Department of Education

INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fiscal Year 2015 Request 

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................H-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................H-5

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers .............................................................................H-11

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................H-13

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................H-17

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................H-20

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports.............................................................H-21

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................H-22

Activities:...............................................................................................................................H-28

Race to the top .................................................................................................................H-28

Investing in innovation ......................................................................................................H-37

STEM Innovation: .............................................................................................................H-44

STEM innovation..........................................................................................................H-44

Mathematics and science partnerships.........................................................................H-54

High school redesign ........................................................................................................H-58

Excellent instructional teams: ...........................................................................................H-62

Excellent instructional teams ........................................................................................H-62

Improving teacher quality State grants .........................................................................H-71

Transition to teaching ...................................................................................................H-82

Teacher quality partnership ..........................................................................................H-89

Teacher incentive fund .................................................................................................H-95

School leadership ...........................................................................................................H-101

Expanding educational options: ......................................................................................H-107

Expanding educational options...................................................................................H-107

Charter schools grants ...............................................................................................H-110

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities .........................................................H-119

Magnet schools assistance.............................................................................................H-124

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance .....................H-129

Recognizing education success, professional excellence, and collaborative teaching ....H-135

State tables*

*State tables reflecting 2014 allocations and 2015 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update.
INNOVATION AND [IMPROVEMENT] INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS1

H-1

Appropriations Language

[For carrying out activities authorized by part G of title I, subpart 5 of part A and parts C 

and D of title II, parts B, C, and D of title V of the ESEA, and sections 14006 and 14007 of 

division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, 

$1,181,317,000:2 Provided, That $250,000,000 shall be available through December 31, 2014 

for awards to States, in accordance with the applicable requirements of section 14006 of 

division A of Public Law 111-5, as amended: Provided further, That the Secretary, jointly with 

the Secretary of HHS, shall use all funds made available under the immediately preceding 

proviso to make competitive awards in accordance with such section 14006 to States for 

improving early childhood care and education, except that, notwithstanding sections 14006(a) 

and 14005(d)(6) of such division, such awards may be limited to activities that build the capacity 

within the State to develop, enhance, or expand high-quality preschool programs, including 

comprehensive services and family engagement, for preschool-aged children from families at or 

below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line:3 Provided further, That each State may subgrant 

a portion of such grant funds to local educational agencies and other early learning providers 

(including but not limited to Head Start programs and licensed child care providers), or consortia 

thereof, for the implementation of high-quality preschool programs for children from families at 

or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line: Provided further, That subgrantees that are 

local educational agencies shall form strong partnerships with early learning providers and that 

subgrantees that are early learning providers shall form strong partnerships with local 

educational agencies, in order to carry out the requirements of the subgrant: Provided further, 

That, notwithstanding the second proviso, up to 3 percent of such funds for improving early 

childhood care and education shall be available for technical assistance, evaluation, and other 

national activities related to such grants: Provided further, That not later than 30 days prior to 

the announcement of a competition under such section 14006 pursuant to the requirements of 
H-2

this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report outlining the proposed competition and priorities to 

the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall administer State grants for improving early childhood care and 

education under such section jointly with the Secretary of HHS on such terms as such 

Secretaries set forth in an interagency agreement:4 Provided further, That up to $141,602,000 

shall be available through December 31, 2014 for section 14007 of division A of Public Law 111-

5, and up to 5 percent of such funds may be used for technical assistance and the evaluation of 

activities carried out under such section: Provided further, That the Secretary may renew a 

grant made under section 14007 for additional 1-year periods, for fiscal year 2014 and 

thereafter, if the grantee is meeting its performance targets, up to a total award period of 

6 years:5 Provided further, That the education facilities clearinghouse established through a 

competitive award process in fiscal year 2013 is authorized to collect and disseminate 

information on effective educational practices and the latest research regarding the planning, 

design, financing, construction, improvement, operation, and maintenance of safe, healthy, 

high-performance public facilities for early learning programs, kindergarten through grade 12, 

and higher education:6 Provided further, That $288,771,000 of the funds for subpart 1 of part D

of title V of the ESEA shall be for competitive grants to local educational agencies, including 

charter schools that are local educational agencies, or States, or partnerships of: (1) a local 

educational agency, a State, or both; and (2) at least one nonprofit organization to develop and 

implement performance-based compensation systems for teachers, principals, and other 

personnel in high-need schools: Provided further, That such performance-based compensation 

systems must consider gains in student academic achievement as well as classroom 

evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year among other factors and provide 

educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles: Provided 

further, That recipients of such grants shall demonstrate that such performance-based 
H-3

compensation systems are developed with the input of teachers and school leaders in the 

schools and local educational agencies to be served by the grant: Provided further, That 

recipients of such grants may use such funds to develop or improve systems and tools (which 

may be developed and used for the entire local educational agency or only for schools served 

under the grant) that would enhance the quality and success of the compensation system, such 

as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools to measure growth in student achievement: 

Provided further, That applications for such grants shall include a plan to sustain financially the 

activities conducted and systems developed under the grant once the grant period has expired: 

Provided further, That up to 5 percent of such funds for competitive grants shall be available for 

technical assistance, training, peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation 

activities:7 Provided further, That of the funds available for part B of title V of the ESEA, the 

Secretary shall use not less than $11,000,000 to carry out activities under section 5205(b) and 

shall use not less than $12,000,000 for subpart 2: Provided further, That of the funds available 

for subpart 1 of part B of title V of the ESEA, and notwithstanding section 5205(a), the Secretary 

shall reserve not less than $45,000,000 to make multiple awards to non-profit charter 

management organizations and other entities that are not for-profit entities for the replication 

and expansion of successful charter school models and shall reserve up to $11,000,000 to carry 

out the activities described in section 5205(a), including improving quality and oversight of 

charter schools and providing technical assistance and grants to authorized public chartering 

agencies in order to increase the number of high-performing charter schools: Provided further, 

That funds available for part B of title V of the ESEA may be used for grants that support 

preschool education in charter schools:8 Provided further, That each application submitted 

pursuant to section 5203(a) shall describe a plan to monitor and hold accountable authorized 

public chartering agencies through such activities as providing technical assistance or 

establishing a professional development program, which may include evaluation, planning, 
H-4

training, and systems development for staff of authorized public chartering agencies to improve 

the capacity of such agencies in the State to authorize, monitor, and hold accountable charter 

schools: Provided further, That each application submitted pursuant to section 5203(a) shall 

contain assurances that State law, regulations, or other policies require that: (1) each authorized 

charter school in the State operate under a legally binding charter or performance contract 

between itself and the school's authorized public chartering agency that describes the rights and 

responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency; conduct annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized 

public chartering agency; and demonstrate improved student academic achievement; and (2) 

authorized public chartering agencies use increases in student academic achievement for all 

groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA as the most important 

factor when determining to renew or revoke a school's charter.

9

] (Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2014.)

NOTES

No language is included for programs authorized under the expired Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 

when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is enacted, a budget request for 

these programs will be proposed.

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

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

H-5

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 INNOVATION AND [IMPROVEMENT] 

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

The Administration proposes to rename this 

account.

2 [For carrying out activities authorized by 

part G of title I, subpart 5 of part A and parts 

C and D of title II, parts B, C, and D of title V 

of the ESEA, and sections 14006 and 14007 

of division A of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended, 

$1,181,317,000:]

This language appropriates funds for the 

following programs: Advanced Placement, 

School Leadership, Transition to Teaching, 

Ready-to-Learn Television, Charter Schools 

Grants, Magnet Schools Assistance, 

Teacher Incentive Fund, Fund for the 

Improvement of Education: Programs of 

National Significance, Arts in Education, 

Race to the Top, and Investing in Innovation.

3 [Provided, That $250,000,000 shall be 

available through December 31, 2014 for 

awards to States, in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of section 14006 of 

division A of Public Law 111-5, as amended: 

Provided further, That the Secretary, jointly 

with the Secretary of HHS, shall use all funds 

made available under the immediately 

preceding proviso to make competitive 

awards in accordance with such section 

14006 to States for improving early childhood 

care and education, except that, 

notwithstanding sections 14006(a) and 

14005(d)(6) of such division, such awards 

may be limited to activities that build the 

capacity within the State to develop, 

enhance, or expand high-quality preschool 

programs, including comprehensive services 

and family engagement, for preschool-aged 

children from families at or below 200 

percent of the Federal poverty line: ]

This language provides funds for Race to the 

Top grants for States to build capacity in 

early childhood care and education and 

requires the Secretary to jointly administer 

the program with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

H-6

Language Provision Explanation

4 [Provided further, That each State may 

subgrant a portion of such grant funds to 

local educational agencies and other early 

learning providers (including but not limited to 

Head Start programs and licensed child care

providers), or consortia thereof, for the 

implementation of high-quality preschool 

programs for children from families at or 

below 200 percent of the Federal poverty 

line: Provided further, That subgrantees that 

are local educational agencies shall form 

strong partnerships with early learning 

providers and that subgrantees that are early 

learning providers shall form strong 

partnerships with local educational agencies, 

in order to carry out the requirements of the 

subgrant: Provided further, That, 

notwithstanding the second proviso, up to 

3 percent of such funds for improving early 

childhood care and education shall be 

available for technical assistance, evaluation, 

and other national activities related to such 

grants: Provided further, That not later than 

30 days prior to the announcement of a 

competition under such section 14006 

pursuant to the requirements of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit a report outlining the 

proposed competition and priorities to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate: Provided 

further, That the Secretary shall administer 

State grants for improving early childhood 

care and education under such section jointly 

with the Secretary of HHS on such terms as 

such Secretaries set forth in an interagency 

agreement:

This language allows States to subgrant 

Race to the Top awards and specifies 

requirements thereof, allows up to 3 percent 

of the program’s appropriation to be used for 

national activities, and requires the Secretary 

to submit a plan before formally announcing 

and inviting applications for the competition.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

H-7

Language Provision Explanation

5 [Provided further, That up to $141,602,000 

shall be available through December 31, 

2014 for section 14007 of division A of Public 

Law 111-5, and up to 5 percent of such funds 

may be used for technical assistance and the 

evaluation of activities carried out under such 

section: Provided further, That the Secretary 

may renew a grant made under section 

14007 for additional 1-year periods, for fiscal 

year 2014 and thereafter, if the grantee is 

meeting its performance targets, up to a total 

award period of 6 years:]

This language allows the Secretary to use

funding for Investing in Innovation; allows the 

Secretary to use a portion of the funding for 

technical assistance and evaluation; and 

allows the Secretary to extend grants in their 

final year for an additional year up to a total 

grant award of 6 years.

6 [Provided further, That the education 

facilities clearinghouse established through a 

competitive award process in 

fiscal year 2013 is authorized to collect and 

disseminate information on effective 

educational practices and the latest research 

regarding the planning, design, financing, 

construction, improvement, operation, and 

maintenance of safe, healthy, highperformance public facilities for early learning 

programs, kindergarten through grade 12, 

and higher education:]

This language allows funds awarded to the 

current Educational Facilities Clearinghouse 

grantee to be used to collect and disseminate 

information on research and effective 

practices regarding facilities for early learning 

programs and higher education, in addition to 

collecting and disseminating information on 

research and effective practices regarding 

facilities for kindergarten through grade 12.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

H-8

Language Provision Explanation

7 [Provided further, That $288,771,000 of the 

funds for subpart 1 of part D of title V of the 

ESEA shall be for competitive grants to local 

educational agencies, including charter 

schools that are local educational agencies, 

or States, or partnerships of: (1) a local 

educational agency, a State, or both; and (2) 

at least one nonprofit organization to develop 

and implement performance-based 

compensation systems for teachers, 

principals, and other personnel in high-need 

schools: Provided further, That such 

performance-based compensation systems 

must consider gains in student academic 

achievement as well as classroom 

evaluations conducted multiple times during 

each school year among other factors and 

provide educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and leadership 

roles: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants shall demonstrate that such 

performance-based compensation systems 

are developed with the input of teachers and 

school leaders in the schools and local 

educational agencies to be served by the 

grant: Provided further, That recipients of 

such grants may use such funds to develop 

or improve systems and tools (which may be 

developed and used for the entire local 

educational agency or only for schools 

served under the grant) that would enhance 

the quality and success of the compensation 

system, such as high-quality teacher 

evaluations and tools to measure growth in 

student achievement: Provided further, That 

applications for such grants shall include a 

plan to sustain financially the activities 

conducted and systems developed under the 

grant once the grant period has expired: 

Provided further, That up to 5 percent of such 

funds for competitive grants shall be 

available for technical assistance, training, 

peer review of applications, program 

outreach, and evaluation activities:]

This language provides, within the Fund for 

the Improvement of Education appropriation, 

funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund and 

describes eligibility and other requirements 

for the program. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

H-9

Language Provision Explanation

8 [Provided further, That of the funds 

available for part B of title V of the ESEA, the 

Secretary shall use not less than 

$11,000,000 to carry out activities under 

section 5205(b) and shall use not less than 

$12,000,000 for subpart 2: Provided further, 

That of the funds available for subpart 1 of 

part B of title V of the ESEA, and 

notwithstanding section 5205(a), the 

Secretary shall reserve not less than 

$45,000,000 to make multiple awards to nonprofit charter management organizations and 

other entities that are not for-profit entities for 

the replication and expansion of successful 

charter school models and shall reserve up 

to $11,000,000 to carry out the activities 

described in section 5205(a), including 

improving quality and oversight of charter 

schools and providing technical assistance 

and grants to authorized public chartering 

agencies in order to increase the number of 

high-performing charter schools: Provided 

further, That funds available for part B of title 

V of the ESEA may be used for grants that 

support preschool education in charter 

schools:]

This language establishes minimum amounts 

to be used, from the Charter Schools 

appropriation, for grants under the State 

Facilities Incentive and Credit Enhancement 

for Charter School Facilities programs, allows 

the Secretary to reserve funds appropriated 

for Charter Schools Grants to make awards

to charter management organizations and 

other entities for the replication and 

expansion of successful charter school 

models, allows the Secretary to reserve a 

portion of the appropriation for national 

activities, and allows grants under the 

program to be used for preschool education.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

H-10

Language Provision Explanation

9 [Provided further, That each application 

submitted pursuant to section 5203(a) shall 

describe a plan to monitor and hold 

accountable authorized public chartering 

agencies through such activities as providing 

technical assistance or establishing a 

professional development program, which 

may include evaluation, planning, training, 

and systems development for staff of 

authorized public chartering agencies to 

improve the capacity of such agencies in the 

State to authorize, monitor, and hold 

accountable charter schools: Provided

further, That each application submitted 

pursuant to section 5203(a) shall contain 

assurances that State law, regulations, or 

other policies require that: (1) each 

authorized charter school in the State 

operate under a legally binding charter or 

performance contract between itself and the 

school's authorized public chartering agency 

that describes the rights and responsibilities 

of the school and the public chartering 

agency; conduct annual, timely, and 

independent audits of the school's financial 

statements that are filed with the school's 

authorized public chartering agency; and 

demonstrate improved student academic 

achievement; and (2) authorized public 

chartering agencies use increases in student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA as the most 

important factor when determining to renew 

or revoke a school's charter.]

