Department of Education

C. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................... C-6

Authorizing Legislation.............................................................................................................. C-7

Appropriations History............................................................................................................... C-8

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

Summary of Request .............................................................................................................. C-13

Activities: C-16

Supporting effective instruction State grants ...................................................................... C-16

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

State assessments ............................................................................................................. C-27

Education for homeless children and youths...................................................................... C-32

Native Hawaiian education................................................................................................. C-38

Alaska Native education..................................................................................................... C-43

Training and advisory services ........................................................................................... C-47

Rural education .................................................................................................................. C-54

Supplemental education grants .......................................................................................... C-61

Comprehensive centers...................................................................................................... C-64

Student support and academic enrichment grants ............................................................. C-70

School-Based Health Professionals ................................................................................... C-78

Climate Resilient Schools................................................................................................... C-82

State tables*............................................................................................................................ C-84

State tables reflecting final 2020 allocations and 2021 and 2022 estimates are posted on the 

Department’s webpage at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized by part B of title I, part A of title II, 

subpart 1 of part A of title IV, part B of title IV, part B of title V, and parts B and C of title 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, [$5,444,217,000] $5,507,675,000, of which [$3,613,652,000]

$3,674,152,000 shall become available on July 1, [2021] 2022, and remain available through 

September 30, [2022] 2023, and of which $1,681,441,000 shall become available on October 1, 

[2021] 2022, and shall remain available through September 30, [2022] 2023, for academic year 

[2021-2022] 2022-2023: Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be for part B of title I1: Provided 

further, That [$1,259,673,000] $1,309,673,000 shall be for part B of title IV2: Provided further, 

That $37,397,000 shall be for part B of title VI, which may be used for construction, renovation, 

and modernization of any public elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to a 

public elementary school or secondary school that serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian 

student body, and that the 5 percent limitation in section 6205(b) of the ESEA on the use of 

funds for administrative purposes shall apply only to direct administrative costs3: Provided 

further, That $36,453,000 shall be for part C of title VI, which shall be awarded on a competitive 

basis, and may be used for construction, and that the 5 percent limitation in section 6305 of the 

ESEA on the use of funds for administrative purposes shall apply only to direct administrative 

costs4: Provided further, That $52,000,000 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 section5: Provided further, That [$16,699,000] $19,657,000 shall be 

available to carry out the Supplemental Education Grants program for the Federated States of 

Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands6: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
C-2

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

assistance in the implementation of these grants7: Provided further, That [$187,840,000]

$192,840,000 shall be for part B of title V8: Provided further, That $1,220,000,000 shall be 

available for grants under subpart 1 of part A of title IV9. (Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2021.)

NOTE

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

of Language Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1... of which [$3,613,652,000]

$3,674,152,000 shall become available on 

July 1, [2021] 2022, and remain available 

through September 30, [2022] 2023, and of 

which $1,681,441,000 shall become 

available on October 1, [2021] 2022, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

[2022] 2023, for academic year [2021-2022]

2022-2023: Provided, That $378,000,000 

shall be for part B of title I

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded 

basis. This language also provides that a 

portion of funds for Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants is available on an 

advance-funded basis. This language also 

specifies the funding level for State 

Assessments.

2... Provided further, That [$1,259,673,000]

$1,309,673,000 shall be for part B of title IV

This language specifies the funding level for 

21st Century community learning centers.

3 ...Provided further, That $37,397,000 shall 

be for part B of title VI, which may be used 

for construction, renovation, and 

modernization of any public elementary 

school, secondary school, or structure 

related to a public elementary school or 

secondary school that serves a 

predominantly Native Hawaiian student body, 

and that the 5 percent limitation in section 

6205(b) of the ESEA on the use of funds for 

administrative purposes shall apply only to 

direct administrative costs

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Native Hawaiian education program,

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

school construction, renovation, and 

modernization, and specifies that the 

administrative cost limitation applies only to 

direct administrative costs.

4 ...Provided further, That $36,453,000 shall 

be for part C of title VI, which shall be 

awarded on a competitive basis, and may be 

used for construction, and that the 5 percent 

limitation in section 6305 of the ESEA on the 

use of funds for administrative purposes shall 

apply only to direct administrative costs

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Alaska Native education program, 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

construction, and specifies that the 

administrative cost limitation applies only to 

direct administrative costs.

5 ...Provided further, That $52,000,000 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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

C-4

Language Provision Explanation

6 ...Provided further, That [$16,699,000]

$19,657,000 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 [$187,840,000]

$192,840,000 shall be for part B of title V

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program.

9 ...Provided further, That $1,220,000,000 

shall be available for grants under subpart 1 

of part A of title IV

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment grants program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2020 2021 2022

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation.......................................... $ 5,404,967 $5,444,217 $6,532,675

Total, discretionary appropriation ..... 5,404,967 5,444,217 6,532,675

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...................... 5,404,967 5,444,217 6,532,675

Mandatory:

Mandatory appropriation -Supplemental, ARP Act (P.L 117-02).... 0 170,000 0

Total, mandatory appropriation......... 0 170,000 0

Total, discretionary and mandatory 

appropriation ....................................

5,404,967 5,614,217 6,532,675
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2021.................................................................................................... $5,444,217

2021 Mandatory Supplemental, ARP Act (P.L. 117-02) (non-add)..... 170,000

2022.................................................................................................... 6,532,675

Net change................................................................. +1,088,458

Increases: 2021 base

Change

from base

Program:

Supporting effective instruction State grants $2,143,080 +$5,500

21st Century Community Learning Centers 1,259,673 50,000

Rural Education 187,840 +5,000

Supplemental Education Grants 16,699 +2,958

School-Based Health Professionals 0 +1,000,000

Climate Resilient Schools 0 +25,000

Subtotal, increases +1,088,458

Net change +1,088,458
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2021

Authorized

footnote

2021

Estimate

footnote

2022

Authorized

footnote

2022

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A) $2,295,8301 $2,143,080 To be determined1 $2,148,580

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) 1,100,0001 1,259,673 To be determined1 1,309,673

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 1201-1203) 378,0001 378,000 To be determined1 378,000

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) 85,000 106,500 85,000 106,500

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 32,3971 37,397 To be determined1 37,397

Alaska Native education equity (ESEA VI-C) 31,4531 36,453 To be determined1 36,453

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 169,8401 187,840 To be determined1 192,840 

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) 22,3162 16,699 22,6152 19,657

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 03 52,000 To be determined3 52,000

Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A-1) 1,600,000 1 1,220,000 To be determined1

 

1,220,000

School-Based Health Professionals (Proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined 1,000,000

Climate Resilient Schools (Proposed legislation) 0 0 To be determined 25,000

Total definite authorization 5,714,836 107,615

Total appropriation 5,444,217 6,532,675

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

2 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.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8801 4,544,5961 4,397,391

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A2 4,676,8623 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923 N/A2 4,402,6744 4,402,671

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

2016 4,693,171 3,500,7205 4,134,7465 4,443,629

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

2017 4,658,409 4,799,9126 4,177,2396 4,408,5676

(2017 Advance for 2018) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,670,022)

2018 697,321 2,369,9647 4,458,5677 5,158,4677

(2018 Advance for 2019) (0) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2019 645,214 5,258,4678 5,291,9678 5,246,9678

(2019 Advance for 2020) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2020 675,614 6,016,470 5,305,9679 5,404,9679

(2020 Advance for 2021) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2021 392,374 5,453,617 5,449,967 5,444,21710

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee.

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

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

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

5 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. 6 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 appropriation bill; 

the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

7 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). 8 The levels for the House and Senate Allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

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

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245). 9 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). 10 The level for the Senate Allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects Division H of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-9

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

(2021 Advance for 2022) (0) (1,681,441) (1,681,441) (1,681,441)

2021 Mandatory Supplemental,

ARP Act (P.L. 117-02) 0 0 0 170,0001

2022 6,532,675

(2022 Advance for 2023) (1,681,441)

1 The Appropriation reflects the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-02).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-10

Significant Items in FY 2021 Appropriations Reports

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

House: The Committee directs the Department to encourage, through guidance or 

technical assistance, State education agencies (SEA) to utilize the school leader 

three percent Title II–A set-aside to better drive school improvement efforts.

Response: The Department issued guidance in 2016 

(https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiipartaguidance.pdf) that 

addresses the optional set-aside provisions and encourages their use. While 

technical assistance resources are limited, staff respond to questions from States 

and regularly participate in collaborative virtual meetings. The “State and District 

Use of Title II, Part A funds in 2018-19” survey report 

(https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2021006/index.asp) found that the most common 

State use of flexibility in the 2018-19 school year was to reserve additional funds 

for supporting principals and other school leaders, with 20 States reserving funds 

for this purpose.

Alaska Native Education

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to make every effort to ensure that grants 

are awarded well in advance of the school year, to maximize grantees’ ability to 

hire the necessary staff and have their programs ready to go with the start of 

Alaska’s school year in mid-August. The Committee continues to direct the 

Department to ensure that Alaska Native tribes, Alaska Native regional 

nonprofits, and Alaska Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to 

successfully compete for grants under this program by providing these entities 

multiple opportunities for technical assistance in developing successful 

applications for these funds, both in Alaska and via various forms of 

telecommunications.

Response: The Department will comply with this request and continue to provide technical 

assistance to ensure that Alaska Native Tribes, Alaska Native regional 

nonprofits, and Alaska Native corporations have the maximum opportunity to 

successfully compete for grants under this program.

Training and Advisory Services

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to brief House and Senate authorizing 

and appropriations committees not later than 30 days prior to publishing a notice 

inviting applications for new awards.

Further, the Committee encourages the Department to expand its outcome 

reporting in next year’s and future CJs on how EACs are supporting measurable 

outcomes in changed policies and practices by EACs’ customers.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-11

Response: The Department briefed the Committees prior to the publication of the notice 

inviting applications for new awards on January 13, 2021. On March 4, 2021 the 

Department published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing that notice 

and canceling the fiscal year 2021 competition. Consistent with the budget 

request, the Department intends to announce a new competition in fiscal year 

2022. The Department has provided the requested outcome reporting in the 

Training and Advisory Services program narrative.

Rural Education

House: The Committee recognizes that the Rural Education Achievement Program’s 

Rural and Low-Income School grant program has provided vital funding to rural 

schools across the country to ensure that regardless of geographic location, 

every child can have an effective and comprehensive education. Therefore, any 

changes to the administration of the Rural and Low-Income School grant 

program should give schools losing grant funding previously received from the 

program a sufficient amount of time and guidance to pursue supplementary 

funding not less than one year.

Response: The Department will, as early as practicable, make local educational agencies 

and State educational agencies aware of any administrative changes to the Rural 

and Low-Income School program that affect allocations to current grantees.

Supplemental education grants

House: The agreement notes the total for SEG includes funding for the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands (RMI) pursuant to section 105(f)(l)(B)(iii) of the Compact of Free 

Association Amendments Act of 2003. The agreement requests an update and 

an analysis of RMI's education resource needs as part of the fiscal year 2022 

congressional justification.

Response: The Department is considering options for responding to this directive, which 

may include consultation with the Department of the Interior as well as possible 

use of the technical assistance authority provided through appropriations 

language.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants

House: The Committee is concerned about the high rates of students who are chronically 

absent from school. The most recent statistics show that over seven million 

students in the 2015–2016 school year were considered chronically absent. 

Studies have shown that chronic absenteeism hurts students’ academic 

achievement and can lead to students dropping out of school. In the fiscal year 

2022 Congressional Budget Justification, the Committee directs the Department 

to describe State-driven efforts to combat chronic absenteeism. The 

Department’s description can include relevant analysis such as which factors 

contribute most to student chronic absenteeism, and recommendations for 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-12

Federal, State, and local strategies to prevent and address chronic absenteeism. 

The Committee is interested in chronic absenteeism trends by subgroups such 

as by gender, race, ethnicity, homeless, foster, English Learner status, and 

geography. The Committee urges the Department to make clear to State and 

local education agencies that they may leverage SSAE funding to address 

chronic absenteeism.

The Committee directs the Department to include in its fiscal year 2022 

Congressional Budget Justification and each subsequent Congressional Budget 

Justification information on current and planned expenditures for the two percent 

set-aside for technical assistance and capacity building, and include a plan for 

how resources will be spent to build the capacity of SEAs and LEAs and provide 

technical assistance. The plan should include how resources will be spent 

helping SEAs and LEAs vet evidence, implement evidence-based interventions, 

and incorporate evidence-based SSAE activities into school improvement 

strategies.

