Department of Education

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Fiscal Year 2020 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 2019 Appropriations Reports...............................................................C-9

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................C-10

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants.....................................................................C-12

21st Century community learning centers .........................................................................C-19

State assessments ...........................................................................................................C-26

Education for homeless children and youths.....................................................................C-31

Native Hawaiian education ...............................................................................................C-36

Alaska Native education ...................................................................................................C-40

Training and advisory services .........................................................................................C-43

Rural education ................................................................................................................C-49

Supplemental education grants ........................................................................................C-55

Comprehensive centers....................................................................................................C-58

Student support and academic enrichment grants ............................................................C-64

State Table*

State tables reflecting final 2018 allocations and 2019 and 2020 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, and [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, [$5,246,967,000] $675,614,000, of which [$3,418,402,000] 

$652,340,000 shall become available on July 1, [ 2019 ]2020, and remain available through 

September 30, [ 2020] 2021 [, and of which $1,681,441,000 shall become available on October 

1, 2019, and shall remain available through September 30, 2020, for academic year 2019–

2020]

1

: Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be for part B of title I

2

: [Provided further, 

That $1,221,673,000 shall be for part B of title IV3: Provided further, That $36,397,000 shall be 

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

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

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

Native Hawaiian student body4: Provided further, That $35,453,000 shall be for part C of title VI 

and shall be awarded on a competitive basis, and also may be used for construction5: 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:6] Provided further, That $16,699,000 shall be available to 

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

and the Republic of the Marshall Islands7: 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 grants8: Provided further, That $180,840,000 shall be for part B of 
C-2

title V9[: Provided further, That $1,170,000,000 shall be available for grants under subpart 1 of 

part A of title IV]

10

. (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)

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 [$3,418,402,000] 

$652,340,000 shall become available on July 

1, [ 2019 ]2020, and remain available through 

September 30, [ 2020] 2021 [, and of 

which $1,681,441,000 shall become 

available on October 1, 2019, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2020, for academic year 2019–2020]

1

:

This language provides for a portion of funds 

to be appropriated on a forward-funded basis 

for State Assessments, Education for 

Homeless Children and Youths, and Rural 

Education. This language also provides that 

a portion of funds for Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants is available on an 

advance-funded basis. The advance-funded 

language is deleted because no funding is 

requested for the Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants program.

2...Provided, That $378,000,000 shall be for 

part B of title I:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Grants for State Assessments Grants and 

Competitive Grants for State Assessments

3

[Provided further, That $1,221,673,000 shall 

be for part B of title IV

This language specifies the funding level for 

21st Century community learning centers. It 

is deleted because no funding is requested 

for this program.

4

[Provided further, That $36,397,000 shall be 

for part B of title VI and may be used for 

construction, renovation, and modernization 

of any elementary school, secondary school, 

or structure related to an elementary school 

or secondary school, run by the Department 

of Education of the State of Hawaii, that 

serves a predominantly Native Hawaiian 

student body:]

This language specifies the funding level for

the Native Hawaiian education program and 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

school construction, renovation, and 

modernization. It is deleted because no 

funding is requested for this program.

5 [Provided further, That $35,453,000 shall be 

for part C of title VI and shall be awarded on 

a competitive basis, and also may be used 

for construction:]

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Alaska Native education program and 

authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 

construction. It is deleted because no funding 

is requested for this program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes 

C-4

Language Provision Explanation

6 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. It is deleted because no 

funding is requested for this program.

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

available to carry out the Supplemental 

Education Grants program for the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands:

This language specifies the funding level for 

Supplemental Education Grants to the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands

8 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.

9 Provided further, That $180,840,000 shall 

be for part B of title V.

This language specifies the funding level for 

the Rural Education Achievement Program

and overrides the authorization level.

10 [: Provided further, 

That $1,170,000,000 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. It is deleted 

because no funding is requested for this 

program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation.......................................................... $5,158,467 $5,246,967 $675,614

Total, discretionary appropriation....................... 5,158,467 5,246,967 675,614

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority ....................................... 5,158,467 5,246,967 2,357,055
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2019 ................................................................................................ $5,246,967

2020.................................................................................................. 675,614

Net change............................................................... -4,571,353

Decreases: 2019 base

Change

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction 

State grants because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. $2,055,830 -$2,055,830

Eliminate funding for the 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers program because it duplicates activities that may 

be supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. 1,221,673 -1,221,673

Eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Education 

program because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, 

local, and private funding. 36,397 -36,397

Eliminate funding for the Alaska Native Education program

because it duplicates activities that may be supported by 

other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private 

funding. 35,453 -35,453

Eliminate funding for the Comprehensive Centers program 

because funding from other programs, such as Title I

Grants to Local Educational Agencies, can be used for 

similar services. 52,000 -52,000

Eliminate funding for the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program because it duplicates activities 

that may be supported by other Federal programs as well 

as State, local, and private funding. 1,170,000 -1,170,000

Subtotal, decreases -4,571,353

Net change -4,571,353
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2019

Authorized

footnote

2019

Estimate

footnote

2020

Authorized

footnote

2020

Request

footnote

Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA IIA) $2,295,830 $2,055,830 $2,295,830 0

21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) 1,100,000 1,221,673 1,100,000 0

State assessments (ESEA I-B, sections 1201-1203) 378,000 378,000 378,000 $378,000

Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA 

Title VII-B) 85,000 93,500 85,000 93,500

Native Hawaiian Education (ESEA VI-B) 32,397 36,397 32,397 0

Alaska Native education equity (ESEA VI-C) 31,453 35,453 31,453 0

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

Rural education (ESEA V-B) 169,8401 180,840 169,8401 180,840

Supplemental education grants (Compact of Free 

Association Act) 21,7792 16,699 21,8652 16,699

Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) 0

3 52,000 03 0

Student support and academic enrichment grants 

(ESEA IV-A-1) 1,600,000 397,284 1,600,000 0

Total definite authorization 5,774,299 5,774,299

Total appropriation 5,246,967 675,614

1 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.

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; no appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2011 $1,890,779 $5,221,4441$5,388,1732 $4,593,8413

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

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

2012 1,664,979 4,332,1024 4,570,145

4 4,544,596

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

2013 1,219,357 4,394,8805 4,544,5965 4,397,391

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

2014 1,075,559 N/A6 4,676,8622 4,397,391

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

2015 966,923 N/A6 4,402,67474,402,671

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

2016 4,693,171 3,500,7208 4,134,7468 4,443,629

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

2017 4,658,409 4,799,91294,177,23994,408,5679

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

2018 697,321 2,369,96410 4,458,567 10 5,158,467

10

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

2019 645,214 5,258,46711 5,291,96711 5,246,96711

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

2020 675,614

(2020 Advance for 2021) (0)

1

The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution.

2

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3

The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 

4

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

Senate Committee action only. 

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10 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).

11 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).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-9C-9

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports

Alaska Native Education

Senate: The Committee continues to direct the Department to ensure that Alaska Native 

tribes, Alaska Native regional non-profits, 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. Further, the Committee continues to direct 

the Department to make every effort to ensure that Alaska Natives and Alaskans 

represent a significant proportion of peer reviewers for grant applications 

submitted under this program.

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.
C-10

Summary of Request

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

 1. Supporting effective instruction State grants (ESEA II-A) 

Annual appropriation D 374,389 374,389 0 (374,389) -100.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 (1,681,441) -100.00%

Subtotal D 2,055,830 2,055,830 0 (2,055,830) -100.00%

 2. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,211,673 1,221,673 0 (1,221,673) -100.00%

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

 4. Education for homeless children and youths (MVHAA Title VII-B) D 85,000 93,500 93,500 0 0.00%

 5. Native Hawaiian education (ESEA VI-B) D 36,397 36,397 0 (36,397) -100.00%

 6. Alaska Native education (ESEA VI-C) D 35,453 35,453 0 (35,453) -100.00%

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

 8. Rural education (ESEA V-B) D 180,840 180,840 180,840 0 0.00%

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

 10. Comprehensive centers (ETAA section 203) D 52,000 52,000 0 (52,000) -100.00%

 11. Student support and academic enrichment grants (ESEA IV-A) D 1,100,000 1,170,000 0 (1,170,000) -100.00%

D 5,158,467 5,246,967 675,614 (4,571,353) -87.12%

Total, Budget authority D 5,158,467 5,246,967 2,357,055 (2,889,912) -55.08%

Current 3,477,026 3,565,526 675,614 (2,889,912) -81.05%

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. 

