5 million, or 50 percent, to support the opening of new charter schools and the replication 

and expansion of high-quality charter schools. The request is a central element of the 

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

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

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

facilities and for an expanded set of national activities.

The request also includes $370.0 million for the Education Innovation and Research program 

(previously Investing in Innovation), an increase of $250.2 million that would support the 

demonstration and evaluation of private school choice strategies aimed at empowering parents 

to select the best schools for their children, whether public or private; improving educational 

outcomes for students from low-income families; and increasing competition in publicly funded 

education systems. 

In addition, the Administration requests $96.5 million for Magnet Schools Assistance to LEAs 

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

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

available to parents and students.

Supporting Educators

The request also would continue to support key competitive grant programs that help States and 

local educational agencies (LEAs) increase the effectiveness of teachers and principals.

• $199.6 million for Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants to develop, implement, 

improve, or expand human capital management systems or performance-based 

compensation systems, especially in high-need schools. The requested funds would 

support the continuation costs of grant awards made in 2016 and 2017.

$42.0 million for Supporting Effective Educator Development to provide competitive grants to 

institutions of higher education, national nonprofit entities, and the BIE to provide 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

F-13

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

allow educators with nontraditional preparation and certification to obtain employment in 

traditionally underserved local educational agencies. The requested funds would support 

the continuation costs of grant awards made in 2017.

Discontinued Programs

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Advanced Placement program and the 

Non-Cognitive Skills Initiative because they are not included in the reauthorized Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act. The request also would not fund American History and Civics 

Academies, School Leader Recruitment and Support, Ready to Learn Programming, Arts 

in Education, and Javits Gifted and Talented Education. The Preschool Development 

Grants (PDG) program is no longer administered by the Department of Education following 

enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which moved the program to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). No funds for PDG are included under the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2018 request for HHS.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-14

Activities:

Education innovation and research

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$119,772 $100,000 $370,000 +$250,228

1 A total of $200,741 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, 36 percent is available for programs under 

Subpart 1.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

achievement and attainment for high-need students. The EIR program retains the core purpose 

of i3, which supported innovative and proven approaches that address persistent education 

challenges while also building knowledge of what works in education. The Every Student 

Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, made 

changes from the i3 program that include expansion of the entities eligible to receive funds, a 

new rural set-aside, and more flexible requirements for matching funds. 

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

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

by grantees that are willing to undergo rigorous evaluation. Funds may be used for: (1) earlyphase grants for the development, implementation, and feasibility testing of an intervention or 

innovation which prior research suggests has promise, in order to determine whether the 

intervention can improve student academic outcomes (similar to Development grants under i3); 

(2) mid-phase grants for implementation and rigorous evaluation of interventions that have been 

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

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

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

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

effectiveness of their project. 

Eligible applicants include (1) local educational agencies (LEAs); (2) 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. At least

25 percent of the funds appropriated for the program must be used for awards to serve rural 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-15

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)

2013.............................................................................$141,602

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $370 million for the EIR program, an increase 

of $250 million over the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level. The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $100 million for this program. This 

request is part of the $1.4 billion increase in public and private school choice requested for 

charter schools and a Title I increase that enables Federal, State, and local funding to follow the 

student to the school of his or her parents’ choice. The proposed increase for EIR would

support efforts to test and build evidence for the effectiveness of private school choice as a 

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

quality private schools; (2) improving educational outcomes for students from low-income 

families or students enrolled in persistently low-performing schools; and (3) increasing 

competition in order to improve the quality and performance of all schools. The Administration 

believes that expanding public and private school choice through student-centered reforms is 

necessary to ensure that students from low-income families have access to a quality education 

that will prepare them for further education and entering the workforce.

In addition, the increase of private school choice options at the State level shows the growing 

popularity of school choice options. For example, according to the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, more than half the States had opted to extend school choice options to private 

schools as of December 2016. Data show that a larger percent of parents are happy with their 

child’s school if they can choose the school. Specifically, the 2015 Digest of Education 

Statistics reported that in 2012, compared with parents assigned to a public school, a higher 

percentage of students in a public school of choice had parents who were very satisfied with 

their children’s school. Significantly, the highest percentage of students with parents who were 

very satisfied with their children’s school were in a private school.1

 Gallup’s Education and

Work survey data published in 2016 showed that an average of 62 percent of parents who

1 National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015. Table 206.50. “Percentage of 

students enrolled in grades 3 through 12 whose parents were satisfied or dissatisfied with various aspects of their 

children’s schools, by public and private school type: 2003, 2007, and 2012.” U.S. Department of Education.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-16

reported their oldest child attends a private school said they were completely satisfied with their 

oldest child’s education, compared with 28 percent of public school parents; there was no 

difference by household income.1

 

Studies suggest that allowing students from low-income families to use vouchers to attend 

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

some student outcomes. For example, the congressionally mandated evaluation of the DC 

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

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

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

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

who were not offered a scholarship.2

 Most recently, a report from the current evaluation of the 

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

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

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

year.3 According to a 2012 evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice program, the voucher 

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

four years.4

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

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

for African-American students.5

 

While these studies indicate private school choice programs can produce positive student 

outcomes, further evaluations are needed to determine the most effective programs. Recent 

findings in private school choice programs in Louisiana and Ohio underscore the importance of 

identifying and funding models that work. The requested increase for EIR in fiscal year 2018 is 

intended to replicate successful private school choice programs and build evidence around what 

works. In order to strike a balance between innovation and a structure that supports evidencebuilding, the program would include certain requirements, such as student achievement 

assessments, that allow for rigorous evaluation. As with all grants funded through the EIR 

program, grantees would have to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their project. In addition, a 

focus would be placed on public transparency to ensure that parents have the information they 

need to select the right school for their children. The Department would reserve funds to 

evaluate the effectiveness of school vouchers for serving students with disabilities, as well as 

funds to evaluate school choice strategies in rural areas. 

1 Saad, L. (2016). “Five Insights into U.S. Parents’ Satisfaction with Education.” Retrieved from: 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195011/five-insights-parents-satisfaction-education.aspx. 2 Institute for Education Sciences (2010). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final 

Report. U.S. Department of Education. 3 Dynarski, M., Rui, N., Webber, A., Gutmann, B. Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

Impacts After One Year (NCEE 2017-4022). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 

and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

4 Witte, J. F., Carlson, D., Cowen, J. M., Fleming, D. J., & Wolf, P. J. (2012). Milwaukee Parental Choice 

Program Longitudinal Educational Growth Study Fifth Year Report. Report of the School Choice 

Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Milwaukee Evaluation Report #29. 5 Chingos, Matthew M. and Paul E. Peterson. (2015). Experimentally estimated impacts of school 

vouchers on enrollment and degree attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 122, 1–12.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-17

Additionally, the Department would continue to support innovation through a separate open EIR 

competition for projects that would develop and expand the evidence base for effective 

interventions and innovations responding to other education needs, including those identified by 

Secretarial priorities and those emerging from the field. This continued investment is 

particularly necessary in light of new ESEA requirements for States and school districts to 

support the use of evidence-based interventions in schools identified for comprehensive support 

and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement plans. Robust Federal 

investment in identifying such interventions through the EIR program is essential to ensuring 

that LEAs have the tools they need to address the persistent challenges in their lowestperforming schools. 

The request includes appropriations language overriding the authorized funding level for this 

program and language to allow funds to be used to award private school scholarships to 

students. The Department would reserve approximately $18.5 million for technical assistance,

dissemination, and evaluation, including providing technical assistance to help grantees develop 

and implement rigorous evaluations, and to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the projects funded 

to implement school vouchers. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Private school voucher 

demonstration projects:

Private school voucher demonstrati on pr ojects Amount for grants 0 0 $247,500

Private school voucher demonstrati on pr ojects Number of awards 0 0 10

Private school voucher demonstrati on pr ojects Range of scholarship amount 0 0 $8-$12

Private school voucher demonstrati on pr ojects Number of scholarships 0 0 17,500-26,000

EIR competition:

EIR competition Amount for grants $113,086 $114,034 $100,300

EIR competition Number of new awards 15 12–20 10-15

EIR competition Range of new awards $2,553–20,000 $3,000–20,000 $3,000–20,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $803 $1,000 $3,700

National activities $6,111 $4,738 $18,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-18

Performance measures will be developed for the private school choice program in fiscal year 

2018.

Performance measures

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

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

achievement and other student outcomes.

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

across the country to serve a substantially larger numbers of students.

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

served.

Year Target Actual

2013 75% 60%

2014 80 40

2015 60 50

2016 66

2017 66

2018 66

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

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

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 50%

2016 65

2017 65

2018 65

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

served.

