Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2017 Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................C-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................C-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................C-9

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................C-11

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports.............................................................C-13

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................C-14

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants.....................................................................C-17

Mathematics and science partnerships.............................................................................C-26

21st Century community learning centers.........................................................................C-32

State assessments ...........................................................................................................C-40

Education for homeless children and youths.....................................................................C-46

Native Hawaiian education ...............................................................................................C-51

Alaska Native education ...................................................................................................C-55

Training and advisory services .........................................................................................C-59

Rural education ................................................................................................................C-64

Supplemental education grants ........................................................................................C-71

Comprehensive centers....................................................................................................C-74

Student support and academic enrichment grants ............................................................C-81

State Tables*

* State tables reflecting final 2015 allocations and 2016 and 2017 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web 

page at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of title I, [parts A and 

B] part A of title II, subpart 1 of part A of title IV, part B of title IV, [parts A and B of title VI,] part 

B of title V, and parts B and C of title [VII]VI of the ESEA; the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act; section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002; the Compact 

of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

[$4,433,629,000]$4,558,409,000, of which [$2,611,619,000]$2,732,399,000 shall become 

available on July 1, [2016]2017, and remain available through September 30, [2017]2018, and 

of which $1,681,441,000 shall become available on October 1, [2016]2017, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2017]2018, for academic year [2016–2017] 2017–

2018:

1 Provided, That [funds made available to carry out part B of title VII of the 

ESEA] $403,000,000 shall be for part B of title I:2 Provided further, That $33,397,000 shall be 

for part B of title VI and may be used for construction, renovation, and modernization of any 

elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to an elementary school or secondary 

school, run by the Department of Education of the State of Hawaii, that serves a predominantly 

Native Hawaiian student body:3 Provided further, That [funds made available to carry out part C 

of title VII of the ESEA] $32,453,000 shall be for part C of title VI and shall be awarded on a 

competitive basis, and also may be used for construction:4 Provided further, 

That [$51,445,000]$55,445,000 shall be available to carry out section 203 of the Educational 

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

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

services provided under this section:5 Provided further, That $16,699,000 shall be available to 

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

and the Republic of the Marshall Islands:6 Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up 

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

C-1
the implementation of these grants:7 Provided further, That [up to 4.0 percent of the funds for 

subpart 1 of part A of title II of the ESEA shall be reserved by the Secretary for competitive 

awards for teacher or principal recruitment and training or professional enhancement activities, 

including for civic education instruction, to national not-for-profit organizations, of which up to 8 

percent may only be used for research, dissemination, evaluation, and technical assistance for 

competitive awards carried out under this proviso:8 Provided further, That $152,717,000 shall be 

to carry out part B of title II of the ESEA:9 Provided further, That none of the funds made 

available by this Act shall be used to allow 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative 

funding for expanded learning time unless these activities provide enrichment and engaging 

academic activities for students at least 300 additional program hours before, during, or after the 

traditional school day and supplements but does not supplant school day requirements]10 grants 

under section 1202 may be made on a competitive basis:11 Provided further, That, 

notwithstanding section 4105, funds available for subpart 1 of part A of title IV may be used by 

state educational agencies to make subgrants on a competitive basis to local educational 

agencies to carry out the activities authorized in sections 4107 through 4109, for a period not to 

exceed 3 years and in an amount not less than $50,000 for each year: Provided further, That 

State educational agencies may give priority for such subgrants to local educational agencies 

that propose to carry out one or more of the activities authorized in such sections, as 

determined by the state:12 Provided further, That $175,840,000 shall be for part B of title V.

13

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016.)

NOTE

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.

C-2
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...of which [$2,611,619,000]$2,732,399,000

shall become available on July 1,

[2016]2017, and remain available through 

September 30, [2017]2018, and of which 

$1,681,441,000 shall become available on 

October 1, [2016]2017, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2017]2018, 

for academic year [2016–2017] 2017–2018:

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants, 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers, State Assessments, Education for

Homeless Children and Youths, and Rural 

Education. This language also provides that 

a portion of funds for Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants is available on an 

advance-funded basis.

2

...Provided, That [...]$403,000,000 shall be 

for part B of title I:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the State Assessments program.

3

Provided further, That $33,397,000 shall be 

for part B of title VI and may be used for 

construction, renovation, and modernization 

of any elementary school, secondary school, 

or structure related to an elementary school 

or secondary school, run by the Department 

of Education of the State of Hawaii, that

serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian 

student body:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Education for Native Hawaiians program 

and authorizes the use of funds appropriated 

for school construction, renovation, and 

modernization.

4

Provided further, That [funds made available 

to carry out part C of title VII of the 

ESEA] $32,453,000 shall be for part C of title 

VI and shall be awarded on a competitive 

basis, and also may be used for construction:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Alaska Native Education program and 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

construction.

5

Provided further, That [$51,445,000]

$55,445,000 shall be available to carry out 

section 203 of the Educational Technical 

Assistance Act of 2002 and the Secretary 

shall make such arrangements as 

determined to be necessary to ensure that 

the Bureau of Indian Education has access to 

services provided under this section:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Comprehensive Centers program and 

authorizes the Secretary to provide the 

Bureau of Indian Education access to 

program services.

C-3
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

6

Provided further, That $16,699,000 shall be 

available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands.

7

Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the amount 

referred to in the previous proviso to provide 

technical assistance in the implementation of 

these grants:

This language allows the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental 

Education Grants funds to provide technical 

assistance for these grants.

8

Provided further, That [up to 4.0 percent of 

the funds for subpart 1 of part A of title II of 

the ESEA shall be reserved by the Secretary 

for competitive awards for teacher or 

principal recruitment and training or 

professional enhancement activities, 

including for civic education instruction, to 

national not-for-profit organizations, of which 

up to 8 percent may only be used for 

research, dissemination, evaluation, and 

technical assistance for competitive awards 

carried out under this proviso:...]

This language provides a specific amount for 

the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development program from the appropriation 

for the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program. This language is no longer 

needed because the Supporting Effective 

Educator Development program is authorized 

in the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) as reauthorized by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act of 2015.

9

[...Provided further, That $152,717,000 shall 

be to carry out part B of title II of the 

ESEA:...]

This language specifies the funding level for

the Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

Program. This language is deleted because 

the program authorization was struck from 

the reauthorized ESEA.

10[...Provided further, That none of the funds 

made available by this Act shall be used to 

allow 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers initiative funding for expanded 

learning time unless these activities provide 

enrichment and engaging academic activities 

for students at least 300 additional program 

hours before, during, or after the traditional 

school day and supplements but does not 

supplant school day requirements]...

This language established a minimum 

number of hours that subgrantees had to 

meet to use funds for expanded learning 

time. This language is no longer necessary 

because the language is included in the 

reauthorized ESEA.

C-4
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

11...grants under section 1202 may be made 

on a competitive basis:...

This language allows the Department to 

make competitive awards for audits of 

assessment systems under the State 

Assessments program, rather than awarding 

funds by formula. 

12Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 4105, funds available for subpart 1 of 

part A of title IV may be used by state 

educational agencies to make subgrants on a 

competitive basis to local educational 

agencies to carry out the activities authorized 

in sections 4107 through 4109, for a period 

not to exceed 3 years and in an amount not 

less than $50,000 for each year: Provided 

further, That State educational agencies may 

give priority for such subgrants to local 

educational agencies that propose to carry 

out one or more of the activities authorized in 

such sections, as determined by the state:

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program, allows states to 

award subgrants of at least $50,000 

competitively to local educational agencies 

for a 3-year period, and allows states to 

prioritize certain authorized activities when 

making competitive subgrants to local 

educational agencies.

13Provided further, That $175,840,000 shall 

be for part B of title V.

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program.

C-5
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation................................................. $4,402,671 $4,433,629 $4,658,409

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority .............................. 4,402,671 4,433,629 4,658,409

C-6
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016..................................................................................... $4,433,629

2017..................................................................................... 4,558,409

Net change ......................... +124,780

Increases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding to support improvement or 

enhancement of assessment systems, in order to 

support the effective implementation of assessments 

that are aligned to college- and career-ready standards 

that will help ensure that all students graduate from 

high school with the knowledge and skills they need to 

be successful in college and the workplace. $378,000 +$25,000

Increase funding for the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program to ensure that these 

children and youths have access to services and 

activities to help them attend and succeed in school. 70,000 +15,000

Increase funding for the Comprehensive Centers

program to expand support for SEAs as they 

implement challenging State-determined reforms in the 

areas of standards and assessments, differentiated 

accountability systems, and educator evaluation and 

support, and to allow the Centers to serve the Bureau 

of Indian Education. 51,445 +4,000

Increase funding to initiate the Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants program to support 

formula grants to improve academic achievement by 

increasing the capacity of States and local educational 

agencies to provide all students with access to a wellrounded education and improve school conditions and 

the use of technology. 0 +500,000

Subtotal, increases +544,000

C-7
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Decreases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Decrease funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants because funds for the Supporting Effective 

Educator Development program are requested in the 

Innovation and Improvement account. $668,389 -$99,830

Eliminate funding for the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program because the program was not 

included in the reauthorized ESEA. 152,717 -152,717

Decrease funding for the 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers program to align with the authorization 

level included in the reauthorization of the ESEA. 1,166,673 -166,673

Subtotal, decreases -419,220

Net change +124,780

C-8
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate

footnote

2017

Authorized footnote

2017

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State 

grants (ESEA II-A) 01 $2,349,830 $2,295,830 $2,250,000

Mathematics and science partnerships 

(ESEA II-B; struck by P.L. 114-95) 01 152,717 0 0

21st century community learning centers 

(ESEA IV-B) 01 1,166,673 1,000,000 1,000,000

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 

1201-1203) 01 378,000 378,000 378,000

Education for homeless children and 

youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) 0 70,000 85,000 85,000

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 01 33,397 32,397 33,397

Alaska Native education equity 

(ESEA VI-C) 01 32,453 31,453 32,453

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 01 175,8402 169,840 175,8402

Supplemental education grants 

(Compact of Free Association Act) $20,9743 16,699 21,1713 16,699

Comprehensive centers (ETAA 

section 203) 04 51,445 To be determined4 55,445

Student support and academic 

enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A-1) 0 0 1,650,000 500,000

Unfunded authorizations

UA Family engagement in education 

programs (ESEA IV-B) 0 0 10,000 0

Total definite authorization $20,974 5,680,069

C-9
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

Activity

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate

footnote

2017

Authorized footnote

2017

Request

footnote

Total appropriation $4,433,629 $4,658409

Portion of request subject to 

reauthorization 55,445

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; the program was reauthorized in 2016 through appropriations language. 2 The amount appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B is to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2. 3 Reflects amount initially authorized in fiscal year 2005, adjusted for inflation in accordance with the authorizing statute, which requires such adjustments 

through fiscal year 2023. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; the program was reauthorized in 2016 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing legislation is 

C

sought for fiscal year 2017.

-10
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Foot

-

note

Senate 

Allowance Foot

-

note Appropriation Foot

-

note

2008 $4,698,276 $5,693,668 $5,198,525 $5,289,076

(2008 Advance for 2009) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000)

Supp. (P.L. 110-329) 0 0 0 15,000

2009 4,566,323 5,399,6091 5,292,4221 5,362,016

(2009 Advance for 2010) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,435,000) (1,681,441)

Recovery Act Supp. (P.L. 111-

5)

0 1,066,000 1,070,000 720,000

2010 5,182,181 5,244,644 5,197,3162 5,228,444

(2010 Advance for 2011) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2011 1,890,779 5,221,4443 5,388,1732 4,593,8414

(2011 Advance for 2012) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) (-3,178)

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1024 4,570,1455 4,544,596

(2012 Advance for 2013) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8806 4,544,5966 4,397,391

(2013 Advance for 2014) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2014 1,075,559 N/A7 4,676,8622 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923 N/A7 4,402,6748 4,402,671

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

2016 4,693,171 3,500,7209 4,134,7469 4,443,629

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

2017 4,658,409

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

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 reflects 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. 

C-11
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

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 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.

C-12
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports

State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality

Managers’

statement: The Committee strongly encourages the Department to provide guidance to 

SEAs about the availability of funding for such activities, including technical 

assistance on best practices in this area.

Response: The Department will be developing revised guidance regarding the use of ESEA 

Title II, Part A State formula grant funds as part of its effort to fully and effectively 

implement the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Managers’

statement: The Committee strongly encourages the Secretary to provide guidance and 

technical assistance to states to help them develop extracurricular programs 

specifically targeting foster youth.

Response: The Department plans to include technical assistance on extracurricular 

programs targeted to foster youth in the 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers 2016 Summer Institute for States and eligible entities.

Comprehensive Centers

Managers’

statement: The Committee strongly supports the establishment of a comprehensive center 

on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

Response: The Department will comply with this request. The Department is exploring 

options for the most effective and efficient delivery of technical assistance related 

to improving instructional supports for students at risk of not attaining full literacy 

skills due to a disability; these options could include establishing a new 

comprehensive center or building the capacity of an existing Department of 

Education technical assistance center.