Total, Appropriation

School Improvement Programs

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-11

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 $675.6 million, the fiscal year 2019 funding 

level, for the following programs in this account:

 $378.0 million for State Assessments to support formula and competitive grants to States 

to develop and implement assessments that are aligned with college- and career-ready 

academic standards to help States continue to administer aligned assessment systems as 

part of their ongoing implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

 $93.5 million for Education for Homeless Children and Youths to provide educational and 

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

school.

 $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.

 $180.8 million for Rural Education to provide resources to rural LEAs and schools that 

often face unique challenges in implementing ESEA.

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

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

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

Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003.

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Native Hawaiian Education, Alaska Native 

Education, Comprehensive Centers, and Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

programs because they duplicate activities that may be supported by other Federal programs as 

well as State, local, and private funding.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-12

Acti viti es:

Summar y of R equest

Activities:

Supporting effective instruction State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $2,295,830

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 2019 2020 Change

Annual appropriation $374,389 0 -$374,389

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

Total 2,055,830 0 -2,055,830

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 low-income and minority students 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 “hold harmless” provision that 

takes into account the amount of money received under two antecedent programs. Prior to the 

2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most funds 

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

harmless” amounts, which were the amounts received by each State in fiscal year 2001 under 

the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants and Class Size Reduction programs.

The reauthorization provides that for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2022, the initial amounts 

based primarily on fiscal year 2001 allocations are reduced by a percentage equal to the 

product of 14.29 percent and the number of years between the fiscal year for which the 

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

reduced by 14.29 percent. For fiscal year 2020, 42.84 percent of the funds will be allocated 

according to the hold-harmless amounts.

A second change to the statutory State allocation formula gradually increases the weighting for 

children from low-income families. In 2017, 35 percent of remaining funds (i.e., after hold 

harmless allocations) were allocated according to States’ relative shares of the population aged 

5 to 17, and 65 percent was based on States’ relative shares of children aged 5 to 17 from lowincome families. The percentage allocated based on poverty increased to 70 percent in 2018 

and to 75 percent in 2019, and in 2020 and future years, the weighting will be 20 percent for all 

children and 80 percent for children from low-income families. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-13C-13

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 onehalf of 1 percent of funding for evaluation.

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

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

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

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

principals and other school leaders. 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 low-income families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs; and training teachers on the appropriate use of student data. 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 low-income schools 

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

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

develop feedback mechanisms to improve school working conditions.

In 2015-16, two-thirds of LEAs reported using at least a portion of their Title II, Part A funds for 

professional development activities for teachers and paraprofessionals and just over one-third 

used funds to reduce class size. (The estimates are based on data from a nationally 

representative sample of 800 school districts. LEAs could use funds for more than one activity, 

so percentages total more than 100.)

7

18

25

35

66

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Professional development activities for...

Initiatives that promote professional...

Professional development activities for...

Hiring highly qualified teachers to...

Professional development activities for...

Percent of LEAs Using Funds for Each Activity in 2015-16
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-14C-14

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 forwardfunded portion.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

2016....................................................... ............................ 2,255,837

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

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

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

NOTE: The 2015 amount includes funds provided to support the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED)

program. Starting in 2016, funds were appropriated separately for the SEED program in the Innovation and 

Improvement account.

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funds for the SEI State Grants program for fiscal year 

2020, a decrease of $2.1 billion from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The SEI State Grants 

program duplicates activities that may be supported with other Federal, State, and local funds; 

has not demonstrated success in contributing to improved teacher effectiveness or student 

outcomes; and makes formula-based allocations to LEAs that often are too small to have a 

meaningful impact on student outcomes.

While the SEI State Grants program authorizes a wide range of activities intended to improve 

instructional quality and school leadership, in school year 2015-2016, the latest year for which 

information is available, 66 percent of districts used funds for professional development for 

teachers and paraprofessionals and 35 percent used funds for class size reduction (52 percent 

and 25 percent, respectively, of funds). An LEA that identifies either activity as a strategy for 

responding to a comprehensive needs assessment may use Title I, Part A funds for the same 

purpose. The Title I, Part A program, funded at nearly $15.9 billion annually, also supports 

locally determined efforts to recruit and retain effective teachers.

The number of districts using funds for class-size reduction has decreased significantly over the 

years; consequently, Title II, Part A funds paid the salaries of an estimated 8,500 teachers in 

school year 2015-2016, or less than one-third of 1 percent of the total nationwide teacher 

workforce of roughly three million teachers. These data suggest that eliminating the program is 

likely to have minimal impact on class sizes or teacher staffing levels in most school districts. 

While complete information on size of the LEA subgrants is not available, based on 2016 data 

for the antecedent Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, the Department estimates 

that over 3,000 subgrant allocations are $10,000 or less, with at least another 3,100 LEAs 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-15C-15

receive between $10,000 and $25,000, too little to implement most authorized activities in a 

meaningful way or, most importantly, to have a measurable impact on student outcomes. 

In addition, while this program initially was authorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 

primarily for the purpose of ensuring that all teachers are highly qualified, program performance

information demonstrates that this goal was met years ago. (To be “highly qualified” under 

NCLB, teachers had to have a bachelor’s degree, full State certification or licensure, and 

demonstrated competency in the subjects they teach.) For example, in 2010, 97 percent of core 

academic elementary classes in high-poverty schools were taught by highly qualified teachers, 

and this percentage stayed roughly the same through 2016, the last year for which performance 

data are available. 

Given the progress demonstrated by these data, as well as the elimination of highly qualified 

teacher requirements under the reauthorized ESEA, the Administration believes there no longer 

is a compelling rationale for a separate formula grant program dedicated solely to teacher 

quality. Rather, to the extent that they can identify effective, evidence-based professional 

development that contributes meaningfully to improved student outcomes (the scarcity of such 

professional development is documented below under “Other Performance Information”), States 

and school districts may use other Federal formula grant funds (e.g., Title I, Part A, and Title III, 

Part A) to support more targeted teacher quality improvement activities in response to local 

needs assessments. In addition, the Budget includes a significant increase for the Education 

Innovation and Research program to support the Administration’s goal of elevating the teaching 

profession—treating teachers like professionals who can identify their own needs and select 

professional development that addresses those needs—and improving teacher quality.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding for State awards $2,025,095 $2,025,095 0

Funding for Outlying Areas $10,228 $10,228 0

Funding for BIE $10,228 $10,228 0

Funding for evaluation $10,279 $10,279 0

Range of State awards $9,790 - $230,384 $9,857 - $229,555 0

Average State award $38,944 $38,944 0

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 

$7,206 thousand in fiscal year 2018 and may reserve funds for this purpose again in fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets for 2020 are presented 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-16C-16

because the Administration is not requesting funds for the program.

The measures established by the Department to assess the performance of the 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 was 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 are:

 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.