Year Target Actual

2013 54% 58%

2014 60 57

2015 65 52

2016 68

2017 68

2018 68
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-19

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

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

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 80%

2016 65

2017 65

2018 70

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

final performance reports submitted through March, 2016. Actual percentages are based on 

partial data; one grantee did not provide targets for the number of students that would be 

served. 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 2016 will be available by December 2017. Some 

grantees have faced challenges reaching target student participation rates due to certain 

evaluation requirements, such as the need for random assignment a part of a randomized 

controlled trial evaluation methodology. For example, one grantee found that teachers that 

were supposed to participate in a study were not comfortable being compared in a randomized 

trial with other peers. Note that all projects remain on track to produce studies with sufficient 

sample sizes to complete rigorous impact evaluations. 

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

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

address persistent educational challenges.

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

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

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

Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2013 80% 100%

2014 80 100

2015 80 100

2016 83

2017 100

2018 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-20

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

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

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

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2013 92% 89%

2014 94 100

2015 75 97

2016 78

2017 100

2018 100

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2013 95% 100%

2014 96 99

2015 96 98

2016 96

2017 100

2018 100

Additional information: The source of the data is the most updated grantee evaluation plan. 

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 2016 will be available by December 2017. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-21

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2013 80% 100%

2014 80 100

2015 80 100

2016 83

2017 100

2018 100

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2013 90% 100%

2014 90 100

2015 90 100

2016 93

2017 100

2018 100

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

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2013 90% 97%

2014 90 99

2015 90 99

2016 95

2017 100

2018 100

Additional information: The source of the data is the most updated grantee evaluation plan. 

In 2013, the contractor conducting the national evaluation of the i3 program revised the 

standards for this measure in order to make them clearer and more objective. 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 2016 will be available by December 2017. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-22

Efficiency measures

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

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

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

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

of the data. Data for this measure are based on total project costs minus evaluation costs 

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

critical because evaluation costs for i3 projects tend to be large due to the complexity of the 

evaluation designs and the goal of meeting WWC standards. Data for 2015 represent grants 

that submitted an annual performance report and include two out of two Scale-up grants, 22 out 

of 24 Validation grants, and 46 out of 60 Development grants. Data for the second efficiency 

measure represent grants that submitted a final performance report and are cumulative costs 

per student for the entire project; they include four out of four Scale-up grants, 15 out of 

15 Validation grants, and 26 out of 30 Development grants that ended in 2015. Data for fiscal 

year 2016 will be available by December 2017.

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

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2013 $237 $181 $140

2014 201 21,463 633

2015 99 874 1,137

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

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

outcomes for students. 

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2015 $375 $1,154 $928

Additional information: The decrease in the cost per student for 2015 for Scale-up grants is 

due to the fact that data for the four Scale-up grants awarded in 2010 are reported in the 

cumulative cost measure rather than the annual cost measure, as those four projects ended 

September 30, 2015. The significant decrease in the cost per student reported for 2015 for 

Validation grants is due to one project missing its target for students to be served in 2014 but 

significantly increasing the number of students it served in 2015. The larger cost per student 

reported for 2015 for Development grants is due primarily to one project that serves a small 

number of students because of the projects focus on students with significant disabilities.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-23

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 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$229,563 $200,000 $199,563 -$30,000

1 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

49.1 percent is available for Subpart 1 activities.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

schools served by the grantees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-24

school leaders demonstrated through additional responsibilities and evidence of professional 

achievement.

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

improve, or expand an HCMS or PBCS, including:

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

demonstrated improvement in student achievement;

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

systems;

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

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

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

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

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

schools and raise student academic achievement;

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

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

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

other school leaders in high-need schools.

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

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

supplant, other Federal or State funds available to carry out activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A final TIF competition was conducted in fiscal year 2016, resulting in 13 awards, including 6 to 

regular LEAs, 2 to LEAs that were independent charter school districts, 1 to a regional 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-25

education service agency, 1 to an SEA, and 3 to nonprofit organizations. The grantees planned 

to serve approximately 450 schools in 83 districts, nearly half of which were charter school 

districts. The largest number of districts to be served were in cities (44 LEAs), followed by rural 

areas (18 LEAs). (Information on districts to be served by each grantee is available at 

https://www.tifcommunity.org/grants?field_grantee_address_state_value=All&field_cohort_term

_tid=759.)

The first competition under the TSLIG program was announced on December 20, 2016; 

applications were due March 24, 2017 and awards are expected to be announced in the late 

summer of 2017.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2013 .................................................................................... $283,771

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $199.6 million for the TSLIG, a decrease of $30 million from the 

fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level. The Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $200 million for this program. The request includes 

appropriations language overriding the authorized funding level for this program. Fiscal year 

Cities (44 LEAs)

Suburbs (12 LEAs)

Towns (9 LEAs)

Rural Areas 

(18 LEAs)

Locale of LEAs to be Served by 2016 Grantees
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-26

2018 funds would support continuation costs of awards made in 2016 and 2017. In addition, the 

Department would use up to 1 percent of the funds for technical assistance and evaluation.

In fiscal year 2018, the Department will focus on monitoring performance and providing needed 

technical assistance to the 2016 and 2017 cohorts of grantees, ensuring that the grantees from 

both cohorts stay on track in implementing their HCMSs and PBCSs. We also will work closely 

with grantees to ensure timely and accurate collection of data needed to support a rigorous 

program evaluation, which will be managed by IES. Finally, we will encourage grantees to pay 

close attention to requirements for ensuring project sustainability at the end of the grant period.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

Footnote

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Amount for new awards $70,558 $123,380 0

Number of new awards 13 15−20 

Range of new awards $887−$13,171 $500−$12,000 

Amount for continuation awards $155,179 $102,998 $197,568

Number of continuation awards 32 11 24

Range of continuation awards $829−$14,407 $500−$14,871

Peer review of new award 

applications $575 $890 0

Evaluation and technical assistance $3,688 $2,295 $1,995

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

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

program. The Department reserved funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2016, and may do so again 

in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

In 2016, appropriations language authorized the Department to use up to 5 percent of program funds for technical 

assistance, training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation. Under the reauthorized ESEA, 

the Department may use up to 1 percent of program funds for evaluation and technical assistance.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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

2013. The performance data presented are for the predecessor TIF program. The teacher and 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-27

principal evaluation ratings for these measures are based, in significant part, on evidence of 

improved student outcomes. Selected information (e.g., data for only those teachers and 

principals rated at the highest level of effectiveness, and not at each level) are presented below. 

The final year for which data will be available for these grantees is 2017.

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

2013 27% 30%

2014 17 20

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. The percentages decreased for both teachers and principals between 2013 and 2014, 

Results for 2015 and 2016 are expected to be available in the late spring 2017.

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

2013 24%

2014 13

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. The percentage decreased between 2013 and 2014. Results for 2015 and 2016 are 

expected to be available in the late spring 2017.

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

evaluation systems to inform key personnel decisions.

Personnel decision 2013 Actual 2014 Actual

Recruitment 51% 81%

Hiring 51 87

Placement 53 74

Retention 56 66

Dismissal 40 67

Tenure 25 17

Career advancement 64 89

Professional development 71 100

Personnel decisi on: All of the above 25 7
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-28

Additional information: The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance 

reports. The percentages increased for all areas except tenure between 2013 and 2014. 

Results for 2015 and 2016 are expected to be available in the late spring 2017.

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

published with the notices inviting applications. These measures are:

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

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

compensation.

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

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

educators participate in the project.

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

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

tenure, and promotion.

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

other non-TIF or TSLIG 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 TSLIG 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.

Other performance information

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting two studies that will provide information 

on effective practices:

The Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems1 is examining 

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

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

$21.5 million over 6 years, is scheduled to be completed in September 2017. An interim report 

on the first year of implementation, released in 2016, found that:

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-29

• While educator performance measures were generally implemented as planned, only 

39 percent of teachers and 40 percent of principals with value-added scores accessed their 

student growth reports.

• Both classroom observation and student growth measures differentiated teacher 

performance.

• The principal leadership measure identified lower- and higher-performing principals; 

however, the measure for each principal was an average of three raters (their self-rating, 

ratings of their teachers, and their district supervisor) with differing assessments of the 

principal’s overall performance level.

The final report will provide information on the impacts of the performance evaluation systems 

on teachers’ classroom practices and student achievement.

The Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund1 is examining the characteristics of 

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

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

$13.7 million over 8 years, is scheduled to end in December 2017. Key findings to date from all 

participating districts that were part of the 2010 grants are:

• Most districts (88 percent) implemented at least three of the four required program 

components for teachers (measures of teacher effectiveness, pay-for-performance bonuses, 

additional pay opportunities, and professional development) for teachers. Only half 

implemented all four requirements.

• By the third year of project implementation, no more than one-fifth of districts reported any 

major challenges.

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

• There was a small positive effect on student achievement. After 3 years, average student 

performance was 1 to 2 percentile points higher in schools that offered pay-for-performance 

bonuses. Over this time, the average student in a pay-for-performance school moved from 

the 34th to the 36th percentile in math and from the 36th to the 37th percentile in reading.