This language establishes application 

requirements for grants to State educational 

agencies under the Charter Schools Program 

that go beyond the requirements in the 

authorizing statute.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-11

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation...................................................... $1,527,536 $1,181,317 $3,853,812

Discretionar y Across-the board reduction (P.L. 113-6)............. -3,055 0 0

Total, discretionary appropriation ................... 1,524,481 1,181,317 3,853,812

Discretionar y Sequester (P.L. 112-25)..................................... -76,844 0 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation ..... 1,447,637 1,181,317 3,853,812

Discretionar y Comparative transfer to:

Education Improvement Programs for:

Advanced placement...................................... -28,483 -28,483 0

Ready-to-learn television................................ -25,771 -25,741 0

Arts in education ............................................ -23,648 -25,000 0

Discretionar y Comparative transfer from:

Education Improvement Programs for:

Improving teacher quality State grants ........... 2,337,830 2,349,830 0

Mathematics and science partnerships........... 141,902 149,717 0

Higher Education for:

Teacher quality partnership ............................ 40,592 40,592 0

Total, comparative discretionary 

appropriation.......................................... 3,890,059 3,642,232 3,853,812

Mandatory:

Appropriation 0 0 5,000,000

Total, comparable discretionary and 

mandatory appropriation 3,890,059 3,642,232 8,853,812
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers—continued

(dollars in thousands)

H-12

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

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.................................... 3,890,059 3,642,232 10,535,253

Comparative transfer from:

Education Improvement Programs for:

Improving teacher quality State grants

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, comparable budget authority..... 3,890,059 3,642,232 8,853,812
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-13

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2014......................................................................................... $3,392,232

2015........................................................................................... 8,853,812

Net change from 2014............................... +5,461,580

Increases: 2014 base

Change

from base

Program:

Program Increase for a reauthorized Race to the Top 

program to support and create incentives for State 

and local reforms designed to lead to significant 

improvements in student achievement, high school 

graduation rates, and college enrollment rates, and 

to significant reductions in opportunity and 

achievement gaps. 0 +$300,000

Program Increase for a reauthorized Investing in Innovation 

program to expand innovative strategies and 

practices that have been shown to be effective in 

improving educational outcomes for students and to 

test and evaluate promising strategies and 

practices whose efficacy has not yet been 

systematically studied and to support the Advanced 

Research Project Agency-Education (ARPA-ED). $149,717 +23,398

Initial funding for the new Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Innovation 

initiative to help improve student engagement and 

achievement in STEM subjects. 0 +319,717

Initial funding for the new High School Redesign

program to transform teaching and learning in high 

schools by encouraging partnerships among LEAs, 

postsecondary institutions, and other entities such 

as businesses and nonprofit organizations to 

prepare students for college and career. 0 +150,000
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

H-14

Increases: 2014 base

Change

from base

Program:

Initial funding for the new Effective Teachers and 

Leaders State Grants program to provide formula 

grants to States and LEAs to improve the 

effectiveness and equitable distribution of effective 

teachers and leaders and, through an expanded 

set-aside of funds, to support efforts to build 

evidence on how best to best recruit, prepare, and 

support effective teachers and leaders and 

enhance the teaching and leadership professions. 0 +$2,000,000

Program Initial funding for the new ConnectEDucators grant 

program to help support educators as they 

transition to using technology and data to improve 

student learning, including educators in schools 

receiving technology upgrades through the 

Administration’s ConnectED initiative. 0 +200,000

Program Initial funding for the new Teacher and Leader 

Innovation Fund to support the development and 

implementation of innovative teacher and leader 

policies. 0 +320,000

Increase for the School Leadership program to train 

highly effective leaders for high-need schools and 

districts. $25,763 +$9,237

Program Initial funding for the Expanding Educational 

Options program to increase the supply of highquality public educational options available to 

students, especially students attending lowperforming schools, by creating and expanding 

effective charter and autonomous schools. 0 +248,172

0 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

H-15

Increases: 2014 base

Change

from base

Program:

Mandatory funding for the Recognizing Education 

Success, Professional Excellence, and 

Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project, which 

would provide significant, one-time support for 

educators across the country, responding to needs 

they have identified in a changing school 

environment, including the implementation of new 

college- and career-ready (CCR) standards and 

assessments and new educator evaluation 

systems. +$5,000,000

Subtotal, increases +8,570,524
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Changes—continued 

(dollars in thousands)

H-16

Decreases: 2014 base

Change

from base

Program:

Elimination of the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program because it would be 

replaced by the proposed Effective Teaching and 

Learning: Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics program. $149,717 -$149,717

Elimination of the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants, Transition to Teaching, and Teacher 

Quality Partnership programs because they would 

be consolidated into the proposed Effective 

Teachers and Leaders State Grants program. 2,404,184 -2,404,184

Elimination of the Teacher Incentive Fund because 

it would be replaced by the proposed Teacher and 

Leader Innovation Fund. 288,771 -288,771

Elimination of the Charter Schools Grants and 

Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities 

programs and redirection of funding to the 

proposed Expanding Educational Options 

program. 248,172 -248,172

Decrease for the Fund for the Improvement in 

Education because the program would focus on a 

non-cognitive skills initiative, interagency 

strategies to strengthen services to disconnected 

youth, and an initiative to enhance communities’ 

tracking of and performance on multiple outcomes 

for youth. 42,376 -18,100

Subtotal, decreases -3,108,944

Net change +5,461,580
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-17

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

footnote

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Request

footnote

Race to the top (ARRA-XIV-14006) 01,2 0 To be determined 2 $300,000

Investing in innovation (ARRA-XIV-14007) 0 2 $141,602 To be determined 2 165,000

STEM innovation:

STEM innovation (proposed legislation) -- -- To be determined 319,717

Mathematics and science partnerships (ESEA II-B) 0 3 149,717 0 3 0

High school transformation (proposed legislation) -- -- To be determined 150.000

Excellent instructional teams: (EIT)

Effective teachers and leaders: (ETL)

(ETL)Effective teacher and leaders State grants 

(proposed legislation) -- -- To be determined 2,000,000

(ETL)Improving teacher quality State grants (ESEA II-A) 0 3 2,349,830 0 3 0

(TLP)Transition to teaching (ESEA II-C-1-B) 0 3 13,762 0 3 0

(TLP)Teacher quality partnership (HEA II-A) Indefinite 4 40,592 Indefinite 4 0

ConnectEDucators (proposed legislation) -- -- To be determined 200,000

Teacher and leader innovation fund: (TLIF)

(TLIF)Teacher and leader innovation fund (proposed 

legislation) -- -- To be determined 320,000

(TLIF)Teacher incentive fund (ESEA V-D-1) 0 3 288,771 0 3 0

School leadership (ESEA II-A-5-2151(b))

0 3 25,763 0 3 35,000

H-17
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

H-18

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

footnote

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Request

footnote

Expanding educational options: (EEO)

(EEO)Expanding educational options (proposed 

legislation) -- -- To be determined 248,172

(EEO)Charter schools grants (ESEA V-B-1) 0 3 $248,1725 0 3 0

(EEO)Credit enhancement for charter school facilities 

(ESEA V-B-2) 0 6 05 0 6 0

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA V-C) 0 7 $91,647 To be determined 7 $91,647

FIE programs of national significance (ESEA V-D-1) 0 7 42,376 To be determined 7 24,276

Recognizing education success, professional 

excellence, and collaborative teaching (proposed 

legislation) 0 0 To be determined 8 5,000,000

Unfunded authorizations: (UA)

(UA)Advanced credentialing (ESEA II-A-5-2521(c)) 0 3 0 0 3 0

(UA)Voluntary public school choice (ESEA V-B-3) 0 3 0 0 3 0

(UA)Advanced placement and international baccalaureate 

programs (America COMPETES Act VI-A-II) 0 9 0 0 9 0

(UA)Ready to teach (ESEA V-D-8) 0 3 0 0 3 0

(UA)Exchanges with historic whaling and trading partners 

(ESEA V-D-12) 0 10 0 010 0

(UA)Parental information and resource centers (ESEA V-D16) 0 3 0 0 3 0

(UA)Women’s educational equity (ESEA V-D-21) 0 10 0 010 0

H-18
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

H-19

Activity

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Estimate

footnote

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Request

footnote

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total discretionary appropriation $3,392,232 $3,853,812

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 615,923

Portion of request not authorized 3,237,889

Total mandatory appropriation 5,000,000 0

1 The FY 2014 Appropriations Act provided $250,000 thousand under Race to the Top for competitive awards to States for early childhood care and 

education. This funding is included as Preschool Development Grants under the proposed School Readiness account. 2 The program is authorized in FY 2014 through appropriations language; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under new legislation. 4 The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under new legislation. 5 From the amount appropriated for Charter Schools, the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act required the Secretary to use not less than $12,000 thousand 

for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities. 6 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2004. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under new legislation. 7 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015. 8 Authorization for the program is sought for FY 2015. 9 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought. 10 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought.

H-19
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-20

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Foot

-

note

Senate 

Allowance Foot

-

note Appropriation Footnote

2006 Discretionary 1,307,871 708,522 1,308,785 936,488

2007 Discretionary 850,966 N/A1 N/A1 837,686

2008 Discretionary 922,018 982,354 962,889 985,517

2009 Discretionary 867,517 976,8462 944,3142 996,425

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

2010 Discretionary 1,489,949 1,347,363 1,234,7873 1,389,065

Rescission (PL 111-226) 

(Discretionary) -10,700

2011 Discretionary 6,330,000 1,870,1234 2,224,8433 1,856,1795

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,4116 1,740,2126 1,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,1337 1,545,9667 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A8 1,331,598 1,181,317

2014 Mandatory 5,000,000 0 0

2015 Discretionary 3,853,812

1 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate allowances are 

shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4 The level for the House allowance reflect the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10). 6 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 7 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. 8 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-21

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

Race to the Top: High Quality Preschool Programs

Managers’

Statement: The bill also requires that the Secretary submit a report outlining the proposed 

competition and priorities to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

It is expected that the Department will consult with the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees, Committee on Education and Workforce, and the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), prior to the 

submission of the required report, including on the criteria to be used under a 

competition to define a high-quality preschool infrastructure and program. 

Response: The Department plans to consult with the committees and will submit a report 

outlining the proposed Preschool Development Grants competition to the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Race to the Top: Evaluations

Managers’

Statement: The Secretary shall continue to provide, on a timely and periodic basis, the 

findings from evaluations, including impact evaluations and interim progress 

evaluations, of activities conducted using any Race to the Top funds to the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

Response: The Department will notify the committees of findings from Race to the Top 

evaluations and studies. By December 2014, the Department expects to issue 

the first full report of a study evaluating the implementation and impact of efforts 

to turn around persistently lowest-achieving schools under the Race to the Top 

and School Improvement Grants programs. 

Investing in Innovation

Senate: The Committee bill continues language from last year's bill providing up to 

5 percent of the appropriation for this program to be used for evaluation and 

technical assistance. 

Response: The Department will notify the committee of its plans for the technical assistance 

and evaluation funds before carrying out activities with those funds.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Innovation and Instructional Teams 

 1. Race to the Top – Equity and Opportunity (ARRA section 14006) 1 D 520,247 0 300,000 300,000 ---

 2. Investing in Innovation (ARRA section 14007) D 141,602 141,602 165,000 23,398 16.524%

 3. STEM Innovation:

(a) STEM Innovation (proposed legislation) D 0 0 319,717 319,717 ---

(b) Mathematics and science partnerships (ESEA II, Part B) D 141,902 149,717 0 (149,717) -100.000%

Subtotal 141,902 149,717 319,717 170,000 113.548%

 4. High school redesign (proposed legislation) D 0 0 150,000 150,000 ---

 5. Excellent instructional teams: 

(a) Effective teachers and leaders:

(1) Effective teachers and leaders State grants (proposed legislation) D 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 ---

(2) Improving teacher quality State grants (ESEA II-A)

Annual appropriation D 656,389 668,389 0 (668,389) -100.000%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 (1,681,441) -100.000%

Subtotal D 2,337,830 2,349,830 2,000,000 (349,830) -14.887%

(3) Transition to teaching (ESEA II-C-1-B) D 24,691 13,762 0 (13,762) -100.000%

(4) Teacher quality partnership (HEA II-A) D 40,592 40,592 0 (40,592) -100.000%

Subtotal 65,283 54,354 0 (54,354) -100.000%

(b) ConnectEDucators (proposed legislation) D 0 0 200,000 200,000 ---

(c) Teacher and leader innovation fund:

(1) Teacher and leader innovation fund (proposed legislation) D 0 0 320,000 320,000 ---

(2) Teacher incentive fund (ESEA V-D-1) D 283,771 288,771 0 (288,771) -100.000%

Subtotal 283,771 288,771 320,000 31,229 10.814%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 are proposed under new authorizing legislation.

- Multiple programs affected by the proposed ESEA reauthorization have been renamed and moved among accounts, some of which also have been renamed.

- Account totals and programs shown within accounts in FY 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

- Accounts are shown under the administering office that has primary responsibility for most programs in that account; however, there may be some programs that are administered by another office.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 In FY 2013, funds supported RTT-Early Learning Challenge and RTT-District competitions. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014, provided $250,000 thousand, which is shown in the School Readiness account

for Preschool Development Grants.

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 
H-23

Summary of Request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Innovation and Instructional Teams (continued) 

 6. School leadership (ESEA section 2151(b)) D 27,584 25,763 35,000 9,237 35.854%

 7. Expanding educational options:

(a) Expanding educational options (proposed legislation)1 D 0 0 248,172 248,172 ---

(b) Charter schools grants (ESEA V-B-1)1 D 241,507 248,172 0 (248,172) -100.000%

(c) Credit enhancement for charter school facilities (ESEA Title V-B-2)1 D 0 0 0 0 ---

Subtotal 241,507 248,172 248,172 0 0.000%

 8. Magnet schools assistance (Part C) D 91,647 91,647 91,647 0 0.000%

 9. Fund for the improvement of education: Programs of national significance (ESEA V-D-1) 2 D 38,280 42,376 24,276 (18,100) -42.713%

 10. Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT)

 (proposed legislation) M 0 0 5,000,000 5,000,000 ---

 Total, Appropriation 2, 3 D 3,889,653 3,392,232 3,853,812 461,580 13.607%

Total, Budget authority D 3,889,653 3,392,232 5,535,253 2,143,021 63.174%

Current 4 2,208,212 1,710,791 3,853,812 2,143,021 125.265%

Prior year's advance 2 1,681,441 1,681,441 1,681,441 0 0.000%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 are proposed under new authorizing legislation.

- Multiple programs affected by the proposed ESEA reauthorization have been renamed and moved among accounts, some of which also have been renamed.

- Account totals and programs shown within accounts in FY 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

- Accounts are shown under the administering office that has primary responsibility for most programs in that account; however, there may be some programs that are administered by another office.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Of the amount appropriated for Charter School Grants for FY 2013, appropriations language required the Department to use not less than $21,756 thousand for State Facilities Incentive Grants and Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2014, requires the Department to use not less than $11,000 thousand for State Facilities Incentive Grants and not less than $12,000 thousand 

for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities. The 2015 President's Budget would subsume both programs into the proposed Expanding Educational Options program. 2 Reflects a reprogramming in FY 2013 of $407 thousand from the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National Significance to Advanced Placement, in the School Improvement Programs account, 

now the Education Improvement Programs account.

3 Adjusted for comparability. Includes $2,337,830 thousand in FY 2013 and $2,349,830 thousand in FY 2014 for Improving Teacher Quality State Grants and $141,902 thousand in FY 2013 and $149,717 thousand 

in FY 2014 for Mathematics and Science Partnerships, appropriated to the School Improvement Programs account, now the Education Improvement Programs account; and $40,592 thousand in FY 2013

and in FY 2014 for Teacher Quality Partnership, appropriated to the Higher Education account. 

4 Adjusted for comparability. Excludes $25,771 thousand in FY 2013 and $25,741 thousand in FY 2014 for Ready-to-learn Television, $23,648 thousand in FY 2013 and $25,000 thousand in FY 2014 for 

Arts in Education, and $28,890 thousand in FY 2013 and $28,483 thousand in FY 2014 for Advanced Placement, proposed in FY 2015 under the Education Improvement Programs account. Also excludes

advanced appropriations of $1,681,441 thousand in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 that become available October 1 of the following fiscal year. Advanced appropriations shown in this account were for Improving 

Teacher Quality State Grants and were appropriated in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 in the School Improvement Programs account, now the Education Improvement Programs account.

2015 President's Budget 

Compared to 2014 Appropriation
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-24

Summary of Request

Programs in the Innovation and Instructional Teams account support the goal of improving 

student achievement in three key ways: providing incentives for States and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) to implement comprehensive educational reforms and to test, evaluate, and

expand innovative educational strategies and practices, including in science, technology, 

mathematics, and science (STEM); increasing the supply of effective teachers and principals; 

and providing parents with expanded options for the education of their children. The 

Administration requests a total of $3.9 billion in discretionary funds.