Other performance information

Department evaluations related to Title II, Part A have focused on impact studies of activities 

that may be supported with program funds, including professional development, equitable 

access to effective teaching, and teacher retention strategies. Key findings include the following:

 Studies show that professional development has limited impact on student achievement. A 

recent impact evaluation of an intensive elementary school mathematics professional 

development (PD) intervention, which examined the effectiveness of providing PD to fourthgrade teachers to enhance their conceptual understanding of math, found that while the PD 

improved teacher knowledge and led to improvements in teachers’ use and quality of 

explanation in the classroom, there was no difference in student achievement test scores on 

either the State assessment or on a study-administered math test.2 Earlier studies of middle 

school mathematics and elementary reading PD improved teacher knowledge or practice on 

some aspects targeted by the PD but did not translate into improvements in student 

achievement. The study of middle school mathematics PD3, completed in 2011, had an 

impact on at least one of three targeted teacher practices, but did not improve teacher 

knowledge or improve student achievement in the math areas assessed. The study of 

elementary school reading4, released in 2008, examined the impact of a research-based PD 

1

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essafaqstransition62916.pdf

2

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp

3

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathematics.asp

4

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_reading.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-17C-17

intervention for reading instruction and found that teacher knowledge of teaching reading 

improved along with some aspects of instructional practice. However, the PD did not 

improve student achievement in reading. An evaluation brief reviewing these studies1, 

released in 2016, discusses the need for PD models that have a larger impact on teacher 

knowledge and practice or a need to better understand the aspects of teacher knowledge 

and practice that are more closely related to improving student achievement.

 While there are inequities in the distribution of effective teachers, the effects on low-income 

students may be relatively small. The Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching, the 

final report for which was released in 2016, found that, on average, there are small 

differences in the effectiveness of teachers of high- and low-income students and that 

providing low-income students with equally effective teachers would not substantively 

reduce the achievement gap. There were, however, a small number of districts3 out of the 

26 study districtswhere data suggested that providing low-income students with teachers 

who were as effective as the high-income students’ teachers could reduce the math 

achievement gap by about 4 percentile points. (The study identified students as low-income

or high-income based on whether or not they were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch, 

so it was not possible to determine whether there might be differences in teacher 

effectiveness for very low-income students.)

 Incentive programs can attract and retain effective teachers, but only for as long as 

incentives are provided. An impact evaluation of moving high-performing teachers to lowperforming schools showed that financial incentives ($10,000 per year) were successful in 

attracting good teachers to low-performing schools, but once the incentives were 

discontinued, the high-performing teachers left at similar rates to other teachers. The 

transfer incentives had a positive effect on math and reading achievement in the elementary 

grades, and under some circumstances the policy was more cost-effective than a strategy of 

class size reduction. The study found no impact of the transfer incentives in middle schools.

 Most States have adopted laws or regulations related to educator evaluation systems, but 

only a small minority of districts has implemented systems consistent with research. The 

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives study, which began in 2011, released its first 

report, based on data collected during the 20132014 school year, in January 2017.2 The 

report summarizes information collected from States, LEAs, principals, and teachers in three 

core areas: (1) State content standards and assessments, (2) school accountability, and 

(3) teacher and principal evaluation and support. The study found that almost all States 

adopted new laws or regulations related to educator evaluation systems between 2009 and 

2014, and a majority of districts reported full (32 percent of districts) or partial (27 percent of 

districts) implementation in 201314. However, only one out of every five districts 

implemented teacher evaluation systems that were consistent with the best practices 

highlighted by emerging research.

1

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174010/pdf/20174010.pdf

2

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

Supporting effective instruction State grants

C-18C-18

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

that is examining the extent to which novice teachers’ preparation experiences are related to the 

achievement of students in their classrooms.1 This study includes a large sample of novice 

teachers who attended a diverse group of preparation providers. The study collected teachers’ 

reports of their preparation experiences related to 13 instructional topic areas (such as 

classroom management) and information about the types of experiences (ranging from a 

traditional classroom experience to feedback based on their use of a particular strategy). The 

study report, expected in 2019, will look at the relationships between the teachers' experiences 

in their preparation programs and the achievement of students in their classrooms.

1

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_early.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-19

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $1,100,000

Budget Authority: 

FY 2019 FY 2020 Change 

$1,221,673 0 -$1,221,673

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities 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 9,600 centers serving 1.4 million students 

and 286,000 adult family members. In the 2016–17 program year, approximately 771,000, or 

54 percent, of all students served 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 truant, 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 

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, 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-20C-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST 

The request does not include funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

program. While limited evaluation and survey data from certain States and individual centers 

demonstrate benefits from participation, such as improved behavior and classroom grades, 

overall program performance data show that the 21st CCLC program is not achieving the goal of 

helping students, particularly those who attend low-performing schools, meet challenging State 

academic standards. For example, in 2017, only 25 percent of elementary school program 

participants improved from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading 

and only 19 percent of middle and high school program participants made similar gains in 

mathematics. Furthermore, student improvement in academic grades was limited, with States 

reporting higher math and English grades for less than half of “regular program participants,” 

defined as students who attended programs for 30 days or more during a school year. 

Additionally, the last rigorous national evaluation of the program, conducted in 2005, found the 

program had limited academic impact (see 

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf). 

These academic outcomes may be partly explained by the fact that only about half of all student 

participants (771,000 out of 1.4 million, or 55 percent) attended programs for 30 days or more 

during the 2016–17 school year. These data suggest that low participation rates and limited or 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-21C-21

infrequent access to federally funded activities are significant obstacles to program 

effectiveness. 

These data strongly suggest that the 21st CCLC program is not generating the benefits 

commensurate with an annual investment of more than $1.2 billion in Federal education funds. 

The Administration recognizes that many families may value the program as a safe and flexible 

“after care” option for their children; however, this purpose is not consistent with either the 

limited Federal role in education or the current fiscal constraints faced by the Federal 

Government, which requires the Department to give priority to programs more directly focused 

on improving student educational outcomes. Finally, the provision of before- and after-school 

academic enrichment opportunities may be supported with other Federal, State, local, or private 

funds. For example, such activities may be implemented under the $15.9 billion Title I Grants to 

Local Educational Agencies program as part of schoolwide plans created in response to a 

comprehensive local needs assessment focused on helping all students meet challenging State 

academic standards. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding for States awards $1,187,440 $1,197,240 0

SA Range of State awards 5,937–139,213 5,986–148,827 0

SA Average State award 22,835 23,024 0

SA Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) 59,372 59,862 0

SA Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) 23,749 23,945 0

National activities and evaluation 12,117 12,217 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 12,117 12,217 0

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

including the 21st CCLC program, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department 

used this authority to pool $1,851 thousand of evaluation funding from this program in fiscal year 2018 and may 

reserve funds for pooled evaluation in fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-22C-22

efforts invested by those served by this program. The tables below do not have 2020 targets

because the Administration is not requesting funding for this program. 

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

2015 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 49.7% 45.4% 48.0%

2016 40.0 40.0 40.0 48.2 45.5 47.2

2017 40.0 40.0 40.0 51.4 47.6 50.0

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0

2019 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

2015 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 49.6% 46.9% 48.5%

2016 48.5 48.5 48.5 46.7 45.5 46.3

2017 48.5 48.5 48.5 50.0 48.1 49.4

2018 50.0 50.0 50.0

2019 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 54 percent 

of student participants). 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. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-23C-23

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

2015 15.0% 25.0% 28.4% 22.6%

2016 15.0 25.0 25.5 19.1

2017 15.0 25.0 25.4 19.1

2018 30.0 25.0

2019 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 has to have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. 

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

2015 60% 75% 75% 57.5% 55.3% 56.8%

2016 60 75 75 54.7 54.4 54.6

2017 60 75 75 62.2 58.8 60.4

2018 60 60 60

2019 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 developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC program.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

21st Century community learning centers

C-24C-24

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

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2015 95% 98%

2016 95 99

2017 95 98

2018 95

2019 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

2015 35 45

2016 35 90

2017 35 45

2018 35

2019 35

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

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2015 4 17

2016 4 24

2017 4 24

2018 4

2019 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. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down 

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

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

improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants. Changes in 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. 