• Only 2 of the 10 districts awarded bonuses for teachers that were substantial or challenging

to earn, but at least half met the grant guidance for awarding differentiated bonuses.

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-30

• Teachers’ understanding of performance measures continued to improve between the 

second and third year of implementation. However, only 60 percent of teachers correctly 

reported that they were eligible for a performance bonus. In addition, teachers 

underestimated the amount of the maximum possible bonus.

• By the third year of implementation, most teachers had positive attitudes about their TIF 

program. In addition, most teachers and principals reported being satisfied with their 

professional opportunities, how they were evaluated, and their school’s environment.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-31

American history and civics academies

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2017 

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$1,812 $3,515 0 -$1,812

1

Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B (authorized at $468,881 thousand), 1.4 percent is available for 

Subpart 3.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

promote innovative instruction and professional development for teachers and school leaders.

American History and Civics Academies

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

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

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

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

knowledge through instruction and interaction with primary scholars and accomplished teachers 

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

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

history and civics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal to 100 percent of the grant amount.

National Activities

National Activities grants promote evidence-based instructional methods and professional 

development programs in American history, civics and government, and geography, particularly 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics academies

F-32

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; demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved student 

populations; and may include civic engagement activities and educational programs on the 

history and principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Department makes competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit or for-profit organizations with 

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

additional 2 years.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013......................................................................0

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request funding for American History and Civics Education for 

fiscal year 2018. This program, which received $3.5 million under the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2017, supports only a few awards, and American History and Civics 

Academies grants reach a very limited number of teachers and students each year. Since, 

under the statute, an academy may select no more than 300 teachers or students for 

participation annually. The Administration believes that small, narrowly targeted programs such 

as this do not reflect an appropriate Federal role and are more appropriately supported with 

State, local, or private funding sources. In addition, local educational agencies (LEAs) can use 

funds from other Federal programs to improve instruction in American history and civics, 

including Title I Grants to LEAs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR Footnote2018

American History and Civics 

Academies grants

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Amount for new awards $1,752 $1,794 1 0

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Number of new awards 1 1–2 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $63 $18

0

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

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

American history and civics academies

F-33

The Department may reserve funds from American History and Civics Education for ESEA evaluation activities in 

fiscal year 2017.

1 Consistent with the Administration’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2018, the output 

measures for fiscal year 2017 reflect the use of fiscal year 2017 annualized CR funds to frontload new awards to pay, 

to the extent possible, the full costs of projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department established the following performance measures to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under the American History and Civics Academies program. The 

2017 data for these performance measures for the fiscal year 2016 grantee are expected to be 

available in fall 2017. The Department has not yet established performance measures for 

National Activities grants.

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

Presidential Academy.

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

Congressional Academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-34

Supporting effective educator development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization1

Budget Authority: Period of fund availability: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$93,815 $65,000 $42,000 -$51,815

1

A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

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

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

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. The reauthorization of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) included a 

separate authorization for the program. The program provides competitive grants to institutions 

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

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

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

preparation and certification to obtain employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

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

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

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

early college high school settings;

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

accessible electronic means; or

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

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

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

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

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

No entity may receive more than one grant in a single competition.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-35

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.

Prior to ESSA, SEED was authorized through appropriations language; funding came from a 

reservation from the ESEA Title II, Part A Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (the 

predecessor to Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants) program. This reservation grew 

from 1 percent in 2011 to 4 percent in 2016.

Changes made by the ESEA reauthorization include expanding eligible applicants to include, in 

addition to national non-profit organizations, IHEs and the BIE. The new authority also 

eliminated the previous set-aside (8 percent in fiscal year 2016) for research, dissemination, 

evaluation, technical assistance, and outreach activities. Under the reauthorization, the 

Department may reserve up to 0.5 percent of SEED funds for evaluation only.

The Department held a competition for new awards in fiscal year 2015 that resulted in 

13 awards and is holding two competitions in fiscal year 2017. The first competition, which is 

using fiscal year 2016 funds, was announced on December 21, 20161

; the second competition, 

which will be governed by the ESSA, was announced on April 20, 2017.2

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2013 ................................................................................$35,067

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $42 million for the SEED program in 2018, a decrease of 

$51.8 million from the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level. The Department 

of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $65 million for this program. The requested 

amount for 2018 would be sufficient to pay the continuation costs of awards made in 2017 under 

the new program authority. (Awards made in 2017 under the pre-ESSA authority will be fully 

funded from the 2016 appropriation.)

1 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/edseed/2016archivepage.html 2 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/edseed/applicant.html
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-36

The Department had made 22 SEED awards to 13 different organizations over the life of the 

program (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/edseed/awards.html). Examples of currently funded 

projects include:

• An award to the KIPP Foundation to recruit and prepare principals to serve 

95,000 high-need students, enhance training and supports to increase the number of 

principals who are highly effective, and extend KIPP’s impact to over 3 million students in 

major urban and rural districts. Lessons learned will be shared through a collaborative 

professional learning community.

• An award to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to expand a project 

that aims to improve student learning by strengthening structures, policies, and programs 

that advance teacher growth and National Board Certification.

• An award to Teach for America to provide high-quality pre-service training to 

8,500 preschool to grade 12 teachers in all content areas, in order to prepare them for work 

in low-income communities.

• An award to the Center for Civic Education to support improved teaching and learning in the 

area of civics and government. 

While the program is an effective vehicle to support evidence-based educator preparation and 

development efforts that can serve as models for similar efforts across the country, funding has 

doubled since fiscal year 2014 and the Administration believes it makes sense to closely 

monitor current grant cohorts, which will include some 20 grantees following the two 

competitions in 2017, and benefit from lessons learned before making more new grants. 

The Department would reserve up to 0.5 percent of the appropriation for SEED for evaluation.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR

Footnote

2018

Footnote

Amount for new awards $44,243 $41,822 0

Number of new awards 3 5−8 0

Range of new awards $8,000−$15,000 $1,000−$6,000 NA

Amount for continuation awards $42,745 $51,439 $41,790

Number of continuation awards 11 13 5−8

Range of continuation awards $2,030−$6,262 $2,030−$7,703 $1,000−$6,000

Peer review of new applications $218 $85 0

National activities, including evaluation 

and technical assistance $6,787  

Evaluation  $469 $210
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-37

NOTES: The fiscal year 2016 funds are available from July 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017; a portion of these 

funds will be used to make new, fully-funded awards during the summer of 2017.

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 reserved funds from Improving Teacher Quality State Grants in fiscal year 2016, and may reserve funds 

from Supporting Effective Educator Development in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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

fiscal year 2015 SEED grantees:

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

students;

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

students and are highly effective; 

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

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

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

2 years.

These measures also are being used in the 2017 competitions. In addition, the 

2017 competition that is being held under the reauthorized ESEA includes an additional 

measure, the number of grantees with evaluations that meet the What Works Clearinghouse

standards with reservations.

Grantees will report annually on each measure. Grantees also report on their performance for 

project-specific objectives identified in their applications. Baseline data for the 2015 grantees is 

expected to be available in late 2017; information for the 2017 grantees is expected to be 

available in late 2019.

Additional information will be available from 2-year evaluation extension awards made in 

2016 to three of the 2013 grantees, the National Writing Project, the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-38

School leader recruitment and support

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 4, 

Section 2243)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$16,337 $14,500 0 -$16,337

1 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

15.4 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, of which 22 percent must be used for Section 2243.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

School Leader Recruitment and Support grants fund activities to improve the recruitment, 

preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools. The program is the successor to the School Leadership program. Activities 

may include:

• Developing or implementing leadership training programs designed to prepare and support 

principals or other school leaders in high-need schools, including through new or alternative 

pathways or school leader residency programs;

• Developing or implementing programs or activities for recruiting, selecting, and developing 

aspiring or current principals or other school leaders to serve in high-need schools;

• Developing or implementing programs for recruiting, developing, and placing school leaders 

in schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities and targeted 

support and improvement activities required by section 1111(d) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA);

• Providing continuous professional development for principals and other school leaders in 

high-need schools;

• Developing and disseminating information on best practices and strategies for effective 

school leadership in high-need schools; and

• Developing other evidence-based programs or activities focused on principals or other 

school leaders in high-need schools that can be used by State educational agencies (SEAs) 

and local educational agencies (LEAs) implementing Title II Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-39

Funds are awarded competitively to eligible entities, which include LEAs that serve high-need 

schools, SEAs, and the Bureau of Indian Education, or any of those entities in consortia with 

nonprofit organizations or institutions of higher education (IHEs). For this program, high-need 

schools are defined as elementary schools with at least 50 percent of enrolled students from 

families below the poverty line or secondary schools with at least 40 percent of enrolled 

students from families below the poverty line.