C-13
ACCOUNT

Summary of R equest

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Click here for accessible version 

Amount Percent

School Improvement Programs

 1. Supporting effective instruction (ESEA II):

(a) Supporting effective instruction State grants (Part A) 1, 2

Annual appropriation D 668,389 668,389 568,559 (99,830) -14.94%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.00%

Subtotal D 2,349,830 2,349,830 2,250,000 (99,830) -4.25%

(b) Mathematics and science partnerships (Part B; struck by P.L. 114-95) D 152,717 152,717 0 (152,717) -100.00%

 2. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,151,673 1,166,673 1,000,000 (166,673) -14.29%

 3. State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 378,000 378,000 403,000 25,000 6.61%

 4. Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 65,042 70,000 85,000 15,000 21.43%

 5. Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 32,397 33,397 33,397 0 0.00%

 6. Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 31,453 32,453 32,453 0 0.00%

 7. Training and advisory services (CRA IV) D 6,575 6,575 6,575 0 0.00%

 8. Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 169,840 175,840 175,840 0 0.00%

 9. Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,699 16,699 0 0.00%

 10. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 48,445 51,445 55,445 4,000 7.78%

 11. Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A-1) D --- --- 500,000 500,000 ---

Total, Appropriation D 4,402,671 4,433,629 4,558,409 124,780 2.81%

Total, Budget authority D 4,402,671 4,433,629 4,558,409 124,780 2.81%

Current 2,721,230 2,752,188 2,876,968 124,780 4.53%

Prior year's advance 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ESEA II-A.

2 Includes funds for Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) in the 2015 and 2016 appropriation columns. The 2017 President’s Budget requests funding for SEED in the 

Innovation and Improvement account.

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Office, Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

C-14C-14

C-14
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Request

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

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

Secondary Education Act (ESEA). More specifically, the activities in this account provide 

flexible resources to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement across the core 

content areas; prepare students to enter and succeed in college; and pay the costs of 

developing and administering student achievement assessments. The account also includes a 

variety of smaller programs addressing particular educational needs or special populations. The 

Administration is requesting approximately $4.6 billion for programs in this account, including:

• $2.3 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants to provide flexible, formulabased support for States and LEAs to improve teacher and principal effectiveness and 

ensure the equitable distribution of effective and highly effective teachers and principals. 

The Department would reserve up to 5 percent of the appropriation for this program to 

support teacher and school leader enhancement projects with evidence of effectiveness and 

conduct related national leadership activities.

• $1.0 billion for 21st Century Community Learning Centers to support State and local 

efforts to implement in-school and out-of-school strategies for providing students (and, 

where appropriate, teachers and family members), particularly those in high-need schools, 

the additional time, support, and enrichment activities needed to improve student 

achievement. The Administration’s request would continue to allow funds to be used for 

before- and after-school programs, summer enrichment programs, and summer school 

programs, and would also permit States and eligible local entities to use funds to support 

expanded-learning-time programs.

• $403.0 million for State Assessments to provide additional resources to States to support 

the effective implementation of assessments that are aligned to college- and career-ready 

standards that will help ensure that all students graduate from high school with the 

knowledge and skills they need to be successful in college and the workplace. A State 

could also use these funds to strengthen the capacity of LEAs and schools to provide all 

students the opportunity to increase their educational achievement, including to support 

reviews of their own assessments in an effort to eliminate redundancy and to ensure that 

they are of high quality, maximize instructional goals, and are designed to help students 

achieve State standards. The Department would also set aside $25 million of the fiscal year 

2017 request to support competitive projects to help States address pressing needs they 

have identified for developing and implementing their assessments.

• $175.8 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that 

often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA.

• $85.0 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths to provide educational and 

support services that enable homeless children and youth to attend and achieve success in 

school.

• $55.4 million for Comprehensive Centers, an increase of $4 million, to provide 

comprehensive technical assistance to grantees. The additional funding would improve the 

Department’s ability to provide targeted technical assistance to SEAs, particularly in priority 

C-15
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Request—continued

areas such as making more evidence-based investments. The additional funding and 

requested appropriations language would also allow the centers to provide assistance to the 

Bureau of Indian Education.

• $33.4 million for Native Hawaiian Education to provide supplemental education programs 

and services to Native Hawaiian children and adults, in such areas as teacher training, 

family-based education, gifted and talented education, special education, higher education, 

and community-based education learning centers.

• $32.5 million for Alaska Native Education to support the development and operation of 

supplemental education programs and services for Alaska Native children and adults.

• $16.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants program to provide support to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and to the Republic of the Marshall Islands in place of grant 

programs in which those Freely Associated States no longer participate pursuant to the 

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.

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

centers that provide technical assistance to school districts in addressing educational equity 

related to issues of race, gender, and national origin.

C-16C-16
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $2,295,830

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2016 2017 Change

Annual appropriation $668,389 $568,559 -$99,830

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

Total 2,349,830 2,250,000 -99,830

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

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

agencies (SEAs) and subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to increase student 

achievement consistent with challenging State academic standards; improve the quality and 

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

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

achievement in schools; and provide low-income and minority students greater access to 

effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders. SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to carry 

out a wide variety of activities, consistent with their specific needs.

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act. The reauthorization renamed Improving Teacher Quality State Grants to SEI 

State Grants and made a number of changes in the program, including placing a greater focus 

on evidence-based practices; an emphasis on developing rigorous and fair human capital 

evaluation and development systems; and the authorization of Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) as a separate program rather than a set-aside within the formula grant 

program. 

In addition, the reauthorized program includes two significant transitions affecting the 

distribution of funding. First, it phases out a hold-harmless allocation methodology under which

most funds (about $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2016) were allocated to States on the basis of the 

amounts received by each State in fiscal year 2001 under the Eisenhower Professional 

Development State Grants and Class Size Reduction programs. For each of fiscal years 2017 

through 2022, the initial amounts based primarily on fiscal year 2001 allocations are reduced by 

a percentage equal to the product of 14.29 percent and the number of years between the fiscal 

year for which the determination is being made and fiscal year 2016; thus, for 2017, the initial 

amounts will be reduced by 14.29 percent. Any remaining funds are then allocated to States by 

formula. The second change gradually shifts that formula to provide additional weighting for 

children in poverty. In 2017, 35 percent of remaining allocations are based on States’ relative 

shares of the population aged 5 to 17, and 65 percent is based on States’ relative shares of 

children aged 5 to 17 from low-income families. By 2020, the weighting will be 20 percent for all 

C-17
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

children and 80 percent for children in poverty. Each State must receive at least one-half of 

1 percent of the additional funds. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of 

the Interior and the Outlying Areas each receive one-half of 1 percent of the appropriation.

Each State must reserve at least 95 percent of its funds for subgrants to LEAs; they may use up 

to 1 percent for administration and the remainder for State-level activities. The statute further 

authorizes States to reserve up to an additional 3 percent of the amount otherwise reserved for 

subgrants to LEAs for a range of State-level activities aimed at improving the effectiveness of 

principals and other school leaders. States allocate funds to LEAs using a formula based 

20 percent on LEAs’ share of children aged 5 though 17 and 80 percent on the LEAs’ share of 

children aged 5 through 17 from low-income families. Under the prior legislation, LEAs’ 

received the amount that they had received for fiscal year 2001, with any available funds above 

that amount being distributed 20 percent by total population aged 5 to 17 and 80 percent based 

on the number of poor children aged 5 to 17.

Also under the antecedent program, States used 2.5 percent of their grant funds for competitive 

awards to eligible partnerships to provide professional development in core academic subjects 

to teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, principals. These awards are 

no longer authorized.

States may use their State-level funds for a variety of activities, including the reform of teacher, 

principal, and other school leader certification and licensing; helping LEAs design and 

implement teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation and support systems that are 

based in part on evidence of student academic achievement; improving equitable access to 

effective teachers; creating or improving alternative routes to certification; technical assistance 

to LEAs; improving professional development; improving State reciprocity of teacher and 

principal certification or licensing; reforming or improving teacher and principal preparation 

programs; and training teachers on the appropriate use of student data. To receive funds, 

States must submit an application that describes how funds will be used, including how activities 

will be aligned with challenging State academic standards, how activities are expected to 

improve student achievement, and how they will monitor and support LEA activities.

To receive subgrants, LEAs submit applications to their States that describe proposed activities 

and how the LEA will prioritize funds to schools. The reauthorized ESEA requires LEAs to 

consult with teachers, principals, and other stakeholders in determining the best uses of Title II, 

Part A funds. States may require LEAs to confirm in their applications that they have involved 

these stakeholders not only in determining how to use the funds, but how to do so in ways that 

are likely to increase the probability that the funds have a necessary and positive impact on 

student achievement. Similarly, States may encourage LEAs to consider evidence-based 

practices to increase likelihood of effective use of funds. LEAs may use funds to develop, 

implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to improve teacher and school 

leader quality, including rigorous and fair evaluation and support systems; implement initiatives 

to assist in recruiting, hiring, and retaining effective teachers, especially in low-income schools 

that particularly need assistance; promote teacher leadership; recruit qualified individuals from 

other fields; reduce class size; provide high-quality, personalized professional development; and 

developing feedback mechanisms to improve school working conditions. All of these efforts 

could support State plans to increase equitable access to effective educators for all students.

C-18C-18
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

From fiscal years 2011 to 2016, a portion of Title II, Part A funds were reserved, through 

appropriations language, for competitive grants under the Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) program. This program is now separately authorized and is described in 

more detail in the Innovation and Improvement Account.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2012............................................... .............................$2,466,567

2013............................................................................. 2,337,830

2014................................................ ............................. 2,348,898

2015................................................ ............................. 2,349,830

2016............................................................................. 2,349,830

NOTE: Includes funds provided to support the SEED program.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $2.25 billion for the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

program for fiscal year 2017, a decrease of $99.83 million from the 2016 amount that primarily 

reflects the separate 2017 request for the SEED program. The requested amount for 2017 is 

nearly level with the fiscal year 2016 funding for formula State awards. The request will support 

ongoing State and local efforts to improve teacher and principal effectiveness and ensure that

all students have equitable access to effective effective teachers and principals. 

States and LEAs are working to ensure that every child has access to effective teachers by 

changing how they recruit, select, prepare, develop, and support teachers and school leaders. 

These efforts include improving the quality and use of evaluation systems to provide meaningful 

feedback and support to teachers and school leaders; working to support educators as they 

implement rigorous standards; and efforts to attract and retain the best teachers and leaders in 

high-need schools in order to elevate the overall quality of instruction and improve student 

achievement. The 2017 request would allow States to continue this work as well as use funds 

in support of their State plans to increase equitable access to effective educators; create 

teacher leadership opportunities such as to involving teachers directly in the design and delivery 

of evidence-based professional development for their colleagues; and better support principals 

in creating professional environments that support effective instruction.

SEI State Grants will support work related to that of other programs for which the Administration 

is requesting funds. For example, Section 1111 of Title I of ESEA requires States to produce 

C-19C-19
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

annual State report cards that include information on the professional qualifications of teachers 

in the State, including the number of inexperienced teachers, the number of teachers with 

emergency or provisional credentials, and the number who are teaching out-of-field. SEI State 

Grants funding can help ensure that LEAs make progress in recruiting and retaining effective 

teachers and ensuring equitable access to such teachers. Program funding will help States and 

LEAs provide the preparation, substantial support, and intensive professional development 

necessary for teachers and school leaders to ensure that all students succeed.

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

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Funding for State awards $2,260,654 $2,220,707 $2,216,362

Range of State awards $10,833−$254,340 $10,634−$249,360 $10,679−$252,007

Average State award $43,474 $42,706 $42,622

Funding for Outlying Area Awards 11,690 11,690 11,194

Funding for BIE 11,690 11,690 11,194

Funding for SEED 54,046 93,993 01

Evaluation 11,749 11,749 11,250

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Improving 

Teacher Quality State Grants program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 

2017.

1 Fiscal year 2017 funding for SEED is requested in the Innovation and Improvement account.

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 

FY 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The measures established by the Department to assess the performance of the Improving 

Teacher Quality State Grants program gauge the percentage of core academic classes taught 

by highly qualified teachers, as required under No Child Left Behind, in elementary and 

secondary schools as a whole compared to the percentage in high poverty schools. Since 

C-20C-20
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

2007, these data have been collected by the Department’s EDFacts/Education Data Exchange 

Network (EDEN).

The reauthorization of the ESEA eliminated highly qualified teacher requirements; the 

Administration will develop new performance measures for the SEI State Grants program 

beginning in fiscal year 2017.

Goal: To improve teacher and principal quality and increase the number of highly 

qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant 

principals in schools.

Objective: Show an annual increase in the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers.

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty elementary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 97%

2013 100 97

2014 100 96

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes in high-poverty secondary schools taught 

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 94%

2013 100 95

2014 100 93

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

elementary schools.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 98%

2013 100 98

2014 100 97

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

C-21C-21
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

Measure: The percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 

secondary schools.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 96%

2013 100 96

2014 100 95

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Additional information: The program did not make progress on this objective from 2013 to 

2014 but did maintain a high percentage. Results for 2015 are expected in April 2016.

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified

teachers in elementary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2012 22

2013 32

2014 14

2015

2016

2017

Measure: The number of States that reduce the difference between the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in secondary schools in the highest 

poverty quartile and the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified 

teachers in secondary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Actual

2012 27

2013 21

2014 16

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: These measures present the number of States that reduced (from the 

year prior to the year for which the data are reported) the difference in the percentage of core 

academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in highest poverty versus lowest poverty 

schools. For example, between 2013 and 2014, 14 States reduced the difference in these 

percentages in elementary schools and 16 States reduced the difference in these percentages 

in secondary schools. Results for 2015 are expected in April 2016. 

C-22C-22
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

Other performance information

The Department has used Improving Teacher Quality State Grants evaluation funds to conduct 

rigorous impact studies on preservice training, professional development, equitable access to

effective teaching, and teacher retention strategies.