The new structure of this account reflects the framework of the Administration’s proposal for 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. A key objective of this 

proposal is to increase efficiency by consolidating currently authorized programs with similar 

purposes. In fiscal year 2014, for example, the Department’s appropriation contained several

programs focused on teaching and school leadership issues with different purposes, 

requirements, and authorized activities.

While each of these programs has worthy goals, the result of these fragmented funding streams 

has been inefficiencies at the Federal, State, and local levels; grantees have had to deal with 

numerous small grant competitions with different applications and requirements rather than 

focusing on improving outcomes for students, and the Department has had to focus on running 

separate grant competitions and monitoring compliance with different programs rather than on 

providing strong support and directing funding to the most proven or promising practices. The 

Administration expects that the new structure for programs in this account will allow States and 

LEAs to identify how to best meet the needs of their students and teachers, and allow the 

Department to focus funding on programs that improve student achievement, especially for 

students in high-need schools.

System-wide Reform and Innovation

The Administration requests $489.3 million to support efforts to drive State and local reform and 

innovation. Specifically, the request includes:

• $300.0 million for the Race to the Top program to support grants that can demonstrate the 

capacity and willingness to undertake reforms and innovations to reduce opportunity and 

achievement gaps. Under this new initiative, applicants would be required to demonstrate a 

commitment to making comprehensive changes in how they identify and close opportunity 

and achievement gaps. Grants would support the development and implementation of 

systems that integrate data on school-level finances, human resources, and academic 

achievement; strategies to get effective teachers and leaders to high-poverty schools; 

evidence-based practices, such as increasing access to rigorous coursework; activities that 

mitigate the effects of concentrated poverty like enhancing school climate and culture. 

• $165.0 million for the Investing in Innovation program to expand innovative strategies and 

practices that have been shown to be effective in improving educational outcomes for 

students and to test and evaluate promising practices, strategies, or programs whose 

efficacy has not yet been systematically studied. Funds would also support the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency-Education (ARPA-ED), a new entity modeled after similar 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Request—continued

H-25

agencies in the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. The mission of ARPAED would be to pursue development of educational technology and learning systems; 

support systems for educators; and tools that result in improvements for all students (but 

especially those from low-income backgrounds) by increasing educational achievement and 

attainment for students in both traditional and non-traditional learning environments.

• $24.3 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National 

Significance (FIE) to support nationally significant projects to improve the quality of 

elementary and secondary education, including continuation of a data quality initiative that 

helps improve the quality, analysis, and reporting of Department of Education elementary 

and secondary education data. Of the amount requested, the Department would use 

$10.0 million for competitive grants to develop and test interventions to improve students’ 

non-cognitive skills like self-control and social and emotional skills; $8.0 million to support 

activities to strengthen services provided to disconnected youth; and $5.0 million to support 

a youth data pilot that would enhance communities’ tracking of and performance on multiple 

outcomes for at-risk youth using existing data sets.

STEM Innovation

The Administration requests $319.7 million to help increase the number of students effectively 

prepared for postsecondary education and careers in STEM fields, including: 

• $110.0 million for a new STEM Innovation Networks initiative to help improve student 

engagement and achievement in STEM subjects by developing, validating, and scaling up 

innovative and effective STEM educational practices in networks of participating schools. 

• $40.0 million for STEM Teacher Pathways to support the Administration’s goal of recruiting 

and preparing 100,000 effective STEM teachers over 10 years. 

• $20.0 million to establish a National STEM Master Teacher Corps that would provide 

leadership roles for effective STEM teachers to help improve STEM instruction. 

• $149.7 million for Effective Teaching and Learning: Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics to support comprehensive State and local efforts to improve STEM education 

through such activities as professional development for STEM teachers and implementation 

of high-quality curriculum, instructional materials, and assessments.

High School Redesign

The Administration requests $150.0 million for a new, competitive High School Redesign

program to help redesign high schools to prepare students to be college- and career-ready 

(CCR) by using existing Federal, State, and local resources and creation of learning models that 

are rigorous, relevant, and focus on real-world experiences while incorporating personalized 

learning and career and college exploration.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Request—continued

H-26

Excellent Instructional Teams and School Leadership

The Administration requests $2.5 billion for the new Excellent Instructional Teams programs, 

which would provide both formula grants and competitive awards to help States and LEAs 

increase the effectiveness of teachers and principals.

• $2.0 billion for Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants to provide flexible, formulabased support for States and LEAs that commit to improving their teacher and principal 

evaluation systems and ensuring that low-income and minority students have equitable 

access to teachers and principals who are effective at raising student achievement. A 

10-percent national activities set-aside totaling $200 million would allow the Department to 

build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and leaders, 

and invest in efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions. 

• $200.0 million for a new ConnectEDucators program that would help educators transition 

to using technology and data to personalize learning and improve CCR instruction. The 

ConnectEDucators program would help ensure that teachers and leaders with access to 

high-speed Internet and devices for students are prepared to use these resources in a way 

that increases student learning and achievement. 

• $320.0 million for the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund to help States and LEAs 

improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need schools and LEAs, in 

particular by creating the conditions to identify, recruit, prepare, support, retain, and advance 

effective and highly effective teachers, teacher leaders, principals, and school leadership 

teams in those schools. 

These new programs would replace an array of current activities that address teaching and 

school leadership issues: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, the Teacher Incentive 

Fund, Transition to Teaching, and Teacher Quality Partnership. 

The Administration also requests $35.0 million for a redesigned School Leadership Program. 

The 2015 competition would support grants for high-quality, large-scale professional 

development for school leaders that build evidence of effectiveness. Funded projects would 

help current principals and school leadership teams strengthen essential school leadership skills 

(such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, analyzing student data, developing 

school leadership teams, and creating a positive school climate), and deepen school leaders’ 

understanding of CCR standards and effective instruction aligned to those standards.

The Administration proposes $5.0 billion in mandatory funding for the Recognizing Education 

Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project, which 

would provide significant, one-time support for educators across the country, responding to 

needs they have identified in a changing school environment, including the implementation of 

new CCR standards and assessments and new educator evaluation systems. RESPECT would 

support ambitious plans to address needs educators are calling out for: to attract the most 

capable candidates into education, improve teacher and principal preparation and support early 

in their careers, provide career ladders and other opportunities for educators to take on 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Summary of Request—continued

H-27

leadership roles, and create conditions in schools that support effective teaching, including great 

school leadership and time for collaboration.

Expanding Educational Options

The Administration requests $248.2 million for the new Expanding Educational Options 

program to support competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), charter school 

authorizers, charter management organizations, local educational agencies and other nonprofit 

organizations to start or expand high-performing charter schools and other autonomous public 

schools. The Department would also be authorized to make competitive grants to high-need 

LEAs, and to SEAs in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs, for the development and 

implementation of comprehensive programs of public school choice that increase the range of 

high-quality educational options available to students and help improve the academic 

achievement of students attending low-performing schools. All grantees would also be required 

to fund or operate parent information and outreach programs to make families and students 

aware of their options.

This new program would replace currently or recently funded programs that aim to increase 

public school options and family involvement in education, including Charter Schools Grants,

Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities, Voluntary Public School Choice,

Parental Information and Resource Centers, and Smaller Learning Communities.

In addition, the Administration requests $91.6 million for Magnet Schools Assistance to LEAs 

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

 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-28

Activities:

Race to the top

(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Title XIV, section 14006)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

01 $300,000 +$300,000

_________________

1 The FY 2014 Appropriations Act provided $250,000 thousand under Race to the Top for competitive awards to 

States for early childhood care and education. This funding is included as Preschool Development Grants under the 

proposed School Readiness account.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Race to the Top program (RTT) creates incentives for comprehensive State and local 

reforms and innovations designed to close achievement gaps, including for students with 

disabilities and English Learners, and to produce significant improvements in student 

achievement, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college 

persistence and completion. The RTT competitions have focused on the implementation of five 

core reforms: (1) adopting college- and career-ready standards and assessments that measure 

the progress of the educational system in preparing students to succeed in college and the 

workplace; (2) building data systems that measure student growth and success and inform 

teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction; (3) recruiting, developing, 

rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed 

most; (4) turning around the lowest-achieving schools; and (5) improving State and local 

systems of early learning. In addition, the program promotes the identification, dissemination, 

adoption, and use of effective State and local policies and practices that lead to significant 

improvement in outcomes for all children and youth and the elimination of policies and practices 

that are not effective in improving student outcomes.

With funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), in 2010, 

the Department invested more than $4 billion in a Race to the Top – State (RTT-State) 

competition that made 4-year awards to support comprehensive reforms in 11 States and the 

District of Columbia, based on their record of improving student outcomes and on their record of 

and commitment to putting in place conditions for innovation and reform. Applications were also 

evaluated based on the quality and likelihood of success of the applicants’ comprehensive and 

coherent plans, including the level of support from relevant stakeholders, for improving student 

achievement and attaining the other objectives of the program. In addition to the RTT-State 

grants, the Department made awards to two consortia of States under the Race to the Top 

Assessment program (RTT-A). The consortia are working to develop assessments that are 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-29

valid, support and inform instruction, provide accurate information about what students know 

and can do, and measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all 

students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace.

The fiscal year 2011 appropriations act provided nearly $700 million in funding for RTT, allowed 

the Department to award grants based on previously submitted applications, and amended the 

Recovery Act to permit the Department to make grants to improve early learning. The 

Department used approximately $200 million of these funds to make awards to seven of the 

highest-ranked but unfunded finalist States from the previous RTT-State competition. The 

seven States that received new awards from the $200 million are using grant funds to carry out 

a selection of the key activities included in their original applications, including activities to 

improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

In addition, the Department used approximately $500 million for a new Race to the Top – Early 

Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) competition in fiscal year 2011. The RTT-ELC competition was 

designed to encourage State efforts to develop, implement, better coordinate, and evaluate their 

systems of early learning, with the overall goals of (1) improving the quality of early learning 

programs and services for high-need children birth to age 5; and (2) closing the school 

readiness gap between children with high needs and their peers. Nine States received RTTELC awards in the first round of this competition.

The 2012 appropriations act allowed the use of RTT funds to support and encourage districtlevel reform and innovation through a competition for local educational agencies (LEAs) focused

on bold, innovative reform at the local level. The Race to the Top – District (RTT-D) competition 

invited applicants to demonstrate how they would personalize education for all students in their 

schools, building on the experiences of States in implementing reforms in the core educational 

assurance areas. The competition encouraged and rewarded LEAs and consortia of LEAs that 

had the best plans for implementing the strategies, structures, and systems needed to support 

personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and teaching that will produce learning 

growth for all students. In 2012, the Department awarded $384 million to 16 RTT-D applicants 

representing 55 LEAs. In addition, the Department used $133 million in fiscal year 2012 funds 

to make awards to five additional States that submitted applications in the fiscal year 2011 RTTELC competition. 

In 2013, the Department awarded $281 million to six States in a new RTT-ELC competition and 

provided $89 million in supplemental awards to the 2012 RTT-ELC grantees. The Department 

also conducted a second competition for RTT-D grants, awarding $121 million for five new 

awards representing 22 LEAs. 

The 2014 appropriations act required the Department to use the RTT funding for competitive 

awards to States for early childhood care and education consistent with the President’s 

2014 request for Preschool Development Grants (PDG). The Department is currently 

developing plans for a competition focused on support for and development of high-quality 

preschool programs, as described under the PDG program in the School Readiness account.

The Department awarded a contract in 2010 to run an RTT Reform Support Network (RSN), 

which provides technical assistance guided by the needs and requests of the grantee States
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-30

while also making available reports and other technical assistance to both grantee and nongrantee States. Network reports and other resources are available at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/resources.html. In 

2012, the Department awarded a contract to provide similar support to RTT-ELC and RTT-D 

grantees. Like the RSN, resources developed under the 2012 contract will be available to nongrantee States and LEAs as well.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 .................................................................................. 0

2011 .................................................................... $698,600

2012 ....................................................................... 548,960

2013 ....................................................................... 520,247

2014 .................................................................................. 01

_________________

1 The FY 2014 appropriations act provided $250,000 thousand under Race to the Top for competitive awards to 

States for early childhood care and education. This funding is included as Preschool Development Grants under the 

proposed School Readiness account.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $300 million for fiscal year 2015 for a new Race to the Top – Equity 

and Opportunity (RTT-Opportunity) competition centered on improving the academic 

performance of students in the Nation’s highest poverty schools. RTT-Opportunity is designed 

to drive meaningful changes in how States and LEAs identify and close persistent educational 

opportunity and achievement gaps. 

The work of States implementing RTT and ESEA Flexibility has shown that a critical challenge 

is ensuring that the high-need students who are the key focus of Federal education programs 

share fully in the benefits of these reforms. Even today, in America:

• Low-income and minority students are more likely to be assigned to inexperienced, out-offield, academically weaker, and less effective teachers than are other students.1

• 1 in 6 high school students lack access to essential STEM courses such as Algebra I, 

geometry, and biology; more than 1 in 3 lack access to physics; 1 in 2 lack access to 

calculus.2

 1 Heather Peske and Kati Haycock, “Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on 

Teacher Quality,” Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, June 2006, 

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/TQReportJune2006.pdf. 2 2009-10 Civil Rights Data Collection, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 

http://ocrdata.ed.gov.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-31

• In 2013, not a single Black student took the computer science Advanced Placement (AP) 

exam in 11 States and not a single Latino student took the exam in 8 States.3

• 45 percent of high-poverty schools receive State and local funds below what is typical for 

other schools in their LEA.

4

Recent data show that despite a national focus on achievement gaps dating back to the 

Department-commissioned "Equality of Educational Opportunity" report (known as the Coleman 

Report) in 1966, these gaps persist. For example, in the 2013 National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), only 24 percent of students eligible for free lunch under the 

National School Lunch Program scored proficient or above on the 4th-grade mathematics 

assessment, compared to 59 percent of students not eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch. 

As the 2013 Equity and Excellence Commission report made clear, inequitable opportunities 

deny students the quality education needed to successfully compete in the global economy and 

impose a substantial economic cost to the country.

Every student, regardless of zip code, should have access to a safe, high-quality school that 

provides a real ladder of opportunity into the middle class and beyond. Providing all students 

with the opportunities to succeed is not only a moral imperative but America’s continued 

economic prosperity in our increasingly competitive, technology-driven global marketplace

depends on ensuring that all of our students graduate from high school prepared for college and 

careers.

RTT-Opportunity will directly address key elements that contribute to longstanding opportunity 

and achievement gaps. The initiative will link together State and local fiscal, student 

achievement, and human resource data systems, allowing States, LEAs, and schools to identify 

and address the needs of underserved students by improving access to high-quality teachers 

and leaders, rigorous coursework, and other evidence-based supports. The initiative will build 

on reforms implemented under previous RTT competitions and ESEA Flexibility, while also 

improving the use and effectiveness of resources from other Federal programs. RTTOpportunity will provide incentives and support for the implementation of high-quality plans to 

ensure that high-need students and schools share fully in the benefits of these reforms. There 

will be two types of required activities:

First, grantees will develop, implement, or enhance data systems for local or State use that 

integrate information on school-level finances, teacher and principal experience and 

effectiveness, student coursework, and academic achievement. Grantees will use these newly 

available data to: (1) identify LEAs, schools, and student groups with the greatest disparities in 

opportunity and outcomes; (2) develop strategies for addressing these gaps to ensure all 

students are prepared for college and careers; and (3) measure the success of these strategies 

and use the results to support continuous improvement.

 3 Eric Westervelt, “A Push to Boost Computer Science Learning, Even At An Early Age,” www.npr.org, February 

17, 2014, http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/17/271151462/a-push-to-boost-computer-sciencelearning-even-at-an-early-age. 4 Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, “Comparability of State and Local Expenditures 

Among Schools Within Districts: A Report From the Study of School-Level Expenditures,” November 2011, 

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-32

Second, grantees will use funds to develop, attract, and retain more effective teachers and 

leaders in high-need schools, through strategies such as targeted and individualized 

professional development, career ladder opportunities, financial incentives, strengthening 

school culture and climate, and educator training and preparation programs, including those 

focused on developing effective principals trained to foster success and support excellent 

teachers in high-need schools. 