Other performance information

A 2010 report prepared by the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service, “21st Century 

Community Learning Centers: Descriptive Study of Program Practices,” analyzed data from a 

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

21st Century community learning centers

C-25C-25

implementation.1 The evaluation focused on how, and to what extent, funds support high quality 

programs that emphasize academic content, as well as staffing patterns and other features of 

after-school program implementation that may have an impact on the quality of the 

programming offered. Centers reported that about half of their students attended roughly 2 days 

a week or more. In addition, three-quarters of the centers reported that a typical student 

participated in reading activities (75 percent) and mathematics activities (81 percent) for less 

than 4 hours per week. About half of centers reported offering professional development 

opportunities to staff through training courses or conferences.

A 2005 program evaluation conducted by the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences 

found that there were no differences between treatment group students and control group 

students on most academic outcomes; treatment group students scored no better on reading 

tests than control group students and had similar grades in English, mathematics, science, and 

social studies. This study identified a potentially contributing factor to the lack of academic gains 

resulting from the program: only 53 percent of the treatment group students who continued to 

have access to a 21st CCLC program in year 2 of the evaluation continued to attend a center.2

The Department awarded a contract in fiscal year 2018 to review and revise the GPRA 

measures of the 21st CCLC program, with particular attention to whether one or more measures 

of social-emotional learning is feasible and appropriate. As part of this effort, in early 2019, the 

contractor and the Department are hosting webinars to hear from States, subgrantees, and 

other stakeholders regarding their experiences, challenges, and successes in measuring 

outcomes and what they see as appropriate performance measures of the program. The 

Department plans to work with the Office of Management and Budget to determine revised 

measures later in 2019. 

1

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

2

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-26

State assessments

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $378,000

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$378,000 $378,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

students and meet specific student needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commencement or suspend the administration of State assessments required by the ESEA.

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

of developing the challenging academic standards and high-quality, 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 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- and technology-based assessments or computer adaptive 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-27C-27

assessments to better reflect the kind of complex work students do in an effective classroom 

and the real world. States allocations are $3 million, plus a share of any funds remaining for 

grants under this program based on each State’s share of students ages 5–17.

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 Department has never reserved funds under this 

authority because (1) it would reduce the amount available for State formula grants and 

(2) States already have discretion to use their formula grant funds for assessment audits and 

related activities.

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

any, of appropriations in excess of the trigger amount, makes awards to States or consortia of 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments, computer adaptive assessments, or extended performance task assessments 

that allow for new and improved methods for measuring critical thinking, writing, and 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 may reserve up to 20 percent of funds available for 

Grants for State Assessments to make Assessment System Audit grants. 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-28C-28

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

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $378 million for State Assessments in fiscal year 2020, the same 

as the fiscal year 2019 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 Department does not plan to reserve funds for the separately authorized Assessment 

System Audits 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 systems that each State must establish 

under the ESEA, providing parents and educators with information they need to enable students 

to be successful and make progress towards attainment of State-determined college- and 

career-ready academic standards. State assessments also help identify schools that are 

succeeding and schools where challenges remain in improving academic achievement and 

closing achievement gaps. 

The fiscal year 2020 request will help States continue to administer high-quality assessment 

systems as part of their ongoing implementation of the ESEA. 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, teachers, and parents. States may also use 

funds to develop comprehensive academic assessment instruments such as technology-based 

assessments or computer adaptive assessments. The Department would continue its practice of

not reserving funds for the Assessment System Audit program because States that desire to 

carry out such audits may do so in a more flexible, less prescriptive manner under the regular 

Grants for State 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 2020 competition could include improving assessments for English learners or 

students with disabilities; incorporating multiple measures to assess student academic 

achievement; and using technology to improve the quality of assessment systems while 

reducing their costs.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-29C-29

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Grants for State Assessments:

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

Estimated number of awards 52 52 52

Range of awards $3,307-$28,444 $3,307-$28,444 $3,307-$28,444

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 2 2 2

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

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 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

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

of the State assessments required under Title I of the ESEA. The performance measure is the 

number of States (including DC and PR) that have reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments that align with the State's academic content standards for all students in 

grades 3–8 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 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. 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 in 2018 the final eight States submitted assessments. 

Additionally, States reviewed in 2016 submitted additional evidence based on their peer review 

outcomes in succeeding years (5 in 2017, and 33 in 2018). 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 2018, and also indicate the 

number of States where the outcome is pending. The Department expects to conduct peer 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

State assessments

C-30C-30

reviews in 2019 for all States’ ELP assessments, as well as peer reviews for a number of 

States’ academic assessments.

The number of States with approved assessment systems is lower than might be expected 

because States revise their assessments periodically and must submit for peer review evidence 

that their assessment systems meet statutory requirements every time they make significant 

changes. 

Reading/English Language Arts and Mathematics Assessments

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

School Alternate

Met All 

Requirements 10 8 5

Substantially Met 25 22 19

Partially Met 9 9 5

Does not meet 0 0 2

Pending Outcome 

Notification 6 10 7

Science

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

School Alternate

Met All 

Requirements 1 1 0

Substantially Met 10 10 5

Partially Met 2 5 2

Does not meet 0 0 3

Pending Outcome 

Notification 5 4 3
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-31

Education for homeless children and youths

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $85,000

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$93,500 $93,500 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

children and youth have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education available 

to other children through grants to States to: (1) establish or designate an Office of Coordinator 

of Education of Homeless Children and Youth; (2) develop and carry out a State plan for the 

education of homeless children; and (3) make subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

support the education of those children. 

The 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 homeless 

children, including preschool-aged children, and youth.

Education for Homeless Children and Youths is a forward-funded program. Funds become 

available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain 

available through September 30 of the following year.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-32

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................ .............................$65,042

2016.............................................................. ............................. 70,000

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $93.5 million for fiscal year 2020 for Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths, the same as the fiscal year 2019 level. The request would support 

activities to help reduce and eliminate the barriers to educational success faced by homeless 

children, such as transportation and healthcare needs, and ensure they have access to 

academic services available to other children, including preschool programs, special education, 

gifted and talented programs, and career and technical education. Approximately 1.3 million 

students were identified as homeless in school year 2016-17, of which approximately 16 percent 

were English learners, 18.2 percent were eligible to receive services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, and 8.7 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 homeless students, in particular 

the ESEA’s Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. Title I, for which homeless 

students are automatically eligible, authorizes recipients to provide homeless children and 

youths with services not ordinarily provided to other students, such as supporting LEA liaisons 

for homeless children and youths and providing transportation. The non-regulatory guidance on 

the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program, updated by the Department in 2017, 

included a section on coordinating services with the Title I program, and on July 30, 2018, the 

Department provided additional clarification to States regarding the requirement for LEAs to 

reserve Title I funds to serve homeless students.1 

In addition, the Department plans to use national activities funds to support projects to improve 

educational services and outcomes for homeless youth through the National Center for 

Homeless Education. The Department will also continue to seek opportunities to work with other 

agencies that administer programs that serve homeless family and youth. For example, the 

Department currently is working 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 or training and careers.

1

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

Education for homeless children and youths

C-33

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for State grants $82,570 $90,976 $90,976

Amount for State Gr ants Range of State awards 213–10,564 234–11,340 234–11,340

Amount for State Gr ants Average State award 1,588 1,750 1,750

Amount to BIE 850 935 935

Amount to Outlying Areas 85 94 94

National activities 1,495 1,495 1,495

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 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

The Department adopted four new performance measures for the program in early 2019: (1) the 

percentage of homeless students in grades 3-8 who meet or exceed proficiency on State 

assessments in reading/language arts; (2) the percentage of homeless students in grades 3-8

who meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in mathematics; (3) the percentage of 

homeless students in grades pre-K-12 or 13 who are chronically absent; and (4) the 4-year 

Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate for students experiencing homelessness. The first two new 

measures are focused on the academic achievement of all homeless students in a State, as 

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

performance of homeless students in LEAs receiving subgrants under the program. The 

Department plans to continue collecting and reporting data on the subgrantee measures as well. 