Completed evaluations

A study on preservice teacher preparation, released in September 2013, looked at the 

effectiveness of teachers who entered teaching through two highly selective alternative routes to 

certification: Teach For America (TFA) and The New Teacher Project’s Teaching Fellows 

program.1

 The study found that, on average, students assigned to novice TFA teachers had 

higher math scores than students assigned to comparison teachers, including more experienced 

teachers, in the same schools. Students of Teaching Fellows and of comparison teachers had 

similar scores, on average, on the math tests they took at the end of the school year, but the 

differences in scores varied depending on the selectivity of the alternative routes to certification 

and teacher experience. Teaching Fellows’ students had higher math scores than students 

taught by teachers from less-selective alternative routes to certification, but similar scores to 

students taught by teachers from traditional routes to certification. Novice Teaching Fellows’ 

students had higher scores than students taught by novice comparison teachers; experienced 

Teaching Fellows’ students had similar scores to students taught by experienced comparison 

teachers. This research indicates that teachers who enter the profession through alternative 

routes to certification can help fill teacher shortages in hard-to-staff schools and subjects without 

reducing student achievement. However, it also suggests that predicting teacher effectiveness 

at the time of hiring is difficult. 

In addition, the Department is concerned with ensuring equitable access to effective teaching. 

A recent evaluation in this area looked at the effects of offering incentives to high performing 

teachers to teach in low performing schools with high need students.

2

 An initial report, 

published in April 2012, found that filling teacher vacancies in these schools using transfer 

incentives was feasible but required making the transfer offer to a large candidate pool to attract 

enough transferees. The report also noted that the teachers who transferred had, on average, 

5 years more experience than teachers normally tapped to fill such positions. The final report, 

released in fall 2013, also examined teacher retention rates and the impact on student 

achievement in the low performing schools to which the high performing teachers transferred. 

The study found that the incentives improved retention rates during the 2-year incentivepayment period for the high performing teachers who transferred; however, there was no 

statistically significant difference in retention rates in the fall immediately after the last incentive 

payment. In addition, the study found that the transfer incentives had a positive impact on 

student achievement in mathematics and reading at the elementary school level in each of the 

2 years after a teacher transferred. These impacts were equivalent to raising achievement by 

4 to 10 percentile points relative to the average of all students in their state. The study found no 

1 “An Evaluation of the Impact on Secondary Student Math Achievement of Two Highly Selective 

Routes to Alternative Certification,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_alternative.asp. 2 “Impact Evaluation Of Moving High Performing Teachers to Low Performing Schools,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_recruitment.asp.

C-23C-23

 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

impact on student achievement at the middle school level. The study authors also estimated 

that the transfer incentive program in elementary schools was more cost-effective than classsize reduction strategies aimed at generating the same impacts on student achievement, but 

cautioned that overall cost-effectiveness can vary depending on a number of factors, such as 

teacher retention rates.

Ongoing evaluations

The Department is currently supporting an additional study on preservice teacher preparation 

that will examine teacher preparation programs with features thought to be promising.

1

 This 

study will explore whether the instructional skills that teachers, particularly teachers of English 

Learners, learn about and have opportunities to practice in their preparation programs are 

associated with novice teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom. The report, expected in 

fall 2017, will look at the relationships between the teachers' experiences in their preparation 

programs and the achievement of students in their classrooms. 

The Department is also continuing research on the effectiveness of in-service teacher training. 

A study of elementary school math professional development will look at the impact of 

specialized professional development in that area on teachers’ content knowledge and 

classroom practices, as well as on changes in student achievement.2

 The report from this 

study, expected in 2016, will also describe how the professional development was implemented. 

A second study will examine the effect of supports for teachers to use data to guide instruction

on student academic achievement and other outcomes.3

 A report is expected in 2018. Finally, 

a new study will evaluate the impact of support for principals on teacher retention, effectiveness 

of instructional staff, and student academic achievement.4

 An initial report is expected in 2018.

Bridging these areas, in 2015, the Department began a study to determine the feasibility and 

design of a large-scale impact evaluation of teacher preparation and professional development.5

 

This work will identify high leverage aspects of teacher preparation and support for a rigorous 

impact evaluation and collect information from potential providers and study participants to 

inform study options.

Another evaluation on equitable access to effective teachers will provide information about the 

distribution of effective teachers within districts over a 5-year period based on value-added 

measures.6

 An interim report, released in fall 2013, looked at disadvantaged students’ access 

1 “A Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_us.asp. 2 “Impact Evaluation of Math Professional Development,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp. 3 “Impact Evaluation of Data-Driven Instruction Professional Development for Teachers,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_datadriven.asp. 4 “Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp. 5 “Feasibility and Design of an Impact Evaluation of Teacher Preparation and Professional 

Development,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_feasibility.asp. 6 “Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp.

C-24C-24

 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

to effective teaching in grades 4 through 8 in English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics in 

29 geographically dispersed school districts over the 2008-09 to 2010-11 school years. Levels 

of access varied across school districts in the study sample, but, on average, disadvantaged 

students had less access to effective teaching, compared to non-disadvantaged students, and 

did not have greater access to effective teaching in any school district. The report authors 

estimated that providing these students with equal access to effective teaching would reduce 

the student achievement gap from 28 percentile points to 26 percentile points in ELA and from 

26 percentile points to 24 percentile points in mathematics in a given year. The final report, 

expected in the spring of 2016, will also explore any changes in level of access that may be 

associated with district strategies to ensure equitable access to effective teachers.

The Department has also begun a study on the impact of teacher and leader performance 

evaluation and support systems.1

 This study will address the impact of these systems on 

educator practices, supports provided to educators, and student academic achievement. It will 

also describe districts’ and educators’ experiences implementing these systems. A report on 

the study’s first year of implementation is expected in spring 2016.

1 “Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_performance.asp.

C-25C-25

 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, struck by P.L. 114-95)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$152,717 0 -$152,717

1 The authorization for this program was struck by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), eliminated the Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) 

program, previously authorized by Title II, Part B of the ESEA. However, Congress provided a 

final appropriation of $152.7 million for the program in fiscal year 2016 and, consistent with the 

transition provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2016, States and their subgrantees will receive a final round of 

MSP awards for the 2016−2017 school year.

The program supports State and local efforts to improve student academic achievement in 

mathematics and science by improving elementary and secondary school mathematics and 

science teacher education and professional development. The Department makes formula 

allocations to States based on the number of children ages 5 to 17 who are from families with 

incomes below the poverty line, with no State receiving less than 0.5 percent of the 

appropriation. States then award funds competitively to eligible partnerships, which must 

include an engineering, mathematics, or science department of an institution of higher education 

(IHE) and a high-need local educational agency (LEA). Authorized program activities include 

summer workshops or institutes that train teachers to use curricula based on scientific research 

and aligned with challenging State academic content standards; innovative distance-learning 

programs; and programs that bring teachers together with working scientists, mathematicians, 

and engineers to expand teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and research. Grantees also may 

use program funds to develop more rigorous mathematics and science curricula. 

MSP is a forward-funded program, with funds becoming available for obligation on July 1 of the 

fiscal year in which they were appropriated and remaining available for 15 months through 

September 30 of the following year.

C-26
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2012 .........................................................................................$149,716

2013 ...........................................................................................141,902

2014 ...........................................................................................149,717

2015 ...........................................................................................152,717

2016 ...........................................................................................152,717

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department is not requesting funds for the Mathematics and Science Partnership program, 

which was eliminated by the ESSA.

States and school districts that wish to continue activities previously supported by the program 

may use other funds available under the ESEA for this purpose. For example, similar activities 

aimed at improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction 

(including computer science) may be supported by formula grants received under Title I, Part A 

(Title I Grants to LEAs) and Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants). In 

addition, the newly authorized Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program 

provides funds to LEAs that can be used to increase student access to high−quality STEM 

programs, instructions, and activities.

The Administration’s ambitious new Computer Science for All proposal aims to provide access 

to rigorous computer science and related STEM coursework to all our Nation’s students. In 

addition to a request for $4 billion over 3 years in mandatory funding to States that commit to 

offer computer science in every high school within 5 years, the fiscal year 2017 request also

includes $100 million in discretionary funds to support Computer Science For All Development 

Grants, which the Department would award on a competitive basis to LEAs to develop and 

implement effective computer science instructional plans that can serve as models for similar 

efforts across the Nation.

C-27
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

State Formula Grants

State Formula Gr ants Amount to States $151,953 $151,953 0

State Formula Gr ants Range of State awards $760−18,585 $760–18,585 0

State Formula Gr ants Average State award $2,713 $2,713 0

National activities, including evaluation $764 $764 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. While 

the Department did not reserve funds from the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program under this authority in 

fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal year 2016.

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, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

No targets are provided for 2017 because the program was not reauthorized.

Goal: To improve the quality of mathematics and science instruction and increase both 

the number of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers and the achievement of 

students participating in Mathematics and Science Partnerships programs.

Objective: Demonstrate the effectiveness of professional development activities for 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships teachers through increased achievement on 

assessments of mathematics and science content knowledge.

C-28
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

Measure: The percentage of Mathematics and Science Partnerships teachers who significantly 

increase their content knowledge, as reflected on project-level pre- and post-assessments.

Year Target – Math Actual – Math Target – Science Actual – Science

2012 65% 61% 65% 69%

2013 65 63 65 67

2014 65 66 65 69

2015 65 65

2016 65 65

Additional Information: Data for this measure are provided only for teachers who completed 

pre- and post-assessments.

Objective: Increase the percentage of students in classrooms of Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships teachers who score at the proficient level or above in State assessments of 

mathematics and science.

Measure: The percentage of students in classrooms of Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

teachers who score at the proficient level or above in State assessments of mathematics or 

science.

Year Target – Math Actual – Math Target – Science Actual – Science

2012 52% 64% 52% 67%

2013 54 55 54 69

2014 56 51 56 71

2015 58 58

2016 60 60

Additional Information: Student assessment data are available only for subjects and grades 

that are tested using a statewide assessment. 

The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above proficient on State 

mathematics assessments in 2013 and 2014 can be explained, in part, by States’ transition to 

more rigorous assessments based on college- and career-ready standards.

Objective: Increase the percentage of Mathematics and Science Partnerships projects that use 

an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations, that conduct their 

evaluations successfully, and for which evaluations yield scientifically valid results.

C-29
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

Measure: The percentage of Mathematics and Science Partnerships projects that report using 

an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations.

Year Target Actual

2012 42% 50%

2013 43 49

2014 44 46

2015 45

2016 46

Measure: The percentage of Mathematics and Science Partnerships projects that use an 

experimental or quasi-experimental evaluation design that is conducted successfully and yields 

scientifically valid results.

Additional Information: The Department’s contractor collects information related to evaluation 

from annual performance reports and assesses evaluations using a rubric that was developed 

for the Department in 2007 and revised in past years to better align with What Works 

Clearinghouse standards. This measure includes only evaluations for which sufficient 

information was provided to enable an assessment. Of the 69 subgrantee projects that 

submitted a final-year report in 2014 and reported using an experimental or quasi-experimental 

design in their evaluations, 51 were verified as using such designs. Of these, 16 conducted at 

least one component of their evaluations that met each of the criteria in the rubric, including 

15 projects that successfully employed quasi-experimental designs and one that used an 

experimental design. 

The Department believes that conveying high expectations for project evaluation through the 

rubric and prominently featuring subgrantees with strong evaluation designs in technical 

assistance and dissemination activities have contributed to the increases in the percentage of 

evaluations that are conducted successfully and with rigor.

Year Target Actual

2012 17% 29%

2013 18 30

2014 19 31

2015 20

2016 21

C-30
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

Efficiency Measure

Measure: The percentage of State educational agencies that submit complete and accurate 

data on program performance measures in a timely manner.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 100%

2013 100 100

2014 100 100

2015 100

2016 100

Additional Information: To help ensure accuracy, the Department requires State program 

coordinators to review the data before they are submitted to the Department.

C-31
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $1,000,000

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$1,166,673 $1,000,000 -$166,673

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program enables communities to 

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities, such as 

before- and after-school programs and summer school programs, aimed at improving student 

academic outcomes. Centers must target their services primarily to students who attend 

schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities, schools that target

support and improvement activities under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) or other schools determined by local educational agencies (LEAs) to be in need of 

assistance. 

Under the the ESEA, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), 

program funds may be used to provide activities that complement and reinforce the regular 

school-day program of participating students and may also fund local activities that are included 

as part of an expanded learning time (ELT) program that provides students at least 300 

additional program hours before, during, or after the traditional school day. Funds may be used 

for a broad range of activities, such as those that support a well-rounded education; financial 

literacy and environmental literacy programs; programs that support a healthy and active 

lifestyle; services for individuals with disabilities; activities for students who are English learners;

cultural programs; telecommunications and technology education programs; expanded library 

service hours; family engagement and literacy programs; programs for students who have been 

truant, suspended, or expelled; drug and violence prevention activities; programs that partner 

with in-demand fields of the local workforce; and programs that build skills in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 

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

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

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

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

received the previous fiscal year under Part A of Title I of the ESEA. However, no State may 

receive less than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States.

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

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

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

C-32
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

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

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

schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support 

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

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

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

served by the program or the activities would expand accessibility to high-quality services. 

States must make awards of at least $50,000 per year for a period of 3 to 5 years. The program 

currently provides funding to approximately 9,500 centers, serving approximately 1.8 million 

students and 430,000 adult family members. In the 2013-14 program year, of the students 

served, over 850,000 attended a center for 30 or more days

An SEA may reserve up to 2 percent of its allocation for administrative expenses, including the 

costs of conducting its grant competition. In addition, an SEA may reserve up to 5 percent of its

allocation for monitoring local programs, providing technical assistance and training, and 

evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s program.