In addition to the required activities, grantees will be expected to address other factors 

contributing to educational opportunity and achievement gaps. These include, for example, 

school safety; non-cognitive skills; expanded learning time; fair and appropriate school discipline 

policies; mental, physical, and social emotional supports; college and career counseling, and 

other strategies that help break up and mitigate the effects of concentrations of poverty. 

Grantees could also promote evidence-based practices that expand access to rigorous 

coursework linked to college- and career-ready standards; AP and IB classes; gifted and 

talented programs; high-quality job-embedded career and technical education pathways; and 

early college programs in high schools. 

Operating in tandem, these strategies will build a foundation for assessing the effectiveness of 

specific interventions and reform strategies. Another key goal of RTT-Opportunity is to help 

States, LEAs, and schools to examine the use and alignment of existing Federal education 

resources, including Title I, Title II, and State Longitudinal Data Systems to ensure it is being 

used effectively and is aligned with their comprehensive plans to address opportunity and 

achievement gaps. States would collect data on school-level expenditures, make that data 

transparent and easily accessible, and use that data to improve the effectiveness of resources 

and to support continuous improvement. Participating LEAs would ensure that State and local 

funds are distributed fairly by implementing a more meaningful comparability standard, based 

on actual school-level expenditures. 

There is clear and compelling research about the fundamental disparities addressed by RTTOpportunity. 

One resource to which poor and minority students in high-poverty schools have less access is 

effective teachers, despite the fact that teachers are the single most important in-school factor 

determining student achievement, and that effective teaching has been linked to improved 

outcomes. According to a 2011 analysis by Raj Chetty et al., these improved outcomes include 

increased achievement levels, increased likelihood of college attendance, and higher wages. 

Yet a recent study by the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences concluded that “on 

average, disadvantaged students had less access to effective teaching” in all of the 29 LEAs

and in all grades 4 through 8 in the study. Further, administrative data collected through the 

relatively new Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems demonstrate the same pattern of poor and 

minority students having less access to effective teachers in many places. These data strongly 

suggest that increasing access to effective teaching is essential to closing achievement gaps for 

high-need students. 

High-need students also tend to have less experienced teachers. The Department’s 2012 

report, “Providing Effective Teachers for All Students: Examples from Five Districts” 

(http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/providing-effective-teachers/report.pdf), notes that 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-33

“studies have documented that, on average, teachers migrate toward working in affluent, high 

achieving schools.” This leads to higher proportions of inexperienced teachers in struggling 

schools, which is significant given that teacher effectiveness, on average, increases after the 

first few years of teaching. The result is higher proportions of inexperienced teachers are in the 

very schools where students have the greatest need for experienced, effective teachers.

Students also face large disparities in their access to, and completion of, rigorous collegepreparatory coursework. Poor and minority students have fewer opportunities to take 

challenging courses – a key factor associated with a student’s completion of a bachelor’s 

degree. In 2009, the National Center for Education Statistics found that in low-poverty schools,

half of graduates earned credits in dual credit, AP, or International Baccalaureate (IB) courses,

compared with just one-third of graduates in high-poverty schools.

Not surprisingly, the disparities in access to effective teachers and rigorous coursework also 

hold for other school resources. Most recently, the Department’s 2011 report, “Comparability of 

State and Local Expenditures Among Schools Within Districts: A Report From the Study of 

School-Level Expenditures” (http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-levelexpenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf), demonstrated that among LEAs that had both 

Title I schools and non-Title I schools, 31 percent of Title I schools had State and local per-pupil 

personnel expenditures that were more than 10 percent below the average expenditures for 

non-Title I schools. Clearly, many schools with significant numbers of disadvantaged students 

do not receive the same level of State and local resources per student as schools that do not 

have as many disadvantaged students, much less the greater level of resources that these 

disadvantaged schools may require to provide equitable instruction and services. It is important 

to note that such resource disparities have a significant impact on the effectiveness of key 

Federal education programs, such as Title I Grants to LEAs, which are intended to improve 

student outcomes, in part, by providing supplemental educational resources and services on top 

of an equitable base of State and local resources.

Effective teaching and learning cannot take place unless students and their teachers feel safe

and supported. This is especially true for high-need students involved in the foster care or 

juvenile justice systems, who are homeless or struggle with substance abuse and mental health 

issues, as well as those who drop out of school or are at risk of doing so. Such high-need 

students are often disproportionally represented in high-poverty schools. Students need 

positive school climates that are welcoming and include appropriate and fair discipline practices 

and other supports that mitigate the effects of poverty. Such environments also promote the 

retention of effective teachers in high-need schools. Yet, according to data from the 

Department’s Schools and Staffing Survey, 18 percent of secondary schools with at least threefourths of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch have no counselors, 

psychologists, or social workers compared to 5 percent of secondary schools with less than 

one-third of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. In addition, data collected by 

the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for the 2011-12 school year indicate 

that students of color are disciplined more harshly and more frequently than other students. For 

example, Black students without disabilities represented 35 percent of students suspended 

once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once, and 36 percent of students expelled, but 

Black students comprise only 15 percent of all students in the OCR’s Civil Rights Data 

Collection.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-34

Reducing educational inequity is a longstanding, overarching goal of the Federal investment in 

elementary and secondary education, dating back to the original Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965. Combining the new reform tools created through existing RTT and 

ESEA flexibility activities with advances in data collection and analysis and the adoption of 

evidence-based practices can lead to improved educational outcomes and will reduce 

achievement gaps. RTT-Opportunity will provide the incentives and resources to States and 

LEAs committed to taking on this challenge, closing achievement gaps, preparing the 21st 

century workforce needed to ensure our continued economic competitiveness and prosperity, 

and delivering on our Nation’s promise of equal opportunity for all Americans.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Early Learning and K-12

Award funding $490,852 0 0

Peer review of applications 3,676 0 0

Technical assistance and evaluation 25,719 0 0

Total, Early Learning and K-12 520,247 0 0

Equity and Opportunity

Award funding 0 0 $289,000

Peer review of applications 0 0 2,000

Technical assistance and evaluation 0 0 9,000

Total, Equity 0 0 300,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has established eight performance measures for the RTT-State grantees. The 

first four measures are designed to gauge grantee progress on the implementation of RTT plans

in the area of teachers and leaders: (1) the number of teachers and principals in participating

LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems;5 (2) the number of teachers and principals in 

participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems who were evaluated as effective or highly 

effective in the prior academic year; (3) the percentage of teachers in schools that are highpoverty, high-minority, or both, who were evaluated as highly effective in the prior academic 

year; and (4) the percentage of principals leading schools that are high-poverty, high-minority, 

or both who were evaluated as highly effective in the prior academic year. The remaining four 

measures seek to determine the program’s effect on student outcomes: (1) the number of 

States that achieve greater than the 75th percentile in overall score gains across all States in at 

least 3 of the 4 subject-grade combinations (grade 4 reading, grade 4 math, grade 8 reading, 

and grade 8 math) on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and have no 

statistically significant increase in exclusion rates for students with disabilities or English 

 5 “Qualifying evaluation systems” are those teacher and principal evaluation systems that (a) differentiate effectiveness 

using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor, and (b) are designed 

and developed with teacher and principal involvement and are rigorous, transparent, and fair.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-35

Learners; (2) the number of States that meet their Title I high school graduation rate target; 

(3) the number of States that report an increase in the percentage of students graduating from 

high school who enroll in an institution of higher education (IHE); and (4) the number of States 

that report an increase in the number of students who complete at least 1 year’s worth of 

college credit that is applicable to a degree within 2 years of enrollment in an IHE. The 

Department will have data for these measures in May 2014.

The Department has posted the annual performance reports (APRs) submitted by the States for 

school years 2010-11 and 2011-12 at http://www.rtt-apr.us and 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/performance.html. These reports allow the 

Department and the public to follow grantees’ progress in implementing their education reform 

plans and meeting their goals and targets. The APRs also include State-reported updates on 

the laws, statutes, regulations, and guidelines that affect key elements of their RTT plans. 

The Department established five performance measures for the Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems Grants awarded under the RTT-A program in 2010: (1) the number of States that have 

formally adopted a common set of college- and career-ready standards in mathematics and 

English language arts (ELA); (2) the number of States that have fully implemented the 

summative assessment components of the assessment systems developed by the consortium;

(3) the number of IHEs that are working with grantees to design and develop the final high 

school summative assessments in mathematics and ELA; (4) the number of IHEs that have 

implemented policies that exempt from remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college 

courses students who meet the achievement standard for the final high school summative 

assessments in mathematics and ELA and any other placement requirements; and (5) the 

percentage of direct matriculation students in public IHEs who are enrolled in IHEs that are 

working with grantees to design and develop the final high school summative assessments in 

mathematics and ELA and/or have implemented policies that exempt from remedial courses 

and place into credit-bearing college courses students who meet the achievement standard for 

the final high school summative assessments in mathematics and ELA. The Department will 

have data for these measures in late 2015.

The Department has developed performance measures for the RTT-ELC competition. At a

minimum, grants are required to report on the following measures: (1) the number and 

percentage of early learning and development programs participating in a statewide tiered 

quality rating and improvement system (TQRIS); (2) the number of early learning and 

development programs in the top tiers of the TQRIS; and (3) the number and percentage of 

children with high needs who are enrolled in early learning and development programs that are 

in the top tiers of the TQRIS. The Department has developed additional measures on which 

grantees will report, depending on the objectives of their projects. 

The Department is establishing performance measures for RTT-D grantees to ensure the 

collection of high-quality, comparable data that will inform the assessment of the effectiveness 

of the program. The Department expects to finalize these measures in spring 2014.

The Department is evaluating the implementation and impact of efforts to turn around 

persistently lowest-achieving schools under both the RTT-State and School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) programs. This evaluation involves collecting data from roughly 60 LEAs and 

525 schools in the 50 States and DC. The study is focusing on (1) the implementation of RTT 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Race to the top

H-36

and SIG; (2) the relationship between receipt of RTT funds and student outcomes; (3) the 

impact of the receipt of SIG funds on student outcomes in the lowest-achieving schools; and 

(4) the relationship between the four school turnaround models (and related improvement 

strategies) and student outcomes and school performance. Data collection for this study will 

continue through the 2013-14 school year. The Department released an evaluation brief in 

December 2013 (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144008/), which outlines the trends in 

operational authority of SIG and non-SIG schools (e.g., autonomy over school budgets, student 

discipline policies, staffing), the most common forms of technical assistance and other supports 

for turnaround efforts, and the role of State monitoring. The Department will issue the first full 

report by December 2014. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-37

Investing in innovation

(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Sec. 12007)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$141,602 $165,000 +$23,398

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Investing in Innovation (i3) program promotes the development and expansion of innovative 

practices for which there is evidence of effectiveness. The program is authorized under 

Section 14007 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).

Under the program, the Department makes awards on a competitive basis to local educational 

agencies (LEAs) that have demonstrated success in improving student achievement and closing

achievement gaps, or to nonprofit organizations, in consortium with one or more schools or 

LEAs, that have helped LEAs or schools improve achievement and close gaps. 

The i3 program employs a rigorous framework that directs the highest level of funding to 

projects with the strongest evidence base, but also provides significant support for promising 

projects that are willing to undergo rigorous evaluation. Grantees use funds to: (1) scale up 

practices, strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence that the proposed activity 

has had a significant and positive effect on improving student achievement, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates; 

(2) validate and expand practices, strategies, or programs for which there is moderate evidence 

that the proposed activity has had a significant and positive effect on those same outcomes; or 

(3) develop and test promising practices, strategies, or programs for which there is a strong 

theory or evidence of promise that indicates potential for positive impacts or some positive 

research-based findings, but for which efficacy has not yet been systematically studied. 

Each grantee is also required to support an independent evaluation of its project and to identify 

strategies for expanding the project, if effective, after the grant period expires. In addition, each 

grantee is required to obtain a specified amount of matching funds from the private sector and 

to use funds to develop or expand strategies to improve the performance of high-need students. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-38

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 ............................................ .....................................0

2011 ............................................ ........................ $149,700

2012 ............................................ .......................... 149,417

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2015, the Administration requests $165 million for the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, 

an increase of $23.4 million over the 2014 appropriation. The request would build on the 

Department’s success in using program funds to build an evidence base that will help ensure 

that schools and districts have access to innovative strategies and practices that are effective in 

improving educational outcomes for students. In addition, up to 30 percent of the available

funds would support activities to be carried out by the Advanced Research Projects AgencyEducation (ARPA-ED).

The goal of the i3 program is to encourage innovation and improve educational outcomes for 

students by developing, identifying, and scaling up effective practices. The program’s emphasis 

on supporting projects with either evidence of effectiveness or a strong research-based 

framework increases the likelihood that funded projects succeed and that we learn more about 

what works, for whom and in what context. The focus on strong evidence and the requirement 

for rigorous program evaluations also helps expand local capacity to properly evaluate 

implementation and impact, and determine whether educational interventions are effective. In 

addition, the program garners significant non-Federal interest in supporting innovation in 

education. As of December 2013, private institutions such as foundations, nonprofit 

organizations, and institutions of higher education have made commitments of over $200 million 

to assist in the implementation of grantee projects. 

The i3 program continues to experience significant demand across the Nation. In 2013, the 

Department received over 600 applications for projects to validate or scale up proven practices 

and pre-applications for projects to develop and test promising practices across a range of key 

challenges that affect student learning. As of December 2013, the Department has awarded 

117 i3 grants, including 5 in the Scale-up category, 35 in Validation, and 77 in Development. 

The funding requested for 2015 would allow the Department to continue to build on the success 

in fostering educational innovation while developing an evidence base in areas of high need and 

generating private-sector investment to complement the Federal investment. The Department 

will determine priorities for the 2015 grant competition after the competition for fiscal year 2014 

funds is finalized. The Department’s strategy for choosing competition priorities is to ensure 

that it funds projects in high-priority areas as well as projects in areas where few or no projects 

have been funded previously in order to build out the “portfolio” of i3-supported solutions. 

Priorities under consideration include targeting the improvement of student attainment in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects, supporting high-quality 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-39

education in rural locations, and accelerating achievement of students with disabilities or 

English Learners. For fiscal year 2015, the Department would reserve $5.8 million for national 

activities, including providing technical assistance to help grantees develop and implement 

rigorous evaluation plans, among other activities. The Department is also considering reserving 

up to $10 million for “pay-for-success” projects to incentivize service providers to achieve better 

results in a cost-effective manner.

In addition, the Department would reserve up to $49.5 million for ARPA-ED. ARPA-ED would 

be a new entity within the Department, modeled after similar agencies within the Department of 

Defense and Department of Energy. The ARPA-ED mission would be to pursue development of 

educational technology and tools that result in breakthrough improvements for all students 

(especially those from low-income backgrounds) by increasing educational achievement and 

attainment for students in both traditional and non-traditional learning environments. Funds for 

ARPA-ED would be appropriated on a no-year basis to remain available for obligation until 

expended. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for new awards $134,724 $133,106 $108,570

Number of new awards 25 12-25 10-20

Range of awards $2,375-11,871 $1,000-20,000 $1,000-20,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $818 $1,416 $1,155

National activities $6,059 $7,080 $5,775

ARPA-ED 0 0 $49,500

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those requested in FY 2015

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

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

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

achievement and other student outcomes.

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

across the country to serve a substantially larger numbers of students.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-40

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

Year Target Actual

2011 67%

2012 70% 60

2013 75

2014 80

2015 60

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

Year Target Actual

2011 46%

2012 50% 70

2013 54

2014 60

2015 65

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

reported are from the first two cohorts of i3 grantees and represent grantee performance from 

October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012 for the first cohort, and from January 1, 2011 

through December 31, 2011 for the second cohort. Actual percentages are based on partial 

data, as not every grantee provided targets for the number of students that would be served nor 

did grantees report student data consistently. The Department reset some targets based on the 

additional data available after 2 years of reporting for one cohort of grantees plus availability of 

initial data for a second cohort of grants. The Department will continue providing technical 

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

data. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be available in winter 2014.

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

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

address persistent educational challenges.