Chronic absenteeism is a measure of the number of students who have missed more than 

10 percent 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 two-thirds of States chose chronic absenteeism as an alternate 

accountability measure under Title I. The adjusted cohort graduation rate will serve as a proxy 

for program performance at the secondary level. The Department expects to start reporting on 

these new measures in 2020.

Goal: To ensure access of homeless children and youth to the same free, appropriate 

public education as is provided to other children and youth.

Objective: Homeless children and youth will have greater access to a free and appropriate 

public education.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Education for homeless children and youths

C-34

Measure: The percentage of assessed homeless students, grades three through eight, who 

meet or exceed proficiency on State assessments in reading and mathematics, as reported by 

LEA subgrantees.

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

2015 73% 27% 73% 23%

2016 77 29 77 24

2017 80 27 80 24

2018 80 80

2019 80 80

2020 80 80

Additional Information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance Reports 

that States submit to the Department. States made changes to their standards and 

assessments systems to comply with the requirements that assessments be based on collegeand career-ready standards by school year 2014-15, resulting in more rigorous assessments. 

The Department is still in the process of reviewing and determining whether those assessments 

meet statutory requirements. Data for 2018 will be available in summer 2019.

Efficiency Measure

The Department has established the following efficiency measure for the program: 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to 

States after monitoring events.

Year Target Actual

2015 40 35.0

2016 40 37.4

2017 40 51.0

2018 40 39.0

2019 40

2020 40

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

In 2017, the Department revised its monitoring instruments and procedures to align them with 

changes to the program from included in the reauthorization. The Department piloted the new 

instrument and procedures with one State in 2017 and continued pilot activities through 2018.

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 homeless students, 

1

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

Education for homeless children and youths

C-35

policies to remove barriers faced by homeless students, and coordination of services to 

homeless students. 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 homeless student enrollment and attendance in school.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-36

Native Hawaiian education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $32,397

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$36,397 0 -$36,397

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)

2015 ............................................................ ...........................$32,397

2016 ............................................................ .............................33,397

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Native Hawaiian Education in fiscal year 2020, 

a reduction of $36.4 million from the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The Administration is 

proposing to eliminate funding for this program because it duplicates activities that may be 

supported by other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private funding. For example, 

school districts in Hawaii may use Title I Grants to LEAs funds to carry out most activities 

authorized under the Native Hawaiian Education program. The elimination of funding for this 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-37

program also will allow the Department to provide stronger support for State formula grant 

programs and streamline the Department’s operations and workforce over time while 

maintaining the fiscal discipline required to meet the President’s deficit reduction goals.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for new awards $7,824 $1,021 0

Number of new awards 13 1 0

Amount for continuation awards $27,923 $34,726 0

Number of continuation awards 26 38 0

Native Hawaiian Education Council $650 $650 0

Peer review of new award applications 0

1 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 2018, but may do so in fiscal year 2019.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2020, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2019 reflect the use of fiscal year 2019 funds to pre-pay continuation costs so as to allow existing 

grantees to complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of 

newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.

1

The Department funded new applications in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 from the fiscal year 2017 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2020 are not included

because funding for this program is proposed for elimination. Performance data for 2018 will be 

available in winter 2019.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-38

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

2015 70% 46%

2016 70 48

2017 70 49

2018 70

2019 70

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

2015 58% 39%

2016 59 40

2017 60 41

2018 60

2019 61

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

2015 32% 25%

2016 35 28

2017 38 28

2018 41

2019 44

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

readiness in literacy.

Year Target Actual

2015 44% 51%

2016 45 52

2017 46 53

2018 47

2019 48

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

measure may not apply to all grantees in a given year. In 2015, this measure applied to two 

grantees. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Native Hawaiian education

C-39

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

2015 80% 83%

2016 81 84

2017 82 85

2018 83

2019 84
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-40

Alaska Native education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $31,453

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$35,453 0 -$35,453

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 activities for educators, the 

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

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

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

programs.

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................ .......................... $31,453

2016............................................................ ............................ 32,453

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Alaska Native Education program in fiscal 

year 2020, a reduction of $35.5 million below the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The 

Administration is proposing to eliminate funding for this program because it duplicates activities 

that may be supported by other Federal programs as well as State, local, and private funding. 

For example, local educational agencies; Indian tribes, including Alaska Native entities; Indian 

organizations; and Indian community-based organizations in Alaska are eligible for the Title VI 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-41

Indian Education Grants to LEAs program, which supports supplemental education services for 

Alaska Native students. Additionally, entities that serve Alaska Native students also are eligible 

for Title VI Indian Education competitive grants, including demonstration grants to support local 

initiatives to meet the specific educational needs of Alaska Native communities. School districts 

in Alaska also may use Title I Grants to LEAs funds to carry out most activities authorized under 

the Alaska Native Education program. Finally, the elimination of funding for this program will 

allow the Department to provide strong support for State formula grant programs and streamline 

the Department’s operations and workforce over time while maintaining the fiscal discipline 

required to meet the President’s deficit reduction goals.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for new awards $14,541 $19,580 0

Number of new awards 20 9 0

Amount for continuation awards $20,912 $15,518 0

Number of continuation awards 21 36 0

Peer review of new award applications 0

1

$355 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 2018, but may do so in fiscal year 2019.

Consistent with the President’s request to eliminate funding for this program in fiscal year 2020, the output measures 

for fiscal year 2019 reflect the use of fiscal year 2019 funds to pre-pay continuation costs so as to allow existing 

grantees to complete their planned projects and/or frontload new grants to pay, to the extent possible, the full costs of 

newly funded projects over the proposed grant period.

1

The Department funded new applications in fiscal year 2018 from the fiscal year 2017 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. Targets for 2020 are not included 

because funding for this program is proposed for elimination. Data for 2017 will be available 

later in 2019.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Alaska Native education

C-42

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

2015 45% 32%

2016 46

2017 47

2018 48

2019 49

Additional Information: The Department has not received data for school year 2015-2016. 

The Department will report this data when it becomes available.

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

2015 54% 49%

2016 55 54

2017 56

2018 57

2019 58

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

2015 54% 3.8%

2016 55 2.9

2017 56

2018 57

2019 58

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-43

Training and advisory services

(Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$6,575 $6,575 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Training and Advisory Services program supports efforts to achieve the intent of Title IV of 

the Civil Rights Act by aiding educators in preparing, adopting, and implementing plans for 

desegregating public schools and solving equity problems related to race, sex, national origin, 

and religion. To carry out those activities, 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.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-44

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 

discipline, bullying and harassment, culturally relevant pedagogy, teacher diversity, the effect of 

poverty on equity and achievement gaps, and instructional practices that reach all students.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................. ............................$6,575

2016............................................................. ..............................6,575

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2020, the Administration requests level funding of $6.6 million for Training and 

Advisory Services. Fiscal year 2020 funds would support the fifth year of the Equity Assistance 

Center awards made in fiscal year 2016.

In fiscal year 2018, the EACs provided targeted and intensive assistance to 40 State 

educational agencies (SEAs), 106 local educational agencies (LEAs), and 217 schools in 

45 States in areas such as creating a positive and safe school climate, improving family 

engagement, increasing teacher diversity, and implementing instructional practices that reach 

all students. EACs also developed new resources on a variety of topics, such as addressing 

health disparities, supporting English learners, and implementing socioeconomic integration 

strategies. Four-fifths of recipients of intensive technical assistance (80 percent) indicated that 

they were satisfied with the services the EACs provided. 