In awarding grants, the Department must give priority to applicants that will implement evidencebased activities and that have a demonstrated ability to prepare or develop principals who have 

improved school-level student outcomes, have become principals in high-need schools, and 

remain principals in such schools for multiple years.

The Department also must ensure that, to the extent practicable, grants are distributed among 

eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse areas, including urban, suburban, and rural 

areas. Grants are awarded for up to 5 years, with an optional 2-year extension. Entities may 

receive only one grant during a single competition.

The statute requires cost sharing and grantees must use non-Federal sources, in cash or in 

kind, to cover at least 25 percent of the project costs each year. The Department may waive or 

modify the cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship. Federal grant 

funds must be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be 

used for such activities.

Under the antecedent School Leadership program, high-need LEAs, nonprofit organizations, 

and IHEs could receive grants to recruit and retain individuals to serve as principals in highneed LEAs by (1) providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, (2) providing stipends 

to principals who mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional development programs in 

instructional leadership and management, and (4) providing incentives for teachers or

individuals from other fields who want to become principals. The last grant competition was 

held in 2013; awards were made to 20 entities: 8 universities, 7 nonprofit agencies, and 

5 school districts. Eighteen of these grantees received 5-year awards and will receive their final 

continuation awards in 2017; the other two had shorter project periods and will receive no 

additional funding.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2013 .............................................................................$27,584

2014 ...............................................................................25,763

2015 ...............................................................................16,368

2016 ...............................................................................16,368

2017 ...............................................................................14,500

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funds for the School Leader Recruitment and Support 

Program in fiscal year 2018. The program supports a small number of grantees and has 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-40

minimal national impact. While school leadership is important, other Federal funds are available 

to support improved leadership in high-need schools. In particular, both regular Title I Grants to 

LEAs and Title I funds reserved for school improvement, which are available to more than 

14,000 school districts and 55,000 public elementary and secondary schools, may be used to 

recruit, prepare, support, and retain effective principals and other school leaders in Title I 

participating schools.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Funding for continuation awards $16,368 $16,255 0

Number of continuation awards 18 18 0

Range of continuation awards $214−$2,711 $216−$2,208 0

Evaluation 0 $82 0

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

including School Leader Recruitment and Support, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. 

The Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2016, but may do so in fiscal 

years 2017 and 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The information provided is for the antecedent School Leadership program. Grantees report 

data for each year of their 5-year projects. Data are reported by participant year cohort and 

updated annually. For example, for the 2010 grantee cohort (i.e., the 14 grants awarded in 

fiscal year 2010), all of a grantee’s participants who first received services in the first year of the 

grant (school year 2010-2011) are reported under 2011; those first receiving services in the 

second year of the grant (school year 2011-2012) are reported under 2012; and so forth through 

the final year of the grant (school year 2014-2015), which are reported under 2015. Each year, 

the grantees report updates for each participant cohort, and the Department calculates updated 

percentages for each of the participant cohorts. Thus, for example, if a grantee had 

10 participants who began working towards certification in school year 2010-2011 and 

4 completed their work in that year, the grantee would have had a 2011 completion percentage 

of 40 percent at the end of the first year. However, if another three participants completed 

certification in the second year, the 2011 participant cohort completion rate would have 

increased to 70 percent. Grantees continue to track participants and update information 

throughout the project.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-41

The Department aggregates information across projects by summing the numbers of 

participants beginning and completing the measured activities, with the numbers of completers 

updated each year. Data are reported cumulatively; thus, for example, the number of 

participants reported under 2013 includes the numbers who began participating in 2011, 2012, 

and 2013. Numbers are summed across grants and percentages calculated on the cumulative 

cross-grant totals.

Not all performance measures are relevant for all grantees, and not all grantees report data for 

all years. (For example, some grantees did not enroll new participant cohorts in each year of 

the project.) The data provided are for all grantees who reported each year. For the 

2010 grantee cohort, between 6 and 12 grantees had data on each measure in any given year; 

these grantees received a total of $47.7 million over the life of their grants.

Goal: To increase the number of new, certified principals and assistant principals and to 

improve the skills of current practicing principals and assistant principals, all serving in 

high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Objective: To recruit, prepare, and support teachers and individuals to become principals, 

including assistant principals, in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Measure: The percentage of participants who meet certification requirements to become a 

principal or assistant principal.

Year

2010 Grantee

Target

2010 Grantee

Actual

2013 50% 53%

2014 60 69

2015 70 75

Additional information: This measure tracks the cumulative number of participants who 

sought certification to become a principal or assistant principal and the number who became 

certified. Nine of the grantees reported on this measure. By the end of the 5th year of the 

projects, 602 participants began work towards certification, and 450 (75 percent) had become 

certified. The numbers of participants per grant ranged from 2 to 199, with completion 

percentages of 0 to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of participants who are certified through the funded projects and 

hired as a principal or assistant principal in a high-need local educational agency.

Year

2010 Grantee

Target

2010 Grantee

Actual

2013 70% 58%

2014 80 58

2015 90 48
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-42

Measure: The percentage of participants certified through the funded project who are hired as 

a principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA and who remain in that position for at least 

2 years.

Year

2010 Grantee

Target

2010 Grantee

Actual

2013 50% 78%

2014 60 80

2015 70 81

Additional information: These two measures track participants who sought certification 

through the project to become a principal or assistant principal. (Because of certification 

differences across States where projects were located, a different set of grantees reported on 

these two measures than reported on the first measure.) Throughout the 5 years of the grants, 

10 of the 14 grantees had data for at least 1 participant cohort. By the end of the 5th year of the 

grants, 553 participants had become certified through the project, and 263 (48 percent) had 

been hired as a principal or assistant principal in a high-need LEA. Participants generally take 

18 to 24 months to attain certification, although this varies by grantee. It is possible that the 

drop in the percent attaining certification for the 2014 and 2015 participant cohorts is because 

the 2015 participants had less time to complete certification requirements by the reporting 

deadline.

Grantees also reported on a subset of participants certified (367) who had been hired by a highneed LEA and were still a principal or assistant principal 2 years later. A majority, 

298 (81 percent) were still on the job.

Objective: To train and support principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs in order to improve their skills and increase retention.

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need local 

educational agencies who participated in School Leadership-funded professional development 

activities and showed an increase in their pre-post scores on a standardized measure of 

principal skills.

Year

2010 Grantee

Target

2010 Grantee

Actual

2013 70% 62%

2014 80 65

2015 90 66

Additional information: This measure tracks participants who are enrolled in grant-funded 

professional development activities designed to support individuals currently serving as 

principals and assistant principals in high-need LEAs. By the end of the 5th year of the grants, 

there were 1,081 such participants across 13 grants. (One grantee did not report data for this 

measure because it was not relevant to the project. This grantee did report information on 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

School leader recruitment and support

F-43

numbers of participants seeking certification.) Pre- and post-test scores were available for 

659 of the participants, and 432 (66 percent) had an increase in scores.

Measure: The percentage of principals and assistant principals from schools in high-need 

LEAs who participated in School Leadership-funded professional development activities and

remained in their administrative position for at least 2 years.

Year

2010 Grantee

Target

2010 Grantee

Actual

2013 50% 73%

2014 60 73

2015 70 74

Additional information: This measure tracks participants who completed grant-funded 

professional development 2 years prior to the reporting period and who are still in a principal or 

assistant principal position. By the end of the 5th year of the grants, there were 1,101 such 

participants across 13 grants; 74 percent were still in their positions. The percentages across 

grantees ranged from 26 percent (based on 50 participants) to 92 percent (based on 

24 participants).

New measures

The Department established two new measures as part of the 2013 grant competition: (1) the 

percentage of principals and assistant principals who complete the SLP-funded professional 

development program and whose schools demonstrate positive change, no change, or negative 

change based on pre- and post-school site measures, of which one measure must include, if 

available, student growth (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year); and (2) the 

percentage of program graduates who are rated “effective” or “highly effective” as measured by 

a State or local principal evaluation system, if available. Department staff are reviewing data 

submitted to date to assess data quality.

Other Performance Information

The Department began an impact evaluation of support for principals in 2014.1

 The study, 

which will cost $12.2 million over 5 years, is addressing key questions about the effectiveness of 

principal professional development programs and their ability to improve leadership skills and 

school quality, including:

• What are the professional development experiences of principals?

• What are the initial impacts on school climate and educator behaviors of providing principals 

structured and intensive professional development?

• What are the impacts on teacher retention, the effectiveness of instructional staff, and 

student achievement of providing principals with structured and intensive professional 

development?