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

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

their effectiveness at improving student outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 80% 100

2013 80

2014 80

2015 80
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-41

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

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

effectiveness at improving student outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 90% 89

2013 92

2014 94

2015 75

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 97%

2012 94% 100

2013 95

2014 96

2015 96

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

as of October 2013. The Department reset some targets based on the additional data available 

after 2 years of reporting for one cohort of grantees plus availability of initial data for a second 

cohort of grants. The Department will continue providing technical assistance to grantees in 

order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 

2013 will be available in spring 2015. 

Assessment of evaluation design and efficacy is based on reviews by external reviewers trained 

in the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards. A well-designed study is one that is wellimplemented and would meet the WWC standards with or without reservations. An independent 

evaluation means that the organization conducting the evaluation is not responsible for project 

development and implementation. To qualify as providing evidence of effectiveness at 

improving student outcomes, a study must estimate the impact of the program, practice, or 

strategy on one or more of the student outcomes specified in the intervention’s logic model and 

that meet WWC Outcome Standards in terms of face validity, alignment, reliability, and validity. 

Actual data may vary from year to year because of a number of factors that may affect the 

capacity of grantees to maintain these first year results throughout the end of each project. For 

example, differences in attrition among students in treatment and control groups could pose a 

significant challenge to successful implementation of a project evaluation. Furthermore, given 

the small number of projects in the Scale-up grant category, problems in one project would 

dramatically change the percentage of projects meeting the measure. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-42

For Development grants, determinations of evidence of promise were based on whether project 

evaluations used research designs that would provide a comparison for the outcomes of the 

intervention group.

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2011 100%

2012 80% 100

2013 80

2014 80

2015 80

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

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

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

Year Target Actual

2011 93%

2012 90% 100

2013 90

2014 90

2015 90

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

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

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2011 90%

2012 90% 97

2013 90

2014 90

2015 90

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

as of October 2013. The Department will continue providing technical assistance to grantees in 

order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for fiscal year 

2013 will be available in spring 2015. 

Although the Department’s evaluation contractor worked with the i3 grantees and evaluators to 

develop logic models and fidelity measures of program implementation, it is unlikely that initial 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Investing in innovation

H-43

program results will be maintained throughout the life of all of the projects. Slight programmatic 

changes could affect the quality of program implementation data. The Department is providing

technical assistance to grantees and their evaluators on this issue.

The Department is not reporting data separately on the percentage of Development grantees 

that are implementing their projects with fidelity to the approved design. However, the 

evaluation contractor, in determining which Development projects to count as meeting the 

elements of the last measure above, examines whether Development projects’ evaluation plans 

include a strategy for measuring implementation fidelity.

Efficiency Measures

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

Data for this measure for 2011 are based on aggregate total project costs (including evaluation 

costs) and the number of students served by all grantees. Aggregate program costs were used

to calculate costs per student due to inconsistencies in the data grantees reported. The 

Department developed a new annual reporting format and provided technical assistance to 

grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Going 

forward with the new reporting format, data for this measure for 2012 and subsequent years will 

be based on total project costs minus evaluation costs and the number of students served by all 

grantees. Separating the evaluation costs is critical because evaluation costs for i3 projects 

tend to be large due to the complexity of the evaluation designs and the goal of meeting WWC 

standards. Data for 2012 are partial because not all grantees provided a breakdown of costs for 

evaluation versus other expenses. Data shown represent all 5 Scale-up grants, 15 out of 20 

Validation grants, and 30 of 47 Development grants. Data for fiscal year 2013 will be available 

in winter 2014. 

Year Cost per student, 

Scale-up grants

Cost per student, 

Validation grants

Cost per student, 

Development grants

2011 $53 $177 $140

2012 61 159 182

2013

2014

2015
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-44

STEM Innovation:

STEM innovation

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2014 2015

Change 

from 2014

STEM Innovation Networks 0 $110,000 +$110,000

STEM Teacher Pathways 0 40,000 +40,000

National STEM Master Teacher Corps 0 20,000 +20,000

Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM 0 149,717 +149,717

Total 0 319,717 +319,717

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Scientists and engineers create many of the innovations that drive our Nation’s global 

competitiveness. Unfortunately, it is clear that this technology-based capacity to create and 

innovate is at risk due to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula 

and instruction that that are under-preparing and not effectively engaging students in these 

critical STEM fields. To address this problem, and to ensure that our economic competitiveness 

is not at risk because of a shortage of STEM talent, we must expand the capacity of our 

elementary and secondary schools to provide all students, including girls, minority students, and 

others historically underrepresented in STEM fields, with engaging and meaningful opportunities 

to develop knowledge and competencies in these subjects. 

Federal agencies have developed a range of STEM education programs over the years in order 

to accomplish this goal, but recognize the need for continued improvement. In 2014, the 

President's Budget proposed a framework for delivering STEM education to more students and 

more teachers more effectively. The Administration has also published a Federal STEM 

Education Five-Year Strategic Plan1 to help align the framework with key goals and strategies. 

The major areas of priority for this plan include: improving pre-kindergarten-through-gradetwelve (P-12) STEM instruction; increasing and sustaining youth and public engagement in 

STEM; enhancing the STEM experience of undergraduate students; better serving groups 

historically underrepresented in STEM, and designing graduate education for tomorrow’s STEM 

workforce. 

 1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_stratplan_2013.pdf
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-45

Over the past year, agencies have made considerable progress towards a stronger and more 

cohesive infrastructure for developing policies and delivering programs in STEM education. In 

implementing the Strategic Plan, mission agencies have increased coordination with the lead 

agencies (the Department of Education (Department), the National Science Foundation, and the 

Smithsonian Institution) and are identifying ways to leverage existing resources to improve the 

reach of agency assets. For example, NASA and the Department successfully launched a pilot 

project combining content from NASA’s Summer of Innovation project and the platform of the 

Department’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers program to engage students in 

engineering design challenges at over 23 sites nationwide. 

The 2015 Budget builds on these efforts by proposing a fresh reorganization with targeted 

adjustments to enable more strategic investment in STEM education, with a focus on building 

and using evidence-based practices and developing new interagency models for leveraging 

assets and expertise. For example, the Department will work with the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) to co-administer NIH’s Science Education Partnership Award program to ensure 

that program activities are aligned with ongoing P-12 reform efforts, designed to reach the 

highest need schools, and disseminated broadly. 

The proposed STEM Innovation initiative is a central element of this strategy and would help

ensure that our Nation’s children are prepared to succeed in a global economy increasingly 

reliant on STEM knowledge and skills by: (1) developing, validating, and scaling up effective 

practices in P-12 STEM instruction; (2) increasing student engagement in STEM subjects; and 

(3) recruiting, preparing, and further developing highly effective STEM educators. The STEM 

Innovation initiative is comprised of the following complementary authorities: (1) STEM 

Innovation Networks, (2) STEM Teacher Pathways, (3) the National STEM Master Teacher 

Corps, and (4) Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM.

STEM Innovation Networks

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed STEM Innovation Networks (STEM-INs) program would provide competitive 

grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) in partnership with institutions of higher education 

(IHEs), nonprofit organizations, other public agencies, museums, and businesses to transform 

STEM teaching and learning by accelerating the adoption of practices in P-12 education that 

help increase the number of students who seek out and are effectively prepared for 

postsecondary education and careers in STEM fields.

STEM-INs would connect schools, educators, students, and community partners to local, 

regional, and national resources to enhance STEM education. Eligible partnerships would 

develop coordinated plans to: promote student inspiration, achievement, and preparation in 

STEM subjects; improve STEM instruction; and build regional networks of support for STEM.

Depending on local needs and the resources available through partnerships with business, 

research organizations, and IHEs, grantees would focus their projects on accomplishing the 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-46

following goals, with a particular focus on engaging students who are traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM fields:

• Increasing student engagement and achievement in STEM subjects; 

• Supporting teachers to improve student interest and outcomes in STEM;

• Increasing the opportunities for students to have authentic STEM experiences, both during

the school day and in informal settings;

• Creating a system of integrated and strategic support for STEM education that is designed 

for sustainability, replication and scaling up; and 

• Increasing opportunities for students and teachers to interact with, learn from, and be 

inspired by STEM professionals and experts.

These goals would be accomplished through the development and implementation of 

comprehensive plans to identify, develop, test, and spread the use of evidence-based practices 

for both student and teacher support. Examples of possible activities include rigorous programs 

of STEM study that involve inquiry-, project-, and work-based learning in all grades as well as

advanced coursework, including dual enrollment and other options for earning credit toward a 

postsecondary certificate or degree for high school aged students.

To support effective implementation of these plans, STEM-INs would employ a wide range of 

strategies and utilize a rich array of resources and assets, including using technology to 

promote the broad adoption of effective STEM instructional practices and leveraging regional 

STEM resources and assets as well as those of Federal agencies. Other key elements of 

STEM-INs could include STEM Platform Schools, a subset of participating schools that would 

serve as “test beds” for intensive experimentation, research, and innovation in STEM topics 

relevant to local needs; research and evaluation partnerships to measure the impact of STEMIN activities and build an evidence base for effective practices that would be broadly 

disseminated; and partnerships with teacher preparation and professional development 

providers to help align preservice and in-service teacher training with network goals. STEM-INs 

could also engage with existing networks at the State and local levels and build on lessons 

learned to increase student engagement and achievement in STEM. 

STEM-INs would be rigorously evaluated, with each grantee required to partner with a research 

institution for short- and long-term evaluative studies and to participate in a Department-funded 

program evaluation. The Department would reserve up to 5 percent of program funds to support 

a range of national activities, including technical assistance, data collection, evaluation, and 

dissemination. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $110 million to initiate the STEM-INs program as part of a 

Governmentwide strategy to create a more cohesive and coordinated framework for delivering 

STEM education. STEM-INs would help organize LEAs to share best practices, identify 

common problems that can be addressed through research and innovation programs, and 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-47

support the evaluation, replication, and scaling up of effective STEM instructional models 

throughout the Nation. In doing so, STEM-INs is would bring effective STEM resources and 

strategies to a far greater number of schools, teachers, and students than currently have access 

to them.

Improving American students’ engagement and achievement in STEM fields is vital to ensuring 

the continued economic well-being of our country and is an Administration priority. In a 

2005 report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” the National Academies concluded that a 

primary factor influencing the future health of the American economy and our ability to create 

jobs is innovation resulting from advances in science and engineering. In addition, recent 

projections from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that over 

80 percent of the fastest-growing occupations (such as those in healthcare- and computerrelated fields) require knowledge of STEM subjects. Yet U.S. students finished behind those of 

29 countries in mathematics and 22 countries in science on the 2012 Program for International 

Student Assessment, which measures the mathematics and science literacy of 15-year-olds in 

the world’s most advanced countries. For the United States to build and maintain the highly 

skilled workforce and nourish the technological innovation needed to remain competitive in the 

global economy, we must improve STEM teaching and learning and ensure access to rigorous 

courses of study for our students. These findings have also been echoed in two major reports 

by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

2

The STEM-INs program would learn from and build on models currently in use in several States 

and LEAs with a strong STEM focus, including those funded through Race to the Top. For 

example, Ohio launched the first statewide STEM Learning Network in 2007, including several 

successful STEM schools and an intensive partnership structure that has now expanded to 

engage 15 additional States in STEM education reform. This multi-state network is working to 

develop models for leveraging STEM resources, create evaluation frameworks, and provide 

tools to help with policy, practice, and partnership development. These networks and other 

STEM efforts across the country have demonstrated improvements in student engagement and 

achievement in STEM and promoted effective teaching practices. The STEM-INs proposal is 

designed to help identify the most effective practices in these leading-edge States and LEAs

and take them to scale nationwide by fostering new systems of support and expanding the 

evidence base for effective practices in STEM teaching and learning.

STEM Virtual Learning Network

In fiscal year 2015, the Department would use a portion of STEM-INs national activities funds to 

develop the STEM Virtual Learning Network, an online community based on the Department’s 

Connected Educator and Learning Registry initiatives and designed both to facilitate interaction 

among STEM educators and to accelerate identification, dissemination, adoption, and use of 

effective practices. The Department would leverage the work of STEM-INs grantees by 

requiring them to contribute actively to this community. 

 2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-48

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $103,400

Peer review of new award applications 1,100

National activities, including STEM Virtual Learning Network 5,500

Total, STEM Innovation Networks 110,000

STEM Teacher Pathways

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

STEM Teacher Pathways would directly support the President’s goal of developing 

100,000 new effective and highly effective STEM teachers while also building evidence on the 

characteristics and requirements of high-quality STEM teacher preparation programs. 

Traditional and nontraditional teacher preparation programs, including those run by national 

nonprofit organizations, as well as alternative routes to certification and licensure, would be 

eligible to compete for funding. The Department would also look at ways to leverage and 

integrate the Pathways program with the work of the STEM-INs. For example, the Department 

could give priority to STEM Teacher Pathways applicants that propose partnerships with 

schools and districts served by STEM-INs. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The $40.0 million request for STEM Teacher Pathways in 2015 would help high-need schools 

and areas address a critical need for effective STEM teachers. Public high schools in particular 

report greater difficulties in filling STEM teaching positions, such as mathematics, biology, and 

physical sciences, than other subjects, such as English and social studies. Moreover, public 

high schools report that higher proportions of individuals teaching mathematics and science lack 

an undergraduate major or certification in their field compared to teachers of other subjects.

As documented by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report 

“Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math for 

America’s Future,”3 research suggests that being a great STEM teacher requires both deep 

content knowledge and strong teaching skills. Teachers need to have enough content 

knowledge to link STEM to compelling real world issues, model the process of scientific 

 3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-49

investigation, effectively address student misconceptions, and help their students learn to 

reason and solve problems like scientists and engineers.

The STEM Teacher Pathways program would build the evidence base in this area and leverage 

lessons learned from previous Department initiatives that included a focus on the preparation of 

STEM educators and the strong momentum already created in the private sector. Responding 

to the President’s call to action to prepare 100,000 excellent STEM teachers over the next 

10 years, more than 150 organizations, including the Department and other Federal agencies, 

have come together in a network called “100Kin10.”4

This program’s emphasis on STEM teacher preparation and retention reflects the Department’s 

commitment to promoting excellence in STEM throughout our education system, and would 

complement the other proposed STEM Innovation programs. For example, while the STEM-INs 

could include preservice teacher preparation as part of a region’s comprehensive approach to 

improving STEM teaching and learning, STEM Teacher Pathways would focus more specifically 

on the recruitment, selection, preparation, and induction support to generate new STEM 

teachers who will be highly effective in the classroom.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $37,600

Peer review of new award applications 400

National activities 2,000

Total, STEM Teacher Pathways 40,000

National STEM Master Teacher Corps

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In July 2012, the Administration proposed the creation of a National STEM Master Teacher 

Corps comprised of some of the Nation’s finest educators in STEM subjects. Selected teachers 

would make a multi-year commitment to the Corps and, in exchange for their expertise, 

leadership, and service, may receive an annual stipend on top of their base salary. 

The National STEM Master Teacher Corps will build on and amplify efforts States, districts, 

nonprofit organizations, and other groups have begun to create leadership pathways for 

excellent STEM educators to improve STEM teaching and learning nationwide. These efforts 

are providing opportunities for STEM educators to advance on career ladders, take on 

leadership roles and responsibilities, and earn additional compensation. They provide the 

 4 http://www.100kin10.org/
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-50

professional development and organizational support to enable STEM educators to design 

curriculum and to coach and support their peers, especially in the transition to college- and 

career-ready (CCR) standards in math and science. Through participation in the Corps, 

teachers would build their capacity to be leaders in the field and enhance the professional 

learning of other STEM teachers; identify and share promising practices in their schools, 

districts, and States; become equipped to participate in local, State and National STEM 

education policy forums and communities of practice; and help students excel in STEM subjects 

while taking on coaching and mentorship roles in their schools and communities. 

This pilot project will also identify, refine, and share models of effective ways to support, 

compensate, and develop these teachers through the creation of a set of National advisors to 

help identify different approaches to teacher leadership and capacity building. These National 

advisors will contribute to shaping a set of roles and responsibilities for membership in the 

Corps, help identify pathways for leadership within States and districts, and create models 

based on best practices for retaining and supporting STEM teachers across the country. 