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to include in its fiscal year 2022 CJ and 

each subsequent CJ information on current and planned expenditures for the 2 

percent set-aside for technical assistance and capacity building, including how 

resources will be spent helping SEAs and LEAs vet evidence, implement 

evidence-based interventions, and incorporate evidence-based SSAE activities 

into school improvement strategies.

Response: The Department’s response to this directive is provided in the Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants program narrative.
C-13

C-13

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2022 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat

Code

2020

Appropriation

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

2022 Request Compared to

2021 Appropriation

Amount Percent

1.

Subtotal D 2,131,830 2,143,080 2,148,580 5,500 0.26%

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Total, Appropriation D 5,404,967 5,444,217 6,532,675 1,088,458 19.99%

Total, Budget authority D 5,404,967 5,444,217 6,532,675 1,088,458 19.99%

Current 3,723,526 3,762,776 4,851,234 1,088,458 28.93%

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

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A)

Annual appropriation D 450,389 461,639 467,139 5,500 1.19%

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

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,249,673 1,259,673 1,309,673 50,000 3.97%

State assessments (ESEA I-B, section 1201-1203) D 378,000 378,000 378,000 0 0.00%

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 101,500 106,500 106,500 0 0.00%

Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 36,897 37,397 37,397 0 0.00%

Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 35,953 36,453 36,453 0 0.00%

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 185,840 187,840 192,840 5,000 2.66%

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free Association Act) D 16,699 16,699 19,657 2,958 17.71%

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 52,000 52,000 52,000 0 0.00%

Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D 1,210,000 1,220,000 1,220,000 0 0.00%

School-Based Health Professionals (proposed legislation) D 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 ---

Climate Resilient Schools (proposed legislation) D 0 0 25,000 25,000 ---

School Improvement Programs

Click here for accessible version
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-14

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 pay the costs of developing and administering student achievement assessments 

and address the particular educational needs of special populations. 

The Administration is requesting approximately $6.5 billion, $1.1 billion more than the fiscal year 

2021 funding level, for the following programs in this account:

• $2.1 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants to support ongoing State 

and local efforts to improve teacher and principal effectiveness and help ensure that all 

students have equitable access to well-prepared, qualified, and effective teachers and 

principals. Since the beginning of the pandemic, SEAs and LEAs have faced unprecedented

challenges, and teachers and school leaders need continued support to ensure that 

students are able to recover from lost instructional time. 

• $1.3 billion, an increase of $50 million, for 21st Century Community Learning Centers to 

provide out-of-school programming in support of the development of elementary and 

secondary school students, as well as the Administration’s commitment to expanding access 

to high-quality, evidence-based afterschool programs as a core equity strategy for closing 

achievement and attainment gaps between students from low-income backgrounds, 

students of color, and other students. Expanded access to before- and after-school 

programs are a critical, evidence-based strategy for recovering from lost instructional time 

due the COVID-19 pandemic.

• $378.0 million for State Assessments to help States continue to administer high-quality

assessment systems as a cornerstone of successful ESEA implementation. The request 

includes $8.9 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment program to help 

States, either alone or in consortia, address pressing needs they have identified for 

developing and implementing new or improved assessment systems. 

• $106.5 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths to provide educational 

and support services that enable children and youth who are homeless to attend and 

achieve success in school. The American Rescue Plan Act provided $800 million in 

mandatory supplemental funding to help States and school districts expand efforts to identify 

and provide a wide range of essential and academic services to homeless students and 

families.

• $37.4 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.

• $36.5 million for Alaska Native Education to support the development and operation of 

supplemental education programs and services for Alaska Native children and adults.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Summary of Request—continued

C-15

• $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, sex, national origin, and religion.

• $192.8 million, an increase of $5 million, for Rural Education to provide resources to rural 

LEAs and schools that often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA.

• $19.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants program, including the first inflation 

increase in over a decade, 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.

• $52.0 million for Comprehensive Centers, to provide comprehensive technical assistance 

to grantees. Funds would support the continuation costs of 19 Regional Centers and a 

National Center that provide intensive capacity-building services to help SEAs and other 

recipients identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that improve 

instruction and student outcomes.

• $1.2 billion for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 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 and improve school conditions 

and use of technology.

• $1.0 billion for a proposed School-Based Health Professionals program to provide formula 

grants to State educational agencies, which would then make competitive grants to highneed local educational agencies to support the goal of doubling the number of health 

professionals, including school counselors, nurses, school psychologists, and social 

workers, in our Nation's schools.

• $25 million for a proposed Climate Resilient Schools program to make competitive awards 

to LEAs to identify or develop, and disseminate, promising practices for improving the 

facilities of schools serving students in preschool through grade 12. Funds would help 

maximize the impact of the American Jobs Plan investment in modernizing our public 

schools by supporting promising practices in creating safe and healthy places of learning 

and in equipping school buildings with innovative, energy-efficient technology, including 

through the development of model school facility modernization plans.

Activities:

Summary of Request
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-16

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

Annual appropriation $461,639 467,139 $5,500

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

Total 2,143,080 2,148,580 +5,500

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants provide formula grants to State 

educational agencies (SEAs), which subgrant most funds to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) to support activities designed to increase student achievement by improving the 

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; provide students from low-income backgrounds and 

students of color greater access to effective teachers, principals, and other school 

leaders; and reduce class size. SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to carry out a wide 

variety of activities based on identified needs.

Funds are distributed to States by a formula that uses the number of children age 

5 to 17 and the number of children age 5 to 17 from poor families, with a longstanding 

“hold harmless” provision that takes into account the amount of money received under 

two antecedent programs. The 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) established a multi-year schedule for phasing out this holdharmless provision; for fiscal year 2022, 85.74 percent of appropriated funds are to be 

allocated strictly by the formula. The reauthorization also gradually increased the 

weighting for children from low-income backgrounds, rising by 5 percent per year from 

65 percent in 2017 to 80 percent for 2020 and future years, with the remaining 

20 percent allocated according to States’ relative shares of the population aged 5 to 17. 

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. The Department may 

reserve up to one-half of 1 percent of funding for evaluation.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-17

C-17

Each State must reserve at least 95 percent of its funds for subgrants to LEAs and 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. In making subgrants 

to LEAs, 20 percent of allocations are based on LEAs’ share of children aged 

5 through 17 and 80 percent on the LEAs’ share of children aged 5 through 17 from lowincome backgrounds. The reauthorization also provided greater flexibility for States and 

districts in how they use Title II-A funds, by expanding the option to transfer funds to 

other ESEA programs; in 2018-19, no States transferred funds from Title II-A to other 

programs and only four transferred funds to Title II-A from other programs. However, 

23 percent of districts transferred funds out of Title II-A to other programs, and 6 percent 

of districts transferred funds to Title II-A from other programs.

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 standards and 

requirements; 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 and include multiple measures of educator performance and 

provide clear, timely, and useful feedback to teachers, principals, or other school 

leaders; improving equitable access to effective teachers; creating or improving 

alternative routes to certification including for paraprofessionals, mid-career 

professionals, and former military personnel; technical assistance to LEAs; improving 

professional development; improving State reciprocity of teacher and principal 

certification or licensing; strengthening teacher and principal preparation programs; and 

training teachers on the appropriate and effective use of student data. LEAs may use 

funds to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities to 

improve teacher and school leader effectiveness, including evaluation and support 

systems; implement initiatives to assist in recruiting, hiring, and retaining effective 

teachers, especially in under-resourced schools; promote teacher leadership; recruit 

qualified individuals from other fields; reduce class size; provide high-quality, researchbased professional development; and develop feedback mechanisms to improve school 

working conditions.

Professional development was a priority for both SEAs and LEAs in 2018-19, the most 

recent year for which use of funds data are available. SEAs spent more of their funds on 

professional development (23 percent) than on any activity other than administrative 

costs. Eighty 80 percent of LEAs reported using Title II-A funds for short- and long-term 

professional development; overall, 58 percent of all Title II-A spending at the district 

level—approximately $1 billion—was used for this purpose. Other common uses were 

for recruiting, hiring, and retaining educators (32 percent of districts and 13 percent of 

district funds); class-size reduction (24 percent of districts and 18 percent of funds), and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-18

C-18

evaluation systems (10 percent of districts and 2 percent of funds). (See 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2021006/index.asp.)

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

portion of funds become 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 year of appropriation and remain available for 12 months, expiring at the 

same time as the forward-funded portion.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017 .................................. .........................................$2,044,411

2018 .................................. ...........................................2,055,830

2019 .................................. ...........................................2,055,830

2020 .................................. ...........................................2,131,830

2021 .................................. ...........................................2,143,080

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2022, the Administration requests $2.15 billion for the Supporting 

Effective Instruction State Grants program, $5.5 million more than the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. The request will support ongoing State and local efforts to improve 

teacher and principal effectiveness and help ensure that all students have equitable 

access to well-prepared, qualified, and effective teachers and principals. Since the 

beginning of the pandemic, SEAs and LEAs have faced unprecedented challenges, and 

teachers and school leaders need continued support to ensure that students are able to 

recover from lost instructional time. In school districts that lost the most instructional 

time, additional resources will help teachers and principals implement strategies for 

extended learning time to ensure that students do not lose more instructional time. 

In addition to SEI State Grants, the Administration is proposing to fund competitive grant 

programs to support teachers, principals, and other school leaders. The request 

includes $80 million for Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) to support 

evidence-based educator preparation and development efforts that can serve as models 

for similar efforts across the country, $200 million for Teacher and School Leader (TSL) 

Incentive grants to support reforms to human capital management systems and 

performance-based compensation systems, and $30 million under the School Leader 

Recruitment and Support program to fund grants for high-quality professional 

development for principals, other school leaders, and aspiring principals and school 

leaders. These programs are discussed in the Innovation and Improvement account.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-19

C-19

Funds allow States and LEAs to support activities designed to improve teacher 

effectiveness and student outcomes. A large majority of LEAs use funds for professional 

development, with many LEAs supporting long-term teacher professional development 

(67 percent of LEAs) and job-embedded professional development (46 percent of LEAs) 

as well as short-term training or conferences (83 percent of districts). LEAs also use 

funds for professional development for principals: 70 percent of districts reported using 

funds for short-term training or conferences, 50 percent for longer-term professional 

development or education, and 30 percent for collaborative of job-embedded 

professional development. LEAs also can use funds to help recruit, hire, and retain 

effective educators, including supporting programs to mentor new teachers and 

recruiting people in other fields who want to become teachers or leaders.

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

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Funding for State awards $2,099,959 $2,111,041 $2,137,837

Funding for Outlying Areas 10,606 10,662 10,689

Funding for BIE 10,606 10,662 10,689

Funding for evaluation 10,659 10,715 10,742

Range of State awards $10,299 – $238,042 $10,421 – $234,933 $10,515 – $235,364

Average State award $40,384 $40,597 $40,701

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

including SEI State Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department pooled 

$5,854 thousand in fiscal year 2020, plans to pool $5,508 thousand in fiscal year 2021, and may pool funds in fiscal 

year 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals, objectives, measures, and 

performance targets and data. Achievement of results is based on the cumulative effect of the 

resources provided in previous years, and those requested in fiscal year 2022 and future years,

as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. Targets have not 

been set for the program measures because baseline data are not yet available.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-20

C-20

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

for SEI State grants for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with Administration 

policy.

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

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program gauged the percentage of core academic 

classes taught by highly qualified teachers in elementary and secondary schools as a whole 

compared to the percentage in high poverty schools. The reauthorization of the ESEA 

eliminated highly qualified teacher requirements, and no performance data were collected for 

2017 (school year 2016-17), which was a transition year for SEAs and LEAs.1 The Department 

developed new measures for the program, which were:

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of inexperienced 

teachers in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty quartile.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between the percentage of teachers with 

emergency or provisional credentials in the highest poverty quartile and the lowest poverty 

quartile.

• The number of States that decrease the gap between teachers who are not teaching in the 

subject or field for which they are certified or licensed teaching in the highest poverty 

quartile and the lowest poverty quartile.

Data are collected from SEAs via the EDFacts reporting system. Because two years of data are 

required to determine whether gaps are decreasing or increasing, baseline data could not be 

determined until data for both school years 2017-18 and 2018-19 were available; however, 

initial analyses of these data in the fall of 2020 found significant impediments to using the data. 