EACs continue to adopt innovative approaches to technical assistance that respond to areas of 

need, including socioeconomic integration and religious discrimination. For example, an EAC 

assisted a State in supporting socioeconomic integration in 25 Title I-focused school districts, 

resulting in increased staff awareness of integration strategies for diverse learners and 

integration plans. An EAC also provided technical assistance to LEA administrators to conduct 

community and family engagement to inform a strategic plan with the purpose of decreasing 

religion and racial discrimination and increase awareness of equity issues. The EACs would 

continue to provide similar services with fiscal year 2020 funds.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-45

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for grant awards $6,545 $6,537 $6,537

Number of awards 4 4 4

Data collection $30 $38 $38

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 results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those requested in FY 2020

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

Except where stated otherwise below, data for the following measures were collected through a 

survey of EAC clients. The survey was conducted, and the results compiled, by the Federal 

Research Division of the Library of Congress, 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.

GPRA Measures

Measure: The percentage of customers reporting an increase in awareness and/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

2020 86

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. Data 

reflect the percentage of respondents who said they did so to a moderate or great extent on at 

least one topic. Results for 2017 are based on 50 of 91 clients served in 2016-17 who 

responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure. Results for 2018 are based 

on 56 of 77 clients served in 2017-18 who responded. 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-46

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 76%

2018 79% 75

2019 78

2020 81

Additional information: Customers were asked if their organization developed, improved, or 

implemented such policies or practices on different topics for which they received assistance. 

Data reflect the percentage of respondents who said they did so on at least one topic. Results 

for 2017 are based on 50 of 91 clients served in 2016-17 who responded to the survey 

questions corresponding to this measure. Results for 2018 are based on 56 of 77 clients served 

in 2017-18 who responded. 

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

2020 77

Additional information: Customers were asked whether their organization 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. Results for 2017 are based on 27 of 91 clients served in 2016-17 who 

responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure. (This suggests that only 

27 clients received services in any of the three areas enumerated in the survey question, with 

this GPRA question applicable only to those clients.) Results for 2018 are based on 56 of 

77 clients served in 2017-18 who responded.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-47

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

2020 97

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. In the 2016-

17 school year, the four EACs reported they received a total of 257 requests for technical 

assistance, of which they accepted 243 (or 95 percent). In the 2017-18 school year, the four 

EACs reported they received a total of 251 requests for technical assistance, of which they 

accepted 241 (or 96 percent). Examples of requests for assistance that were not accepted 

included requests from clients outside the EAC’s geographic regions (in which case the EAC 

referred the requester to the EAC in its region) and requests that were outside the statutory 

desegregation assistance scope of the EACs (such as a request for assistance with a disability 

claim, or with filing a complaint alleging unfair racial discipline of a student, in which case the 

EAC referred the requester to the appropriate agency). 

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

2020 82

Additional information: Data are from EAC grantee annual performance reports. In the 2016-

17 school year, the EACs reported they received a total of 257 requests for technical 

assistance, of which 156 (or 61 percent) were from new (not previously served by the EAC) 

organizations, In the 2017-18 school year, the EACs reported they received a total of 

251 requests for technical assistance, of which 181 (or 72 percent) were from new (not 

previously served by the EAC) organizations. 

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

2020 91
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Training and advisory services

C-48

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. Results for 2017 are based on 47 of 91 clients served in 2016-17 who 

responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure and how many of them 

reported they probably or definitely will do so. Results for 2018 are based on 56 of 77 clients 

served in 2017-18 who responded to the survey questions corresponding to this measure and 

how many of them reported they probably or definitely will do so.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-49

Rural education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $169,840 (1)

Budget Authority:

FY 2019 FY 2020 Change 

$180,840 $180,840 0

1 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, regardless of the LEA’s size. Funds appropriated for REAP are divided equally 

between the SRSA and the RLIS programs. 

REAP is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the 

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

September 30 of the following year.

Small, Rural School Achievement Program (Subpart 1)

To be eligible to receive funds under the SRSA program, an LEA must: (1) have a total average 

daily attendance (ADA) of less than 600 students or serve only schools that are located in 

counties that have a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and (2) serve 

only schools that have a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale code of 

41 (Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 43 (Rural, Remote) or are located in an area of the 

State defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

The Department makes formula allocations directly to eligible LEAs based on the number of 

students in ADA in the schools served by the LEA and the amount the LEA received under 

certain Federal programs in the previous fiscal year. For each eligible LEA, the Department 

calculates an initial allocation that is equal to $20,000 plus $100 for each child in ADA above 50, 

with a maximum initial allocation of $60,000. An LEA’s final allocation is equal to the initial 

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-50

LEAs may use program funds to carry out activities authorized under: (1) Part A of Title I 

(Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies); (2) Part A of Title II 

(Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants); (3) Title III (English Language Acquisition State 

Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants); and 

(5) Part B of Title IV (21st Century Community Learning Centers). 

SRSA-eligible LEAs also may, under an alternative fund use authority (AFUA) previously known 

as “REAP-Flex”, consolidate any and all of its 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 all eligible LEAs. Eligible LEAs must: (1) have a Census 

child-poverty rate of at least 20 percent, and (2) serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 32 (Town, Distant), 33 (Town, Remote), 41 (Rural, Fringe), 42 (Rural, Distant), or 

43 (Rural, Remote). States have the option of allocating funds to eligible LEAs competitively or 

through a formula based on the number of children in ADA in eligible LEAs within the State. 

A State may also use an alternative formula to allocate funds if it can demonstrate that an 

alternative method would better target funds to eligible LEAs that serve the highest 

concentrations of poor students. 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) Title III (English Language Acquisition State Grants); (4) Part A of Title IV (Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants); and (5) parental involvement activities.

Lastly, the Department allocates one half of 1 percent of RLIS funds to the Bureau of Indian 

Education of the Department of the Interior and an equal amount to the Outlying Areas. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

fn

2015 ......................................................... ............................ $169,840

2016 ........................................................... ............................175,840

2017 ........................................................... ............................175,840

2018 ........................................................... ............................180,840

2019 ........................................................... ............................180,840
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-51

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $180.8 million for fiscal year 2020 for the REAP, the same as the 

fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The request would support an average LEA award of 

approximately $23,000 under SRSA and an average LEA subgrant of approximately 

$36,000 under RLIS. The request includes appropriations language that overrides the 

authorized fiscal year 2020 level of $169.8 million.

The fiscal year 2020 request for REAP recognizes the significant obstacles faced by 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 2016 data from the National Center for Education Statistics, 28 percent 

of the Nation’s public schools were located in rural areas, with 19 percent of all public school 

students 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. Rural LEAs often are not able 

to offer their students the same level of access to advanced coursework as other LEAs. In 2009, 

just 32 percent of students graduating high school in rural areas had earned credits in dual 

credit, Advanced Placement, or International Baccalaureate courses, compared to 48 percent of 

city and 44 percent of suburban high school graduates. In addition, because of size and 

location, many small, rural 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 alternative fund use authority gives SRSA-eligible LEAs the 

flexibility to make more effective use of these small allocations by consolidating them. An 

estimated 46 percent of eligible LEAs notified their respective States of their intention to take 

advantage of this authority in school year 2016-17. Yet even when the eligible LEAs consolidate 

their allocations under these programs, some do not have enough money to address the other 

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 2018 2019 2020

Small, rural school achievement(SRSA)

SRSA Total funding $90,420 $90,420 $90,420

SRSANumber of LEAs receiving grants 3,896 3,896 3,896

SRSA Average LEA grant $23 $23 $23
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-52

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

SRSA Average award per student (whole $) $87 $87 $87

SRSARange of awards to LEAs 0–$51 0–$51 0–$51

Rural and low income schools(RLIS)

RLIS Total funding $90,420 $90,420 $90,420

RLIS Amount for State grants $89,516 $89,516 $89,516

RLIS Amount for BIE $452 $452 $452

RLIS Amount for Outlying Areas $452 $452 $452

RLISNumber of States receiving grants 46 46 46

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving subgrants 2,484 2,484 2,484

RLISNumber of LEAs receiving SQA grants 10 10 10

RLIS Average State grant $1,946 $1,946 $1,946

RLIS Average LEA subgrant $36 $36 $36

RLIS Average SQA grant $22 $22 $22

RLIS Average award per student (whole $) $21 $21 $21

RLISRange of awards to States $13–$8,781 $13–$8,781 $13–$8,781

RLIS Estimated range of subgrants to LEAs 0–$267 0–$267 0–$267

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 REAP in fiscal year 2018, but may do so in fiscal years 2019 and 2020. 