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

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

of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) fn

2012 ......................................................$1,151,673

2013 ........................................................1,091,564

2014 ........................................................1,149,370

2015 ........................................................1,151,673

2016 ........................................................1,166,673

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1.0 billion in fiscal year 2017 for 21st CCLC, the full amount 

authorized by the ESEA as reauthorized by the ESSA and approximately $167 million below the 

2016 level. Research suggests that programs that significantly increase the total number of 

hours in a regular school schedule can produce gains in student academic achievement. Other 

research indicates that high quality after-school programs may have a positive impact on 

academic and other desirable student outcomes, such as behavioral outcomes and higher 

attendance during the regular school day. However, there is evidence suggesting that the low 

rates of attendance by students enrolled in programs funded by the 21st CCLC may be limiting 

the program’s effectiveness. For example, States reported that fewer than half of all students 

served (about 854,000 of over 1.8 million) attended programs for 30 days or more over the 

course of the 2013-14 program year. This is one reason the Administration has supported the 

use of 21st CCLC funds for the implementation of ELT programs during a lengthened school 

day. ELT programs have been shown to increase program participation, which can lead to 

improved program performance, including gains in student achievement. The reauthorized 

program limits funding to ELT programs that provide students at least 300 additional program 

C-33
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

hours before, during, or after the traditional school day The Department plans to develop 

guidance to help States interested in supporting ELT programs under this new provision. The 

Department is also considering ways to improve program performance and grantee 

accountability based on the early implementation of a new performance data system.

The Department would reserve a portion of the funds for national activities, including research, 

data collection, technical assistance, outreach, and dissemination. These activities would focus 

on the identification and promotion of effective efforts to expand learning time; provide 

comprehensive services; increase community and parental engagement; and improve STEM 

education. For example, the Department has collaborated with NASA to launch a pilot 

education initiative designed to address the national need for a STEM-educated workforce and 

to create and evaluate STEM resources for 21st CCLC grantees. Information about the EDNASA initiative, including videos of student projects, is available online at 

http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/01/working-together-to-build-tomorrows-stem-workforce/. This 

initiative also supported two key goals of the Federal Committee on STEM Education, the 

Federal STEM Education Five-Year Strategic Plan, and the Cross-Agency Priority Goal on 

STEM: increasing student engagement in STEM experiences and implementing more effective 

coordination among Federal agencies with STEM education investments. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Funding for States awards $1,128,640 $1,143,339 $980,000

SA Range of State awards $5,643-132,439 $5,717-132,690 $4,900-113,734

SA Average State award $21,705 $21,987 $18,846

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) $33,859 $34,300 $49,000

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) $22,573 $22,867 $19,600

National activities and evaluation $11,517 $11,667 $10,000

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying Areas $11,517 $11,667 $10,000

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. The Department used this authority to pool $4,000 thousand of 

evaluation funding from this program in 2015, and it may reserve a similar amount of funds for pooled evaluation 

purposes in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

C-34
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

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 

FY 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. Performance measures based on proficiency rates will be changed in future years 

based on the reauthorized ESEA.

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

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

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

offer families of students opportunities for educational development.

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

benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.

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

from fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2012 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 34.2% 32.4% 33.4%

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5 30.7 30.3 30.7

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5 36.7 36.0 36.5

2015

2016

2017

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

fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2012 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 34.9% 32.8% 47.0%

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5 31.0 30.3 30.9

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5 36.7 37.3 36.8

2015

2016

2017

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

the program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year. To report data by grade 

span for this measure, the data system sorts program performance data by analyzing participant 

demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the individual student level). For 

this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included in the columns 

C-35
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

disaggregated by grade level. The Department is implementing a new performance data 

system and will establish new targets using results for 2015.

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

proficient or above on State assessments.

Year

Target 

Elementary

Reading

Target 

Middle and High 

School Math

Actual 

Elementary

Reading

Actual 

Middle and High 

School Math

2012 45.0% 25.0% 27.2% 19.8%

2013 45.0 25.0 20.2 17.8

2014 45.0 25.0 05.4 11.1

2015

2016

2017

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

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

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

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

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

State assessment results. The 2013 data represent approximately 582,000 regular elementary 

school-aged attendees and 275,000 regular middle- and high-school-aged attendees. The 

Department is implementing a new performance data system and will establish new targets 

using results for 2015. The decreases from 2013 to 2014 are due to a combination of factors: 

many States transitioned to new assessments during this period and were also unable to enter 

high quality information into the Department’s old performance data system that was retired 

immediately following the annual performance report submission deadline in fall 2014.

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

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2012 75% 75% 75% 69.9% 64.6% 67.9%

2013 75 75 75 68.5 64.2 67.1

2014 75 75 75 31.2 28.9 30.6

2015

2016

2017

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

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

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

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

columns disaggregated by grade level. The Department is implementing a new performance 

data system and will establish new targets using results for 2015. Similar to the measure 

C-36
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

above, the decreases from 2013 to 2014 are due in part to the transition to the new 

performance data system.

Efficiency measures

The Department developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC program.

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2012 95% 78%

2013 95 31

2014 95 50

2015

2016

2017

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

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

Year Target Actual

2012 35 60

2013 35 90

2014 35 75

2015

2016

2017

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2012 4 3

2013 4 17

2014 4 26

2015

2016

2017

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

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

action within 30 days. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down 

funds in a manner that is not consistent with State and Federal policies; awarding funds for 

periods other than between 3 and 5 years (the subgrant length required by the statute); and 

improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants. Changes in the efficiency measures are due in 

part to the volume and severity of the findings for each year. Ongoing issues with a small 

number of States have made the average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance 

C-37
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

findings significantly increase in the last 2 years. The Department has a new technical 

assistance and monitoring contract and has been working with subject matter experts to provide 

assistance to these States, both of which should help to address the compliance findings in a 

timely manner. The Department is implementing a new performance data system and will 

establish new targets using results for 2015.

Other performance information

The Department is transitioning from the program’s Profile and Performance Information 

Collection System (PPICS) to a new system, “21APR.” This web-based annual performance 

reporting system will continue to collect program measure performance data, but with greater 

efficiency, increased reporting capabilities, and interoperability with some State data systems.

In 2009, the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) released “The Evaluation of 

Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs,” based on a rigorous study that 

developed and tested the effectiveness of two after-school interventions (one each in math and 

reading) that were adapted from materials from existing school-day curricula that are based on 

sound theory or that have scientific evidence of effectiveness

(http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094077/). The evaluation found a statistically significant 

improvement in student achievement between students in the math after-school program and 

those in the regular after-school activities after 1 year of enhanced instruction, but no additional 

achievement benefit beyond the 1-year impact after 2 years of participation. In study sites 

implementing the reading program, there was no statistically significant difference in reading 

achievement between students in the reading after-school program and those in the regular 

after-school activities after 1 year of the program; after 2 years of the program, there was a 

statistically significant negative impact on reading achievement. It is important to note that the 

sample of centers was not nationally representative and that findings from this study cannot, 

therefore, be generalized to the 21st CCLC program. 

In addition, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) analyzed data from a 

nationally representative sample of 21st CCLC programs to evaluate State and local program 

implementation. The resulting report, “21st Century Community Learning Centers: Descriptive 

Study of Program Practices,” was released in July 2010

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#after-school). The evaluation 

focused on how, and to what extent, funds support high quality programs that emphasize 

academic content, as well as staffing patterns and other features of after-school program 

implementation that may have an impact on the quality of the programming offered. Centers 

reported that about half of their students attended roughly 2 days a week or more. In addition, 

three-quarters of the centers reported that a typical student participated in reading activities 

(75 percent) and mathematics activities (81 percent) for less than 4 hours per week. About half 

of centers reported offering professional development opportunities to staff through training 

courses or conferences.

The Department also conducted two additional studies of the 21st CCLC program. Through the 

first, led by PPSS, the Department collected information about State-administered competitions 

for 21st CCLC subgrants. The second study, led by IES, focused on assessing the 

implementation of ELT programs in States that received the authority, under ESEA flexibility, to 

C-38
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

use 21st CCLC funds to support ELT during the school day. The Department is using 

information from these studies to strengthen technical assistance to States that conduct 

competitions and improve program management.

C-39
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $378,000

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$378,000 $403,000 +$25,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and progress to parents and teachers, which can be used to help improve instruction for all 

students and meet specific student needs.

Changes to assessment requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, 

which reauthorized the ESEA, include giving States express authority to use computer adaptive 

assessments and to establish a cap on the percentage of students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities that may be assessed using alternate assessments aligned to alternate 

academic achievement standards. New Title I requirements also allow local educational 

agencies (LEAs) to administer locally selected, nationally recognized high school assessments 

instead of statewide assessments as long the as the State approves the use of such 

assessments, has determined that they meet alignment and technical criteria outlined in the 

statute and are equivalent to the State assessments, and submits the locally selected 

assessments for Federal peer review.

Under the reauthorized ESEA, the annual assessments in reading and mathematics are to be 

used as a factor to determine whether States, LEAs, and schools are meeting long-term goals 

and interim measures of progress and to differentiate annually and meaningfully the 

performance of all schools in the State. All assessments must be used for purposes for which 

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

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

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

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

appropriations levels for the State Assessments program. For any year for which Congress 

appropriates less than a “trigger amount” of $369.1 million, States may defer the 

commencement or administration of State assessments.

C-40
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

As previously authorized, the State Assessments program included formula grants to States and 

a competitive Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments. The reauthorization of the ESEA 

added a new set-aside to help States and LEAs carry out audits of their assessment systems to 

eliminate low-quality or duplicative assessments and ensure that remaining tests are worth the 

instructional time devoted to them. Additionally, the Department must reserve 0.5 percent of the 

funds that are equal to or less than the trigger amount for the Bureau of Indian Education and 

0.5 percent for the Outlying Areas. (Prior to the reauthorization, this set-aside was calculated 

exclusively from the amount used for Grants for State Assessments program). The Department 

may reserve up to 20 percent of the remaining trigger amount funds for Assessment System 

Audits. The remaining trigger amount funds must be used for formula Grants for State 

Assessments. Any appropriated funds above the trigger amount may be used for Competitive 

Grants for State Assessments, which replace Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments.

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

of developing the standards and high-quality assessments required by Title I of the ESEA. 

Once a State has put in place those standards and assessments, it may use program funds to 

pay for the administration of the assessments and for other activities related to ensuring that the 

State’s schools and LEAs are held accountable for results and helping students attain 

challenging academic standards linked to college- and career-readiness. Such activities may 

include, among other things, developing standards and assessments in subjects other than 

those required by Title I, refining State assessments to ensure continued alignment with 

standards, expanding the range of testing accommodations for students with disabilities and for 

English learner students, developing multiple measures to ensure the validity and reliability of 

State assessments, and using academic assessment instruments such as performance and 

technology-based assessments or computer adaptive assessments to better reflect the kind of 

complex work students do in an effective classroom and the real world. States allocations are

$3 million, plus a share of any funds remaining for grants under this program based on their

proportion of students ages 5 through 17.

The Assessment System Audit program supports audits of State and local assessment systems. 

Under this program, States must carry out audits of State assessments to review the purpose 

and educational benefit of the assessments and the legal authority for administering them, and 

obtain feedback from stakeholders on a number of issues pertaining to the assessments, such 

as how assessment data are used; the amount of time teachers spend on assessment 

preparation and administration; and which assessments school personnel, parents, and 

students do and do not find useful. States must implement a plan to eliminate unnecessary or 

low-quality assesments, support dissemination of best practices for improving assessment 

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

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

that all assessments are tests worth taking. States must subgrant at least 20 percent of the 

funds they receive under this program to LEAs, which may use funds to, among other activities, 

conduct an audit of local assessments, implement a plan to eliminate unnecessary or low quality 

assesments, which may include the paying for the costs associated with terminating 

procurement contracts, and improve the capacity of school personnel to use assessment data to 

improve instruction. The Department must provide each State a minimum allocation of 

$1.5 million under this program, with any remaining funds allocated on the same basis as the 

Grants for State Assessments (each State’s share of students ages 5-17).

C-41
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

The Competitive Grants for State Assessments program makes awards to States or consortia of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and use comprehensive assessment instruments, such as performance- and technology-based 

assessments, computer adaptive assessments, or extended performance task assessments

that improve assessment ability to measure critical thinking, writing and problem solving skills.

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

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

through September 30 of the following year.

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

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2012.......................................................... ........................$389,214

2013.......................................................... ..........................368,900

2014.......................................................... ..........................378,000

2015.......................................................... ..........................378,000

2016.......................................................... ..........................378,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $403 million for State Assessments, an 

increase of $25 million over the 2016 level. The request includes appropriations language 

overriding the authorized funding level for this program. The 2017 request includes 

$369.1 million, the “trigger amount” for Grants for State Assessments and the Assessment 

System Audit formula programs, and $33.9 million for awards under the Competitive Grants for 

State Assessment program. The fiscal year 2017 request would support State’s work to meet 

assessment requirements for the first year of implementation of Title I under the reauthorized 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended. 

Annual, high quality, statewide assessments aligned to challenging State academic standards 

will continue to play a key role in helping schools support student learning under the 

reauthorized Title I. These assessments provide parents and educators with information they 

need to enable their students to be successful and make progress towards attainment of 

college- and career-ready academic standards. Assessments also help ensure equity for all 

students by identifying where students need the most help, and where schools are succeeding 

and where challenges remain. Additionally, they give teachers valuable feedback that allows 

them to enhance their instruction, better engage students, and improve their academic 

achievement and close achievement gaps. At the same time, States and LEAs should work to 

ensure that the tests they administer are high quality; measure critical thinking, problem solving 

skills and writing; support instruction; do not take up too much classroom time or crowd out 

C-42
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

teaching and learning; and are just one source of information used to determine how students 

and schools are performing.

Grants for State Assessments funds will help States continue to administer aligned assessment 

systems, carry out any modifications of their assessment systems required by reauthorization, 

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

skills; appropriately assess all students, including students with disabilities and English learners;

and provide more timely, useful data to students, teachers, and parents. States may also use 

funds to develop comprehensive academic assessment instruments such as technology-based 

assessments or computer adaptive assessments.