First, 19 of the 52 SEAs included in GPRA reporting had a substantial amount of missing data, 

with 14 SEAs not reporting data for either 2017-18 or 2018-19, or both. Nine SEAs reported 

data for less than 75 percent of their teachers for one or more of the measures.

Some SEAs had a “negative gap” for one or more of the performance measures. For example, 

the percentage of teachers who were not teaching in the subject or field for which they were 

certified or licensed was lower in high poverty schools than in low poverty schools. Such SEAs 

would be counted as having a positive outcome—a reduction of the gap—if the proportion of 

appropriately credentialed teachers decreased in high poverty schools and the percentage in 

the lower poverty schools stayed the same or increased. 

Third, the measures do not consider the size of each year’s changes. Thus, even for SEAs 

moving in the “correct” direction, the measure may not capture an SEA’s overall improvement 

over time.

Because of these problems, the Department is examining alternative sources of information and 

alternative measures.

1 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-21

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$1,259,673 $1,309,673 +$50,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers program (21st CCLC) enables 

communities to establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning 

opportunities through before- and after-school programs and summer school programs aimed at 

improving student academic outcomes. Centers, which also may offer training in parenting skills 

and family literacy services, must target their services primarily to students who attend schools 

identified for improvement 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. 

The program currently provides funding to approximately 10,500 centers serving 1.6 million 

students and 290,000 adults and family members. In the 2019–20 program year, approximately 

600,000, or 50 percent, of the 1.2 million school year participants attended a center for 30 or 

more days during the academic year. 

Program funds may be used for a broad range of activities, such as those that support a wellrounded 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 chronically absent, suspended, or expelled; drug and 

violence prevention activities; programs that focus on in-demand fields of the local workforce; 

and programs that build skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Funds also 

may support in-school activities as part of an expanded learning time program under which the 

regular school day has been extended to include at least 300 additional program hours.

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 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-22

C-22

received the previous fiscal year under Part A of Title I of the ESEA, except that each State 

receives at least 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 

the promise of success, in providing education 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; or (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. An SEA may reserve up 

to 2 percent of its allocation for administrative expenses, including the costs of conducting its 

grant competition, and up to 5 percent 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

2017........................................................................$1,191,673

2018..........................................................................1,211,673

2019..........................................................................1,221,673

2020..........................................................................1,249,673

2021..........................................................................1,259,673

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST 

The Administration requests $1.31 billion for fiscal year 2022 for the 21st CCLC program, 

$50 million above the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request reflects the importance of outof-school programming in the development of elementary and secondary school students, as 

well as the Administration’s commitment to expanding access to high-quality, evidence-based 

afterschool programs as a core equity strategy aimed at closing achievement and attainment 

gaps between students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, and other students. 

With a broad array of authorized activities and delivery models, the program caters to local 

needs, from academic enrichment and tutoring to help students meet challenging State 

standards to programming that improves students’ social and emotional development. 

21st CCLC complements Title I, Part A of the ESEA by serving and prioritizing underserved 

students. The program’s State allocations are based on Title I, Part A allocations. The program 

statute requires that States give priority to projects targeting students attending schools that are 

implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-23

C-23

improvement activities under ESEA section 1111(d) and students who may be struggling 

academically and other negative student outcomes such as not graduating from high school. 

The Department would continue to reserve the 1 percent authorized for national activities 

focused on research, developing and updating professional development resources, data 

collection, technical assistance, outreach, dissemination, and an annual institute that enables 

grantees to share effective practices. Additionally, national activities funds would provide 

continuation awards under a demonstration program that provides opportunities to students 

outside regular school hours to participate in a high-quality career pathways program that leads 

to an industry-recognized credential in existing and emerging in-demand industry sectors and 

occupations identified by the State, including through completion of an apprenticeship or 

internship.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Funding for States awards $1,224,680 $1,234,480 $1,283,480

SA Range of State awards 6,123–148,413 6,172–148,375 6,417–155,190

SA Average State award 23,552 23,740 24,682

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) 61,234 61,724 64,174

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) 24,494 24,690 25,670

National activities 12,497 12,597 13,097

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 12,497 12,597 13,097

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

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

funds for this purpose from 21st CCLC in fiscal year 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

those served by this program. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-24

C-24

The Department revised the program’s performance measures in 2020, so no targets are 

provided for 2022, when States will collect baseline data for the new measures. The new 

measures focus on improvements in student achievement on State assessments, grade point 

average, school day attendance, student behavior, and student engagement. However, the 

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

21st CCLC for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

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 Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2017 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 51.4% 47.6% 50.0%

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 51.3 46.5 49.7

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0 48.5 45.6 47.6

2020 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 51.7 49.7

2021 50.0 50.0 50.0

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 Regular 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All Regular 

Participants

2017 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 50.0% 48.1% 49.4%

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.1 46.2 48.8

2019 50.0 50.0 50.0 48.2 46.7 47.7

2020 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 53.9 51.5

2021 50.0 50.0 50.0

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 (approximately 39 percent 

of all student participants). To report data by grade span for this measure, the program’s data 

system sorts 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 columns disaggregated by grade level, which applies to this 

measure and the student behavior measure below. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-25

C-25

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

2017 15.0% 25.0% 25.4% 19.1%

2018 30.0 25.0 25.5 18.6

2019 30.0 25.0 26.0 19.2

2020 30.0 25.0

2021 30.0 25.0

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 must have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019–2020 

school year due to widespread closures related toCOVID-19; therefore, the Department does 

not expect to report actual data for this measure for 2020.

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

2017 60% 75% 75% 62.2% 58.8% 60.4%

2018 60 60 60 63.1 60.7 62.4

2019 60 60 60 62.0 62.1 62.0

2020 60 60 60 63.6 62.8 63.4

2021 60 60 60

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. 

Efficiency measures

The Department has three operational efficiency measures for 21st CCLC.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-26

C-26

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2017 95% 98%

2018 95 100

2019 95 93

2020 95 93

2021 95

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

2017 35 45

2018 35 55

2019 35 42

2020 35 41

2021 35

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2017 4 24

2018 4 13

2019 4 26

2020 4 17

2021 4

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. Changes in data for 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 findings significantly 

higher in recent years. 

. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-27

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from 

2021 to 2022 

$378,000 $378,000 0

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal 

year 2022.

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 educators, which can be used to help identify where additional 

instructional and other support is needed.

More specifically, as part of the statewide accountability and improvement systems required by 

the ESEA, the results of annual assessments in reading and mathematics must be used as a

factor in determining whether States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools are 

meeting long-term goals and interim measures of progress and to differentiate annually and 

meaningfully the performance of all schools. 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. Under section 1111(b)(2)(I) of the 

ESEA, for any year for which Congress appropriates less than a “trigger amount” of 

$369.1 million, States may defer the commencement or suspend the administration of State 

assessments required by the ESEA.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-28

C-28

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

of developing the challenging academic standards and high-quality, fully aligned assessments 

required by Title I of the ESEA. Once a State has developed the assessments, it may use 

program funds to pay for the administration of the assessments and for other activities related to 

improving the quality and utility of those assessments. Such activities may include, among other 

things, 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, 

developing or improving models to measure student progress or growth, and using academic 

assessment instruments such as performance--based assessments, technology-based 

assessments such as computer adaptive assessments, to better reflect complex, real world 

tasks. 

The Assessment System Audit program, funded by an optional set-aside of up to 20 percent of 

the trigger amount (or any lesser amount appropriated by Congress), supports audits of State 

and local assessment systems as part of a State plan to eliminate unnecessary or low-quality 

assessments, 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 worth taking.

The Competitive Grants for State Assessments program, which is funded with the amount, if 

any, of appropriations in excess of the trigger amount, makes discretionary 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--based or extended 

performance task assessments, which may include computer adaptive assessments, that allow 

for new and improved methods for measuring critical thinking, writing, and complex problem 

solving skills.

After reserving 0.5 percent of funds equal to or less than the trigger amount of $369.1 million for 

the Bureau of Indian Education and 0.5 percent for the Outlying Areas, the Department

allocates a minimum of $3 million to each State, plus a share of any funds remaining for grants 

under this program based on each State’s share of students ages 5–17, for the Grants for State 

Assessments program. The Department must use any funds appropriated above the trigger 

amount for Competitive Grants for State Assessment.

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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-29

C-29

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017.......................................................................... $369,100

2018............................................................................ 378,000

2019............................................................................ 378,000

2020............................................................................ 378,000

2021............................................................................ 378,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $378 million for State Assessments in fiscal year 2022, the same 

as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request would provide $369.1 million for State grants 

along with $8.9 million for awards under the Competitive Grants for State Assessment program. 

The $369.1 million proposed for State grants is the minimum “trigger amount” needed to ensure 

that States continue to administer the assessments required under Title I, Part A; States may 

stop administering these assessments if the appropriation for the program is less than this 

amount.

Annual, high-quality, statewide assessments aligned to challenging State academic standards 

are a critical element of the statewide accountability and improvement systems that each State 

must establish under the ESEA, providing parents and educators with information they need to 

understand whether students are meeting State-determined college- and career-ready 

academic standards. State assessments also help identify schools that are meeting these 

standards and schools where additional resources and supports may be needed to improve 

educational opportunity and academic achievement. 

The fiscal year 2022 request will help States continue to administer high-quality assessment 

systems as a cornerstone of successful ESEA implementation. Funds may be used to 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 timelier and more useful data to students, educators, and parents. States may also use 

funds to develop comprehensive academic assessment instruments such as performancebased assessments and technology-based assessments, including computer adaptive 

assessments. 

The request also would provide $8.9 million for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment

program to help States, either alone or in consortia, address pressing needs they have identified 

for developing and implementing new or improved assessment systems. Potential priorities for 

the fiscal year 2022 competition could include improving assessments for English learners or 

students with disabilities; developing curriculum-embedded diagnostic assessments to address 

the impact of COVID-19 on student performance, incorporating multiple measures to assess 

student academic achievement; and developing high quality performance-based assessments.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-30

C-30

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Grants for State Assessments:

Amount for State Grants $365,409 $365,409 $365,409

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,322-$28,288 $3,322-$28,288 $3,322-$28,288

Average award $7,027 $7,027 $7,027

BIE and Outlying Areas $3,691 $3,691 $3,691

Competitive Grants for State 

Assessments:

Funding for new awards $8,811 $8,811 $8,811

Number of new awards 3-4 3-4 3-4

Range of new awards $3,800-3,900 $3,800-3,900 $3,800-3,900

Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $89 $89

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The goal of the Grants for State Assessments program is to support States in the development 

and implementation of the State assessments required under Title I of the ESEA. The 

performance measure is the number of States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto 

Rico) that have reading/language arts and mathematics assessments that align with the State's 

academic content standards for all students in grades 3–8 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 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12). Beginning in school year 2018-19, each State 

must also demonstrate that assessments used to measure English Language Proficiency (ELP) 

of all English Learners are aligned with their State ELP standards. States that develop alternate 

assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities must also demonstrate 

that such assessments are based on alternate academic achievement standards. Success in 

meeting these requirements is determined primarily by formal peer reviews of State assessment 

systems by panels of external assessment experts.

The Department launched a new round of peer reviews in 2016 based on updated practices and 

technical standards in the field. Thirty-eight States submitted assessments for review in 2016, 

six additional States in 2017, and the final eight States submitted academic assessments for 

review in 2018. Additionally, States reviewed in 2016 submitted additional evidence in 

succeeding years based on their peer review outcomes (five in 2017 and 33 in 2018). In 2019, 

48 States submitted evidence for peer review for their ELP assessments and 13 States 

submitted evidence for academic assessments. In 2020, the Department conducted peer 

reviews for 35 states across all subject areas. The tables below show the number of States that 

were determined to have partially met, substantially met, or met all requirements by assessment 

subject, grade, and type (general or alternate) as of December 31, 2020, and also indicate the 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-31

C-31

number of States where the outcome was pending (i.e., the Department is still reviewing the 

State documentation and peer recommendations to provide a formal determination to the State). 

In 2021, the Department is reviewing both academic and ELP assessments from another 

22 states. 

Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments Status as of December 31, 2020

Outcome Grades 3-8 General High School General Grades 3-8 and High 

School Alternate

Met All Requirements 16 10 8

Substantially Met 31 32 26

Partially Met 4 8 5

Does not meet 0 0 3

Pending Outcome 

Notification 2 6 1

Science Assessments Status as of December 31, 2020

Outcome Grades 3-8 General High School General Grades 3-8 and High 

School Alternate

Met All Requirements 1 2 0

Substantially Met 14 13 11

Partially Met 3 5 5

Does not meet 1 0 4

Pending Outcome 

Notification 1 1 2

English Language Proficiency Assessments Status as of December 31, 2020

Outcome ELP General ELP Alternate

Met All Requirements 0 0

Substantially Met 0 0

Partially Met 48 34

Does not meet 0 0

Pending Outcome 

Notification 0 0

States must revise their assessments periodically and undergo peer review each time they 

make significant changes. For example, at least four States that received “met all requirements” 

designations in 2017, 2018 or 2019 have changed their assessments since then, thus triggering 

new peer review cycles in 2019, 2020 and 2021
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-32

Education for homeless children and youths

(McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title VII, Subpart B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from 

2021 to 2022

$106,500 $106,500 0

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal 

year 2022.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program helps ensure that all children and 

youth experiencing homelessness have equal access to the same free, appropriate public 

education available to other children and youth 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 children and youth experiencing homelessness; 

and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to support the education of those 

children and youth. 

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 funds appropriated, 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 children, 

including preschool-aged children, and youth, experiencing homelessness.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth 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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-33

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017...................................................................... $77,000

2018........................................................................ 85,000

2019........................................................................ 93,500

2020...................................................................... 101,500

2021...................................................................... 106,500

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $106.5 million for fiscal year 2022 for Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, the same as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. This funding would 

support the President’s goal to advance equity in education and will also assist States and local 

educational agencies to build on the work funded through the $800 million provided under the 

American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) to support the specific needs of children and youth 

experiencing homelessness in recognition of the extraordinary impacts of the 

COVID-19 pandemic on students experiencing homelessness.

The full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on homelessness is not yet known, but a recent 

analysis of economic data supported by the Economic Roundtable1 noted that homelessness 

tends to lag behind joblessness. The report forecasts that chronic homelessness could increase 

as much as 49 percent over the next 4 years due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on 

employment. While the funding provided under the ARP constitutes a significant investment in 

school systems now to help them provide support for students experiencing homelessness 

during the COVID-19 pandemic, funding under the Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

program will continue to help school systems identify and provide support to students

experiencing homelessness affected by the pandemic after the ARP funds are no longer 

available. 

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program supports a broad set of activities to 

help reduce and eliminate the barriers to educational success faced by children experiencing 

homelessness, including transportation and healthcare needs, and ensure they have access to 

academic services available to other children, such as preschool programs, special education, 

gifted and talented programs, and career and technical education. Approximately 1.4 million 

students were identified as homeless in school year 2018-19, of which approximately 

16.3 percent were English learners, 19.2 percent were eligible to receive services under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and 9.1 percent were unaccompanied youth (i.e., 

youth who were not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian).

The Department plans to continue to coordinate activities under the Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program with other programs that serve students experiencing 

homelessness, in particular the ESEA’s Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, 

1 https://economicrt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Locked-Out.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-34

for which the Administration is proposing to more than double funding in fiscal year 2022. Title I, 

for which students experiencing homelessness are automatically eligible, authorizes recipients 

to provide homeless children and youth with services not ordinarily provided to other students, 

such as supporting LEA liaisons for children and youth experiencing homelessness and 

providing transportation. 

For fiscal year 2022, at the requested level, the Department plans to reserve approximately 

$1.8 million for national activities to support projects to improve educational services and 

outcomes for youth experiencing homelessness through the National Center for Homeless 

Education (NCHE). The Department will also continue to seek opportunities to work with other 

agencies that administer programs that serve family and youth experiencing homelessness. For 

example, the Department currently works with the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) to facilitate collaboration among school districts, institutions of higher 

education, and grantees under HUD’s Youth Homeless Demonstration program to address the 

educational needs of unaccompanied homeless youth and provide them with pathways to 

postsecondary education, training, and careers. In March 2021, NCHE released a brief 

discussing lessons learned from Round 3 of that program1. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for State grants $98,888 $103,579 $103,579

Amount for State Grants Range of State awards 254–12,235 266–12,879 266–12,879

Amount for State Grants Average State award 1,902 1,992 1,992

Amount to BIE 1,015 1,065 1,065

Amount to Outlying Areas 102 107 107

National activities 1,496 1,749 1,749

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

and measures for the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program for possible 

revision in future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy

1 https://nche.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/yhdp-round3-summary-profile.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-35

Goal: To ensure access of children and youth experiencing homelessness to the same 

free, appropriate public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Children and youth experiencing homelessness will have greater access to a free 

and appropriate public education.

Measure: The percentage of assessed students experiencing homelessness, grades three 

through eight, enrolled in all LEAs, who meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in 

reading and mathematics.

Year Target – Reading Actual – Reading Target – Math Actual – Math

2019 29.6% 24.5%

2020

2021 29.9% 24.8%

2022 30.2 25.1

Measure: The percentage of assessed students experiencing homelessness, 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

2017 80% 27.4% 80% 23.9%

2018 80 27.5 80 23.4

2019 80 27.5 80 24.5

2020 80 80

2021 27.5 24.8

2022 27.8 25.1

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on proficiency of students experiencing 

homelessness enrolled in all LEAs is a new measure for 2022. The new proficiency measures 

are focused on the academic achievement of all students experiencing homelessness in a 

State, as opposed to the other measures the Department has been reporting on, which focus 

exclusively on the performance of students experiencing homelessness in LEAs receiving 

subgrants under the program. In 2021 the Department re-set targets for the measures of 

proficiency pertaining to LEA subgrantees when it started implementing the measures for 

proficiency for all students experiencing homelessness. The Department waived assessment 

requirements for 2019-20 due to widespread closures related to the novel Coronavirus disease; 

therefore, the Department does not expect to report actual data for these measures for 2020. 

Data for 2021 will be available in calendar year 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-36

Measure: The percentage of students who were identified as homeless at any time in 

grades 9-12 and who graduated in 4 years with a regular high school diploma (4-year Adjusted 

Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)).

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2019 67.8% 

2020

2021 69.2%

2022 69.9

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on ACGR for students experiencing 

homelessness is a new measure for 2022. Note that the ESEA provides flexibility for how a 

state defines the students in cohorts, including the homeless ACGR and, as a result, states 

have different ways for accounting for students experiencing homelessness in high school and 

the data they report for this measure are not necessarily comparable. Some States reported that 

they only track students who were identified as homeless in Grade 9. Data for 2020 will be 

available in summer 2021.

Measure: The percentage of students who experienced homelessness in grades pre-K-13 at 

some point in the school year who were reported at the school-level as being chronically absent.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2019 36.8% 

2020

2021 34.8%

2022 33.8

Additional Information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for States 

to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Reporting on chronic absenteeism for students 

experiencing homelessness is a new measure for 2022. Chronic absenteeism is a measure of 

the number of students who have missed 10 percent or more of their instructional time during 

their period of enrollment in half-day increments, and is often a better indicator of which 

students need more intervention and support to attend school regularly and persist. About twothirds of States chose chronic absenteeism as a measure of School Quality and Student 

Success as part of their statewide accountability and improvement systems under their ESEA 

Consolidated State Plans. Note that this measure may include duplicate data as chronically 

absent students experiencing homelessness may have been enrolled in more than one school 

during the school year. Data for 2020 will be available in summer 2021.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-37

Efficiency Measure

The Department 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 events.

Year Target Actual

2017 40 51.0

2018 40 39.0

2019 40 36.0

2020 40

2021 60

2022 60

Additional Information: This measure provides information on monitoring events with States. 

In 2020, the Department revised its monitoring procedures and incorporated monitoring for the 

program into a consolidated monitoring process with other programs. The target was re-set to 

reflect the new process.

Other Performance Information

The Department released a report in February 2015 from a national study of implementation of 

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program.1 The study examined State and local 

program administration and use of funds, efforts to collect data on students experiencing 

homelessness, policies to remove barriers faced by these students, and coordination of 

services. The study found that transportation, school supplies, and tutoring and supplemental 

instruction were reported by district liaisons as the largest local program expenditures and that 

transportation needs and preoccupation with survival needs were most frequently identified as 

barriers to students experiencing homelessness and their enrollment and attendance in school..

1 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/homeless/state-district-implementation-homeless-children-report.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-38

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

Annual appropriation $37,397 $37,397 0

Mandatory Supplemental 

Appropriation, ARP Act (P.L. 117-02) $85,000 0 -$85,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Native Hawaiian Education program supports the provision of supplemental education 

services to the Native Hawaiian population. The program awards 3-year competitive grants to 

support 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) footnote

2017 ................................................................................... $33,397

2018 ..................................................................................... 36,397

2019 ..................................................................................... 36,397

2020 ..................................................................................... 36,897

2021 ..................................................................................... 37,397

2021 Mandatory ARP Act..................................................... 85,000
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-39

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $37.4 million for Native Hawaiian Education in fiscal year 2022, 

the same as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. 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 2019, 18 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4th-grade 

students demonstrated proficiency in reading and 18 percent demonstrated proficiency in 

mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), compared to 

34 percent proficient in reading and 40 percent proficient in mathematics for all 4th-grade 

students in Hawaii. Similarly, 24 percent of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8th-grade students 

demonstrated proficiency in reading and 16 percent demonstrated proficiency in mathematics 

on the NAEP assessment, as compared to 29 percent proficient in reading and 28 percent 

proficient in mathematics for all 8th-grade students in Hawaii. 

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 support high school graduation.

The American Rescue Plan Act provided a supplemental appropriation of $85 million for new 

awards under the Native Hawaiian Education program intended to help applicants address 

needs arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of lost instructional time on 

student achievement and attainment outcomes, as well as to provide social, emotional, and 

mental health supports to Native Hawaiian students and their families. The Department will 

make an estimated 34 new awards in early fall 2021 for projects of up to 3 years in length.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-40

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for new awards $26,847 $7,597 0

Number of new awards 20 9 0

Amount for continuation awards $9,186 $29,300 $36,897

Number of continuation awards 14 24 29

Native Hawaiian Education Council $500 $500 $500

Peer review of new award applications 364 01 0

NOTES: 

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

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

from this program in fiscal year 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

1The Department funded nine new awards in fiscal year 2021 from the fiscal year 2020 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

goals, objectives, and measures for Native Hawaiian Education for possible revision in future 

years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to 

widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does not expect to report 

actual data for these measures for 2019. Data for 2020 will be available in 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-41

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in reading on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 47% 49%

2018 47 49

2019 48

2020 49

2021 49

2022 50

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in math on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 40% 41%

2018 40 41

2019 41

2020 42

2021 43

2022 44

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who scored at the proficient level 

or higher in science on the State’s annual assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 28% 28%

2018 28 28

2019 29

2020 29

2021 30

2022 31

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program that demonstrated school 

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2017 45% 53%

2018 45 54

2019 45

2020 45

2021 45

2022 45
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-42

Additional Information: Because not all grantees provide early learning services, this 

measure may not apply to all grantees in a given year.

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

2017 81% 85%

2018 82 85

2019 83

2020 84

2021 85

2022 86
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-43

Alaska Native education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VI, Part C) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

Annual appropriation $36,453 $36,453 0

Mandatory Supplemental 

Appropriation, ARP Act (P.L. 117-02) 85,000 0 -85,000

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Native Education program supports supplemental educational programs and 

services designed to improve educational outcomes for Alaska Natives. The program awards 3-

year competitive grants to eligible applicants, which 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.

Allowable activities include the development and implementation of curricula and educational 

programs that address needs of the Alaska Native student population (including the use and 

preservation of Alaska Native languages), professional development for educators, the 

development and operation of home instruction programs for Alaska Native preschool children 

that help support active involvement of parents in their children’s education, family literacy 

services, student enrichment programs in science and mathematics, and dropout 

prevention programs.

The American Rescue Plan Act provided a supplemental appropriation of $85 million for new 

awards under the Alaska Native Education program intended to help applicants address needs 

arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, including the impact of lost instructional time on student 

achievement and attainment outcomes, as well as to provide social, emotional, and mental 

health supports to Alaska Native students and their families. The Department will make an 

estimated 36 new awards in fall 2021 for projects of up to 3 years in length.