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

School leader recruitment and support

F-44

The study includes 100 elementary schools within 10 districts; schools were randomly assigned 

to treatment and control groups. Treatment group principals were offered intensive professional 

development provided by the University of Washington's Center for Educational Leadership 

(CEL) during the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 school years. CEL was competitively selected to 

provide the professional development for this study, which involves a heavy emphasis on 

instructional leadership activities such as conducting school walkthroughs and classroom 

observations with constructive feedback to facilitate teacher growth focused on improving 

student achievement. Control group principals will receive supports normally offered by the 

district. Data collection will include information about the professional development delivered 

and experienced by the participating principals; teacher and principal surveys and periodic logs 

of principal daily activities to document intermediate outcomes such as principal behaviors and 

school climate; and administrative records to document student and teacher outcomes. A report 

is scheduled to be released in spring 2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-45

Charter schools grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $270,000

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$332,539 $342,172 $500,000 +$167,461

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Charter schools play a critical role in American public education by increasing educational 

options for families and driving innovative instructional practices that can benefit students 

across a range of school settings. Research shows that charter schools—which, in exchange 

for stricter accountability, are generally exempt from many of the State and local requirements 

governing other public schools—can deliver impressive results for our Nation’s students, 

particularly those living in poverty or at risk for educational failure.

Through Charter Schools Grants, the Department supports the startup of new charter schools 

and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools serving students in 

prekindergarten through grade 12. Funds also support grants to improve charter schools’ 

access to facilities and information dissemination and evaluation activities.

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

High-Quality Charter Schools

State Entity Grants

Section 4303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 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 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-46

renovations to school buildings, acquiring equipment and supplies, engaging the community, 

and developing student transportation systems.

The Department must use 65 percent of the annual program appropriation to support State 

Entity grants, make at least 3 new grants each year, and fully fund the first 2 years of each grant 

(which may be for a period of up to 5 years) with the initial award. In making awards, the 

Department must give priority to State entities that support charter schools for at-risk students 

and that ensure all charter school authorizers implement recognized school approval and 

monitoring standards and procedures. In addition, priority must be given to State entities in 

States that: (1) have charter school authorizers that are not local educational agencies (LEAs) 

or, if only LEAs are authorizers, have an appeals process for prospective charter schools that 

initially fail to gain approval from the LEA; (2) ensure equitable funding for charter and other 

public schools; (3) provide funding or other support for charter school facilities; and (4) use best 

practices from charter schools to support school and LEA improvement.

Developer Grants

If no State entity in a State receives a grant, charter school developers in the State may apply 

directly to the Department for Developer grants. Under section 4305(a)(2) of the ESEA, the 

Department must reserve not more than 2.025 percent of the annual program appropriation to 

support these grants, which are awarded to start up new charter schools or replicate or expand 

high-quality charter schools under the same terms and conditions as for State Entity subgrants. 

The Department may also make Developer grants with any State Entity grant funds that remain 

after making continuation awards and the required new awards described above but are 

insufficient to support an additional new State Entity award.

CMO Grants

The Department must reserve up to 18 percent of program funds to make competitive grants to 

nonprofit CMOs to replicate and expand high-quality charter schools, as authorized under 

section 4305(b) of the statute. Priority for these awards must be given to CMOs that: (1) plan 

to operate schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies; (2) demonstrate 

success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and 

improvement under Title I, Part A of the amended ESEA; (3) propose to replicate or expand 

schools serving high school students; or (4) propose to operate schools that focus on dropout 

recovery and academic reentry. As with Developer grants, CMO grants are awarded under the 

same terms and conditions as for State Entity subgrants, including requirements that the 

schools to be replicated or expanded have demonstrated success in increasing student 

achievement and (where applicable) graduation rates, for all students and for each student 

subgroup, and have no significant compliance issues in the areas of student safety or school 

financial or operational management.

Facilities Grants

Section 4304 authorizes two programs through which the Department makes grants to improve 

charter schools’ access to high-quality facilities: Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities (Credit Enhancement) and State Facilities Incentive grants. The Department must 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-47

reserve 12.5 percent of the Charter Schools Grants appropriation for the facilities grants, of 

which not less than 50 percent (or 6.25 percent of the total appropriation) must be used for 

Credit Enhancement grants.

Credit Enhancement Grants

The Department makes annual competitive Credit Enhancement grants to public and private 

nonprofit entities (such as finance authorities and community development financial institutions) 

that assist charter schools in acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the 

availability of loan or bond financing. Grantees must deposit grant funds into a reserve account 

that is used to, among other things, guarantee and insure debt to finance charter school 

facilities and guarantee and insure leases of personal and real property. These credit 

enhancements are intended to reduce risk to lenders, thereby creating access to credit or 

lowering interest rates and costs of borrowing for charter schools.

Grantees must invest funds deposited in the reserve account in low-risk securities, and any 

earnings on such investments must be re-invested. Grantees continue to implement their 

projects until funds have been fully expended for grant purposes (such as to cover debt 

obligations of charter school borrowers in the event of default) or until financing facilitated by the 

grant has been retired, whichever occurs later.

State Facilities Incentive Grants

Authorized under section 4304(k) of the ESEA, the competitive State Facilities Incentive grants 

help States operate programs that assist charter schools with facility costs. To be eligible to 

receive a grant, a State must establish, or enhance, and administer an aid program that is 

specified in State law and provides annual financing on a per-pupil basis 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. These grants are intended 

to promote the establishment of dedicated State per-pupil funding for charter school facilities.

National Activities

Under section 4305(a)(3), the Department must use at least 2.475 percent of the program 

appropriation to provide technical assistance to State entities in awarding subgrants and to 

recipients of facilities grants, disseminate best practices regarding charter schools, and evaluate

the impact of Charter Schools Grants, including on student achievement. The Department 

currently uses national activities funds to, among other things, support a National Charter 

School Resource Center and administer National Leadership Activities grants, through which 

SEAs, charter school authorizers, and nonprofit organizations with charter school expertise can 

receive funds to disseminate information on issues of national significance and scope.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-48

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013...........................................................241,507

2014...........................................................248,172

2015...........................................................253,172

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $500 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2018, an 

increase of $167.5 million over the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR 

level). The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $342.2 million for this 

program. The request is a central element of the Administration’s efforts to empower States 

and communities to increase the number of high-quality educational options available to meet 

the varied needs of students and their families, particularly those from underprivileged 

backgrounds, and complements other new investments promoting public and private school 

choice under Title I Grants to LEAs and Education Innovation and Research.

The request includes appropriations language that would override the authorized fiscal year 

2018 funding level of $270 million and the ESEA’s within-program funding allocations and allow 

the Department to use funds as follows:

• Not less than $245 million for State Entity grants, a minimum increase of $55.9 million 

over the amount the Department would use for State Entity grants under the CR level.1 

The increase would support additional new, potentially larger awards consistent with the 

expanded program authority in the reauthorized ESEA, which, among other things, 

requires State Entity grantees to use between 7 and 10 percent of grant funds to provide 

technical assistance to improve charter school developer and authorizer quality, allows 

grantees to make subgrants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter 

schools in addition to subgrants to open new schools, increases the maximum subgrant 

period from 3 to 5 years, and broadens the range of allowable subgrantee activities to 

include building renovations and transportation startup costs. Consistent with 

section 4303 of the ESEA, State entities in States with an active grant under the 

previous authorization of the ESEA could compete for these awards to support activities 

under the expanded program authority not covered by those grant projects.

• Up to $100 million for facilities grants, a maximum increase of $74 million over the 

amount the Department would use for these grants under the CR level.2 The request 

would provide the Department flexibility to direct significantly more funding than in prior 

1 The fiscal year 2017 annualized CR would override the ESEA’s within-program funding allocations but not 

specify the amount the Department must use for State Entity grants. 2 Under the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR, the Department would be required to use not less than $16 million 

for Credit Enhancement grants and up to $10 million for State Facilities Incentive grants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-49

years to Credit Enhancement and State Facilities Incentive grants, both of which are 

designed to support cost-effective investments of Federal funds in charter school facility 

finance activities. Specifically, the request would provide a potential threefold increase 

in the number of new Credit Enhancement grants, further leveraging capital and 

dramatically expanding charter school access to facility loans and bonds, while providing 

new support for the startup of dedicated State charter school facility funding streams for 

the first time since fiscal year 2014.

• Up to $155 million for Developer grants, CMO grants, and national activities (collectively 

authorized under section 4305 of the ESEA), of which up to $25 million may be used for 

national activities. This represents a maximum increase of $38.1 million over the 

amount the Department would use for these purposes under the CR level.1 The 

requested language would enable the Department to make significant new investments 

in Developer grants, which we would award in fiscal year 2018 for the first time under the 

expanded program authority in the reauthorized ESEA allowing developers to receive 

grants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools as well as for 

opening new schools. The Department intends to complete two competitions for new 

Developer grants (in each case for both the opening of new charter schools and the 

replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools) in fiscal year 2018, the first in 

the first quarter of the fiscal year for use beginning in the same year and the second in 

the fourth quarter for use beginning in the subsequent year. 