Members of the Corps would be identified through existing rigorous recruitment and selection 

programs based on teachers’ demonstrated effectiveness in teaching STEM subjects, content 

knowledge, and contributions to the continuous improvement of teaching and learning both 

within their schools and across the community of STEM educators. The proposed program will 

build on the work of the Department’s Teacher Incentive Fund STEM grantees, which are 

developing leadership opportunities for STEM teachers as part of broader reform strategies. 

The National STEM Master Teacher Corps may also involve collaboration with nonprofit 

organizations and local public-private partnerships between STEM-related businesses and 

industries and school districts. 

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $20.0 million to support a pilot project for the National STEM 

Master Teacher Corps in 2015. The STEM Master Teacher Corps is a key recommendation of 

the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and is designed to allow the 

Nation’s most talented STEM teachers to help transform STEM teaching and learning in their 

schools and communities, to recognize and help retain these teachers, to build a community of 

practice among them, and to raise the profile of the STEM teaching profession. 

The proposed pilot project would rely on established Federal programs that recognize and 

reward excellent STEM teachers and establish opportunities for participation in a National Corps 

by defining Corps members’ roles, providing opportunities for leadership capacity capacitybuilding, and creating opportunities for members to improve STEM teaching and learning across 

the country.

The National STEM Master Teacher Corps would complement the other programs within the 

STEM Innovation initiative and other Department programs to support highly effective STEM 

teachers. In particular, Corps members could take on leadership roles in developing and 

implementing the STEM-INs; evaluate content, and promote practices to improve STEM 

teaching and learning in Platform schools and across regional areas through the STEM-INs; 

work with a range of Federal STEM resources to enrich the efforts of the STEM-INs; and 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-51

contribute to the Virtual Learning Network. The National STEM Master Teacher Corps could 

also contribute to the design and support of STEM Teacher Pathways projects and to the 

effective implementation of Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund grants. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $18,800

Peer review of new award applications 200

National activities 1,000

Total, National STEM Master Teacher Corps 20,000

Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM program, proposed as part of the Administration’s 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization plan in 2010, would replace 

the Mathematics and Science Partnerships program under current law and provide grants to 

SEAs, alone or in partnership with other entities, to support State and local efforts to implement 

a comprehensive strategy for the provision of high-quality P-12 STEM instruction. Grantees and 

subgrantees would be required to focus on improving teaching and learning in mathematics or 

science, or both, and could also carry out activities designed to increase student achievement in 

technology or engineering, in high-need LEAs and schools.

In light of the Administration’s framework for Federal STEM education programs, the 

Administration is revising its Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM proposal to complement 

the proposed STEM-INs. The Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM program would retain 

the formula grant structure of Mathematics and Science Partnerships but align the awarding and 

use of subgrants with the Administration’s STEM education goals. This would allow all States to 

invest in STEM education while targeting support to the development and implementation of 

evidence-based STEM education programs. Further, improvements in STEM education 

supported with Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM grants could be leveraged by the 

STEM-INs and further disseminated through the STEM Virtual Learning Network.

States would be permitted to reserve up to 20 percent of grant funds for State-level activities to 

support the development and implementation of a coherent statewide approach to providing 

high-quality, evidence-based STEM instruction in high-need schools. States would be required 

to use remaining funds to make subgrants to high-need LEAs and eligible partnerships for 

efforts to improve STEM instruction at the local level that include effective professional 

development of teachers and school leaders; high-quality curricula, instructional materials, and 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-52

assessment systems aligned with State standards; and continuous monitoring of project 

implementation and outcomes. Subgrantees also would be permitted to use funds for activities 

that integrate STEM instruction into teaching of other core academic subjects, improve 

engagement in STEM, and use technology to support teaching and learning. In making 

subgrants, States would be required to give priority to eligible entities that propose projects 

supported by the strongest available evidence.

The Department would be authorized to reserve up to 10 percent of program funds to support a 

range of national activities, including identification of effective programs and best practices, 

development of high-quality educational and professional development content, technical 

assistance, and dissemination. The Department would also be permitted to reserve up to 

5 percent of funds for competitive grants to strengthen States capacity to improve the teaching 

and learning of STEM subjects.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Department requests $149.7 million in fiscal year 2015 for the proposed Effective Teaching 

and Learning: STEM program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level for Mathematics and 

Science Partnerships. This request would support the first year of the program, which would 

address the need to strengthen instruction comprehensively and increase student achievement 

in STEM subjects in high-need LEAs and schools.

Improving achievement in STEM fields is imperative for maintaining our Nation’s economic 

competitiveness. Moreover, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that high-need students 

have access to rigorous, high-quality programs of STEM instruction. While a 2007 report from 

the Department’s National Center for Education Statistics, “Advanced Mathematics and Science 

Coursetaking in the Spring High School Senior Classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004,” indicates that 

high school graduates’ completion of mathematics and science courses increased between 

1982 and 2004 and that greater percentages of graduates took advanced mathematics and 

science courses in 2004 compared to 1982, graduates in the highest socioeconomic status 

(SES) quartile were consistently more likely than graduates in the lowest SES quartile to have 

completed advanced-level coursework. In addition, as reported in the Department’s “Condition 

of Education 2012,” the percentages of White and Asian/Pacific Islander high school graduates 

who completed advanced science and mathematics coursework between 1990 and 2009 were 

consistently higher than those of their Black and Hispanic peers. Effective Teaching and 

Learning: STEM would help address these concerns by focusing on teaching and learning of 

STEM subjects in a manner that is aligned with CCR standards and targeted to high-need LEAs 

serving large concentrations of poor and minority students.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

STEM innovation

H-53

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $134,745

National activities 14,972

Total, Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM 149,717

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

STEM Innovation programs.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-54

Mathematics and science partnerships

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$149,717 0 -$149,717

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2015 under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program supports State and local efforts to 

improve students’ academic achievement in mathematics and science by improving elementary 

and secondary school mathematics and science teacher education and professional 

development. Authorized program activities include summer workshops or institutes that train 

teachers to use curricula that are based on scientific research and aligned with challenging 

State academic content standards; innovative distance-learning programs; and programs that 

bring teachers together with working scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to expand 

teachers’ subject-matter knowledge and research. Grantees may also use program funds to 

develop more rigorous mathematics and science curricula that are aligned with challenging 

State and local academic content standards and to recruit individuals with mathematics, 

science, and engineering majors into the teaching profession through the use of signing and 

performance incentives, stipends, and scholarships. 

The Department provides grants to States by formula based on the number of children ages 5 to 

17 who are from families with incomes below the poverty line, with no State receiving less than 

0.5 percent of the appropriation; States then award funds competitively to eligible partnerships. 

Eligible partnerships must include an engineering, mathematics, or science department of an 

institution of higher education (IHE) and a high-need local educational agency (LEA). 

Partnerships may also include other engineering, mathematics, science, or teacher training 

departments of an IHE; additional LEAs and public or private elementary or secondary schools, 

including charter schools; businesses; and nonprofit or for-profit organizations with 

demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of mathematics and science teachers.

The MSP program is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on 

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

through September 30 of the following year.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

H-55

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.........................................................$180,478

2011...........................................................175,127

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

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting fiscal year 2015 funding for the Mathematics and Science 

Partnerships program. In place of this program, the Administration has proposed to create, 

through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, a new program, Effective 

Teaching and Learning: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), which 

(as discussed in more detail elsewhere in this account) would provide grants to SEAs to support 

State and local efforts to implement a comprehensive strategy for the provision of high-quality 

STEM instruction and support to students from prekindergarten through grade 12.

If the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to enactment of fiscal year 2015 

appropriations, the Administration will request authority through appropriations language to align 

the awarding and use of subgrants under Mathematics and Science Partnerships (while 

retaining the program’s formula grant structure) with the evidence-based STEM Innovation 

Networks proposal and to use up to 5 percent of the appropriation for national activities, 

including technical assistance, evaluation, and dissemination.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for State grants $141,193 $148,968 0

Average State award 2,521 2,660 0

Range of State awards 706-16,775 745–18,411 0

Evaluation 709 749 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and the resources and efforts 

invested by those served by this program.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

H-56

Data for these measures for 2013 will be available in the summer 2014. No targets are shown 

for 2015 because the program is proposed for consolidation.

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

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

students participating in Mathematics and Science Partnerships programs.

Objective: Demonstrate the effectiveness of professional development activities for 

Mathematics and Science Partnerships teachers through increased achievement on 

assessments of mathematics and science content knowledge.

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

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

Year Target Actual

2010 66% 66%

2011 65 69

2012 65 65

2013 65

2014 65

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

pre- and post-assessments.

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

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

mathematics and science.

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

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

science.

Year Target Actual

2010 48% 64%

2011 50 66

2012 52 65

2013 54

2014 56

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

that are tested using a statewide assessment. 

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

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

evaluations successfully, and for which evaluations yield scientifically valid results.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Mathematics and science partnerships

H-57

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

an experimental or quasi-experimental design for their evaluations.

Year Target Actual

2010 40% 51%

2011 41 47

2012 42 50

2013 43

2014 44

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

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

scientifically valid results.

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

from annual performance reports and assesses evaluation designs using a rubric that was 

developed for the Department in 2007 and revised in 2011 and 2012 to better align with What 

Works Clearinghouse standards. This measure includes only evaluation designs for which 

sufficient information is provided to enable an assessment. The Department believes that 

conveying high expectations for project evaluation through the rubric and prominently featuring 

subgrantees with strong evaluation designs in technical assistance and dissemination activities 

have contributed to the increase in the percentage of evaluations that are conducted 

successfully and with rigor.

Efficiency Measure

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

data on program performance measures in a timely manner.

Year Target Actual

2010 100% 100%

2011 100 100

2012 100 100

2013 100

2014 100

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

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

Year Target Actual

2010 15% 13%

2011 16 24

2012 17 29

2013 18

2014 19
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-58

High school redesign

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$0 $150,000 +$150,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed High School Redesign program would promote the whole school redesign of the 

high school experience by funding competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and 

their partners to redesign high schools in innovative ways that better prepare students for 

college and career success so that all students graduate from high school with postsecondary

credit and career-related experiences or competencies, obtained through project or problembased learning or real-world challenges. Grantees activities would include: (1) redesigning

academic content and instructional practices to better align them with postsecondary education 

and careers; (2) personalizing learning opportunities to support the educational needs and 

interests of individual students; (3) providing academic and wrap-around support services for 

those students who need them; (4) providing high-quality career and college exploration and 

counseling on options for students after high school graduation; (5) offering multiple 

opportunities to earn postsecondary credit while still in high school; and (6) strategically using

learning time in more meaningful ways, such as through technology, redesigning the school day 

or calendar, or through competency-based progression.

Funds would support competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) in partnership with 

institutions of higher education and entities such as nonprofits, community-based organizations, 

government agencies, and business or industry-related organizations that can help structure 

and facilitate career-related experiences as well as help schools prepare students to apply 

academic concepts to real-world challenges. Grantees would also be required to leverage 

existing Federal, State, and local resources to implement their projects. Special consideration 

would be given to partnerships that propose projects in areas with limited access to quality 

career and postsecondary opportunities such as high-poverty or rural LEAs, and to partnerships 

with employers that help students attain career-related credentials.

Under our proposal, the Department would set aside one-half of 1 percent of the total 

appropriation for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) for activities consistent with the purposes 

of the program. The Department would also reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriated funds 

for national activities, including research, development, demonstration, dissemination, technical 

assistance, and evaluation.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

High school redesign

H-59

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $150 million for a new High School Redesign

program that would promote the whole school redesign of high schools through competitive 

grants to LEAs in partnership with institutions of higher education and other entities so that 

students graduate from high school with the academic foundation and career-related skills they 

need to be successful. 

In particular, the new program would ensure that all students in redesigned high schools 

participate in project- or problem-based learning and graduate with:

• College credit, earned through dual enrollment, Advanced Placement courses, or other 

postsecondary learning opportunities; and 

• Career-related experiences or competencies, obtained through organized internships and 

mentorships, structured work-based learning, and other related experiences.

Accomplishing these goals will help improve longer term outcomes for high school students, 

including increased high school graduation rates, high rates of enrollment in postsecondary 

studies without the need to take remedial courses, higher postsecondary completion rates, and 

higher rates of completion of industry-recognized credentials and certifications. Graduates also 

are more likely to enjoy higher rates of employment and earn higher salaries due to their 

stronger college preparation and skills development.

Improving our high schools is a critical step for ensuring that our Nation remains competitive in 

today’s global economy. Today’s high school students are tomorrow’s engineers, 

entrepreneurs, and civic leaders who must be critical thinkers and able to find solutions to 

complex and emerging challenges. High schools must provide them with a rigorous, engaging, 

and relevant education that prepares them to meet the demands of college and careers. 

The Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University projects that, by 2020, 

nearly two-thirds of job openings will require some postsecondary education, and about 

30 percent of job openings will require at least a certificate or associate’s degree. In blue collar 

occupations, about 31 percent of jobs will require some postsecondary education and training

by 2020 (“Recovery: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2020.” 

Georgetown University, 2013).

Unfortunately, we know that many high school graduates are not prepared to succeed in 

college. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 20 percent of firstyear undergraduate students enrolled in institutions of higher education during academic year 

2007-08 reported taking remedial courses (“First-Year Undergraduate Remedial Coursetaking: 

1999-2000, 2003-04, 2007-08.” Statistics in Brief. NCES, 2013).

These data suggest that too many of America’s existing high schools fail to engage, motivate, or 

adequately support and prepare students or to provide exposure to the relevant learning that 

bridges their classroom learning with future college experiences and careers. In order to 

address these concerns, the Administration’s High School Redesign proposal would promote 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

High school redesign

H-60

reforms based on evidence that students learn best when they are engaged in complex projects 

and tasks aligned with their interests, and when they work with others through practical 

examples and case studies that keep them engaged in rigorous academic coursework and in 

the application of knowledge.

Grantees would be expected to incorporate strategies that engage students in learning 

opportunities tied to real world experience (such as work-based learning) and also provide 

students with rigorous, challenging academic content aligned with college-level expectations, 

including programs that allow students to gain postsecondary credit while still in high school. 

These experiences would help students develop not only academic content and cognitive 

competencies (such as critical thinking, solving complex and non-routine problems, and

evaluating arguments on the basis of evidence), but also pertinent employability skills (including 

interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies, such as conscientiousness and persistence) that 

have been shown to have consistent positive correlations with desirable educational and career 

outcomes (“Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 

21st Century”, NRC, 2012). In addition, projects would be expected to incorporate meaningful 

career exploration opportunities and high-quality college and career advisory services to help 

students plan for the pathway they need to follow to learn the skills and attain the credentials 

they need to enter their chosen careers. 

Grantees would use program funds to leverage other existing Federal, State, and local funds, 

including through the development of partnerships with business, industry, public or private 

nonprofit organizations, and community-based organizations. A key goal of such partnerships 

would be to ensure that career-related activities are aligned with real world expectations and 

with institutions of higher education, and to ensure alignment between secondary and 

postsecondary content and expectations.

The Department would encourage applicants for High School Redesign funding to propose 

projects that connect high school experiences with relevant industry and community partners in 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. The High School Redesign

program would also complement Administration efforts to reform career and technical education 

as outlined in its 2012 blueprint for reauthorizing the Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act, which seeks to create stronger links between secondary education, postsecondary 

education, and the employment needs of in-demand industries. The program also expands on 

Administration efforts to improve high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates 

through the College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program proposed under the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA). Finally, the program builds on the $100 million Youth Career Connect grants through 

the Department of Labor by emphasizing stronger connections between classroom learning and 

real-world careers and choices. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

High school redesign

H-61

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $144,000

Range of awards $5,000-$25,000

Average award $15,000

Number of new awards 5-15

Peer review of new award 

applications

1,500

BIE 750

National activities 3,750

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program. The development of these measures would 

build on our experience in creating performance measures for other programs, and the 

Department would also seek to align program measures for High School Redesign with 

measures for related programs.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-62

Excellent in stru ction al t eams:

Excellent instructional teams

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 2014 2015 Change

Effective teachers and leaders 

State grants 0 $2,000,000 +$2,000,000

ConnectEDucators 0 200,000 +200,000

Teacher and leader innovation fund 0 320,000 +320,000

Total 0 2,520,000 +2,520,000

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

Educators are diligently working to implement rigorous new college- and career-ready (CCR) 

standards and assessments that will help improve student knowledge and preparation for 

success in higher education and the workforce. Effective instruction based on these standards 

requires new methods of teaching and learning that emphasize critical thinking, creativity, and 

problem solving. The Excellent Instructional Teams programs, proposed as part of the 

Administration’s plan for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA), would provide funds to address educator needs by fostering teacher and principal 

collaboration and the creation of excellent instructional teams through efforts to recruit, prepare, 

support, and retain effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders, especially in highneed local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, fields, and subjects. These programs would 

also help States and LEAs ensure the equitable distribution of effective educators across 

schools.