Grantees may use up to 5 percent of their awards for administrative costs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-44

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2017 ................................................................................... $32,453

2018 ..................................................................................... 35,453

2019 ..................................................................................... 35,453

2020 ..................................................................................... 35,953

2021 ..................................................................................... 36,453

2021 Mandatory ARP Act..................................................... 85,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $36.5 million for Alaska Native Education in fiscal year 2022, 

the same as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request would support 18 new competitive 

awards and 18 continuation awards. The budget request would support the continued provision 

of education-related 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 2019 Alaska 

Standards-Based Assessment indicated that Alaska Native and American Indian students in the 

State continue to struggle with 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. Fifteen percent of 

AI/AN students demonstrated proficiency on the 4th-grade English language arts assessment, 

compared to 40 percent of all 4th-grade students, and 22 percent of AI/AN students achieved 

proficiency in mathematics, compared to 45 percent of all 4th-grade students. Eighth-grade 

assessments showed similar achievement gaps as 15 percent of AI/AN students demonstrated 

proficiency on the 8th-grade English language arts assessment, compared to 36 percent of all 

8th-grade students, and 12 percent of AI/AN students achieved proficiency in mathematics, 

compared to 27 percent of all 8th-grade students. 

These outcomes from State assessment data are confirmed by the results of the 2019 National 

Assessment of Educational Progress for AI/AN students in Alaska. In 4th-grade reading, 

9 percent of AI/AN students in Alaska were proficient, while the overall average for all students 

in Alaska was 25 percent. There were similar differences in 8th-grade reading (20 percent 

proficient compared to 33 percent for all students in Alaska), 4th-grade mathematics (13 percent 

proficient compared to 33 percent for all students in Alaska), and 8th-grade mathematics 

(15 percent proficient compared to 33 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 4.7 percent in the 

2019-2020 school year, higher than the rate for any other racial or ethnic group in the State and 

well above the statewide rate of 2.7 percent. Further, Alaska’s “Report Card to the Public: 

2019-2020” reported that the high school graduation rate for AI/AN students was 67.6 percent, 

while the statewide figure was 74.0 percent.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-45

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 culturally 

responsive related services tailored to the educational needs of Alaska Native students in order 

to improve their academic success and support their successful graduation from high school.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for new awards 0 $15,592 $20,501

Number of new awards 0 18 18

Amount for continuation awards $35,953 $20,861 $15,592

Number of continuation awards 40 19 18

Peer review of new award applications 0 01 $360

_____________________

NOTES: 

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

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

from this program in fiscal year 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

1 The Department funded nine new awards in fiscal year 2021 from the fiscal year 2019 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

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

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

goals, objectives, and measures for Alaska Native Education for possible revision in future 

years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to 

widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does not expect to report 

actual data for these measures for 2019. Data for 2017 and 2018 will be available in winter 2021 

and data for 2020 will be available in 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-46

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

2017 47%

2018 48

2019 49

2020 50

2021 51

2022 52

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

2017 56%

2018 57

2019 58

2020 59

2021 60

2022 61

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

2017 56%

2018 57

2019 58

2020 59

2021 60

2022 61

Additional Information: After working with a data specialist to review data for this measure, 

the Department discovered that it had incorrectly reported prior years’ data on this measure. 

The Department has corrected the data and will provide technical assistance to grantees to

improve performance on the high school graduation measure.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-47

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$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, the Department awarded 5-year grants in fiscal 

year 2016 to Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) in four geographic regions serving the 

50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Outlying Areas of American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. With fiscal 

year 2021 funds the Department plans to extend those grants for a sixth year.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-48

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. Topics covered by the EACs go beyond 

a traditional view of desegregation to include areas such as school climate, disproportionate and 

exclusionary discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy, 

educator diversity, the effect of poverty on equity in educational opportunity and achievement 

gaps, and instructional practices that reach all students.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017............................................................................. $6,575

2018............................................................................... 6,575

2019............................................................................... 6,575

2020............................................................................... 6,575

2021............................................................................... 6,575

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2022, the Administration requests level funding of $6.6 million for Training and 

Advisory Services. Fiscal year 2022 funds would support the first year of Equity Assistance 

Center grant awards that would be made under a new competition that will be aligned, to the 

extent statutorily permitted, with the strong commitment to equity demonstrated by President 

Biden through the following actions taken during his first month in office:

• Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities 

Through the Federal Government. 

• Executive Order 13988: Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender 

Identity or Sexual Orientation. 

• Memorandum: Condemning and Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against 

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States. 

• Executive Order 14012: Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and 

Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.

In fiscal year 2020, the EACs provided targeted and intensive assistance to 36 State 

educational agencies (SEAs), 196 local educational agencies (LEAs), and 277 schools in 

49 States and territories in areas such as creating a positive, safe, and inclusive school climate, 

improving family engagement, increasing educator diversity, and implementing instructional 

practices that reach all students. The EACs also developed new resources on a variety of 

topics, such as addressing health disparities, supporting English learners, and implementing 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-49

socioeconomic integration strategies. Of the EAC clients that participated in an annual Client 

Satisfaction Survey, 84 percent indicated satisfaction with the services they received, a 

1 percentage point increase from the previous year.

As in previous years, the EACs continued to develop and implement innovative approaches to 

technical assistance that respond to needs across states, districts, and schools. For example, 

the recent work of one EAC helped to change the way nearly 330,000 elementary, middle, and 

high school students learn social studies in one Midwestern state. In recognition of the 

increasing racial and ethnic diversity of its student population, this State’s Board of Education 

sought to review its social studies standards for indications of bias, and to gauge the extent to 

which they reflect educational equity. The Board’s intent was to facilitate an increased focus on 

including in classrooms the perspectives of underrepresented groups in social studies courses 

taught across the spectrum of grade levels. To conduct this review, social studies educators and 

community members across the State turned to a tool created by their regional EAC to assess 

bias in the learning standards and curricular materials. Among the results of this work are new 

social studies curricular guidelines that, as one State educational leader noted, help students to 

engage in civil discourse, to present ideas that are rooted in history, and to listen to, respect, 

and communicate different viewpoints.

More broadly, the EACs are engaged in a range of evidence-based activities that are focused 

on improving equity and access to high-quality educational environments and resources. 

Additional examples of these activities include:

• Developing resources and promoting best practices to help students, educators, and 

families nationwide confront, respond to, and combat anti-Asian American and Pacific 

Islander discrimination and xenophobia.

• Providing professional development on practical instructional strategies for planning and

delivering sheltered content for English learners within the context of standards-based 

lesson planning, instruction, and assessment in one school district.

• Ensuring, through collaboratively designed lessons and ongoing implementation support, 

that students, teachers, administrators, and support personnel in schools across a large 

urban school district in a Western state are prepared to respond to individuals who 

experience racial and sexual harassment in schools. This work is creating a student body 

that is knowledgeable about what constitutes harassment based on race and sex, and a 

workforce that is ready, able, and willing to enforce anti-harassment policies and to report 

incidents in a timely manner.

Finally, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, EACs are serving as key thought partners and 

technical assistance providers to States and school districts across the country as they respond 

to disruptions and seek to swiftly and safely reopen their schools for in-person instruction.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-50

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount for grant awards $6,532 $6,532 $6,484

Data collection $43 $43 $46

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $45

Number of awards 4 4 4

Average size award $1,633 $1,633 $1,621

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

goals, objectives, and measures for Training and Advisory services for possible revision in 

future years to ensure alignment with Administration policy.

Except where stated otherwise below, data for the following measures are collected through an 

annual survey of EAC clients. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress

conducts the survey under an interagency agreement with the Department. 

Goal: To support access and equity in public schools and help school districts solve 

equity problems in education related to race, sex, national origin, and religion.

Objective: Provide coordinated technical assistance and training to State educational agencies

and public school districts in addressing equity in education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-51

GPRA Measures

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in awareness or knowledge 

resulting from technical assistance provided.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Awareness

Actual

Knowledge

Actual

2017 82% 82% 76%

2018 85% 80 80 75

2019 83 84 81 84

2020 86 88 88 81

2021 90

2022 92

Additional information: Customers were asked whether they increased their awareness or 

knowledge and, if so to what extent, on different topics for which they received assistance. The 

“Combined Actual” percentage is the higher of the two reported percentages for Awareness and 

Knowledge. 

Measure: The percentage of customers who report changed policies or practices related to 

providing students with a full opportunity for participation in all educational programs regardless 

of their sex, race, religion, and national origin.

Year Target Actual

2017 81%

2018 79% 76

2019 78 75

2020 78 73

2021 78

2022 80

Additional information: Customers were asked if their organizations developed, improved, or 

implemented such policies or practices on any topic for which they received assistance. As in 

previous years, in 2020 a high percentage of EAC clients (73 percent) indicated that their 

organization developed, improved, or implemented policies or practices as a result of services 

provided by their regional EAC. Customers were also asked if they received technical 

assistance from the EACs in any of eight specific areas. Among those who reported receiving 

technical assistance in any one of these eight areas, the following percentages of EAC clients 

reported making changes to policies or practices on the following topics:

• Addressing inequities in access to effective teachers on the basis of race, sex, national 

origin, or religion (75 percent);

• Addressing inequities in identification, recruitment, or selection of students for participation 

in educational programs [e.g., ELL programs] (75 percent);
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-52

• Addressing student isolation or disciplinary practices on the basis of race, sex, national 

origin, or religion (85 percent);

• Providing accessible and culturally responsive practices in instruction and assessment 

(77 percent);

• Providing accessible and culturally responsive school-based physical and mental health 

supports (88 percent);

• Providing open, safe, welcoming, and equally accessible spaces in both classroom and nonclassroom settings (84 percent);

• Critically reflecting on beliefs and attitudes including bias, stereotypes, and prejudices about 

students and families or caregivers (77 percent); and

• Engaging all parents, families, or community members regardless of their race, sex, national 

origin, or religion (79 percent).

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in capacity resulting from 

technical assistance provided.

Year Target Actual

2017 74%

2018 77% 71

2019 74 89

2020 90 73

2021 76

2022 78

Additional information: Customers were asked whether their organizations received 

assistance to (1) build inclusive leadership, (2) identify and/or leverage mutually beneficial 

relationships or partnerships, or (3) obtain and/or leverage tangible materials or systems, and, if 

so, the extent to which their capacity increased after receiving assistance from the EAC. Data 

reflect the percentage of respondents who said their capacity increased to a moderate or great 

extent in at least one of these ways. The decline in 2020 likely is explained by service 

disruptions and challenges in transitioning to a virtual service model during the COVID-19 

pandemic.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-53

Project Measures 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from organizations that 

were accepted during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 95%

2018 96% 96

2019 97 98

2020 98 97

2021 98

2022 98

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. 

Measure: The percentage of technical assistance requests received from new (not previously 

served by the EAC) organizations during the performance period.

Year Target Actual

2017 61%

2018 68% 72

2019 75 41

2020 48 69

2021 71

2022 73

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. The 

significantly lower percentage on this measure in 2019 may be due to the high number of 

existing clients who reported high satisfaction with the services received and requested 

additional services in this school year than in previous years.

Measure: The percentage of customers willing to request additional technical assistance and/or 

refer another organization to an EAC for technical assistance during the performance period.

Year Target

(Combined Only)

Combined

Actual

Request Additional

Actual

Refer

Actual

2017 83% 79% 83%

2018 85% 86 84 86

2019 88 89 89 87

2020 91 89 84 89

2021 91

2022 93

Additional information: Customers were asked (1) how likely they were to request additional 

assistance from the EAC and (2) how likely they were to refer another agency to an EAC for 

technical assistance.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-54

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1, 2

Budget Authority:

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$187,840 $192,840 +$5,000

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

2 The funds appropriated to carry out Title V, Part B are to be distributed equally between Subparts 1 and 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) includes two distinct programs to assist 

rural local educational agencies (LEAs) in carrying out activities to help improve the quality of 

teaching and learning in their schools. The Small, Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) 

provides funds to rural LEAs that serve small numbers of students; the Rural and Low-Income 

School program (RLIS) provides funds to rural LEAs that serve high concentrations of students

living in poverty, without regard to enrollment. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally 

between the SRSA and the RLIS programs. 

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 

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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-55

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) Part A of 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). 