The request includes $18.2 million for the new Assessment System Audit program, consistent 

with President Obama’s October 2015 Testing Action Plan, which is aimed at helping States 

and districts reduce overtesting by eliminating unnecessary and low-quality assessments while 

protecting the vital role that good assessments play in measuring student progress, improving 

outcomes for all learners, and ensuring equity. The Testing Action Plan addresses the 

overemphasis that testing and test preparation has placed on classroom time, and encourages

States and school districts to tackle instances where students spend too much time taking 

standardized tests, as well as instances where such tests are redundant or fail to provide useful 

information. The Department of Education is working with States and school districts to make 

sure that tests meet three basic principles. First, kids should only take tests that are worth 

taking – tests that are high quality, aimed at good instruction, and make sure everyone is on 

track; second, tests shouldn’t occupy too much classroom time, or crowd out teaching and 

learning; and third, tests should be just one source of information. Districts should use multiple 

measures, including classroom work, surveys, and other factors to give us an all-around look at 

how our students and schools are doing.

The proposed funding level for assessment system audits equals 5 percent of the trigger 

amount. The request includes appropriations language that would allow the Department to 

award these funds on a competitive basis. The Administration proposes to reserve less than 

the 20 percent reservation allowed under statute to minimize the reduction in formula grants to 

States, which also may be used to carry out assessment audits. Awarding funds competitively 

rather than by formula will allow the Department to provide grants of sufficient size to ensure 

that States demonstrating the strongest commitment to meaningful assessment audits receive 

the additional support they need to be successful. 

The request also would provide $33.9 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment

program, also consistent with President Obama’s Testing Action Plan, to support projects 

designed to help States address pressing needs they have identified for developing and 

implementing the next-generation of their assessment systems. The increase would support 

States that need additional, dedicated funds to implement high-quality plans to improve or 

enhance a particular aspect or component of their assessment systems, such as improving 

assessments for English learners or students with disabilities or developing native language 

assessments; implementing innovative strategies to improve the technical quality of State 

assessments or decrease the time away from learning (including embedded assessments); 

incorporating multiple measures to assess student academic achievement; and implementing 

technology-based, performance tasks, or computer adaptive assessments, including those 

C-43
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

designed to measure mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a competency-based 

education model.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Grants for State Assessments:

Amount for State Grants $365,361 $365,361 $347,139

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,279-$28,595 $3,279-$28,595 $3,255-$26,367

Average award $7,026 $7,026 $7,387

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

Assessment System Audits:

Amount for System Audits 0 0 $18,271

Estimated number of awards 0 0 12

Award amount 0 0 $1,500

Grants for Enhanced 

Assessment 

Instruments/Competitive 

Grants for State Assessments:

Funding for new awards $8,948 $8,948 $33,561

Number of new awards 3 2-3 4-7

Range of new awards $2,800-$4,000 $2,800-$4,000 $5,000-10,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $30 $30 $390

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from State 

Assessments under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The goal of the program is to support States in the development of the State assessments 

required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The 

performance measure is the number of States (including DC and PR) that have 

reading/language arts and mathematics assessments that align with the State's academic 

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

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

three grade spans (grades 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12). The determination of 

C-44
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

whether a State has implemented such an assessment in a manner that meets statutory 

requirements includes determinations of whether an assessment system assesses students in 

the required grades; is aligned to standards; includes all students; and is of high technical 

quality. These determinations are based on formal peer reviews of State standards and 

assessment systems by panels of external educators and assessment experts. The 

Department determines whether to approve State assessment systems based on the outcome 

of these peer reviews. 

On December 18, 2015, the Department notified States that it will proceed with upcoming peer 

reviews of State assessments in 2016; the Department had suspended these reviews in 2012 

to update the peer review process to better reflect current practice and technical standards in 

the field. Under the reauthorized ESEA, the essential requirements for State assessment 

systems under Title I remain largely unchanged. Furthermore, assessment results continue to 

be a critical component of accountability under the reauthorized Title I, and these assessments 

will provide critical information to parents and teachers about student’s attainment of State 

standards. In addition, peer review will provide States with feedback from external experts on 

the assessments States are currently administering and help ensure that high-quality 

assessments are in place to support full implementation of the ESEA reauthorization. The next 

peer reviews are scheduled for April and June 2016. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department adopted an efficiency measure related to this program that tracks the average 

number of days per peer review session it takes the Department to issue an initial standards 

and assessment decision letter to a State after receiving a submission. The Department will 

publish data for this measure after it resumes peer reviews of State assessment systems in 

2016.

C-45
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $85,000

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$70,000 $85,000 +$15,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available 

to other children through grants to States to: (1) establish or designate an Office of Coordinator 

of Education of Homeless Children and Youth; (2) develop and carry out a State plan for the 

education of homeless children; and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

support the education of those children. 

The program was reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act. Key program changes 

include greater inclusion of and supports for homeless children in preschool; an increased 

emphasis on the identification of homeless children and youth and on connecting homeless 

students to postsecondary opportunities; new provisions to ensure that student-centered factors 

are considered when determining the school that is in a child’s best interest to attend; and 

strengthened provisions to ensure that LEAs coordinate homeless education and special 

education services for homeless students with disabilities. 

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

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

State may not receive less than $150,000, 0.25 percent of the total program appropriation for 

the fiscal year, or the amount of the State’s fiscal year 2001 allocation, whichever is greatest. 

Program funds are also reserved for the outlying areas (0.1 percent of a fiscal year’s 

appropriation) and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior 

(1 percent). In addition, the Department is authorized to reserve funds to provide technical 

assistance (if requested by a State) and conduct evaluation and dissemination activities.

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

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

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

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

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

children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

C-46
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

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

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

available through September 30 of the following year.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012...........................................................$65,173

2013.............................................................61,771

2014.............................................................65,042

2015.............................................................65,042

2016.............................................................70,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department requests $85 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths for fiscal 

year 2017, an increase of $15 million over the fiscal year 2016 level. An important component 

of the national effort to end the cycle of homelessness, this program helps reduce and eliminate 

the barriers to educational success faced by homeless children, such as transportation and 

healthcare needs, and ensures access to academic services available to other children, 

including preschool programs, special education, gifted and talented programs, and career and 

technical education. 

Although the program received a meaningful increase in appropriations for fiscal year 2016, 

funding had remained level at approximately $65 million since fiscal year 2008 despite a 

45 percent increase in the number of enrolled homeless students reported by States. More 

specifically, the number of homeless students increased from 938,948 in school year 2009-10 to 

an all-time high of nearly 1.4 million in school year 2013-14 (the most recent year for which data 

are available). The proposed increase will help ensure that States and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) have sufficient resources to provide the full range of services needed to 

improve educational outcomes for homeless students, who face significant barriers to success.

The Department will also continue to promote and enforce provisions that require Title I Grants 

to Local Educational Agencies recipients to provide services to homeless children and youths, 

including services not ordinarily provided to other students under that program, such as

supporting LEA liaisons for homeless children and youths and providing transportation. 

Congress authorized additional uses of Title I funds to meet the needs of homeless students in 

the 2014 and 2015 Department of Education Appropriations Acts, and similar provisions were 

incorporated into Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program as reauthorized by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act.

In addition, the Department plans to continue to use national activities funds to actively support 

activities, in partnership with other agencies, to implement the strategic plan of the U.S. 

Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to End 

Homelessness to prevent and end youth and family homelessness by 2020. The Department 

will lead the USICH in 2016. The Department expects that efforts to prioritize improved 

educational outcomes for homeless students play an increased role in the work of the USICH. 

C-47
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

National activities funds will help support demonstration and evaluation projects to improve 

educational services and outcomes for homeless youth.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for State grants $63,262 $68,144 $69,648

Amount for State Gr ants Range of State awards $163–7,541 $175–8,190 $213-9,951

Amount for State Gr ants Average State award 1,217 1,310 1,592

Amount to BIE 650 700 850

Amount to Outlying Areas 65 70 85

National activities 1,065 1,086 1,275

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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate 

public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Homeless children and youth will have greater access to a free and appropriate 

public education.

Measure: The percentage of homeless children and youth, grades three through eight, who are 

included in statewide assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by LEAs.

In 2014, 96.7 percent of students identified as homeless at the time of State assessments were 

included in State assessments in reading, and 94.1 percent of such students were included in 

State assessments in mathematics. In 2013, those rates were 97.8 and 97.9 percent, 

respectively.

Additional Information: Beginning in 2011, the Department developed a new method of 

calculating assessment participation rates of homeless students using different data elements in 

the Education Data Exchange Network. We believe this method produces more accurate and 

reliable results than the method used in prior years. The Department is considering whether to 

continue reporting on this measure in future years.

C-48
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

Measure: The percentage of assessed homeless students, grades three through eight, who 

meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by 

LEA subgrantees.

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

2012 63% 50% 63% 47%

2013 66 45 66 41

2014 69 43 69 39

2015 73 73

2016 77 77

2017 80 80

Additional Information: The Department has worked to improve performance and reporting 

for this and the preceding measure by requiring States to report on the measures through the 

Consolidated State Performance Report and the Education Data Exchange Network and by 

providing, together with the National Center for Homeless Education (the Department’s 

technical assistance contractor), a variety of guidance and technical assistance, including an 

annually updated Federal data collection guide for the program. The Department has also 

worked with its Data Quality Initiative contractor to assess the reliability of State-reported data 

on homeless students and to develop strategies to help States improve data quality.

The decrease in the percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency on State 

assessments in 2013 and 2014 can be explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous 

assessments based on college- and career-ready standards. 

Efficiency Measure

The Department has established the following efficiency measure for the program: 

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

States after monitoring visits.

Year Target Actual

2010 40 31

2011 40 35

2012 40 32

2013 40 51

2014 40 N/A

2015 40 35

Additional Information: This measure provides information on monitoring visits to States 

conducted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) through 2014 under a 

traditional protocol covering the following Department formula grant programs: Title I Grants to 

Local Educational Agencies, Title I Neglected and Delinquent, Education for Homeless Children 

and Youths, and Title III Language Acquisition State Grants. In 2013 and 2014, the Department 

focused on implementing a new set of monitoring protocols for States receiving ESEA flexibility, 

resulting in only 3 monitoring visits under the traditional protocol in 2013 and no such visits 

in 2014. 

C-49
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

In 2015, after a reorganization within OESE, 5 monitoring visits were conducted covering the 

Education for Homeless Children and Youths and Title I Neglected and Delinquent programs.

Other Performance Information

The Department released a report (available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/homeless/state-district-implementation-homelesschildren-report.pdf) from a national study of implementation of the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program in February 2015. The study examined, at the State and local 

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

policies to remove barriers faced by homeless students, and coordination of services to 

homeless students. Among the study’s findings, transportation, school supplies, and tutoring 

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

expenditures, and transportation needs and preoccupation with survival needs were most 

frequently identified as barriers to homeless student enrollment and attendance in school.

C-50
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $32,3971

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change 

$33,397 $33,397 0

1

Of the amount available to carry out Title VI, Part B of the ESEA, $500 thousand is to be reserved for a direct 

grant to the Native Hawaiian Education Council to carry out Section 6204.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. Competitive grants are awarded to eligible 

applicants for a variety of authorized activities in such areas as teacher training, family-based 

education, gifted and talented education, early childhood education, special education, higher 

education, and community-based education learning centers. Eligible applicants include Native 

Hawaiian educational organizations and community-based organizations, public and private 

nonprofit organizations, agencies, and institutions with experience in developing or operating 

Native Hawaiian programs or programs of instruction in the Native Hawaiian language, and 

other entities.

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

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

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

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

$500,000 annually.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ...........................................................$34,181

2013 .............................................................32,397

2014 .............................................................32,397

2015 .............................................................32,397

2016 .............................................................33,397

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $33.4 million for the Native Hawaiian 

C-51
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

Education program, the same as the 2016 level. The request includes appropriations language 

overriding the authorized funding level for this program. The Administration places a high 

priority on continued funding for programs that support Native youth, as part of the “Generation 

Indigenous” initiative. The budget request would continue support for competitive grants to 

eligible entities. 

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

need for this program. In 2015, 34 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students 

demonstrated grade-level proficiency in reading and 28 percent in mathematics on Hawaii’s 

State assessment, compared to 48 percent in reading and 41 percent in mathematics for all 

Hawaiian students. This gap between Native Hawaiians and their peers remains consistent 

across grade levels. In 2013, in the 4th grade, 62.8 percent of Native Hawaiian students met or 

exceeded proficiency in reading and 53.6 percent met or exceeded proficiency in mathematics, 

compared to 72.5 percent in reading and 63.8 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiian students. 

In the 8th grade, 61.6 percent of Native Hawaiian students met or exceeded proficiency in 

reading and 46.0 percent met this level in mathematics, compared to 74.7 percent in reading 

and 55.4 percent in mathematics for all Hawaiians students. 

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

and cultural needs of Native Hawaiian students in order to improve their performance in the 

classroom and increase their chances of graduating from high school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards $8,566 $3,280 $21,488

Number of new awards 11 4 28

Amount for continuation awards $23,331 $29,275 $11,067

Number of continuation awards 19 29 15

Native Hawaiian Education 

Council $500 $500 $500

Peer review of new award 

applications

0 $342 $342

_________________

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Native 

Hawaiian Education program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

C-52
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including 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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. Performance measures based on proficiency rates will be changed in future years 

based on the reauthorized ESEA. 