The request would also sustain support for CMO grants, under which the Department 

would continue to prioritize applicants for new awards whose high-quality school models 

serve concentrations of low-income students, provide inclusive, diverse learning 

environments, or will be used to turn around poor-performing schools. 

Finally, the request would also support a strengthened set of national activities, which 

could include: enhanced technical assistance to promote greater competition for State 

Entity and facilities grants; a new and expanded set of National Leadership Activities 

grants through which experts would disseminate information on priority topics for the 

Administration, which may include effective models of collaboration and information 

sharing between high-performing charter schools and other public schools; and new, 

rigorous evaluation studies.

Charter Schools Grants have supported a significant percentage of the charter schools in 

operation today. However, there is clearly room for growth; moreover, there is strong demand 

from families for more options: according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 

parents of approximately 2 million students—or approximately two-thirds the estimated number 

of students currently enrolled in charter schools—would choose to enroll their children in a 

charter school if they could.

2

 The requested increase for Charter Schools Grants would help 

1 Under the fiscal year 2017 annualized CR, the Department would be required to use up to $100 million for CMO 

grants and not less than $11 million for national activities. The fiscal year 2017 annualized CR would not specify the 

amount the Department must use for Developer grants. 2 See http://www.publiccharters.org/press/national-alliance-statement-presidents-fy2018-budget/.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-50

ensure that more of these students can enroll in a high-quality school of their choice by 

providing critical support for the startup and expansion of charter schools and for the acquisition 

of affordable, high-quality charter school facilities.

Consistent with the authority provided in the reauthorized ESEA, the Department would use 

fiscal year 2018 funds to continue grants made under the previous authorization of the ESEA 

under the terms of those awards.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 `

2017

Annualized CR footnote2018

footnote

State Entity grants

State Entity grants: Amount for new awards $177,392 $153,007 $139,334

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

State Entity grants: Amount for continuation awards $11,459 $36,080 $105,666

State Entity grants::Number of continuation awards 9 16 15-20

Developer grants

Devel oper grants: Amount for new awards $3,325 $349 $17,845

Devel oper grants Number of new awards 13 1 25–45

Devel oper grants Amount for continuation awards $2,785 $3,808 $2,155

Devel oper grants Number of continuation awards 16 17 10

CMO grants

CMO grants: Amount for new awards $67,683 $66,259 $62,777

CMO grants Number of new awards 15 10–20 10–20

CMO grants Amount for continuation awards $32,317 $33,741 $46,473

CMO grants: Number of continuation awards 24 39 49–59

Credit Enhancement grants

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for new awards $16,000 $16,000 $65,000

Credit Enhancement grants Number of new awards 2 3 6–10

State Facilities Incentive grants

State F acilities Incenti ve grants :Amount for new awards 0 0 $25,000

State F acilities Incenti ve grants: Number of new awards 0 0 3–6

State F acilities Incenti ve grants :Amount for continuation awards $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

State F acilities Incenti ve grants Number of continuation awards 1 1 1
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-51

Output Measures 2016 `

2017

Annualized CR footnote2018

footnote

Peer review of new award applications $235 $594 $750

National activities $10,817 $11,038 $22,500

Pooled evaluation $1,070 $1,663 $2,500

______________

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

including Charter Schools Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department 

reserved funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2016, and may do so again in fiscal years 2017 and 

2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

in fiscal year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by this program.

The Department is considering revising the measures for Charter Schools Grants to more 

effectively assess performance under the program as reauthorized under the ESSA.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: Encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that 

are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling 

students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students.

Measure: The number of States that have charter school legislation.

Year Target Actual

2013 44 43

2014 44 43

2015 44 44

2016 44 44

2017 44

2018 44

Additional information: In March 2017, Kentucky became the 45th State (including the District 

of Columbia) to enact charter school legislation. The remaining States without charter school 

laws are mainly rural States (Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and 

West Virginia).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-52

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

Year Target Actual

2013 6,600 6,081

2014 7,070 6,463

2015 7,540 6,752

2016 8,010

2017 8,480

2018 8,950

Additional information: Data on the number of charter schools in operation are provided 

annually by SEAs and are verified by the Department. The Department is considering revising 

the targets for this measure due to slower-than-anticipated growth in the number of schools in 

operation in recent years. The 2016 data for this measure are expected to be available in 

spring 2017.

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

2013 94.8% 64.2%

2014 69.2 63.4

2015 74.2 48.3

2016 79.2

2017 84.2

2018 89.2

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2013 94.5% 61.4%

2014 66.4 58.9

2015 71.4 44.1

2016 76.4

2017 81.4

2018 86.4
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-53

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

2013 94.9% 66.6%

2014 71.6 67.1

2015 76.6 52.3

2016 81.6

2017 86.6

2018 91.6

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2013 93.1% 53.7%

2014 58.7 54.2

2015 63.7 39.4

2016 68.7

2017 73.7

2018 78.7

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures were revised in 2014 to 

reflect the elimination, for the large majority of States that adopted ESEA flexibility agreements, 

of the 100 percent proficiency requirement established by the No Child Left Behind Act. The 

new targets for 2014 and future years are based on actual performance in 2013.

Data for these measures are collected through grantee annual performance reports. The 

decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the proficient level in 2015 can be 

explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous assessments based on college- and 

career-ready standards. Analysis of the data has found notable variation in performance among 

funded schools. The 2016 data for these measures are expected to be available in early 

summer 2017.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-54

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter facilities to funds awarded by the 

Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program.

Year

2009 Cohort 

Target 2009 Cohort Actual

2014 Cohort 

Target

2014 Cohort 

Actual

2013 5.8 : 1 3.4 : 1

2014 6.3 : 1 6.5 : 1

2015 9.2 : 1 10.2 : 1

2016 9.2 : 1 12.2 : 1

2017 9.2 : 1

2018 9.2 : 1

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

and the State match) divided by the Federal grant for a given year.

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

under Credit Enhancement grants. In 2014, the most recent year for which complete data are 

available, Credit Enhancement grants leveraged $361 million in facilities financing for 57 

schools. Between program inception and 2014, Credit Enhancement funds have helped enable 

nearly $4 billion in financing for facilities of 566 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 2013 show an average cost of $1,056, for 2014 an average cost of 

$1,100, and for 2015 an average cost of $1,129. Data for this measure, collected through 

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

per student for different types of charter schools.

Other Performance Information

2015 Charter Schools Grants Data Analysis

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

under the State Entity, Developer, and CMO competitions.

1 Using data from grantee annual 

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

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

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

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

2013-2014 school years;

1 See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-55

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

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

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

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

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

learners.

The Department expects to release an updated data analysis, with data through the 2015-2016 

school year, in spring 2017.

2013 CREDO Evaluations

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

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updates and expands CREDO’s 

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

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

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

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

attended a traditional public school.1

 The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools 

in the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 See http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html for links to reports from the CREDO studies discussed in this 

and the following section. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-56

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

which examines, in charter schools across 25 States, 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. 

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 Report 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.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-57

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $96,820

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$96,643 $97,647 $96,643 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program 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 a court-ordered, agencyordered, or federally approved voluntary desegregation plan. The ultimate goal is to eliminate, 

reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while 

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

career-ready skills. The program accomplishes this goal by supporting the creation of magnet 

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

of school that will best serve their children and (2) offer special curricula or instructional 

programs that appeal to parents and students from diverse backgrounds.

Grantees receive awards for up to 5 years and may not receive more than $15 million over the 

course of the project. Funds must be used for activities that will improve academic achievement 

and may be used for planning and promotional activities; acquiring books, materials, and 

equipment; and paying the salaries of effective teachers and other instructional personnel. 

Grantees may spend no more than 50 percent of project costs in the first year and 15 percent in 

the second and third years on planning activities. Additionally, funds may be used 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 would increase socioeconomic diversity. Applicants 

that did not receive a grant the previous year receive priority for any funds appropriated above 

$75 million. In addition, the Department may use up to 1 percent of funds to provide technical 

assistance and disseminate best practices.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-58

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013.............................................................. ................$91,647

2014.............................................................. ..................91,647

2015.............................................................. ..................91,647

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $96.5 million for Magnet Schools Assistance for fiscal year 2018, 

the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level for this program. The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $97.6 million for this program. 