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 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: Raise educational achievement of students in small, rural school districts.

Objective: Students enrolled in LEAs participating in REAP programs will score proficient or 

better on States’ assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-53

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

2015 100 56

2016 100 57

2017 100 52

2018 100

2019 100

2020 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

2015 100 49

2016 100 50

2017 100 47

2018 100

2019 100

2020 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

2015 100 48

2016 100 48

2017 100 46

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100

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

2015 100 43

2016 100 44

2017 100 43

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Rural education

C-54

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 following reauthorization and REAP GPRA measures will be 

revised to reflect appropriate goals. Data for 2018 are expected in October 2019. 

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 (AFUA)).

Year Target Actual

2015 65 43

2016 65 44

2017 65 46

2018 65

2019 65

2020 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. Data for 2018 are expected in October 2019.

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 

recruitment and retention, professional development, strategies for school improvement, and the 

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 of SRSA LEAs and 

71 percent of RLIS LEAs) and to provide educator professional development (45 percent of 

SRSA LEAs and 58 percent of RLIS LEAs). 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 past years.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

C-55

Supplemental education grants

(Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, Section 105(f)(1)(B)(iii))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $21,8651

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change 

$16,699 $16,699 0

1

The 2020 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, 

and the transition from high school to postsecondary education and careers. They may not be 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-56

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)

2015..................................................................................... $16,699

2016....................................................................................... 16,699

2017....................................................................................... 16,699

2018....................................................................................... 16,699

2019....................................................................................... 16,699

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $16.7 million for Supplemental Education Grants, the same as the 

fiscal year 2019 level. The request would 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. 

A majority of the funding in some fiscal years was used to support early childhood education. 

The RMI and the FSM have also used Supplemental Education Grant funds for 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 2020 funding would be used for 

similar purposes. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Grant to the Federated States of 

Micronesia $11,142 $11,142 $11,142

Grant to the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands 5,557 5,557 5,557

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has not established performance measures for this program because it is 

operated by the Department of the Interior.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Supplemental education grants

C-57

A December 2006 General Accounting Office report, entitled “Compacts of Free Association: 

Micronesia and the Marshall Islands Face Challenges in Planning for Sustainability, Measuring 

Progress, and Ensuring Accountability,” documented both the continuing need for improvement 

in the public education systems of the Freely Associated States and the difficulties in obtaining 

and reporting performance data for this program. The RMI, according to the report, was not 

able to measure progress towards its educational goals because the data the Republic collected 

were inadequate, inconsistent, and incomplete. Tests to measure achievement were not 

administered in 2005 and 2006, and some of the tests the Republic used were not aligned with 

the curriculum used in RMI schools and thus were not adequate measures of student 

achievement. The FSM also lacked consistent performance outcomes and measures; 

measures and outcomes had been established but had constantly changed, making it difficult to 

track progress.

Additional information from the Department of the Interior (DOI) covering the 5-year period 

between 2004 and 2009 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-58

Comprehensive centers

(Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, Title II, Section 203)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: 0 (1)

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change 

$52,000 0 -$52,000

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2009; no appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought 

for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Centers program is authorized to fund not less 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 low-performing 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, 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.

Regional centers provide broad assistance to SEAs in their assigned states, and content 

centers create materials, tools, and training on specific issues to complement and support the 

direct services that regional centers provide to SEAs. Regional centers identify relevant 

information generated by these content centers in their local work with SEAs to build their 

capacity to implement school and district improvement measures.

The statute requires that the Department fund a minimum of 10 regional centers. The program 

currently supports 7 content centers and 15 regional centers that received initial awards in 2012. 

An additional content center, funded in 2016, focuses on students at risk of not attaining full 

literacy skills due to a disability. Centers typically receive 5-year grants, but the 2012 awards 

were extended for 2 years to allow the Department to align a new competition with the 

reauthorized ESEA.

For the new competition, which is being held in 2019, the Department published a Notice of 

Proposed Priorities (NPP) on September 28, 2018, 

(https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/28/2018-21089/proposed-prioritiesrequirements-definitions-and-performance-measures-comprehensive-centers-program). The 

NPP proposed funding 19 regional centers that would provide services to assigned States and 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-59

1 national center that would provide targeted and universal services that complement regional 

center services. The Department will announce the number of centers to be funded when it 

publishes a Notice of Final Priorities in 2019.

Each comprehensive center must develop a service plan for carrying out authorized activities. 

The plan of each center is developed to address the needs of SEAs in meeting ESEA student 

achievement goals, as well as priorities established by the Department and the States. Each 

center has an advisory board, with representation from SEAs, LEAs, institutions of higher 

education, educators, administrators, policymakers, researchers, and business representatives, 

that advises the center on: (1) allocation of resources, (2) strategies for monitoring and 

addressing the region’s educational needs (or the regional centers’ needs in the case of the 

content centers), (3) maintaining a high standard of quality in the performance of its activities, 

and (4) carrying out the center’s activities in a manner that promotes progress toward improving 

student academic achievement.

The ESEA 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 2019 directed the Department to ensure that BIE has access to services from the 

Comprehensive Centers. The Department addressed this language by providing a supplement 

of $400,000 to the West Comprehensive Center to support direct technical assistance to the 

BIE.

The statute requires the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, a 

component of the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), to carry out an 

independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers (both regional and content) to determine 

the extent to which each center meets its objectives. The evaluation of the 2012 Centers is 

scheduled for completion in 2019.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015............................................................ ............................$48,445 

2016.............................................................. ............................ 51,445 

2017.............................................................. ............................ 50,000

2018.............................................................. ............................ 52,000

2019.............................................................. ............................ 52,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funds for the Comprehensive Centers program in fiscal 

year 2020. The dissemination and technical assistance activities provided by the Centers, which 

are focused on the implementation of ESEA programs, can be paid for directly by States and 

school districts through State and local set-asides provided under programs such as Title I 

Grants to LEAs, including Title I funds reserved for school improvement. For example, States 

may reserve more than $200 million in regular and school improvement funds under Title I that 

may be used to obtain needed technical assistance, and LEAs are not limited in the amount of 

Title I funds that may be use for reasonable and necessary technical assistance services related 

to the effective implementation of Title I program requirements. Given the fiscal discipline 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-60

required to maintain support for higher priority State formula programs serving the most 

vulnerable student populations while meeting the President’s deficit reduction goals, the 

Administration does not support continued funding of the duplicative Comprehensive Centers 

program. The request also is consistent with the principles of the reauthorized ESEA, which 

restored State and local authority and responsibility for the effective implementation of ESEA 

formula grant programs. Consequently, the Administration believes that operation of a topdown, Washington-directed Comprehensive Centers system is no longer an appropriate role for 

the Department of Education.

Under our fiscal year 2020 proposal, the new centers awarded under the fiscal year 2019 

competition would be terminated after 1 year. One additional center, the National Center on 

Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities, which received a 5-year award in 2016 in 

response to report language accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

would be terminated in fiscal year 2020 at the end of its fourth year of funding.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands) 

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding for new grant awards 0 $50,000 0

Funding for continuation grant awardsfundi ng $52,000 1,500 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 500 0

Total fundi ng 52,000 52,000 0

Average Grant Award $2,226 TBD 0

Range of Grant Awards $825$4,761 TBD 0

Number of Grant Awards 23 TBD 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets are provided for 2020 because 

the Administration is not requesting funding for the program.