The Excellent Instructional Teams authority would have three components: (1) Effective 

Teachers and Leaders State Grants, a formula grant program with a 10-percent competitive 

grant set-aside; (2) ConnectEDucators grants designed to support educators as they transition 

to using technology and data to improve student learning; and (3) the competitive Teacher and 

Leader Innovation Fund. Together, these programs would provide formula grants to States and 

districts to improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and to support a more equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and leaders; investments in the development, improvement, 

and expansion of high-quality teacher and leader pathways with evidence of effectiveness; and 

competitive grants to States and districts to support teachers’ and principals’ use of technology 

to personalize learning and improve instruction. With amounts reserved for evaluation and 

competitive grants, the Department would build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and 

support effective teachers and school leaders while continuing to invest in efforts to enhance the 

teaching and leadership professions.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-63

The Excellent Instructional Teams programs will also reinforce reforms that 44 States and 

several school districts are making under the Department’s ESEA flexibility initiative. States and 

LEAs that were approved for ESEA flexibility are adopting new systems for evaluating and 

supporting teachers and principals based in part on student growth, as well as implementing 

academic standards linked to college- and career-readiness, new assessments aligned with 

those standards, and instituting differentiated approaches to school accountability that target 

improvement resources to the lowest-performing schools and those with the largest 

achievement gaps.

The Excellent Instructional Teams programs would also complement the $5 billion proposed in 

mandatory funding for a targeted implementation of the Recognizing Education Success, 

Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project. With so many 

demands placed on teachers and school leaders, districts, States, and the Federal Government 

must do more to meet educators’ needs at important stages of their careers. The RESPECT 

Project would be designed to provide large-scale incentives for State- and locally directed 

reforms to improving teacher and principal preparation and support early in their careers; 

providing career ladders and other opportunities for educators to take on leadership roles as 

they transition to CCR standards; and creating conditions in schools that support effective 

teaching, including great school leadership and time for collaboration.

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants would replace the current ESEA Title II, Part A 

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program and would provide formula grants to States,

based 35 percent on each State’s relative share of the population age 5 to 17, and 65 percent 

on each State’s relative share of children age 5 to 17 from low-income families, consistent with 

the current Title II, Part A. The Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and 

the Outlying Areas would each receive one-half of 1 percent of the total appropriation. States 

would use at least 90 percent of their formula grants to make subgrants to LEAs.

States could use their State-level funds for a variety of activities, including those designed to 

support the creation of effective teacher career ladders, reform certification and licensure 

requirements, increase the effectiveness of professional development, and reform teacher and 

school leader compensation. For example, States could use program funds to help encourage 

the adoption and expansion of school-based instructional leadership roles for effective teachers, 

such as master teacher, mentor teacher, or instructional coach positions, and to develop 

distributed leadership capacities. States would be required to strengthen teacher and principal 

evaluation systems; develop definitions of effective teachers and principals; design and 

implement plans to ensure that low-income and minority students have equitable access to

effective teachers and leaders; and report on the effectiveness of their teacher and principal 

preparation programs, as measured, in part, by the performance of their graduates in the 

classroom. In addition, some State-level funds would be explicitly focused on improving the 

effectiveness of the State’s principals.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-64

Also consistent with the current ESEA Title II, Part A formula, States would distribute funds to 

LEAs based 20 percent on each LEA’s relative share of the population age 5 to 17, and 

80 percent on each LEA’s relative share of children age 5 to 17 from low-income families. In 

order to receive an award, an LEA would be required to develop and implement high-quality 

teacher and principal evaluation systems that, among other things, differentiate teachers across 

multiple performance levels, based in significant part on student academic growth as well as 

other measures. LEAs would also be required to conduct an assessment of local needs and to 

use program funds, along with other local, State, and Federal funds, to meet those needs and to 

ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals within the LEA. LEAs 

would use program funds to carry out a broad range of activities, including those designed to 

recruit, prepare, support, and retain effective and highly effective teachers and principals, 

particularly for high-need and low-performing schools.

The Department would reserve up to 10 percent of the Effective Teachers and Leaders State 

Grants appropriation to make competitive awards for teacher and leader preparation activities. 

Activities funded under the proposed set-aside would play a key role in helping to create or 

expand high-quality pathways into the teaching profession and other innovative approaches for 

recruiting, training, and placing talented recent college graduates and mid-career professionals 

with strong content knowledge in high-need schools. These activities would address the 

essential elements of preparing new teachers to enter the classroom, supporting them during 

their first years in the profession, and addressing inequities in the distribution of effective and 

highly effective teachers. The proposed set-aside would also support the recruitment, 

preparation, improvement, and retention of effective principals and school leadership teams who 

are able to turn around low-performing schools.

This would be a forward-funded program. Funds would become available for obligation from 

July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available through 

September 30 of the following year.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $2.0 billion for the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants 

program for fiscal year 2015. This program would focus on improving teacher and principal 

effectiveness and ensuring the equitable distribution of effective and highly effective teachers 

and principals. States and LEAs would have flexibility in how they use formula grant funds, but 

would be accountable for improving their teacher and principal evaluation systems and ensuring 

that low-income and minority students have equitable access to teachers and principals who are 

effective at raising student achievement. 

Funding for the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program would also help ensure 

that all children are taught by teachers who have expertise in the subjects they teach and the 

skills and support needed to be effective. In guiding the implementation of the program, the 

Department would emphasize the need for educators to inform Effective Teachers and Leaders 

spending, collaboration among staff, formation of effective instructional teams, and the use of 

student work and outcome data to improve instruction and raise student achievement.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-65

Over the next 10 years, as many as 1.6 million teachers will retire, and 1.6 million new teachers 

will be needed to take their place. While replacing so many teachers in such a short period of 

time poses an enormous challenge to States and LEAs, it also provides an opportunity to—

through strong recruitment, preparation, support, and retention—elevate the overall quality of 

instruction and transform our education system so every child gets an excellent education. In 

addition, a growing body of research indicates that the quality of a school’s leadership has a 

substantial effect on student achievement.1

 Effective school leaders are able to create cultures 

focused on learning, with high expectations for all students, as well as recruit and retain highly 

effective teachers.2

 Moreover, the impact of strong leadership may be greatest in high-need 

and low-performing schools requiring serious, systemic changes. Federal investments in the 

recruitment, preparation, and retention of effective principals and school leadership teams will 

also be particularly important given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects increased 

demand for educational administrators through 2022, as the number of school-age children 

grows and current school leaders retire in greater numbers.

In recognition of the changing nature of America’s teaching workforce and the need to enhance 

the role of teachers and principals in transforming public education, particularly for high-need 

students, including students with disabilities and English Learners, the Department would use 

the proposed 10-percent set-aside to support:

• The creation and expansion of high-quality pathways into the teaching profession and 

school leadership, including university- and LEA-based traditional and alternative routes into 

teaching and leading, and the recruitment, preparation, and retention of principals and 

school leadership teams that are able to turn around low-performing schools. The 

Department would also use these funds to support the expansion and improvement of 

teacher and principal preparation programs at minority-serving institutions to increase the 

number of effective minority educators in high-need schools.

• Competitive grants to States and LEAs to raise the standards for teacher and principal 

preparation, including the enhancement of teacher and principal certification and licensure 

standards, especially in the context of new CCR learning standards for students, and the 

development and implementation of rigorous accountability systems for teacher and 

principal preparation programs informed by graduates’ performance in classrooms. 

• The Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program, which was initiated in the 

fiscal year 2011 appropriation as a smaller Federal reservation of Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants funds. Under the SEED program, the Department makes grants to national 

nonprofit organizations to support teacher and school leader enhancement projects with 

evidence of effectiveness and conducts related national leadership activities.

• National research, technical assistance, outreach, and dissemination activities. The 

Department would support activities to strengthen teacher and principal evaluation, improve 

teacher and principal certification, develop and disseminate model surveys on the quality of 

 1 Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, “How Leadership Influences Student Learning” (2004). 2 Loeb, Kalogrides & Béteille, “Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and Retention,” 

Journal of Education Finance and Policy (2012).
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-66

educator support and working conditions, and scale up the work of nonprofit organizations 

that support LEAs in strengthening their teacher and principal pipelines and human resource 

practices.

The Department would reserve up to an additional 1.5 percent for evaluation. In fiscal year 

2015, continuation costs for the Transition to Teaching program would be funded from the 

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants set-aside for national leadership activities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Funding for State grants(SGs) $1,750,000

SGs Range of awards to States 8,387–197,096

SGs Average State grant 33,654

Amount for Outlying Areas 10,000

Amount for BIE 10,000

National leadership activities 200,000

Evaluation 30,000

_________________

NOTE: In 2015, the Department would use approximately $15,000 thousand from the Effective Teachers and 

Leaders State Grants set-aside to pay continuation costs under the Transition to Teaching program.

ConnectEDucators

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ConnectEDucators program would help ensure that teachers and school leaders across the 

Nation have the skills to significantly increase student learning through the effective use of 

education technology and related strategies. This proposal supports the President’s 

ConnectED initiative, a 5-year plan to bring next-generation broadband and high-speed wireless

networks to schools and libraries, by providing needed support to teachers and school leaders 

so that they can leverage technology in ways that transform student learning.

ConnectEDucators would provide (1) formula-based State Leadership Grants to enhance State 

capacity to support the transition to digital learning; and (2) competitive, 3-year grants to LEAs 

that have put in place key technology supports, including district- and school-wide high-speed 

broadband access and high device-to-student ratios, for the implementation of comprehensive 

plans to ensure that educators have the skills and digital content needed to dramatically 

improve student access to high-quality instruction aligned with CCR standards. Allowable 

State-level activities would include improving educational technology resources and 

coordination, increasing the availability of high-quality tools and materials for districts.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-67

The Department would give priority to supporting LEA applicants that propose to work in 

consortia or in partnership with local or national organizations. Grantees would be required to 

align a portion of their Effective Teachers and Leaders State grants with the objectives and 

activities in their comprehensive ConnectEDucators plan, and grantees and partner 

organizations would be required to make digital learning materials open-source and publicly 

available. Grant activities would be informed by individual educator and student needs and 

would improve instructional practices through personalized and collaborative support for 

teachers and school leaders. Finally, LEAs and their partners would commit to evaluating the 

program’s impacts on student outcomes and educator knowledge and practices.

Allowable LEA activities would include, for example: (1) professional development and 

coaching for teachers and principals on ways to use the district’s chosen devices, platforms, 

digital tools, and assessments to improve instruction; (2) aiding educators with the creation, 

selection, and implementation of high-quality open digital learning resources aligned to CCR

standards; (3) increasing educators’ access to and use of real-time data to personalize learning; 

(4) developing exemplary digital citizenship skills, resulting in more appropriate use of

technology and social media for students; (5) increasing educators’ engagement with families, 

professional networks, and other communities through technology, and (6) increasing access to 

effective educators, such as master teachers, through online or blended learning environments 

to assist with hard-to-staff schools and subjects. 

The Department would reserve up to 2.5 percent of program funds for evaluation and national 

leadership activities, such as working with States and districts to improve procurement and 

planning practices and to develop and disseminate innovative technology-based tools and 

products.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $200.0 million in 2015 for ConnectEDucators. This program would 

support teachers and leaders as they transition to using technology to improve student learning 

as enabled by the Administration’s ConnectED initiative. The Opportunity, Growth, and Security 

Initiative includes an additional $300 million for ConnectEDucators, providing a total of 100,000 

teachers in 500 districts with access to professional development to take greater advantage of 

the high-speed broadband and wireless networks provided through the ConnectED initiative.

The President’s ConnectED initiative, announced in June 2013, sets clear goals: provide highspeed Internet to schools and classrooms, increase the availability of mobile learning devices to 

enhance the accessibility of learning materials, provide support to develop or purchase highquality learning content, and support teachers so that they can take full advantage of increased 

connectivity and content. To reach these goals, Federal agencies, States, LEAs, and privatesector partners must work together to bring the right resources to the table. 

The Federal Communications Commission has announced a new plan to direct $2 billion to 

dramatically expand its investment in high-speed connectivity for America’s school and libraries. 

This is an important step to reaching the President’s goal of connecting students across the 

country to high-speed broadband and wireless networks. ConnectEDucators is an essential 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-68

complement to this investment in physical infrastructure; the request will address the critical

need to support teachers and leaders in using technology effectively to improve and personalize 

learning.

Technology can help transform learning when used with innovative instructional approaches 

such as those outlined in the National Education Technology Plan.3 Yet many schools, 

particularly high-need schools, lack the connectivity, resources, and support for teachers and 

leaders needed to implement digital learning strategies. High-need schools in rural 

communities will experience some of the greatest benefits of new education technologies, as 

ConnectED will help provide new learning opportunities to level the playing field for rural 

students. However, technology can help improve learning and educational outcomes for 

students only when teachers and principals have the resources and support to use technology 

to improve instruction.

ConnectEDucators would build on the Department’s current efforts to support the President’s 

ConnectED initiative by helping LEAs ensure equitable access to technology and better support 

educators’ use of both technology and data to improve student learning aligned with CCR 

standards. For example, the Department has provided guidance on how States, school 

districts, and other grantees may be able to use their current Federal grant program funds to 

support innovative, technology-based strategies to personalize learning and improve student 

learning. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Funding for grants to States(SGs) $26,000

SGs Number of State grants 52

SGs Average State grant $500

Funding for grants to LEAs(LGs) $169,000

LGs Number of LEA grants 200

LGs Average LEA grant $845

Evaluation and national leadership activities $5,000

Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would support State and LEA efforts to develop and 

implement innovative approaches to improving human capital management systems. It would 

build on the strengths of the Teacher Incentive Fund and provide support for compensation 

 3 This plan is available online at: http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/netp-2010/. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-69

reforms and complementary reforms of teacher and principal development, evaluation, 

placement, and other practices, including the creation of and support for new instructional 

leader positions, such as master teacher positions.

Grantees, selected competitively, would use program funds to reform teacher and school leader 

compensation and career advancement systems; incorporate the use of evaluation results in

retention, compensation, and other personnel decisions; reform hiring and placement practices;

improve certification and licensure systems; and implement other innovative strategies, 

including comprehensive professional learning systems to strengthen the workforce.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $320.0 million in 2015 for the Teacher and Leader Innovation 

Fund. This program would help States and LEAs improve the effectiveness of teachers and 

leaders in high-need schools and LEAs, in particular by creating the conditions to identify, 

recruit, prepare, support, retain, and advance effective teachers, teacher leaders, principals, 

and school leadership teams in those schools. It would also support activities to improve 

teacher and leader effectiveness, reduce disparities in the access of students to effective and 

highly effective teachers and leaders, and support the improvement of persistently lowperforming schools.

In fiscal year 2015, continuation costs for the Teacher Incentive Fund would be funded from the 

appropriation for the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Funding for new awards(NAs) $84,700

NAs Number of new awards 8

NAs Average new award $10,588

Peer review of new award applications $500

Evaluation $4,800

TIF continuation costs $230,000

_________________

NOTE: In 2015, the Department would use approximately $230,000 thousand from the Teacher and Leader 

Innovation Fund to pay continuation costs under the Teacher Incentive Fund.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Excellent instructional teams

H-70

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

Excellent Instructional Teams programs.