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that met or exceeded proficiency 

standards in reading on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 50% 59%

2013 55 70

2014 70 66

2015 70 66

2016 70

2017 70

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that met or exceeded proficiency 

standards in math on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 47% 47%

2013 53 57

2014 57 53

2015 58 53

2016 59

2017 59

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that met or exceeded proficiency 

standards in science on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 30% 33%

2013 30 34

2014 31 37

2015 32 37

2016 35

2017 38

C-53
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that demonstrated school 

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2012 41% 44%

2013 42 43

2014 43 43

2015 44 45

2016 45

2017 46

Additional Information: In 2012, this measure applied to only two grantees. In 2014, this 

measure applied to only five grantees.

Measure: The percentage of students in schools served by the program who graduate from 

high school with a regular high school diploma in 4 years.

Year Target Actual

2012 77% 77%

2013 79 79

2014 80 83

2015 80 81

2016 81

2017 82

Measure: The percentage of students receiving Hawaiian language instruction through a grant 

under the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in reading on a test of the 

Hawaiian language

Year Target Actual

2012 55% 50%

2013 50 50

2014 50 Not applicable

2015 50 Not applicable

2016 50

2017 50

Additional Information: In 2014 and 2015, this measure did not apply to any grantees.

C-54
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $31,453

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change 

$32,453 $32,453 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services for Alaska Natives. The program was reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act 

of 2015, and awards competitive grants to eligible applicants to improve the educational 

outcomes of Alaska Natives. Grantees may use their funds for such activities as teacher training 

and professional development, early childhood and parenting education, student enrichment 

programs, career preparation programs, and programs that make use of Alaska Native 

languages. Under the reauthorized program, eligible applicants include Alaska Native 

organizations and entities located in Alaska with experience operating Alaska Native programs 

that have been granted a charter from an Alaska Native tribe or Alaska Native organization.

Activities supported by these grants include the development and implementation of curricula 

and educational programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population, 

professional development activities for educators, the development and operation of home 

instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children that help ensure the active 

involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy services, student enrichment 

programs in science and mathematics, and dropout prevention programs.

Grantees may use no more than 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012................................ ..........................$33,185

2013................................ ............................31,453

2014................................ ............................31,453

2015................................ ............................31,453

2016................................ ............................32,453

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $32.5 million for the Alaska Native Education 

program, the same as the 2016 level. The request includes appropriations language overriding 

the authorized funding level for this program. The Administration places a high priority on 

C-55
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

continued funding for programs that support Native youth, as part of the “Generation 

Indigenous” initiative. The budget request would support the continued provision of educationrelated services to the Alaska Native population.

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

need for the range of activities supported by this program. Results from the spring 2014 Alaska 

Standards-Based Assessment indicated that Alaska Native and American Indian students in the 

State continue to lag behind their peers in academic performance. Because Alaska Natives 

constitute approximately 95 percent of the State’s American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) 

student population, the AI/AN scores are good proxies for Alaska Native achievement. Fifty-four 

percent of AI/AN students demonstrated proficiency on the 4th grade reading assessment, 

compared to 78 percent of all 4th grade students, and 56 percent of AI/AN students achieved 

proficiency in mathematics, compared to 74 percent of all 4th grade students. Eighth-grade 

assessments showed similar achievement gaps as 66 percent of AI/AN students demonstrated 

proficiency on the 8th grade reading assessment, compared to 84 percent of all 8th grade 

students, and 48 percent of AI/AN students achieved proficiency in mathematics, compared to 

68 percent of all 8th grade students. 

These outcomes from State assessment data are confirmed by the results of the 2015 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress for AI/AN students in Alaska. In 4th grade reading, 

11 percent of AI/AN students in Alaska were proficient, while the overall average for all students 

in Alaska was 30 percent. There were similar differences in 8th grade reading (9 percent 

proficient compared to 31 percent for all students in Alaska), 4th grade mathematics (17 percent 

proficient compared to 35 percent for all students in Alaska), and 8th grade mathematics 

(12 percent proficient compared to 32 percent for all students in Alaska). 

In addition to achievement data, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 

reported that the annual dropout rate (the proportion of students who drop out of school during 

the course of a year) among AI/AN students in grades 7 through 12 was 6.4 percent in the 

2012-2013 school year, higher than the rate for any other racial or ethnic group in the State and 

well above the statewide rate of 4.0 percent. Further, Alaska’s “Report Card to the Public: 

2012-2013” reported that the high school graduation rate for AI/AN students was 54.9 percent, 

while the statewide figure was 71.1 percent.

Alaska’s geography and population patterns add to the challenge of delivering quality 

educational services to Alaska Native students. The State has many rural districts, which often

operate schools spread out over large remote areas, and Alaska Native students are 

disproportionately enrolled in small, rural, and isolated schools.

Program grants help address these barriers by funding extra academic supports and related 

services tailored to the educational and cultural needs of Alaska Native students in order to 

improve their performance in the classroom and increase their chances of graduating from high 

school.

C-56
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for new awards $17,483 $208 $12,355

Number of new awards 28 2 20

Amount for continuation 

awards $13,698 $32,245 $19,773

Number of continuation 

awards 21 48 30

Peer review of new award 

applications $272 0 $325 ____________________

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Alaska 

Native Education program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

This section presents selected program performance information, including 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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

meet or exceed proficiency standards for reading, mathematics, and science on the State’s 

annual assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2012 38% 45%

2013 42 45

2014 43 45

2015 45

2016 46

2017 47

C-57
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native children participating in early learning and 

preschool programs who demonstrate school readiness in language and literacy as measured 

by the Revised Alaska Developmental Profile.

Year Target Actual

2012 25% 25%

2013 29 35

2014 50 51

2015 54

2016 55

2017 57

Measure: The percentage of Alaska Native students in schools served by the program who 

graduate from high school with a high school diploma in 4 years. 

Year Target Actual

2012 50% 53%

2013 53 56

2014 53 51

2015 54

2016 55

2017 56

C-58
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$6,575 $6,575 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, sex, national origin, 

and religion. To carry out those activities, most recently the Department awarded grants for a 

project period of 5 years to Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) in each of the 10 Department of 

Education regions.

The EACs are part of the Department’s wide-ranging technical assistance network that includes 

the regional educational laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, What Works Clearinghouse, 

Office of Special Education Program-funded Technical Assistance Centers, and other 

Department-supported single centers designed to provide high-quality support that is 

accessible, comprehensive, and relevant to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they tackle the 

important work of ensuring a high-quality education for all students. 

The EACs provide services to school districts upon request. Typical activities include 

disseminating information on successful educational practices and on legal requirements related 

to nondiscrimination in educational programs. Other activities include training designed to 

develop educators' skills in such areas as the identification of race and sex bias in instructional 

materials and technical assistance in the identification and selection of appropriate educational 

programs to meet the needs of a diverse student body. 

In 2016, the Department will be conducting a new EACs competition. For this competition, the 

Department is considering reducing the number of centers while maintaining a strong regional 

focus. Consolidating the number of centers and, thereby, increasing the funding available for 

each center would increase the capacity of the centers to assemble high-quality staff with the 

expertise needed to provide relevant support to districts facing the challenges of navigating an 

ever-changing civil rights landscape. For example, topics covered by the EACs increasingly go 

beyond a traditional view of desegregation to include areas such school climate, 

disproportionate discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally relevant pedagogy, teacher 

diversity, the effect of poverty on equity and achievement gaps, and instructional practices that 

reach all students.

C-59
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

Consolidation would minimize duplicative overhead costs (such as start-up costs, administrative 

support, and rent), and redirect those funds to services. Furthermore, reducing the number of 

regions would allow the Department to provide more thorough support and monitoring of the

consolidated centers. A more robustly funded, efficient EAC may be better positioned to focus 

on areas of need, such as socioeconomic integration, and areas that have previously not been 

emphasized, such as issues of religious discrimination that may be occasioned by

desegregation. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012............................................................$6,962

2013..............................................................6,598

2014..............................................................6,598

2015..............................................................6,575

2016..............................................................6,575

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Department requests $6.6 million for Training and Advisory Services, 

the same as the 2016 level. The fiscal year 2017 funds would support the second year of the

Equity Assistance Center (EAC) awards made in fiscal year 2016 under the comprehensive 

redesign of the program intended to improve the capacity of the individual centers and the 

quality of the services that they provide to school districts.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount for continuation awards $6,552 0 $6,552

Number of continuation awards 10 0 TBD

Amount for new awards 0 $6,486 0

Number of new awards 0 TBD 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $66 0

Data collection $23 $23 $23

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 

C-60
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

FY 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department gathers data for the program’s performance measures through customer 

surveys administered by the Library of Congress’s Federal Research Division. Data for these 

measures for 2015 are reported for 148 of 212 EAC customers identified for the 2014-2015 

school year, yielding a response rate of 73 percent, which is comparable with rates for prior 

years.

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, and national origin.

Objective: Provide high quality technical assistance and training to public school districts in 

addressing equity in education.

Measure: The percentage of customers of EACs who develop, implement, or improve their 

policies or practices, or both, in eliminating, reducing, or preventing harassment, conflict, and 

school violence.

Year Target Actual

2012 72% 62%

2013 73 51

2014 74 49

2015 75 40

2016 76

2017 77

Additional information: Changes in positive responses for this measure could be explained by 

more or fewer customers seeking this type of assistance, as the denominator includes all 

responding customers. Note that, more specifically, of the respondents indicating receipt of 

services in this area in 2015, 71 percent reported developing, implementing, or improving 

policies or practices, or both. The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 

0 percent to 73 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers of Equity Assistance Centers who develop, implement, 

or improve their policies and practices, or both, for ensuring that students of different race, sex, 

and national origin have equitable opportunity for high quality instruction.

Year Target Actual

2012 77% 85%

2013 78 78

2014 79 80

2015 80 65

2016 80

2017 80

Additional information: Changes in positive responses for this measure could be explained by 

more or fewer customers seeking this type of assistance, as the denominator includes all 

responding customers. Note that, more specifically, of the respondents indicating receipt of 

C-61
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

services in this area in 2015, 86 percent reported developing, implementing, or improving 

policies or practices, or both. The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 

30 percent to 83 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high quality.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 94%

2013 90 94

2014 90 94

2015 90 97

2016 90

2017 90

Additional information: The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 80 percent 

to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of customers who report that the products and services they 

received from the Equity Assistance Centers are of high usefulness to their policies and 

practices.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 92%

2013 90 93

2014 90 89

2015 90 91

2016 90

2017 90

Additional information: The percentages for individual EACs for 2015 ranged from 80 percent 

to 96 percent.

Efficiency Measures

The Department implemented a measure of administrative efficiency (the number of working 

days to send a monitoring report) to assess the Training and Advisory Services program and 

other Department programs. A second efficiency measure for carry over funds was established 

specifically for Training and Advisory Services and the Comprehensive Centers program.

C-62
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

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

grantees after monitoring visits. 

Year Target Actual

2012 45 30

2013 45 30

2014 45 38

2015 45 N/A

2016 45

2017 45

Additional information: The program office conducted 2 monitoring visits in late fiscal 

year 2013. One of the reports was sent 30 days after the visit, which was in fiscal year 2013; 

the second report was sent 38 days after the visit, which fell in fiscal year 2014. The program 

office did not schedule any monitoring visits to occur in fiscal year 2014 or 2015, and will 

develop and implement a new monitoring plan beginning in 2016.

Measure: The percentage of Equity Assistance Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2012 10% 6%

2013 10 2

2014 10 1

2015 10 4

2016 10

2017 10

Additional information: The percentage of funds carried over is calculated as the expected 

carryover reported by grantees in the annual performance report, divided by the total funds 

awarded during the current grant cycle. 

C-63
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $169,840

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$175,840 $175,840 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement program (REAP) is authorized by Part B of Title V of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act of 2015 (ESSA). REAP includes two distinct programs to assist rural school districts in 

carrying out activities to help improve the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. The 

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program provides funds to rural local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) program provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of poor students, 

regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally between the 

SRSA and the RLIS programs. With respect to REAP, reauthorization of the ESEA updated the 

locale codes used for determining the eligibility of LEAs, clarifies that LEAs within educational 

service agencies are to be considered for SRSA eligibility, extends to RLIS the alternative State 

certification option for meeting the rural criterion (it already exists for SRSA), gives an LEA the 

option of which program it receives funds under if it is eligible for both SRSA and RLIS, expands 

the State RLIS application requirements, and updates the accountability provisions. 

REAP is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the 

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

September 30 of the following year.

SMALL, RURAL SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT PROGRAM (SUBPART 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) have a total average 

daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students or serve only schools that are located in 

counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and (2) serve 

only schools that have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 41

(Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 43 (Rural, Remote) or are located in an area of the State 

defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 

C-64
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

allocation minus the amount received in “applicable funding,” which are funds allocated in the 

previous fiscal year under the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Part A of Title II) 

and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Part A of Title IV) programs.

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under: (1) Part A of Title I 

(Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II 

(Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); (3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State 

Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants); and 

(5) Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning Centers). 

Eligible LEAs also may (under the “REAP-Flex” authority) consolidate funds they receive from 

these sources (except for Title I, Part A) to carry out effective activities under any of the 

authorized programs, including Title I, Part A. 

RURAL AND LOW-INCOME SCHOOL PROGRAM (SUBPART 2)

Under the RLIS program the Department makes formula allocations to States based on each 

State’s share of children in ADA in all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent and (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 32 (Town, Distant), 33 (Town, Remote), 41 (Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 

43 (Rural, Remote). States have the option of allocating funds to eligible LEAs competitively or 

through a formula based on the number of children in ADA in eligible LEAs within the State. 

A State may also use an alternative formula to allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an 

alternative method would better target funds to eligible LEAs that serve the highest 

concentrations of poor students. 

LEAs may use program funds for: (1) Part A of Title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by 

Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); 

(3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants); and (5) parental involvement activities.