SRSA-eligible LEAs also may, under an alternative fund use authority (AFUA) previously known 

as “REAP-Flex”, consolidate any and all of their applicable funding for allowable activities 

authorized under the five programs specified above.

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 eligible LEAs. An LEA is considered eligible for RLIS if it: 

(1) has a poverty rate of at least 20 percent based either on data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimate (SAIPE) or, for an LEA for which SAIPE data 

are unavailable, on the same State-derived poverty data used to determine LEA allocations 

under part A of title I of the ESEA (State-derived poverty data), and (2) serves 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). Each State then makes RLIS subgrants to eligible 

LEAs. Additionally, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, established a “hold harmless” 

provision that enables certain LEAs for which SAIPE poverty data are not available and that do 

not have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent based on the State-derived poverty data to be 

considered eligible for RLIS at decreasing levels through fiscal year 2027.

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 students from lowincome backgrounds. If an RLIS-eligible LEA is in a State whose State educational agency 

(SEA) does not submit an RLIS application, the LEA may apply directly to the Department to 

receive the funding it would have generated, based on its ADA, for its State had the SEA 

applied for RLIS. These LEAs are referred to in the statute as Specially Qualified Agencies 

(SQAs).

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) Part A of 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. 

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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-56

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands) fn

2017........................................................................$175,840

2018..........................................................................180,840

2019..........................................................................180,840

2020..........................................................................185,840

2021..........................................................................187,840

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $192.8 million for fiscal year 2022 for the REAP, $5 million above 

the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request would support an average LEA award of 

approximately $23,000 under SRSA and an average LEA subgrant of approximately 

$38,000 under RLIS.

The fiscal year 2022 request for REAP recognizes the significant obstacles faced by many rural 

LEAs in ensuring that all students meet challenging State academic standards and graduate 

high school ready for college or careers, consistent with the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA). Based on 2018 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, 

28 percent of the Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, while 19 percent of all 

public school students were enrolled at these schools. The small size and remoteness of many 

rural schools and LEAs creates a different set of challenges from those of urban schools and 

LEAs. For example, rural schools and LEAs generally do not benefit from economies of scale 

and, thus, can face greater per-pupil costs in areas such as staffing or transportation. 

While rural student performance on reading and mathematics on the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) is roughly the same as the national average (for example, the 

NAEP scale scores of public school students in rural and nationwide were the same in 4th grade 

reading and 4th-grade mathematics), and the rural student adjusted cohort graduation rate is 

higher than the national average (89 percent compared to 85 percent), resource challenges still 

impede academic opportunities for rural students. For example, rural LEAs often are not able to 

offer their students the same level of access to advanced coursework as other LEAs. In the 

2015–16 school year, just 44 percent of rural schools serving students in grades 9 through 12 

offered Advanced Placement courses, compared to 62 percent of comparable suburban 

schools. In addition, because of size and location, many small, rural LEAs have faced difficulty 

in recruiting and retaining effective teachers. REAP funds provide rural LEAs with critical 

additional resources that can be used to help meet such challenges.

Rural LEAs also frequently receive allocations under the Department’s other formula grant 

programs that are too small to allow the LEA to effectively address the purposes for which the 

funds are appropriated. Recognizing that rural LEAs frequently receive small allocations from 

Federal formula grants, the AFUA gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the flexibility to make more 

effective use of these small allocations by consolidating them. An estimated 39 percent of 

eligible LEAs notified their respective States of their intention to take advantage of this authority 

in school year 2018-19. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate their allocations under 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-57

these programs, some do not have enough money to address statutory objectives in a 

meaningful manner. REAP funds can help ensure that such LEAs have sufficient funds to 

implement ESEA programs consistent with Congressional intent.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

RSA Total funding $92,920 $93,920 $96,420

RSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 4,267 4,267 4,267

SRSA Average LEA grant $22 $22 $23

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $81 $82 $84

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0–$60 0–$60 0–$60

Rural and low income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $92,920 $93,920 $96,420

RLIS Amount for State and SQA grants $91,991 $92,981 $95,456

RLIS Amount for BIE $465 $470 $482

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $465 $470 $482

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 46 46 46

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,512 2,512 2,512

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving SQA grants 27 27 27

RLIS Average State grant $1,991 $2,012 $2,031

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $36 $37 $38

RLIS Average SQA grant $15 $15 $16

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $21 $22 $22

RLISRange of awards to States $3–$9,404 $3–$9,505 $3–$9,758

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0–$271 0–$274 0–$281

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

including this one, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA programs. The Department did not reserve 

funds for this purpose from REAP in fiscal year 2020, but may do so in fiscal years 2021 and 2022. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

Rural education

C-58

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

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

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

goals, objectives, and measures for REAP for possible revision in future years to ensure 

alignment with Administration policy.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

above on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts. 

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 52%

2018 100 48

2019 100 49

2020 100

2021 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the SRSA program 

who score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 47%

2018 100 43

2019 100 43

2020 100

2021 100

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 46%

2018 100 43

2019 100 43

2020 100

2021 100
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-59

Measure: The percentage of students enrolled in LEAs participating in the RLIS program who 

score proficient or better on States’ assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2017 100% 43%

2018 100 40

2019 100 40

2020 100

2021 100

Additional information: The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above the 

proficient level among LEAs participating in REAP can be explained, in part, by States’ 

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

performance targets for these measures reflect the previous reauthorization of the ESEA, which 

required all students to be proficient in reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014. These 

targets are no longer relevant under the current authorization. 

The Department waived assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to 

widespread closures related to COVID-19; therefore, the Department does not expect to report 

actual data for these measures for 2020. Data for 2021 will be available in 2022. No targets are 

established for fiscal year 2022 because the Department plans to revise the program’s 

performance measures in 2021 and set targets using baseline data. 

Objective: SRSA-eligible rural school districts will use the REAP flexibility authority.

Measure: The percentage of SRSA-eligible school districts using the REAP flexibility authority

(known as REAP-Flex prior to 2017, now the alternative fund use authority).

Year Target Actual

2017 65% 46%

2018 65 43

2019 65 39

2020 65

2021 65

Additional information: While this measure was developed to capture the percentage of 

eligible LEAs actually using the flexibility authority, the best available information is on the 

number of LEAs 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. 

Other Performance Information

The Department completed a study of REAP in December 2016 that examined implementation 

of REAP funds at the State and LEA levels. More specifically, the study sought to identify how 

grantees are targeting REAP funds and to assess effectiveness in key areas, such as teacher 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-60

recruitment and retention, professional development, strategies for school improvement, and the 

effective use of technology. Respondents included State, LEA, and school level administrators, 

as well as professional development and technical assistance providers. LEAs most frequently 

used REAP funds to improve or expand access to technology (71 percent for both SRSA and 

RLIS) and to provide educator professional development (45 percent for SRSA and 58 percent 

for RLIS). Forty-six percent of SRSA LEAs reported exercising REAP-Flex (now the AFUA). The 

majority of both LEA and State REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a whole. 

However, they provided recommendations for improvement to REAP in three categories: 

1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, 2) more information on allowable 

uses of funds and REAP-flex, and 3) revised eligibility criteria. Upon reviewing this report and 

additional feedback received from State and LEA grantees, in fiscal year 2018 the Department 

revised the REAP grant making timeline in order to make awards earlier than in previous years.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-61

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: $22,6151

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation 

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022 

$16,699 $19,657 +$2,958

1 The 2022 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, adjusted for 

inflation. 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 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, 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-62

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. Since fiscal year 2015, appropriations acts have allowed ED to reserve 

up to 5 percent of Supplemental Education Grants funds to provide technical assistance for 

these grants, but the Department has yet to exercise this authority.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2017 .....................................................................................$16,699

2018 .......................................................................................16,699

2019 .......................................................................................16,699

2020 .......................................................................................16,699

2021 .......................................................................................16,699

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $19.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants, an increase of $3 

million over the fiscal year 2022 level. The request would provide a partial inflation adjustment 

for the first time since the program was initially authorized and help ensure the continuation of 

services for residents of the RMI and the FSM. The request also includes 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. 

The RMI and the FSM have used Supplemental Education Grant funds for early childhood 

education, education improvement programs, vocational and skills training, and professional 

development. Both the RMI and the FSM have also used funds to prepare students for jobs 

resulting from the Guam military build-up. The Administration anticipates that fiscal year 2022 

funding would be used for similar purposes. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,131 $11,131 $13,103

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,568 5,568 6,554
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-63

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 collected were 

inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests 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 highlighted 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 had increased in the RMI and student enrollment had increased during this period 

despite significant out-migration, the RMI continued to have few standardized tests for 

assessing student achievement, a high dropout rate, and a low percentage of qualified teachers. 

The FSM continued to struggle with low student achievement, discouraging student drop-out 

rates, and problematic teacher attendance. . 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-64

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$52,000 $52,000 0

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Centers program is authorized to fund not fewer than 20 Comprehensive 

Centers, including regional centers and content centers, that provide training, technical 

assistance, and professional development to build State capacity to provide high-quality 

education for all students, particularly those in struggling local educational agencies (LEAs) and 

schools. Centers provide support to State educational agencies (SEAs), and through them, to 

LEAs and schools. The Comprehensive Centers are part of a Department technical assistance 

network that includes the Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs), the What Works 

Clearinghouse, Equity Assistance Centers, Office of Special Education Program-funded 

technical assistance centers, and other program-specific centers designed to provide support to 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools.

The statute requires that the Department fund a minimum of 10 regional centers. The program 

currently supports 19 regional centers and 1 national center that received 5-year grants in 

2019. The regional centers provide broad assistance to SEAs in their assigned States, following 

annual State service plans developed in consultation with each State’s Chief State School 

Officer. The national center develops an annual service plan in consultation with the Department 

and the regional centers. The national service plan takes into account challenges identified in 

the regional centers’ State service plans, Department monitoring and audit findings, and 

emerging national education trends. The national center also maintains the Comprehensive 

Center website and disseminates information to a wide variety of education stakeholders, 

including parents. Information on the new Centers is available at 

https://www.compcenternetwork.org/. The program also supports one content center, first 

funded in 2016, that focuses on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a 

disability. This center is up for competitive renewal in 2021.

Each regional Center serves a specific set of States, as shown in Figure 1.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-65

Figure 1. Regional Comprehensive Centers

The Education Technical Assistance Act (ETAA) does not authorize the Comprehensive 

Centers to provide direct support to the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). However, 

appropriations language in fiscal years 2017 through 2021 directed the Department to ensure 

that BIE has access to services from the Comprehensive Centers. The Department addressed 

this language in the 2019 competition by identifying Region 13 to support the BIE and budgeting 

$400,000 annually for the work.

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 to determine the extent to which each 

center meets its objectives. The evaluation of the 2019 Centers began in September 2020 and 

is scheduled for completion in September 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-66

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2017............................................................................ $50,000

2018.............................................................................. 52,000

2019.............................................................................. 52,000

2020.............................................................................. 52,000

2021.............................................................................. 52,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2022, the Administration requests $52.0 million for the Comprehensive Centers 

program, level with the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. All funds would be used for continuation 

costs of the 19 Regional Centers, the National Center, and the center for students at risk of not 

attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

Regional Centers provide intensive capacity-building services to help SEAs and other recipients 

identify, implement, and sustain effective evidence-based practices that improve instruction and 

student outcomes. The National Center provides universal and targeted capacity-building 

services to address common high-leverage problems and common programmatic monitoring 

and audit findings, as well as information on emerging national education issues. The Centers’ 

work has taken on additional meaning during the COVID-19 crisis, and Centers were 

successfully pivoted to provide services to help SEAs and LEAs adapt to difficult and changing 

situations, revising their service plans on an on-going basis to address changing needs. Centers 

raised awareness of existing resources and services, provided information to SEAs to inform 

their resource allocation decisions in ways that would support educational equity, improved 

literacy instruction, and the educator workforce. As needed, Regional Centers are helping SEAs 

identify how to integrate stimulus funding into ESEA plans.

Examples of recent and ongoing Center work include:

• Regions 1 and 9 are creating a community of practice to support districts across six states—

Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont—as they assess the 

quality of remote or hybrid teaching models, focusing initially on student and parent 

engagement, and teacher working conditions.

• The Region 14 Center is working to improve underserved students’ access to effective 

educators by identifying and developing resources for the Texas SEA and its education 

service centers (ESCs).