The Comprehensive Centers measures are designed to analyze the quality, relevance, and 

usefulness of the services provided by the centers. The data were collected and reported using 

client surveys developed by the Centers in conjunction with their evaluators. The designs of 

client surveys used to collect data for these measures varied widely by center. The data are 

from the Centers that received awards in the 2012 grant competition. Data for each year are 

from the first 9 months of the fiscal year (e.g., for 2018, the data are from October 2017 through 

June 2018).
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-61

Goal: To improve student achievement in low performing schools under the ESEA.

Objective: Improve the quality of technical assistance.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high quality by clients.

Year Target Actual

2015 80% 95%

2016 80 96

2017 80 96

2018 80 96

2019 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 81 to 100 percent. In 

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

86 to 100 percent.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2015 80% 95%

2016 80 93

2017 80 97

2018 80 96

2019 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent. In 

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

91 to 100 percent.

Objective: Technical assistance products and services will be used to improve results for 

students in the target areas.

Measure: The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers’ products and services that are 

deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by clients.

Year Target Actual

2015 80% 92%

2016 80 93

2017 80 95

2018 80 95

2019 80

Additional information: In 2017, 20 of the 22 Centers in the 2012 grant cohort provided data 

for this measure, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 91 to 100 percent. In 
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-62

2018, 21 of the 22 Centers provided data, with percentages for individual Centers ranging from 

84 to 100 percent.

The Department proposed the following measures in the NPP published on September 28, 

2018, for the new cohort of Center that would be created through the 2019 competition:

 The extent to which Comprehensive Center clients are satisfied with the quality, usefulness, 

and relevance of services provided.

 The extent to which Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide range 

of recipients.

 The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity-building services 

were implemented as intended.

 The extent to which Comprehensive Centers demonstrate recipient outcomes were met.

Other Performance Information

The Department is carrying out a descriptive study of the 2012 cohort of Comprehensive 

Centers’ activities and outcomes that is examining how the individual centers intended to build 

SEA capacity (their theories of action) and what types of activities they conduct to build 

capacity.1 Data collection began in the spring of 2015; IES anticipates releasing the final report 

by early fall of 2019.

The data collection consists of interviews, surveys, and reviews of Center work to address 

questions about the design, implementation, and outcomes of the Centers’ products and 

technical assistance. The evaluation focuses on two of the seven Federal priority areas in which 

Centers provide services: (1) Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective 

teachers and leaders and (2) ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool-age 

children and their successful transition to kindergarten.

In November 2016, the study contractor provided descriptive reports for 8 of the 22 Centers 

(4 regional centers and 4 content centers) summarizing information from an online survey of 

recipients of Center technical assistance. Reports for the remaining 14 Centers were not 

provided because response rates were less than 50 percent and the number of respondents 

was less than 10. The number of respondents across the eight Centers for which reports were 

provided was small (136 of 186 individuals responded to the survey, with response rates 

ranging from 50 to 80 percent across the Centers), but based on information received:

 Most respondents (72 to 100 percent across the eight Centers) indicated that they had 

specific plans to use the information received from the Centers within the next 12 months; 

and

1

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_techcenters12.asp
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

Comprehensive centers

C-63

 Most respondents (77 to 100 percent) indicated that the Centers enabled them to 

accomplish something that they might not otherwise have been able to accomplish.

In addition, respondents tended to agree that the Centers helped them to learn about new tools 

and strategies, access useful information, and perform their jobs in more informed and efficient 

ways.
C-64

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 2020 Authorization: $1,600,000

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$1,170,000 0 -$1,170,000

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. Under the authorizing 

statute, States allocate subgrants to LEAs on the same formula basis as above, except that no 

LEA may receive less than $10,000. LEAs may form consortia and combine subgrant 

allocations to carry out activities jointly. States and LEAs must use funds to supplement, and not 

supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for authorized activities.

LEAs receiving 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 

healthy students, and a portion to support the effective use of technology. 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 
C-65

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 bullying and harassment; 

mentoring and school counseling; school dropout and reentry programs; high-quality training for 

school personnel in such areas as suicide prevention, crisis management, and conflict 

resolution; child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs; designing and 

implementing plans to reduce exclusionary discipline practices; and implementing schoolwide 

positive behavioral interventions and supports. 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 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 

receiving formula allocations may use not more than 15 percent to purchase technology 

infrastructure.

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)

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

2016............................................................... ............................. ........0

2017.......................................................... ............................. $400,000

2018......................................................... ............................. 1,100,000

2019......................................................... ............................. 1,170,000
C-66

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants. 

The activities authorized under this program generally can be supported with funds from other 

Federal, State, local, and private sources, including similarly flexible funds provided under the 

$15.9 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program. In addition, the formula grant structure of the 

program, even at the fiscal year 2019 funding level of $1.17 billion, results in allocations of less 

than $30,000 for an estimated two-thirds of LEAs, more than half of which receive only the 

minimum subgrant of $10,000. The Administration believes that limited Federal education 

resources should not be invested in a program under which most local awards would be too 

small to have a meaningful impact.

To ensure students can learn in a safe learning environment, the Administration has prioritized 

funds for programs that specifically support school safety. For example, the Administration is 

proposing a $100 million School Safety State Grants program, described in more detail under 

School Safety National Activities in the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education account, which 

would make formula grants to States focused solely on school safety and student health. States 

would have broad flexibility, consistent with the school safety activities authorized under 

Title IV-A of the ESEA, to carry out a wide range of strategies to build State and local capacity 

to keep students safe in school by both preventing and responding effectively to violent or 

traumatic incidents. In particular, School Safety State Grants would empower States to develop 

and implement their own school safety strategies based on State and local needs and priorities, 

while also drawing on the resources and recommendations included in the Final Report of the 

Federal Commission on School Safety released in December 2018. The Administration 

believes that proposed School Safety State Grants (1) more appropriately reflect the limited 

Federal role in education, (2) are better structured to build State and local capacity to implement 

meaningful measures to improve school safety, and (3) allow for more effective targeting of 

limited Federal education resources to priority needs than the Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants program. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount to States $1,061,665 $1,129,225 0

Range of State awards 5,308–127,292 5,646–143,389 0

Average State award 20,417 21,716 0

Amount to Outlying Areas 5,473 5,821 0

Amount to BIE 5,473 5,821 0

National activities 21,890 23,283 0

Evaluation (including pooled 

evaluation) 5,500 5,850 0

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. From the total for evaluation, the Department pooled $3,500 thousand in fiscal year 2018 and may use

funds for this purpose again in fiscal year 2019.
C-67

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department plans to collect performance information for Student Support and Academic 

Enrichment Grants primarily through the annual Consolidated State Performance Report

(CSPR) and descriptive implementation studies.

Consistent with the program statute’s public reporting requirements for States and LEAs, the 

Department will collect State-aggregate data on LEA uses of funds through the CSPR, 

beginning with basic information (e.g., the percentage of funds spent by LEAs in each of the 

three program content areas, the percentage of LEAs spending funds in each area) in the 

school year 2019-2020 CSPR.

To ensure information on LEA use of funds is available as soon as possible, the Department is 

implementing, through a contractor, a quick-turnaround study for school year 2018-2019. 

Through this study the Department will compile use-of-funds information based on State 

analyses of LEA applications for program funds, as well as other basic program information, 

such as the percentage of subgrantee LEAs that are participating in consortia or that received at 

least $30,000 in fiscal year 2018 funds. Results from this study are expected to be available in 

late calendar year 2019. 

The Department is also developing a formal implementation study that will examine, in addition 

to 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 and follow-up interviews of State 

program coordinators in all States, a nationally representative survey of LEAs, and site visits to 

a select number of LEAs to collect in-depth program implementation information. The 

Department plans to initiate data collection in spring 2020 (covering the use of funds during 

school year 2018-2019), with a descriptive report expected in spring 2021, and may pursue 

additional data collections in later years. We also expect to release a set of briefs on 

implementation of specific authorized activities, including activities of interest to the 

Administration (e.g., school safety activities, opioid abuse prevention and mitigation) or for 

which LEAs frequently report spending program funds.