Lastly, the Department allocates one-half of 1 percent of RLIS funds to the Bureau of Indian 

Education of the Department of the Interior and an equal amount to the Outlying Areas. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

2012 .........................................................$179,193

2013 ...........................................................169,840

2014 ...........................................................169,840

2015 ...........................................................169,840

2016 ...........................................................175,840

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration is requesting $175.8 million for REAP, the same as the 

2016 level. The request includes appropriations language that overrides the authorization level 

C-65
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

provided for this program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended. The 

requested level would provide an average LEA award of approximately $19,000 under SRSA 

and an average LEA subgrant of approximately $35,000 under RLIS.

The Administration supports ongoing funding for REAP because rural LEAs will continue to face 

significant challenges in meeting the objectives of the newly reauthorized ESEA. According to 

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in school year 2012-13, 28 percent of the 

Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, with 18 percent of all public school students 

enrolled at these schools. The small size and remoteness of many rural schools and districts 

creates a different set of challenges from those of urban schools and districts. For example, 

rural schools and districts generally do not benefit from economies of scale and, thus, can face 

greater per-pupil costs in areas such as staffing or transportation. Additionally, per pupil 

revenue among rural LEAs is approximately $9,900, or $600 below the national average of 

$10,500. These factors may explain, for example, why rural school districts often are not able to 

offer their students the same level of access to advanced coursework as other districts. In 

2009, just 32 percent of students graduating high school in rural areas had earned credits in 

dual credit, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate courses, compared to 

48 percent of city and 44 percent of suburban high school graduates. 

In addition, because of size and location, many small, rural districts have faced difficulty in 

meeting the ESEA requirement that students receive instruction in the core academic subjects 

from teachers who are fully certified by the State and have demonstrated competency in the 

subjects they teach. These districts also face challenges recruiting and retaining effective 

teachers. REAP funds can help rural LEAs meet the challenge of recruiting and retaining a staff 

of qualified and effective teachers.

Rural districts frequently receive allocations under the Department’s formula grant programs 

that are too small to allow the LEA to address effectively the purposes for which the funds are 

appropriated. Recognizing that rural districts frequently receive small allocations from Federal 

formula grants, the “REAP-Flex” authority gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the flexibility to make more 

effective use of their small Federal formula allocations. An eligible LEA may consolidate, under 

any of the programs specified in the allowable uses of funds, its formula allocations received 

under Part A of Title II (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants) and Part A of Title IV 

(Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants). An estimated 43 percent of eligible 

districts notified their respective States of their intention to take advantage of this authority in 

school year 2013-14. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under these 

programs, some do not have enough money to provide effective educator professional 

development, strengthen school safety, or address the other statutory objectives in a meaningful 

manner. REAP funds supplement these small formula grant allocations under other ESEA 

programs and assist rural LEAs in financing and implementing approaches to meeting ESEA 

requirements and addressing the other challenges they face.

C-66
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

RSA Total funding $84,920 $87,920 $87,920

SRSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 4,275 4,295 4,550

SRSA Average LEA grant $20 $20 $19

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $75 $77 $75

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0-$60 0-$60 0-$46

Rural and low income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $84,920 $87,920 $87,920

RLIS Amount for State grants $84,070 $87,040 $87,040

RLIS Amount for BIE $425 $440 $440

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $425 $440 $440

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 43 43 46

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,024 2,024 2,505

RLIS Average State grant $1,955 $2,024 $1,892

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $42 $43 $35

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $22 $22 $19

RLISRange of awards to States $32-$6,683 $33-$6,919 $19-$8,980

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs $1-$485 $1-$502 $1-$261

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Administration did not reserve funds from REAP under 

this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. 

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 

C-67
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

year 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department will revise GPRA goals, objectives, measures, and targets as necessary to 

reflect changes resulting from the reauthorization of the ESEA. In particular, performance 

measures based on proficiency rates will be changed in future years based on the reauthorized 

ESEA.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 72%

2013 94 69

2014 100 67

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Small, Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2012 91% 68%

2013 96 65

2014 100 63

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

C-68
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and Low 

Income School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

reading/language arts.

Year Target Actual

2012 92% 67%

2013 96 64

2014 100 61

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the Rural and Low 

Income School (RLIS) program who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in 

mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2012 90% 64%

2013 95 60

2014 100 57

2015 100

2016 100

2017 100

Additional information: The performance targets for these measures reflect the ESEA goal 

that 100 percent of students enrolled in districts participating in both the SRSA and RLIS 

programs will be proficient by 2014. These targets are no longer relevant for LEAs in ESEA 

Flexibility States and for all States for fiscal year 2016 and thereafter due to the reauthorization 

of ESEA and will be revised to more accurately reflect ambitious, yet reasonable, goals. Data 

for 2015 are expected in October 2016. 

Objective: Eligible rural school districts l will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority.

Year Target Actual

2012 65% 34%

2013 65 41

2014 65 43

2015 65

2016 65

2017 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible districts actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

C-69
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

number of districts reporting to the State their intent to use this authority. Since there is little 

reason to believe that LEAs would provide this notification and not use the authority, reported 

intent serves as a reasonable proxy. Data for 2015 are expected in October 2016.

Other Performance Information

The Department is currently conducting a study of REAP, with fiscal year 2012 funding, that is 

examining implementation at the State and LEA levels. The purpose of this study is to obtain 

information on the practices REAP grantees are using to target their greatest needs; how they 

assess effectiveness in key areas, such as teacher recruitment, professional development and 

retention, strategies for school improvement, and the use of technology; how and to what extent 

they combine or coordinate the use of REAP funding with other Department or Federal funds; 

and what challenges they face in spending their REAP funding within the grant period. 

Respondents include State, LEA, and school level administrators, as well as professional 

development and technical assistance providers. The final report is expected to be available in 

fall 2016.

Prior to the ESEA’s reauthorization by the ESSA, REAP’s program statute required the 

Department to prepare a biennial report to Congress on the RLIS program. The report had to

describe the methods SEAs have used to award grants and provide technical assistance, how 

LEAs and schools have used RLIS funds, and the progress made toward meeting the goals and 

objectives outlined in the SEA applications. In December 2011, the Department submitted to 

Congress its biennial report for school years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The report included the 

finding that of the 41 States receiving fiscal year 2009 funds, all but 5 awarded funds to eligible 

LEAs by formula based on each eligible LEA’s share of students in average daily attendance. 

One State used a modified formula that targeted a greater share of program funds to LEAs with 

poverty rates greater than 40 percent, and four States awarded funds on a competitive basis. 

The report had findings that were consistent with the 2010 evaluation report, in that technology, 

professional development, and Title I, Part A activities were the most frequently reported uses of 

funds. Finally, it is difficult to link LEA progress toward goals to activities specifically supported 

with RLIS funds, but the report does include examples provided by the States of LEA progress 

toward program goals. The Department will prepare a combined report that covers school years 

2010-11 through 2013-14, which will be released in spring 2016.

C-70
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $21,1711

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$16,699 $16,699 0

1 The 2017 authorization is based on the fiscal year 2005 authorization level, adjusted for inflation in accordance 

with statutory requirements.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-188) eliminated the 

participation of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands (RMI) in most domestic formula grant programs funded by the Departments of 

Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor (DOL). As a replacement, 

beginning in fiscal year 2005, the Act authorizes supplemental education grants in an amount 

that is roughly equivalent to the total formula funds that these entities received in fiscal year 

2004 under the Federal formula programs for which they are no longer eligible. These grants 

augment the funds that the FSM and the RMI receive for general education assistance under 

their Compacts of Free Association with the U.S. Government.

The Act eliminated the participation of the FSM and the RMI in the following Department of 

Education programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies; Career and Technical Education Grants under Title I of the Carl D. 

Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; Adult Basic and Literacy Education State 

Grants; Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grants; and Federal Work-Study. 

However, they remain eligible for participation in other Department programs, including the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State Grants and programs under Part A, Subpart 1 of 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as well as ED, HHS, and DOL competitive programs. Also, 

the Act eliminated FSM and RMI participation in programs under Title I (other than Job Corps) 

of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (DOL) and Head Start (HHS). 

The Department of Education is required to transfer funds appropriated for Supplemental 

Education Grants to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for disbursement to the RMI and the 

FSM not later than 60 days after the appropriation becomes available. Appropriations are to be 

used and monitored in accordance with an interagency agreement between the four cabinet 

agencies and in accordance with the “Fiscal Procedure Agreements” entered into by the FSM 

and the RMI with the U.S. Government. These agreements call for the funds to be used at the 

local school level for direct educational services focused on school readiness, early childhood 

education, elementary and secondary education, vocational training, adult and family literacy, 

C-71
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

and the transition from high school to postsecondary education and careers. They may not be 

used for construction or remodeling, the general operating costs of school systems, or teacher 

salaries (except the salaries of teachers who carry out programs supported by the grants). 

The FSM and the RMI may request technical assistance from ED, HHS, or DOL, on a 

reimbursement basis. While past year’s appropriations acts also permitted the FSM and the 

RMI to reserve up to 5 percent of their grants to pay for such technical assistance as well as for 

administration of their grants, the fiscal year 2015 and 2016 appropriations acts included 

language that shifted this authority from the FSM and RMI to ED allows the Department to 

reserve up to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance 

for these grants.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 .....................................................................................$17,619

2013 .......................................................................................16,699

2014 .......................................................................................16,699

2015 .......................................................................................16,699

2016 .......................................................................................16,699

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16.7 million, the same as the 2016 level, to maintain funding for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the RMI and the FSM. The request would ensure the 

continuation of services for residents of the RMI and the FSM. The Administration is seeking 

appropriations language that would continue to give the Department of Education the authority 

to reserve up to 5 percent of appropriated funds to provide technical assistance to support 

effective use of program funds to improve educational outcomes in the RMI and the FSM. 

A majority of the funding in fiscal years 2005 through 2009 was used to support early childhood 

education. The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grants for education 

improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional development. Both the 

RMI and the FSM are also using funds to prepare students for jobs that may result from the 

Guam military build-up. For example, funds to the RMI have supported an Accelerated Boot 

Camp Trades Academy in collaboration with the College of the Marshall Islands while funds to 

the FSM have supported projects developed in partnership with the Guam Trades Academy. 

The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2017 funding would be used for similar purposes. 

C-72
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,142 $11,142 $11,142

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,557 5,557 5,557

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has not established performance measures for this program because it is 

operated by the Department of the Interior.

A December 2006 General Accounting Office report, entitled “Compacts of Free Association: 

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring 

Progress, and Ensuring Accountability,” documented both the continuing need for improvement 

in the public education systems of the Freely Associated States and the difficulties in obtaining 

and reporting performance data for this program. The RMI, according to the report, was not 

able to measure progress towards its educational goals because the data the Republic collected 

were inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests the Republic used were not aligned with 

the curriculum used in RMI schools and thus were not adequate measures of student 

achievement. The FSM also lacked consistent performance outcomes and measures; 

measures and outcomes had been established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to 

track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior (DOI) covering the 5-year period 

between 2004 and 2009 highlights the continuing challenges faced by both entities in improving 

the quality of education due to a lack of qualified teachers, poor facilities, and a high absentee 

rate among students and teachers. While access to elementary and secondary education has 

increased in the RMI and student enrollment has also increased despite significant outmigration, the RMI continues to have few standardized tests for assessing student achievement, 

a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of highly qualified teachers. The FSM continues to 

struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out rates, and problematic 

teacher attendance. 

Both entities began tracking 20 education indicators and established data collection systems 

between 2004 and 2006 and have continued to track data on their indicators. However, the 

most recent GAO study from 2013 entitled “Compacts of Free Association: Micronesia and 

Marshall Islands Continue to Face Challenges Measuring Progress and Ensuring 

Accountability,” found that in reviewing subsets of the education indicators that eight of nine 

indicators for FSM and three of five indicators for RMI were not sufficiently reliable to assess 

progress primarily due to missing, incomplete, or inconsistent data. 

C-73
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$51,445 $55,445 +$4,000

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) authorizes support for not less than 

20 Comprehensive Centers, including regional centers and content centers, to provide training, 

technical assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide highquality education for all students, particularly those in low-performing local educational agencies 

(LEAs) and schools. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), and 

through them, to LEAs and schools, helping them make evidence-based investments that have 

been shown to improve student outcomes. Comprehensive Centers are part of the 

Department’s wide-ranging technical assistance network that includes the Regional Educational 

Laboratories, the What Works Clearinghouse, Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special 

Education Program-funded Technical Assistance Centers, and other Department-supported 

single centers designed to provide high-quality support that is accessible, comprehensive, and 

relevant to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they tackle the important work of ensuring a highquality education for all students. 

The statute requires that the Department fund a minimum of 10 regional centers. In order to 

provide robust and efficient technical assistance through the comprehensive center program, 

the Department has established content centers in addition to the regional centers (see the 

following chart). The content centers create materials, tools, and training that reflect national 

expertise to complement and support the direct services that regional centers provide to SEAs. 

The current cohort of Comprehensive Centers, which started their 5-year awards in 2012, 

includes 7 content centers and 15 regional centers. Based on needs that States identified in the 

national program evaluation of the 2005 grantees, reports submitted by the statutorily required 

regional advisory committees (RACs), and Administration reform priorities, the following content 

centers were established: standards and assessment implementation, innovations in learning, 

promoting great teachers and leaders, school turnaround, enhancing early learning outcomes, 

college- and career-readiness and success, and building State capacity and productivity. 

Regional centers identify relevant information generated by these content centers in their local 

work with SEAs to build their capacity to implement school and district improvement measures, 

reflecting the increasing role SEAs play in establishing and implementing priorities. 

C-74
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

Each comprehensive center must develop a 5-year plan for carrying out authorized activities. 