• The Region 16 Center partnered with REL Northwest to host a 6-part series targeted to 

teachers in Alaska on teaching K-3 students to read remotely. Participants had the option of 

earning University of Alaska Anchorage credit for the series. (https://aklearns.org/teachingearly-literacy-remotely/)
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-67

A collaborative project between the Regions 2, 13, and 15 Centers supports a virtual, crossstate meeting among SEA staff to develop the periodic resource allocation review required by 

the Every Student Succeeds Act.

The budget for fiscal year 2022 requests continuation of appropriations language that permits 

the provision of direct support to the BIE, allowing services for schools that are often in great 

need of assistance.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Funding for new grant awards 0 $1,475 0

Funding for continuation grant awards funding $50,534 50,026 $52,000

Evaluation funding 1,466 474 0

Peer review of new award applications funding 0 25 _____0

Total funding 52,000 52,000 52,000

Number of New Grant Awards 0 1 0

Average New Grant Awardfunding ─ $1,475 ─

Number of Continuation Grant Awards 21 20 21

Average Continuation Grant Awardfunding $2,406 $2,452 $2,405

Range of Continuation Grant Awards $1,000−$6,270 $1,000−$6,270 $1,000−$6,270

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

served by the program. Targets will be set after 2 years of baseline data are available.

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

for the Comprehensive Centers for possible revision in future years to ensure alignment with 

Administration policy.

The Comprehensive Centers measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers and are reported in grantees’ Annual 

Performance Reports (APRs) and Annual Evaluation Reports (AERs). Each Center has 

developed a methodology for reporting, which is described in its APR. Methodologies differ 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-68

slightly across the 20 Comprehensive Centers. The data available at this time and reported for 

2020 below are for the first 7 months of the new grantees’ performance (October 1, 2019 

through April 30, 2020). Targets will be set once 2 years of data are available.

Goal: To improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve 

the quality of instruction under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESEA).

Objective: To improve the quality of Comprehensive Center services.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Center Clients are satisfied with the quality, 

usefulness, and relevance of services provided.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline 91%

2021 Baseline

2022

Additional information: Fifteen of the 20 Centers provided 2020 data for this measure and 

were included in the calculation, which showed that 91 percent of clients were satisfied with 

services. Five grantees submitted partial or no data and reported that they were in the process 

of collecting baseline data since this was the first year of the grant and client satisfaction had 

not been assessed for several service projects that were in the initial phase of program 

implementation. The Department has established a Center evaluation workgroup to help 

standardize reporting on this measure. Data for the first 7 months of the second year of the 

grant will be available in the summer of 2021. Data for the remaining portion of the year will be 

available in the year 2 report due December 30, 2021.

Objective: To maximize the impact of public funds and make the work of the Comprehensive 

Centers Program available to as many REAs, SEAs, LEAs, and schools in need of support as 

possible.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide 

range of recipients.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline 89%

2021 Baseline

2022

Additional information: Data from 11 centers are included in the calculation of this measure. 

Nine grantees submitted partial or no data and reported that they are in the process of collecting 

baseline data and determining targets, since this was the first year of the grant and a number of 

service projects were in the start up phase of program implementation. Across the 11 Centers 

that provided data, 89% (74/83) of technical assistance recipients reported receiving services as 

planned.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-69

Objective: To improve the implementation of capacity building services provided by the 

Comprehensive Centers Program.

Measure: The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity-building 

services were implemented as intended.

Year Target Actual

2020 Baseline 73%

2021 Baseline

2022

Additional information: Data from the 14 centers are included in the calculation of this 

measure, which shows that 73 percent of planned milestones were completed. Six grantees 

submitted partial or no data and reported that they are in the process of collecting baseline data 

and determining targets, as this was the first year of new project implementation.

No data are available for a fourth measure for the program: the extent to which Comprehensive 

Centers demonstrate recipient outcomes were met. The Center evaluation workgroup is 

establishing standard data collection tools and resources for this measure.

OTHER PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Institute of Education Sciences began a descriptive study of the Comprehensive Centers in 

December 2020 that is examining the delivery and usefulness of the Centers' technical 

assistance. Study questions include:

• What key educational problems are the Comprehensive Centers addressing?

• What capacity-building services are Comprehensive Centers providing and what types of 

capacity are these services designed to increase?

• What are the successes and challenges of program changes, including the shift in the 

number and geographic reach of the centers and new requirements to increase 

collaboration with the Department's Regional Educational Laboratories?

• How can the outcome of the Comprehensive Centers — improving SEA and LEA capacity 

— be measured accurately, validly, and reliably?

The study will be based on document reviews, surveys and interviews of SEA and LEA staff, 

and interviews with Comprehensive Center and REL project directors, and will examine ways in 

which the pandemic altered plans for the first years of the grant. The study team will develop 

measures of SEA capacity by reviewing existing survey and assessment items that gauge 

similar concepts, interviewing stakeholders, and conducting pilot testing with SEA and district 

stakeholders. The study is scheduled to end in September 2022.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-70

Student support and academic enrichment grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

$1,220,000 $1,220,000 0

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 and improve school conditions and 

use of technology.

The Department allocates program funds to States by formula based on each State’s share of 

funds received under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (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 subgrants 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 (i.e., shares of Title I, Part A funds), 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 formula allocations of $30,000 or more must conduct a comprehensive needs 

assessment and use not less than 20 percent of their allocations for activities to support wellrounded educational opportunities, not less than 20 percent for activities to support safe and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-71

healthy students, and a portion to support the effective use of technology.1 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 Title I formula children, schools that are identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement 

plans, or schools that are identified as persistently dangerous schools. LEAs may 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: 

providing college and career counseling, including financial literacy activities; promoting student 

engagement and success through music and the arts; 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 and address bullying and 

harassment; mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; highquality 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. In these areas, LEAs may use funds to 

implement pay for success initiatives (i.e., performance-based agreements under which, among 

other things, payments are made only after achievement of outcomes).

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 student learning; building technological capacity 

and infrastructure, including by procuring content and purchasing devices, equipment, and 

software; providing specialized or rigorous technology-based academic courses; carrying out 

projects blending classroom and technology-based 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. Of funds supporting the effective use of technology, LEAs 

may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology infrastructure.2

1 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department waived the needs assessment and content-area spending 

requirements for all SEAs (on behalf of their LEAs) for school year 2019-2020 and for the majority of SEAs for school 

year 2020-2021.

2 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department waived the technology infrastructure spending limitation for all 

SEAs (on behalf of their LEAs) for school year 2019-2020 and for the majority of SEAs for school year 2020-2021.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-72

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 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)

2017 ........................................ ................................. $400,000

2018 ........................................ ................................ 1,100,000

2019 ........................................ ................................ 1,170,000

2020 ........................................ ................................ 1,210,000

2021 ........................................ ................................ 1,220,000

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1.22 billion for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 

for fiscal year 2022, the same as the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The request supports the 

Administration’s goal of ensuring equity in access to educational opportunity for all students, 

particularly those attending high-poverty or persistently underperforming schools, which receive 

priority for service under the program statute.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants provide resources for improving student 

opportunities and outcomes that can be used flexibly in response to locally identified needs. 

Funds can be used for a range of activities that promote equity in access to well-rounded 

educational opportunities, safe and healthy learning environments, and effective use of 

technology in the classroom.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-73

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020 2021 2022

Amount to States $1,167,831 $1,177,483 $1,177,483

Range of State awards 5,839–144,762 5,887–144,452 5,887–145,438

Average State award 22,458 22,644 22,644

Amount to Outlying Areas 6,020 6,070 6,070

Amount to BIE 6,020 6,070 6,070

Technical assistance and 

capacity building 24,079 24,278 24,278

Evaluation 6,050 6,100 6,100

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

including Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department reserved $6,050 thousand from Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants for 

pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2020 and expects to reserve funds for this purpose in fiscal years 2021 and 2022.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measurement

The Department collects performance information for Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants primarily through the annual Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR) and descriptive implementation studies.

Consolidated State Performance Reports

Consistent with the program statute’s public reporting requirements for States and LEAs, the 

Department collects State-aggregate data on LEA uses of funds through the CSPR. 

Specifically, the Department collects data on the percentage of funds spent by LEAs in each of 

the three program content areas and the percentage of LEAs spending funds in each area. 

Available data from the school year 2018-2019 CSPR that meet quality-control checks are 

provided in the tables below; data from the school year 2019-2020 CSPR are expected to be 

available in fall 2021. The Department is providing technical assistance to States to improve 

their data collection and reporting capabilities. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-74

Content Area Percent of Funds Spent in 2018-2019 

School Year

Well-Rounded Education 49%

Safe and Healthy Students 38%

Effective Use of Technology 13%

Additional Information: Data are from 38 of 52 States (including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico) and roughly track findings on use of funds in the 2018-2019 school year from the 

“first-look” implementation study described below.

Content Area Percent of LEAs Spending Funds in 2018-

2019 School Year

Well-Rounded Education 70%

Safe and Healthy Students 64%

Effective Use of Technology 47%

Additional Information: Data are from 32 of 52 States and roughly track findings on use of 

funds in the 2018-2019 school year from the “first-look” implementation study described below. 

“First-Look” Implementation Study

The Department has also collected information on use of funds in school year 2018-2019 based 

on State analyses of LEA applications for fiscal year 2018 program funding, as well as other 

basic program information. Key findings from this contractor-supported study, released in 

February 2020,1 include the following:

• Less than one-third (31 percent) of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 formula allocation 

received at least $30,000.

• Most LEAs (74 percent) retained at least some of their fiscal year 2018 funds for use under 

the program, as opposed to transferring their entire allocation to other ESEA programs, as 

permitted under statute.

• On average, LEAs that retained fiscal year 2018 funds spent an estimated 44 percent of the 

funds for well-rounded educational opportunities, 41 percent of funds to support safe and 

healthy students, and 14 percent on the effective use of technology.

• An estimated 73 percent of LEAs used funds to support well-rounded educational 

opportunities, 70 percent used funds to support safe and healthy students, and 53 percent 

to support the effective use of technology. 

1 See https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-first-look-2020.pdf.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-75

• Two percent of LEAs receiving a fiscal year 2018 allocation operated in consortia.

Formal Implementation Study

In addition, the Department is conducting a formal implementation study that will examine local 

uses of funds, State-level program activities, and other aspects of local implementation (e.g., 

how LEAs conduct comprehensive needs assessments and use them in deciding how to spend 

program funds). The study will consist of surveys of State program coordinators in all States, a 

nationally representative survey of LEAs, and, likely, site visits to a select number of LEAs to 

collect in-depth program implementation information. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 

Department now plans to initiate data collection in spring 2022 (covering the use of funds during 

school year 2021-2022), with a descriptive report expected in early 2023. Additional study 

products are under consideration.

Other Performance Information

Technical Assistance and Capacity Building

In fiscal year 2021, the Department is using funds reserved for technical assistance and 

capacity building under Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, including remaining 

fiscal year 2020 funds available for these purposes (approximately $23 million) and a portion of 

available fiscal year 2021 funds (approximately $3 million), to continue the following actions 

initiated in prior years:

• A program technical assistance center providing general resources as well as customized 

technical assistance to States to increase their capacity to assist LEAs in carrying out

program activities, including through a network of subject matter experts who can help 

identify activities and interventions across the program content areas that are evidencebased and can be incorporated into broader school improvement efforts ($3.2 million).

• A center focused on building the capacity of States and LEAs to promote a well-rounded 

education by implementing evidence-based practices and programs in social and emotional 

learning ($1 million).

• A technical assistance provider assisting LEAs that seek to use Title IV-A funds to improve 

school conditions for student learning by implementing positive behavioral interventions and 

supports frameworks ($750,000).

• A national center for disseminating evidence-based practices in addressing chronic 

absenteeism, including analysis of attendance data and activities to improve student 

engagement ($600,000).

• Technical assistance to States and LEAs in implementing human trafficking prevention

activities ($250,000).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-76

• Maintenance of the schoolhealth.ed.gov website, which provides a single point of access to 

resources from Federal partner agencies for successful implementation of activities to 

address the physical and mental health of students and promote healthy school 

environments ($100,000).

• Awards under the Trauma Recovery Demonstration Grants program, which supports model 

programs that enable low-income students who have experienced trauma to seek traumaspecific mental-health services from the provider that best meets the student’s needs, as 

well as technical assistance to award recipients ($6.6 million).