Magnet schools help to expand the range of high-quality educational options for parents and 

students. This request complements the $1.4 billion increase in public and private school 

choice requested for charter schools, a new private school choice program, and Title I increase 

that enables Federal, State, and local funding to follow the student to the school of his or her 

choice. At the request level, the Department would make approximately 40 continuation awards 

for grants expected to be made in the 2017 competition. The Department also would use up to 

1 percent of this amount to provide technical assistance to grantees and disseminate best 

practices. For example, in previous years, the MSAP program has used its national activities 

authority to maintain a technical assistance website, publish white papers on topics of interest to 

the magnet schools community, and aggregate and analyze program- and project-level 

performance data. The Department intends to use its funds available for technical assistance to 

conduct similar activities in 2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-59

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Amount of awards $94,681 $94,628 $95,498

Number of new awards 9 32-47 0

Number of continuation awards 2 0 32-47

Range of awards $4,622-$11,998 $2,000-$3,000 $2,000-$3,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $144 $870 0

National activities $1,533 $965 $965

Pooled evaluation $289 0 0

_______________

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

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

Department reserved funds from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program for this purpose in fiscal year 2016 and 

may do so again in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results, based on goals, objectives, measures, and 

targets required by the Government Performance and Results Act. Achievement of program 

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

requested in fiscal year 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by 

those served by this program.

The 2017 data for these measures for the 2013 cohort are expected to be available in spring 

2018. Likewise, data for the first project year for the 2016 cohort will be available in 

spring 2018.

Goal: Students have access to high-quality education in desegregated magnet schools.

Objective: Federally funded magnet schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group 

isolation in targeted elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of 

minority students.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance reporting enrollment data 

demonstrating success in reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority-group isolation.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-60

Year 2010 Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2013 95.0% 38.4%

2014 100.0% 44.1%

2015 26.0

2016 23.5

2017

2018

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. 2016 data for this metric were collected from 

115 schools; 116 schools, total, were served by the 2013 cohort.

In 2010, the Department published interim final regulations for the program that provide LEAs 

with greater flexibility in demonstrating that their magnet or feeder schools will eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent racial group isolation and that their voluntary desegregation plans are adequate 

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The new measure is calculated by adding the number of 

schools that met individually determined objectives (counted as 1) and the number of schools 

that partially met objectives (counted as 0.5), then dividing the sum by the total number of 

schools in the cohort. (A school is considered to have partially met its objectives by having met 

objectives for 1 of 2 identified isolated minority groups.) Because each school establishes its 

own targets, the Department has not established targets for this measure in recent years.

In 2015, of the 113 schools in the 2013 cohort that reported, 26 met objectives and six partially 

met objectives. In 2016, of the 115 schools in the 2013 cohort that reported, 25 met objectives 

and four partially met objectives. Although performance has declined in recent years, the 

Administration anticipates improvement due to changes to the program made through the 

reauthorization of the ESEA. For example, we expect the new flexibility to use funds for 

transportation will have a positive impact beginning with the 2017 cohort of grantees.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-61

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 2010 Cohort

Target

2010 Cohort

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2013 96.0% 53.1%

2014 100.0% 48.9%

2015 40.3

2016 43.5

2017

2018

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

proficient level or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year 2010 Cohort 

Target

2010 Cohort 

Actual

2013 Cohort

Target

2013 Cohort

Actual

2013 96.1% 50.2%

2014 100.0% 41.8%

2015 34.5

2016 36.0

2017

2018

Additional information: Targets for these measures through the 2014 reporting year are 

based on the former ESEA goal of all students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 

2014. Despite transition to the reauthorized ESEA in 2017, the Department has elected to not 

set aggregate performance targets for these measures in future years because grantees set 

their targets at the project level.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-62

In 2016, a total of 15,320 students scored proficient or above on State assessments in 

reading/language arts and a total of 11,824 students scored proficient or above on such 

assessments in mathematics. The percentages of students scoring proficient or above on 

reading/language arts and mathematics assessments for 2016 by major racial/ethnic group, as 

compared to those percentages for 2014, are as follows:

2014 2016 2014 2016

Reading/language 

arts

Reading/language 

arts Mathematics Mathematics

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native 10.5% 35.4% 11.5% 22.2%

Asian 45.0 56.7 60.9 51.6

Black/African 

American 41.3 35.8 34.3 28.8

Hispanic/Latino 45.3 34.6 37.0 27.5

Native 

Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander 36.8 40.0 31.6 31.3

White 68.3 64.6 60.6 51.7

Notably, from 2014 to 2016 American Indian/Alaska Native students experienced increases of 

25 and 11 percentage points in reading/language arts and mathematics, respectively, while 

other subgroups, with the exception of Asian students and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander students in reading/language arts, experienced decreased or unchanged performance. 

In both reading/language arts and mathematics, Hispanic/Latino students’ performance 

decreased by about 10 percentage points.

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 2010 Cohort 2013 Cohort

2013 $840

2014 $767

2015 1,122

2016 916

2017

2018
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-63

Ready to learn programming

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 1

Budget Authority: 

2017 

Appropriation

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$25,741 $25,692 0 -$25,692

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $200,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 28 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which includes the Ready to 

Learn program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Ready to Learn (RTL) 

Programming is designed to facilitate student academic achievement by supporting the 

development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool and elementary 

school children and their parents, caregivers, and teachers. At least 60 percent of the funding 

must be used to:

• Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

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

effective use of such programming;

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

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

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

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

caregivers; and

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

programs are widely distributed.

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

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

effective use of educational video programs.

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

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

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

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

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

Ready to learn programming

F-64

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 was awarded $36.8 million over 5 years 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, was awarded $99.1 million over 5 years to create a comprehensive media initiative 

to support the learning needs of children in low-income communities. The project’s primary 

goal is to improve science and literacy learning outcomes for young children, especially 

those from low-income families, in order to prepare them for success in school and in life.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

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

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

2015.............................................................25,741

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Ready to Learn (RTL) Programming in 2018. 

With the rise of the internet and the ready availability of a wide range of digital games and 

devices that support early learning, the RTL program is less relevant and less necessary. 

Private corporations increasingly produce and disseminate programming, online games, and 

“apps” that are both educational and entertaining without Federal support. 

RTL programming is more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private 

funds. Public television networks and stations may tap private and non-profit sources of funding 

to continue their work or apply for funding under other Federal programs like Education 

Innovation and Research. Indeed, public television entities already have demonstrated an 

impressive ability to raise funds from non-Federal sources, as Federal funding made up just 

16 percent of public television’s total revenue in 2015.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-65

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Number of continuation awards 2 2 0

Continuation award funding $25,681 $25,632 0

Evaluation (review of grant products) 60 60 0

Total 25,741 25,692 0

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

including the RTL program, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department 

did not reserve funds from RTL for this purpose in fiscal year 2016, it may do so in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Performance Measures

In 2012, the Department revised the performance measures for the RTL program to better 

measure both RTL’s effectiveness in improving what children learn and the number of children 

RTL is reaching. The revised measures are: 

(1) the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

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

transmedia properties, such as applications and online educational games, are compared 

to similar non-RTL-funded digital properties or to other more traditional educational 

materials; 

(2) the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary supporting 

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

an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

(3) the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, 

disaggregated by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard 

metrics or, when available, by tracking tools.

The three 2010 grantees planned a total of seven experimental or quasi-experimental research 

studies, to be conducted beginning in year 3 of the grant. The results of these studies provide 

data on the first performance measure. The Department received the first three studies in 2013. 

All three studies found that children who use RTL-produced educational media products 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-66

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

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

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

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

measure. In 2014, the Department received two research studies for review, both of which 

found that children using RTL-produced products demonstrated statistically significant gains in 

math skills compared to children who used similar non-RTL products. Therefore, in 2014, 

100 percent of the research studies met the performance measure. In 2015, the Department 

received four research studies for review, three of which found that children using RTLproduced products demonstrated statistically significant gains when compared to similar, nonRTL-produced products.

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. As shown in the chart below, in 2012, two of 

three transmedia product suites reviewed were of high-quality; in 2013, two of five suites 

reviewed were of high-quality; in 2014, three of five suites reviewed were of high-quality; and in 

2015, three of the four transmedia product suites reviewed were of high-quality.

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

RTL-produced products, by type of product. In 2013, 46.5 million users accessed RTLproduced educational media products. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported 

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

reported a total of 38.5 thousand users, 23.5 thousand of whom used Web-based products and 

14.5 thousand of whom participated in one of WTTW’s 25 pilot programs. The Hispanic 

2012 2013 2014 2015
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-67

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

mobile apps and accompanying transmedia at HITN pilot sites.

In 2014, 41.8 million users accessed RTL-produced educational media products. CPB reported 

35.9 million users, which includes PBS television viewers, PBS Kids Web site users, web 

application downloads, and children participating in outreach programs. WTTW reported 

615.6 thousand users including web users, participants in outreach programs, and those who 

accessed WTTW products via YouTube. HITN reported 6.3 million users, which includes HITN 

viewers, pilot sites, museum partners, Web site and social media users, community events, and 

conference attendees.

In 2015, 40.9 million users accessed RTL-produced educational media products. CPB reported 

32.8 million users, which includes PBS television viewers, PBS Kids Web site users, application 

downloads, children participating in outreach programs, and other metrics. WTTW reported 

7.4 million users, including internet usage, kiosk users, and participants in outreach programs. 