The plan of each center is developed to address the needs of SEAs in meeting ESEA student 

achievement goals, as well as priorities established by the Department and the States. Each 

center has an advisory board, with representation from SEAs, LEAs, institutions of higher 

education, educators, administrators, policymakers, researchers, and business representatives, 

that advises the center on: (1) allocation of resources, (2) strategies for monitoring and

addressing the region’s educational needs (or the regional centers’ needs in the case of the 

content centers), (3) maintaining a high standard of quality in the performance of its activities, 

and (4) carrying out the center’s activities in a manner that promotes progress toward improving 

student academic achievement.

Comprehensive Centers Network

Regional Center States Served

Appalachia Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia

California California

Central Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri

Florida and the Islands Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands

Great Lakes Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio

Mid-Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania

Midwest Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

North Central Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming

Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont

Northwest Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington

Pacific American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

Guam, Hawaii, and the Republic of Palau

South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma

Southeast Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, and South Carolina

Texas Texas

West Arizona, Nevada, and Utah

Other Department programs sometimes need assistance in a particular area to support State 

initiatives. In cases where an existing content center has the needed expertise, the Department 

Content Centers

Standards & Assessments Implementation

Great Teachers & Leaders

School Turnaround

Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

College- & Career- Readiness & Success

Building State Capacity & Productivity

Innovations in Learning

Regional Centers

C-75
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

often provides supplemental funds for additional work. For example, the Center on Great 

Teachers and Leaders receives additional funding from the Special Education Technical 

Assistance and Dissemination program as well as from the Career and Technical Education 

National Activities program to provide technical assistance on serving students with disabilities 

and on effective instruction and leadership in career and technical education, respectively. The 

Indian Education National Activities program provides support to four regional centers (North 

Central, Northwest, South Central, and West) that serve States with the largest populations of 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) students and to the Center on Standards and 

Assessment Implementation to produce information that addresses the needs of AI/AN 

students. Finally, the Department uses Preschool Development Grant national activities funding 

to enable the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes to offer technical assistance to 

State recipients of Preschool Development Expansion Grants. 

By statute, the Comprehensive Centers are not permitted to provide direct support to the 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, fiscal year 2016 appropriations language directed 

the Department to ensure that the Bureau of Indian Education has access to services from the 

Comprehensive Centers, and the Department is developing options for addressing this directive. 

The 2016 appropriation act also included $1.5 million to establish a new comprehensive center 

on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), to carry out an 

independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers (both regional and content) to determine 

the extent to which each center meets its objectives.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012...........................................................$51,113

2013.............................................................48,445

2014.............................................................48,445

2015.............................................................48,445 

2016.............................................................51,445

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $55.4 million for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, $4 million more than the 2016 appropriation, to support a new cohort of centers that 

will reflect changing priorities and new demands resulting from the reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. 

The new centers will provide expanded support for building SEA capacity to implement reforms 

to improve student learning and close achievement and graduation rate gaps, consistent with 

the expanded role and responsibilities of States under the reauthorized ESEA’s framework for 

accountability and school improvement. A key goal of the 2017 competition will be to improve 

coordination among all K−12 technical assistance centers, resulting in a more aligned, relevant, 

accessible, and robust support system for SEAs.

More specifically, the new centers would complement the work of the Department’s Office of 

C-76
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

State Support (OSS), which is focused on providing comprehensive, integrated guidance and 

technical assistance to help States implement more effectively the State formula grant programs 

authorized by the ESEA. The establishment of the OSS early in fiscal year 2015 reflects the 

changing role of SEAs in driving statewide education reform and providing support to LEAs and 

schools. However, there is evidence that the previous fiscal years’ funding levels for the 

Comprehensive Centers are inadequate to support this new role. In the national evaluation of 

the first cohort of comprehensive centers, SEAs reported that the comprehensive centers had 

facilitated the expansion of State capacity, particularly in the area of statewide systems of 

support or school support teams, but that the centers did not have the time or resources 

necessary to fully meet State demand for services. The $4.0 million increase requested for 

fiscal year 2017 would address this resource gap, partially restoring the 11 percent cut in 

funding for the centers since fiscal year 2008. 

The creation of the OSS, through which Department staff are in regular contact with States 

regarding their specific assistance needs, will allow the Department to target additional 

resources to the comprehensive center(s) best positioned to address those needs. For 

example, the Department could increase support for the new Center on Great Teachers and 

Leaders to support States as they design and implement new teacher preparation accountability 

systems and implement recently developed plans to improve equitable access to effective 

educators. Planning for the 2017 competition will be guided by advice from the RACs, which 

will report on the educational needs of each region and help determine priorities for the 

competition. The Department also would use the requested increase to better coordinate the 

dissemination of information and technical assistance across Department programs, working 

with IES and the Office of Special Education Programs, among others. 

The budget for fiscal year 2017 requests continuation of 2016 appropriations language that 

permits the provision of direct support to the BIE, allowing services for schools that are often in 

great need of assistance. Consistent with the Blueprint for BIE-funded schools, the 

comprehensive centers would support the BIE as it transforms from a direct provider of 

education into an organization that serves as a capacity-builder and service-provider to tribes 

with BIE-funded schools. The comprehensive centers would provide an important source of 

expertise to support the BIE, in the same way they serve SEAs.

C-77
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Center awards $46,395 $48,758 $54,362

Number of centers 22 23 TBD

Average award $2,109 $2,120 TBD

Regional Advisory Committees 0 $500 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $554

Evaluation $2,050 $2,187 $529

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; as well as 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 for 

fiscal year 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program.

The Department places strong emphasis on rigorous performance measures for the centers, in 

part through a Departmentwide effort to create common performance measures for technical 

assistance programs. The measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers, the extent to which each center meets the 

objectives of its respective plan, and whether their services meet the educational needs of the 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

Goal: To improve student achievement in low performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified experts or individuals 

with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services.

Year Target Actual

2012 66% 94%

2013 73 95

2014 80 95

2015 80 95

2016 80

2017 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the Centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

C-78
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects; the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects. 

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2012 79% 94%

2013 80 95

2014 80 94

2015 80 95

2016 80

2017 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects; the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects.

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

children in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

Year Target Actual

2012 70% 91%

2013 75 94

2014 80 92

2015 80 92

2016 80

2017 80

Additional information: The actual data were collected and reported using client surveys 

developed by the centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of client surveys 

used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The 2014 data represent 19 of 

22 Centers in year 2 of their projects; the 2015 data represent 15 of the 22 Centers in year 3 of 

their projects. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department implemented a common measure of administrative efficiency to assess the 

Comprehensive Centers program and other technical assistance programs. The measure is the 

percentage of grant funds that the centers carry over for each year of operations. Data for the 

measure are available each year in September, after Department staff have reviewed data for 

the previous 12-month budget cycle, and are presented in the table below.

C-79
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

Objective: Improve the operational efficiency of the program.

Measure: The percentage of Comprehensive Center grant funds carried over in each year of 

the project.

Year Target Actual

2012 10% 3%

2013 10 20

2014 10 8

2015 10 5

2016 10

2017 10

Additional information: The Centers had 40 percent carryover in 2006, the baseline year, 

which was likely the result of their receiving initial grant awards several months into the 

beginning of the first award year. A higher carryover amount in 2013 is likely due to grantees 

carrying over more funds following the first year of their awards; first year spending is often 

lower than planned due to time required for start-up and planning. 

Other Performance Information

In addition to the performance measures and data described above, the Department is carrying 

out an evaluation of the 2012 cohort of grantees that will examine how the individual centers 

intend to build SEA capacity (their theories of action) and what types of activities they conduct to 

build capacity. The evaluation will address broad questions in three areas: how did the centers 

design their work, how did the centers operate, and what was the result of the centers’ work? 

This evaluation will yield a report on the centers’ designs and theories of action (scheduled for 

March 2016), two interim reports on the centers’ implementation and outcomes in two priority 

areas (scheduled for March 2017), and a final report (scheduled for September 2018).

C-80
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $1,650,000

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

0 $500,000 +$500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Newly authorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

are intended to improve academic achievement by increasing the capacity of States and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to provide students with access to a well-rounded education, 

including rigorous coursework, and to improve school conditions and use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds under Title I, Part A of the ESEA for the preceding fiscal year. No State may receive less 

than 0.5 percent of the total program appropriation except for Puerto Rico, which may not 

receive more than this amount. The Department also reserves funds for the outlying areas and 

for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) of the Department of the Interior (0.5 percent in each 

case) and to provide technical assistance and capacity building (2 percent).

States must use not less than 95 percent of funds to make subgrant allocations to LEAs and not 

more than 1 percent for administrative costs, and may use any remaining funds for State-level 

activities consistent with the purposes of the program, which may include providing technical 

assistance or direct support to LEAs to carry out authorized activities. States allocate subgrants 

to LEAs on the same formula basis as above, except that no LEA may receive less than 

$10,000. LEAs may form consortia and combine subgrant allocations to carry out activities 

jointly. States and LEAs must use funds to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds 

that would otherwise be used for authorized activities.

LEAs receiving $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and, based 

on the results of that assessment, use not less than 20 percent of their allocations for activities 

to support well-rounded educational opportunities, not less than 20 percent for activities to 

support safe and healthy students, and a portion to support the effective use of technology, 

except that an LEA may not use more than 15 percent of its allocation to purchase technology 

infrastructure. LEAs receiving less than $30,000 must use funds to carry out activities in at least 

one of these three areas. LEAs must prioritize support to: schools with the greatest needs as 

determined by the LEA; schools with the highest concentrations of educationally disadvantaged 

children; schools that are identified for comprehensive support and improvement (i.e., are 

among the lowest-achieving schools) or implementing targeted support and improvement plans 

C-81
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

(i.e., have consistently underperforming student subgroups) under Title I of the ESEA as 

amended; or schools that are identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs may also 

reserve up to 2 percent of their allocations for administrative costs.

LEAs may use funds for a range of activities to support a well-rounded education, including: 

college and career counseling, including financial literacy activities; using music and the arts to 

promote student engagement and success; improving instruction in science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics, including computer science; increasing the availability of 

accelerated learning courses, such as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate 

courses, as well as dual or concurrent enrollment programs and early college high schools; 

strengthening instruction in American history, civics, economics, geography, and government; 

and providing foreign language instruction and environmental education.

Authorized activities to support safe and healthy students include: evidence-based drug and 

violence prevention programs; school-based mental health services, including through 

partnerships with mental health or health care entities; activities to support a healthy, active 

lifestyle, including physical education; activities to help prevent bullying and harassment; 

mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; high-quality training for 

school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict 

resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. LEAs may use funds to implement pay for 

success initiatives in these areas.

Lastly, LEAs may pursue such educational technology-related activities as: providing school 

and LEA personnel with tools and resources to use technology effectively to improve instruction, 

support teacher collaboration, and personalize learning; building technological capacity and 

infrastructure, including by procuring content and (subject to the 15 percent cap described 

above) purchasing devices, equipment, and software; providing specialized or rigorous 

technology-based academic courses; carrying out projects blending classroom and technologybased instruction in a way that provides students with control over the time, path, or pace of 

learning; providing professional development; and providing students in rural and underserved 

areas with access to digital learning experience and resources, including online courses.

The Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants would be a forward-funded program. 

Funds would become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are 

appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following year.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $500 million for Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants. This program can help improve student outcomes by providing 

resources to enable States and LEAs to respond flexibly to identified needs across a variety of 

areas, including providing students with a well-rounded education, ensuring a safe and 

supportive learning environment, and using technology to improve instruction.

C-82
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

The request includes appropriations language to give States the option to override the statute’s 

formula-based local allocation requirements, which at the proposed funding level would result in 

allocations for the vast majority of LEAs that are too small to support meaningful uses of funds. 

The Administration estimates that, at the $500 million funding level proposed for fiscal year 

2017, at least 80 percent of LEAs would receive a formula allocation that is less than the 

$30,000 award that triggers a needs assessment. Further, 75 percent of these LEAs (or, at 

least 60 percent of all LEAs) would receive awards at or below the minimum $10,000 allocation, 

including all LEAs in the States of Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Vermont. To 

ensure that subgrants are of sufficient size to support meaningful program activities in response 

to locally identified needs, the Administration requests appropriations language allowing States 

to make competitive rather than formula-based subgrants to LEAs or consortia of LEAs in a 

minimum amount of $50,000 per year for up to 3 years. In addition, the Administration proposes 

to permit States to give priority to one or more of the authorized categories of activities (i.e., 

well-rounded education, school conditions, and use of technology) or to specific authorized 

activities within each category.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants could be used to address particularly 

pressing needs. For example, States and LEAs could use funds to address the significant gaps 

in access to a well-rounded education and rigorous coursework identified by the Department’s 

Civil Rights Data Collection.1

 Funds could also be used to advance the President’s Now is the 

Time initiative, which is designed to protect our children and communities by reducing gun 

violence, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. Finally, funds 

could build on Administration investments to increase internet connectivity, including the 

ConnectEd initiative, by helping to prepare teachers and leaders to use technology to improve 

learning and deliver personalized instruction. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017

Amount to States $485,000

Range of State awards 2,425–58,087

Average State award 9,327

Amount to Outlying Areas 2,500

Amount to BIE 2,500

National activities 10,000 _______________

NOTE: Under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA, the Department is authorized to pool evaluation funds 

reserved under section 8601 and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The Administration 

may use funds reserved from Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants under the pooled evaluation 

authority in fiscal year 2017.

1 See http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-College-and-Career-Readiness-Snapshot.pdf. 

C-83

 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the 

Department would also seek to align program measures for Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants with measures for related programs.

C-84
C-85
C-86
C-87
C-88
C-89
C-90
C-91
C-92
C-93
C-94