• Awards under the Expanding Access to Well-Rounded Courses Demonstration Grants

program, which supports State efforts to provide well-rounded educational opportunities 

through model course-access programs, as well as technical assistance to award recipients 

($11.4 million).

• Awards under the Well-Rounded Education Through Student-Centered Funding 

Demonstration Grants program, which supports LEA efforts to provide well-rounded 

educational opportunities through the development and implementation of student-centered 

funding systems based on weighted per-pupil allocations under section 1501 of the ESEA 

($1.1 million).

• School crime and safety surveys administered or supported by the National Center for 

Education Statistics, including the School Survey on Crime and Safety, a survey of public 

school principals, and the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization 

Survey, a survey of students ages 12 through 18 ($850,000).

Support for Efforts to Combat Chronic Absenteeism

The Department has supported efforts to combat chronic absenteeism primarily through two 

technical assistance centers: the currently operating Student Engagement and Attendance 

Center1 funded under Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and the predecessor 

National Student Attendance, Engagement and Success Center,2 which operated from 2016 to 

2018 with support from the former School Improvement Grants program.

The National Student Attendance, Engagement and Success Center supported a variety of 

State and local activities to combat chronic absence and keep students on track for on-time high 

school graduation, with a particular focus on two critical topics: warning systems that use 

attendance and academic indicators to provide early identification of students at risk for 

academic failure or dropping out of school, and school-based mentoring to detect and address 

the causes of student chronic absence.

1 See https://sites.ed.gov/nsaesc. 2 See https://oese.ed.gov/student-engagement-and-attendance-technical-assistance-sea-center/, 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Student support and academic enrichment grants

C-77

The center also provided links to research on chronic absenteeism, including chronic absence 

rates by grade and student characteristics. The research findings, relying in part on data from 

the Department’s Civil Right Data Collection, indicate that chronic absenteeism begins in the 

early elementary grades, diminishes in the later elementary grades, and then accelerates 

throughout middle and high school. Findings also suggest that chronic absenteeism 

disproportionately affects students from low-income backgrounds and students with disabilities.1

Building on the work of its predecessor using an assessment of current needs, the Student 

Engagement and Attendance Center is primarily engaged in supporting State and local activities 

in two topical areas: improving the collection, analysis, and understanding of student attendance 

data; and providing supports for improving attendance and engagement, including expanded 

use of social and emotional learning practices. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 

center is additionally providing resources to assist States and LEAs in monitoring and promoting 

attendance and engagement in virtual learning settings and in re-engaging students as they 

continue to return to in-person instruction.

1 See https://sites.ed.gov/nsaesc/resources/#Research.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-78

School-Based Health Professionals

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: To be determined.

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

0 $1,000,000 +$1,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed School-Based Health Professionals (SBHP) program would provide formula 

grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), which would then make formula grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) with high rates of poverty to support the goal of doubling the 

number of health professionals in our public schools, including school counselors, nurses, 

school psychologists, and social workers. 

Funds would be allocated to SEAs on the basis of shares of funding received under Title I, 

Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the preceding fiscal year. 

SEAs would be permitted to reserve up to 15 percent of their allocations to address shortages of 

health professionals by establishing partnerships with institutions of higher education to recruit, 

prepare, and place graduate students in school-based health fields in high-need LEAs and to 

complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training as applicable for the 

degree, license, or credential program of each health-based candidate. SEAs also may use a 

portion of these funds for review and revision of State licensure standards to promote mobility of 

health professionals into school settings.

SEAs would award at least 80 percent of their allocations to LEAs based on Title I shares. 

LEAs would give priority to Title I eligible schools and must demonstrate that funds are used to 

close gaps in ratios of students to health professionals that substantially exceed the

recommended ratios for student-to-school counselor, student-to-social worker, or student-tonurse.1 Funds would be used to pay recruitment costs, salaries, retention efforts such as 

additional supports, and related personnel costs.

SEAs would be required to provide a 25 percent non-Federal match for grants received under 

the SBHP program; the SEA match would be used only for subgrants to LEAs. LEAs also 

1 The American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio 250:1; the National Association of 

Social Workers also calls for a ratio of 250:1; the National Association of School Nurses recommends 

750:1; and the National Associations of School Psychologists recommends an overall ratio of 1000:1.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

C-79

would be required to provide a 25 percent match for their formula awards, and may use up to 

20 percent of funds received under Part A of Titles I, II, and IV of the ESEA, as well as any 

portion of funds received under the American Rescue Plan, for this purpose. SEAs would be 

permitted to waive the matching requirement for high-poverty LEAs that demonstrate a need for 

such a waiver.

SEAs also would be permitted to reserve up to 5 percent of their allocations for administration, 

technical assistance, and identification and dissemination of evidence-based practices related to 

meeting students’ social, emotional, and mental health needs.

One-half of one percent of SBHP appropriations would be reserved for the Bureau of Indian 

Education at the Department of the Interior and one-half of one percent would be reserved for 

the Outlying Areas (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1 billion in first-time funding for the proposed School-Based 

Health Professionals (SBHP) program in fiscal year 2022, consistent with President Biden’s 

commitment to double the number of school counselors, nurses, social workers, and school 

psychologists in LEAs and schools over the next decade. The request also reflects the growing 

recognition of trauma and stress encountered by students in our public schools, particularly 

students from low-income backgrounds and living in communities of concentrated poverty that 

can have a negative impact on the educational opportunities and supports students receive. 

This recognition was driven in part by the significant number of large-scale natural disasters 

over the past five years, such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria in 2017 and catastrophic 

wildfires in California, as well as the regular gun violence that occurs surrounding school 

grounds in low-income communities and communities of color, as recently reported in 2020 by 

the Government Accountability Office.1 More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic caused 

nationwide disruption of our education system, along with significant economic dislocation, that 

experts believe has taken an unprecedented toll on the mental health and well-being of students 

and families alike. In addition, the compounded daily effects of racial injustice can have a 

negative impact on the social, emotional, and mental health of many students. Research shows 

that school-based access to health professionals can help identify and mitigate the impacts of 

these experiences. 

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP Act) of 2021, and in particular the ARP Act’s $122 billion 

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund, will provide resources that can be 

used to meet short-term student social, emotional, and mental health needs. However, there 

continues to be a critical gap between the number of school-based health service providers 

needed to provide daily supports that encompass social and emotional learning, mental

wellness, and positive connections between students and adults and the number of such 

providers currently serving in our schools, particularly in high-poverty LEAs and schools. The 

1 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-455.pdf. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

C-80

SBHP program is designed to help bridge that gap by providing formula-based funding to SEAs 

and LEAs dedicated to paying the salaries and related personnel costs of additional schoolbased health professionals.

The SBHP proposal also recognizes the importance of building the pipeline of providers to 

address longstanding shortages of school-based health professionals, particularly in high-need 

LEAs and schools, including LEAs and schools in rural and geographically isolated areas. The 

proposal would address this concern by allowing SEAs to reserve up to 15 percent of their 

allocations to create partnerships with institutions of higher education focused on increasing the 

number of graduates in school-based health fields.

The impact of the SBHP program would be enhanced by a dual matching requirement, with 

SEAs required to provide a 25-percent non-Federal match of program funds and LEAs subject 

to a similar 25-percent match, which could be paid with other Federal education funds, 

specifically funds received under Part A of Titles I, II, and IV of the ESEA, as well as funds 

received under the American Rescue Plan. The Administration believes that leveraging funds 

received under these ESEA authorities to support SBHP activities is consistent with the 

purposes of those authorities and can help to sustain these efforts. The SEA match would be 

used only for subgrants to LEAs.

The Administration estimates that the $1 billion requested for the program, together with State 

and local matching funds, would allow LEAs to hire an additional 21,000 school counselors, 

nurses, social workers, and school psychologists.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022

Amount for grants $1,000,000

Range of awards $643–$123,016

Number of awards 57

Amount available to hire school-based health 

professionals, including State and local 

matching funds $1,250,000

Total estimated number of school-based health 

professionals hired during initial program 

implementation 20,833

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department anticipates developing GPRA performances measures for the SBHP program 

similar to those initially proposed for the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

School-based health professionals

C-81

launched in fiscal year 2020 under School Safety National Activities in the Safe Schools and 

Citizenship Education account. These measures include the number of school-based health 

service providers recruited, the number of school-based health service providers retained, the

reduction in the ratio of students to health service providers for high-need LEAs, and the 

reduction in the annual attrition rate of school-based health service providers for high-need 

LEAs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-82

Climate Resilient Schools

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2022 Authorization: Proposed legislation.

Budget Authority: 

2021

Appropriation

2022 

Request

Change from

2021 to 2022

0 $25,000 +$25,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Too many of our Nation’s students—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds—attend 

school in outdated buildings that are unhealthy or unsafe. If America is to achieve equity in 

educational opportunity and close persistent achievement gaps, we must modernize our public 

school facilities, particularly in high-poverty school districts. President Biden’s American Jobs 

Plan would invest $100 billion to upgrade and build new public schools through $50 billion in 

direct grants and an additional $50 billion in bond incentives. These funds would help make sure 

our schools are safe and healthy places of teaching and learning for our kids, teachers and 

other education professionals through, for example, improved indoor air quality and ventilation 

and innovative, climate resilient design features, including energy efficiency improvements that 

reduce greenhouse emissions.

The proposed Climate Resilient Schools program would help maximize the impact of the 

American Jobs Plan investment in modernizing our public schools by supporting local efforts to 

identify or develop, and disseminate, promising practices for improving the facilities of schools 

serving students in preschool through grade 12. The Department would make competitive 

Climate Resilient Schools grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) in partnership with 

entities with expertise in safe, healthy, or green building design or construction. Priority for 

grants, which would be for a period of up to three years, would be given to LEAs that serve 

concentrations of students from low-income backgrounds. The Department would ensure that 

projects benefit rural and urban schools and reflect the needs and circumstances of climatediverse geographic areas. 

Climate Resilient Schools funds would support promising practices in creating safe and healthy 

places of learning and gathering, especially during emergencies, and in equipping school 

buildings with innovative, energy-efficient and pollution reducing technology, including through 

the development of model school facility modernization plans. Grantees could pursue promising 

practices in such areas as: thoughtful site selection, heat island reduction and increased green 

space, durable construction materials, improving indoor air quality, ventilation, advanced HVAC 

retrofits and controls, ensuring access to potable water and rainwater/greywater collection and 

reuse, grid islanding and on-site renewable energy generation, and employing cutting-edge 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Climate resilient schools

C-83

technology in labs, kitchens and classrooms. Grantees would conduct robust activities to 

disseminate information in their chosen areas. 

The Department would reserve funds for national activities, with a focus on providing technical 

assistance to grantees and amplifying their information dissemination efforts. In addition, funds 

would support a clearinghouse for information across Federal agencies and funding 

opportunities to assist LEAs in developing and financing energy-efficient modernization projects. 

The Department would work with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of 

Energy and Labor, and the Centers for Disease Control to develop a one-stop shop for 

resources on healthy, green building practices and climate resiliency design, including on how 

to braid funds from partner agencies with funds available under the American Jobs Plan.

FY 2022 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $25 million in fiscal year 2022 for a new Climate Resilient Schools 

program, which would be authorized through appropriations language. Funds would support 

approximately 30 projects spreading promising practices on critical topics in upgrading school 

facilities.

In its 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers 

gave our Nation’s public-school infrastructure a D+ grade.1 Such a result is clearly 

unacceptable; moreover, it indicates that efforts to provide all students with equitable access to 

educational opportunity will remain hindered by the poor quality of school facilities absent 

action. To tackle this issue while also providing good-paying jobs for America’s workers, the 

Administration’s American Jobs Plan includes $100 billion for a multi-year national effort to 

modernize our schools. Climate Resilient Schools grants would help launch this effort, providing 

guides to LEAs for the effective use of infrastructure funds in building and renovating schools 

that are safe, healthy, and friendly to the environment.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022

Amount for new awards $22,250

Number of new awards 30

Peer review of new award applications $250

National activities $2,500

1 See https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/schools/. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Climate resilient schools

C-84

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish performance measures to assess the impact of the activities that 

receive support under this program, based in part on the goals established by grantees. The 

development of these measures would build on our experience in creating performance 

measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to align program measures 

for Climate Resilient Schools with measures for related programs

State tables