Finally, HITN reported 736 thousand users, including HITN television viewers, pilot sites, 

museum partners, Web site and social media users, community events, and conference 

attendees.

Performance data for the 2015 cohort will be available later in 2017.

Efficiency Measure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

children’s television programs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the program in 2010, grantees have been producing fewer television shows and instead 

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

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

content and requires fewer external funds to be leveraged in support of television production. In 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-68

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

support compared to $19.5 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.50 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar. In 2014, the three grantees leveraged $0.73 of nonFederal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. ($11.7 million of non-Federal support compared 

to $16.0 million in Federal dollars spent on production.) In 2015, the three grantees leveraged 

$14.0 million of non-Federal support, compared to $20.1 million in Federal dollars spent, or 

$0.70 of non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-69

Arts in education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: 1

Budget Authority:

2017

Appropriation

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Change from

Annualized CR 

$27,000 $26,949 0 -$26,949

1 Of the funds appropriated for Title IV, Part F (which is authorized at $200,741 thousand), $5,000 thousand is 

reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 28 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which include the Arts in 

Education program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Arts in Education program supports 

national demonstration and Federal leadership activities to promote arts education for students, 

including disadvantaged students and students who are children with disabilities. The program 

includes the following allowable activities: (1) professional development for arts educators, 

teachers, and principals; (2) development and dissemination of accessible instructional 

materials and arts-based educational programming, including online resources, in multiple arts 

disciplines; and (3) national and community outreach activities that strengthen and expand 

partnerships among schools, local educational agencies (LEAs), communities, or centers for the 

arts, including national centers for the arts. 

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

educational agencies (LEAs) in which 20 percent or more of the students are from low-income 

families; State educational agencies (SEAs); national nonprofit organizations; institutions of 

higher education; organizations with expertise in the arts; museums or cultural institutions; the 

Bureau of Indian Education; and partnerships of these entities. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-70

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

2015..............................................................25,000

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Arts in Education program in 2018 because 

the program has limited impact, the National Arts in Education program does not sufficiently 

target services to the highest-need students, and the Arts in Education program funds activities 

that are more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private funds. The 

program also duplicates activities that may be supported through other Federal programs, such 

as the Title I Grants to LEAs program, under which LEAs and schools may support integrated 

arts instruction as part of a schoolwide Title I program. Title I also makes available $1 billion in 

funding that may be used to support the use of arts instruction and related activities as part of 

school turnaround plans.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Arts Development and Dissemination

 emination:Total funds available $14,477 $8,238 0

 emination:Amount for continuation awards $13,952 $7,888 0

 emination:Number of continuation awards 27 21 0

 emination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $525 $350 0

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE)

 cators:Total funds available $6,450 $11,816 0

 cators:Amount for new awards 0 6,486 0

 ucators:Number of new awards 0 5 0

 ucators:Amount for continuation awards $5,450 $5,060 0

 cators:Number of continuation awards 17 17 0

 ucators:Peer review of new award applications 0 $270 0
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-71

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

National Arts in Education Program

(AENP)

 rogram: Total funds available $6,576 $6,575 0

 rogram: Amount for continuation awards $6,762 $6,575 0

 rogram: Number of continuation awards 1 1 0

Evaluation $497 $500 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 2016, it may do so in fiscal 

year 2017.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2018, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2017 reflect the use of fiscal year 2017 funds to pre-pay continuation costs to allow existing grantees to 

complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of newly 

funded projects over the proposed grant period.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based GPRA 

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2018 are not 

included because this program is proposed for elimination.

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

content standards in the arts.

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

arts education for all participants.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-72

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

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

Year Target Actual

2013 40% 84%

2014 45 60

2015 50 19

2016 55 58

2017 60

Additional Information: In 2011, the Department defined sustained and intensive professional 

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

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

of 75 percent of the total number of professional development hours offered by the PDAEfunded project during the reporting period; and completion of these professional development 

hours over at least a 6-month period during the reporting period.

In 2014, five PDAE grantees from the fiscal year 2012 cohort reported data. In 2015, 19 PDAE 

grantees from the fiscal year 2011, fiscal year 2012, and fiscal year 2014 cohorts reported data. 

The fiscal year 2014 cohort grantees reported on the progress made in the first year of their 

award, which focused on planning activities rather than provision of professional development.

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

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2013 100% 100%

2014 100 100

2015 100 100

2016 100 86

2017 100

Additional Information: The Department requires that grantees administer a pre-test and a 

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

performance reports. The 2016 actual is based on the 14 of 17 PDAE grantees who reported 

on this measure.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-73

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2013 54% 45%

2014 43 36

2015 39 35

2016 35 32

2017

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

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

Year Treatment Control

2013 46% 39%

2014 45 45

2015 43 40

2016 39 38

2017

The Department also developed the following four measures for the Arts in Education National 

Program (AENP).

Measure: The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 697,632 1,006,004

2014 788,324 1,138,491

2015 859,273 1,245,824

2016 2,100,000 2,140,365

2017

Measure: The percent of teachers participating in the grantee’s program who receive 

professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2013 22% 20%

2014 25 61

2015 28 48

2016 50 52

2017

Additional Information: Data for 2014, 2015, and 2016 is based on teacher participation in the 

Changing Education Through the Arts program administered by the Kennedy Center.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-74

Measure: The total number of students from low-income families who participate in standardsbased arts education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 244,845 519,110

2014 268,350 568,631

2015 322,020 769,397

2016 800,000 806,092

2017

Measure: The total number of students with disabilities who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2013 86,397 257,512

2014 92,963 274,450

2015 100,028 221,859

2016 200,000 219,316

2017
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-75

Javits gifted and talented education

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

Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2017 

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$11,977 $12,000 0 -11,977

1 Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F (authorized at $200,741 thousand) after reserving $5,000 

thousand for Subpart 3, 36 percent is available for Subpart 4, including for Javits Gifted and Talented Education and 

the other programs authorized under this subpart.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Javits Gifted and Talented Education supports a coordinated program of research, 

demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and other activities to build and enhance the 

capacity of elementary and secondary schools to identify gifted and talented students and meet 

their special educational needs. The Department makes grant or contract awards to State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education of the 

Department of the Interior, institutions of higher education (IHEs), and other public and private 

agencies and organizations to carry out projects to fulfill this purpose, including an award to one 

or more IHEs or SEAs to establish a National Research Center for the Education of Gifted and 

Talented Children.

Award recipients may use funds to: conduct research on methods and techniques for 

identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and on applying gifted and talented 

educational methods to all students, including low-income and at-risk students; establish and 

operate gifted and talented education programs, including innovative methods and strategies for 

identifying and teaching students traditionally underserved in such programs; and provide 

technical assistance and disseminate information. 

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. The Department must evaluate the impact of funded 

projects on students traditionally served in separate gifted and talented education programs and 

on other students and submit results of this evaluation to Congress not later than December 9, 

2017.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-76

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2013......................................................................0

2014.............................................................$5,000

2015.............................................................10,000

2016.............................................................12,000

2017.............................................................12,000

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request fiscal year 2018 funding for Javits Gifted and Talented

Education, which under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, received 

$12 million. The Administration appreciates the importance of engaging and developing the 

unique skills of high-ability learners but believe that limited Federal education program dollars 

should be focused on improving outcomes for our Nation’s most educationally disadvantaged 

children, consistent with the longstanding Federal role in elementary and secondary education 

and the core purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Javits Gifted and 

Talented Education has limited impact, and programs serving gifted and talented students 

would be more appropriately supported with State, local, or private resources. In addition, the 

Department can support research on gifted and talented education through funding for the 

Institute of Education Science’s Research, Development, and Dissemination program, including 

research on identifying and serving students traditionally underrepresented in gifted and 

talented programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

footnote

2017

Annualized CR 2018

footnote

Amount for continuation awards $10,691 $10,094 0

Number of continuation awards 21 21 0

National Research Center for the 

Education of Gifted and Talented 

Children and Youth $1,040 $1,823 0

Pooled evaluation authority $269 $60 0

______________

NOTES: Consistent with the Administration’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2018, the 

output measures for fiscal year 2017 reflect the use of fiscal year 2017 annualized CR funds to frontload continuation 

awards to allow current grantees to complete their projects to the extent possible.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-77

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 reserved funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2016, and may do so again in fiscal year 

2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department established three performance measures for Javits Gifted and Talented 

Education focusing on the quality of project designs, professional development, and academic 

achievement of targeted student populations. The Department reports data for these measures 

twice over the grant period (at the middle and end of the period) after convening an expert panel 

of scientists and practitioners to review information from a sample of annual performance 

reports and self-evaluations prepared by grantees. The first data reports for the 2014 cohort, 

which received 5-year grants, and for the 2015 cohort, which received 3-year grants focusing on 

professional development, are expected to be available in fall 2017.