Under the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program, each State would be required 

to report annually to the public and the Department through a State Report Card on key 

measures concerning teacher and principal effectiveness, the quality of educator support and 

working conditions, the distribution of effective teachers and principals, and the effectiveness of 

each teacher and principal preparation program in the State.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-71

Improving teacher quality State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 2014 2015 Change

Annual appropriation $668,389 0 -$668,389

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

Total 2,349,830 0 -2,349,830

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program provides funds to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop and support a high-quality 

teaching force through evidence-based activities. The program gives States and LEAs a flexible 

source of funding with which to meet their particular needs in strengthening the skills and 

knowledge of teachers and principals to enable them to improve student achievement in the 

core academic subjects. In return for this flexibility, LEAs are required to demonstrate annual 

progress in ensuring that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects within the State are 

highly qualified and that increasing numbers of teachers and principals are receiving highquality professional development.

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants funds are distributed by formula. Each State receives 

the amount of funds that it received from the antecedent Eisenhower Professional Development 

State Grants and Class Size Reduction programs in fiscal year 2001, totaling around 

$2.1 billion. Remaining funds (around $300 million) are then allocated to States by formula, with 

35 percent of remaining allocations based on States’ relative shares of the population age 5 to 

17, and 65 percent based on States’ relative shares of children from low-income families age

5 to 17. Each State must receive at least one-half of 1 percent of these remaining funds. The 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the Department of the Interior and the Outlying Areas each 

receive one-half of 1 percent of the appropriation.

Each State allocates 95 percent of its funds for subgrants to LEAs, 2.5 percent for subgrants to 

eligible partnerships (or a smaller percentage if the total amount reserved by all States for this 

purpose would exceed $125 million), and the remainder for State-level activities. A State 

awards subgrants to LEAs using a formula that is similar to the one that the Department uses 

for State allocations, except that, after LEAs receive the amount equivalent to their 

2001 allocations from the Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants and Class Size 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-72

Reduction programs, remaining funds are then allocated to LEAs by a formula based 20 percent 

on LEAs’ share of the population age 5 to 17 and 80 percent on LEAs’ share of children from 

low-income families age 5 to 17. In addition to using these funds for professional development 

and class-size reduction, LEAs may use program funds for other activities to improve teacher 

and school leader quality, including teacher and principal recruitment and retention initiatives,

signing bonuses and other financial incentives, teacher and principal mentoring, developing 

professional learning systems, reforming tenure systems, and differentiated compensation 

initiatives.

Subgrants to eligible partnerships are awarded competitively by the State agency for higher 

education working in conjunction with the SEA. Eligible partnerships must include an institution 

of higher education and its division that prepares teachers and principals, a school of arts and 

sciences, and a high-need LEA, and may include other entities. Partnerships that receive a 

subgrant must use the funds to provide professional development in core academic subjects to 

teachers, highly qualified paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate, principals.

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

and principal certification or licensing requirements, teacher mentoring, creation or improvement 

of alternative routes to certification, teacher recruitment and retention programs, tenure reform, 

professional development for teachers and principals, technical assistance to LEAs, activities to 

promote State reciprocity of teacher and principal certification or licensing, performance-based 

compensation systems, and pay differentiation programs.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001, required all SEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds to develop a plan to have all 

public school teachers of core academic subjects meet the ESEA’s definition of a “highly 

qualified teacher” no later than the end of the 2005-06 school year. “Highly qualified” means 

that the teacher: (1) has obtained full State certification; (2) holds a minimum of a bachelor’s 

degree; and (3) has demonstrated subject-matter competency in each of the academic subjects 

in which he or she teaches.

In the fiscal year 2011 appropriations act, Congress directed the Department to use 1 percent of 

that year’s appropriation for the new Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) 

program. Congress increased this set-aside to 1.5 percent in the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal 

year 2013 appropriations acts and to 2 percent in the fiscal year 2014 appropriation act. Under 

the SEED program, the Department makes grants to national nonprofit organizations to support 

teacher and school leader enhancement projects with evidence of effectiveness. Grantees use 

the funds to recruit, select, and prepare or provide professional development activities for 

teachers or principals. The 2014 appropriations act also allows the Department to reserve up to 

10 percent of SEED funds for related research, dissemination, evaluation, technical assistance, 

and outreach activities.

This is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A portion of the funds 

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

remains available for 15 months through September 30 of the following year. The remaining 

funds become available on October 1 of the fiscal year following the appropriations act and 

remain available for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-73

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 .................................................................. $2,947,749

2011 .................................................................... 2,464,876

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

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

2014 .................................................................... 2,349,830

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests no funding for the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

program, which under the Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

reauthorization proposal would be consolidated into a new Excellent Instructional Teams 

initiative. The new authority would include three new programs: (1) formula-based Effective 

Teachers and Leaders grants to States and districts to improve the effectiveness and equitable 

distribution of teachers and leaders, (2) ConnectEDucators grants designed to support 

educators as they transition to using technology to improve learning, and (3) competitive 

Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund awards to States and districts to support the development 

and implementation of innovative teacher and leader policies. With amounts reserved for 

evaluation and national activities under these programs—including a 10-percent set-aside within 

the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants—the Department would build evidence on 

how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and school leaders and invest in 

efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions.

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants would focus on developing and improving existing 

systems to evaluate teacher and principal effectiveness, based in significant part on student 

growth as well as other factors. These evaluation systems would be designed to provide 

educators with timely feedback and inform decisions about professional development, 

mentoring, compensation, leadership opportunities, promotion, and other personnel matters. 

States and LEAs would have flexibility in how they use formula grant funds, but would be 

accountable for having in place rigorous teacher and principal evaluation and support systems 

and for ensuring that all students, including students in high-poverty and high-minority schools, 

have equitable access to teachers and principals who are effective at raising student 

achievement.

The 2015 request for the Excellent Instructional Teams programs will also reinforce reforms that 

44 States (including the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) and several school districts have 

made under the Department’s ESEA flexibility initiative. States and LEAs that have been 

approved for ESEA flexibility are adopting new systems for evaluating and supporting teachers 

and principals based in part on student growth, as well as academic standards linked to collegeand career-readiness, new assessments aligned with those standards, and differentiated 

approaches to school accountability that target improvement resources to the lowest-performing 

schools and those with the largest achievement gaps.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-74

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

State Grants

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Funding for States awards $2,267,812 $2,267,704 0

Range of States awards $10,869-254,874 $10,869-255,403 0

Average State award $43,612 $43,610 0

Amount for Outlying Areas $11,631 $11,690 0

Amount for BIE $11,631 $11,690 0

Evaluation $11,688 $11,749 0

Total $2,302,762 $2,302,833 0

Supporting Effective Educator Development

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Funding for new awards 0 $24,829 0

Number of new awards 0 5 0

Average new award 0 $4,966 0

Funding for continuation awards $35,067 $17,000 0

Number of continuation awards 7 4 0

Average continuation award $5,010 $4,250 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 $469 0

National leadership activities 0 $4,699 0

Total $35,067 $46,997 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

efforts invested by those served by this program.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-75

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

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

by highly qualified teachers in elementary and secondary schools as a whole compared to the 

percentage in high-poverty schools. Since 2007, these data have been collected by the 

Department’s EDFacts/Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).

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

qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant 

principals in schools. 

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

teachers. 

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

taught by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2010 100% 97%

2011 100 97

2012 100 97

2013 100

2014 100

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

by highly qualified teachers.

Year Target Actual

2010 100% 95%

2011 100 94

2012 100 94

2013 100

2014 100

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

elementary schools.

Year Target Actual

2010 100% 98%

2011 100 98

2012 100 98

2013 100

2014 100
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-76

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

secondary schools.

Year Target Actual

2010 100% 96%

2011 100 95

2012 100 96

2013 100

2014 100

Additional information: The program made progress on this objective from 2008 to 2009 and 

from 2009 to 2010 but did not meet the 100 percent targets called for under current law. No 

targets are shown for 2015 because the Administration is proposing to consolidate this program.

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

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

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

teachers in elementary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Target Actual

2010 30

2011 34

2012 22

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

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

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

teachers in secondary schools in the lowest-poverty quartile.

Year Target Actual

2010 29

2011 32

2012 27

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

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

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

schools. For example, 22 States reduced the difference in these percentages in elementary 

schools between 2011 and 2012, and 27 States reduced the difference in these percentages in 

secondary schools between those 2 years. The Department has not set targets for these 

measures because the Administration is proposing to consolidate this program.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-77

Efficiency Measure

The efficiency measure for the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program focuses on 

decreasing the average number of days between the date of a monitoring visit and the date that 

the Department sends a monitoring report to the State. In fiscal year 2010, the Department took 

an average of 16 days to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring. The target was 

36 days. The Department did not conduct monitoring visits in fiscal year 2011 because program 

staff were working with States on their revised State plans for ensuring that all teachers are 

highly qualified. In addition, the Department was unable to conduct onsite monitoring in 

2012 and 2013 due to a lack of staff capacity, but did conduct fiscal monitoring of all grantees. 

The Department is beginning a new round of monitoring in 2014, including in-person and desk 

monitoring, but has not set new targets for this measure because the Administration is 

proposing to consolidate the program.

Other Performance Information

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

rigorous impact studies on preservice training, professional development, equitable distribution 

of effective teaching, and teacher retention strategies.

Completed Evaluations

A study of preservice training,

1 released in February 2009, identified different models of teacher 

training, including alternative routes to certification, and compared the performance of students 

taught by teachers who have received different types of preparation. It found no differences in 

performance on reading and math assessments of students taught by teachers trained through 

traditional routes versus teachers who had pursued alternative routes to certification. Another 

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

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

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

program.

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

teachers. This research indicates that teachers who enter teaching through alternative routes to 

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

 1 “An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification,” February 2009, 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_training.asp. 2 “An Evaluation of the Impact on Secondary Student Math Achievement of Two Highly Selective Routes to 

Alternative Certification,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_alternative.asp. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-78

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

time of hiring appears to be difficult.

The Department has also invested in two studies of teacher professional development activities 

to identify and then test promising approaches to in-service training. The first, published in 

September 2008, examined the extent to which particular professional development activities 

(not necessarily related to federally funded program activities) change teaching practices in 

ways that research suggests are effective in improving student achievement in early reading.

3

 It 

found that although there were positive impacts on teachers’ knowledge of scientifically based 

reading instruction, neither of the two professional development activities in the study led to 

higher student test scores over a 1-year period, and any additional effects of coaching activities 

on teaching practices were also statistically insignificant. 

The second study examined particular professional development activities that focus on 

improving middle school student achievement in mathematics.

4

 An interim report on this study, 

published in April 2010, found that providing middle-school teachers 1 year of intensive math 

professional development (about 55 hours of specialized training during the 2007-08 school 

year) did not significantly improve their students’ math achievement compared to achievement 

of students whose teachers did not receive that professional development. The training did not 

significantly improve teacher knowledge, either, relative to the comparison group of teachers, 

but did affect one aspect of instructional practice: teachers who received the intensive 

professional development more frequently engaged in activities that elicited student thinking. 

The final report, released in May 2011, found that the intensive professional development 

activities were implemented as intended, but teacher turnover limited the amount of training 

teachers received. For example, some teachers left the study schools and others entered as 

the study progressed, so not all teachers had the opportunity to experience the full course of 

professional development. The report found no evidence that the intensive professional 

development resulted in improved teacher knowledge, as measured by a specially designed 

assessment. Finally, there was no evidence that the intensive professional development led to 

improvements in student achievement in the specific math content (rational numbers 

knowledge) covered by the professional development. As described below, the Department 

plans to build on lessons learned from this evaluation and next measure the impact—on teacher 

knowledge, classroom practices, and student achievement—of math professional development 

that focuses on mathematical content and integrating that content into the classroom at the 

upper elementary school grades.

The Department has also assessed existing induction programs in order to identify promising 

teacher retention strategies.5 The first report, released in October 2008, found that there was 

no statistically significant difference between retention rates of teachers who participated in a 

comprehensive teacher induction activity and teachers in a control group who received what 

their schools typically offered for induction. The second report, released in August 2009, 

 3 “The Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student 

Achievement in Early Reading, September 2008,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_reading.asp. 4 “Middle School Mathematics Professional Development Impact Study, May 2011,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathematics.asp. 5 “Impact Evaluation of Teacher Induction Programs; October 2008, August 2009, and June 2010,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_induction.asp. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-79

includes information from 10 districts in which teachers were offered 1 year of induction services 

(“1-year districts”) and 7 districts in which teachers were offered 2 years of induction services 

(“2-year districts”). The report found no discernible impact of comprehensive induction on 

teacher retention rates after 2 years for either 1-year or 2-year districts. In addition, the report 

found that there were no statistically significant impacts on overall student achievement across 

all grade levels in reading or math during the teachers’ second year. The final report on 

induction programs, released in June 2010, found that among teachers who received 2 years of 

the specific comprehensive induction services tested, there was no impact on student 

achievement during the first 2 years, but there was a positive impact on student achievement in 

both reading and math in the third and final year of the study. Receiving only 1 year of induction 

services as designed in this study had no impact on student achievement. In addition, neither 

1 year nor 2 years of comprehensive induction services led to improvements in teacher 

retention rates. 

In addition, the Department has used program evaluation funds to assess the progress that 

States, school districts, and schools have made in implementing the teacher quality and 

professional development provisions of the ESEA. The report of this assessment, which was 

released early in 2009, is based on the second round of data collection from the “National 

Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind” and the “Study of State Implementation of 

Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.”6

 It presents findings from 

interviews with State education officials in all States and surveys of nationally representative 

samples of school district officials, principals, and teachers conducted in 2004-05 and 2006-07. 

The study found that by 2006-07, the vast majority of classes (around 94 percent) were taught 

by teachers who had met their States’ requirements for being considered highly qualified under 

the ESEA. However, teachers in high-poverty and high-minority schools, as well as special 

education and middle school teachers, were less likely to be highly qualified. Moreover, even 

among teachers who were considered highly qualified, teachers in high-poverty schools had 

less experience and were less likely to have a degree in the subject they taught. In 2006-07, 

44 percent of school districts reported facing moderate or major challenges in attracting 

qualified applicants for teaching positions in mathematics, 53 percent for science, and 

55 percent for special education. More than 90 percent of high-minority districts reported 

difficulty attracting highly qualified applicants in mathematics and science. 

Finally, the Department is concerned with ensuring the equitable distribution of effective 

teachers. A recent evaluation in this area looked at the effects of offering incentives to highperforming teachers to teach in low-performing schools with high-need students.

7

 An initial 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study found that the incentives improved retention rates during the 2-year incentive-

 6 “State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume VIII--Teacher Quality Under NCLB: 

Final Report,” http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb-final/index.html. 7 “Impact Evaluation Of Moving High-Performing Teachers to Low-Performing Schools,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_recruitment.asp. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-80

payment period for the high-performing teachers who transferred; however, there was no 

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

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

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

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

between 4 and 10 percentile points relative to the average of all students in their state. The 

study found no impact on student achievement at the middle school level. The study authors 

also estimated that the transfer incentive program in elementary schools was more costeffective than class-size reduction strategies aimed at generating the same impacts on student 

achievement, but cautioned that overall cost-effectiveness can vary depending on a number of 

factors, such as teacher retention rates.

Ongoing Evaluations

The Department is currently supporting two additional studies on preservice teacher 

preparation. One will provide descriptive and implementation analyses on teacher residency 

grant projects that include a year-long “clinical” experience, shadowing, and co-teaching with an 

experienced mentor.8

 These grants generally also provide support and mentoring after 

participants become teachers. The study will also include information on retention rates;

a report is expected in summer 2014. Finally, the Department plans to examine teacher 

preparation programs with features thought to be promising and look at the classroom 

performance of their graduates compared to those from other teacher preparation programs; 

a report is expected in 2015.9

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

In particular, a study of elementary school math professional development will look at the impact 

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

classroom practices, as well as changes in student achievement.10 The report from this study, 

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

Another evaluation on the equitable distribution of effective teachers will provide information 

about the distribution of effective teachers within districts over a 5-year period based on valueadded measures.

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

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

mathematics in 29 geographically dispersed school districts over the 2008-09 to 

2010-11 school years. Levels of access varied across school districts in the study sample, but 

disadvantaged students had on average less access to effective teaching, compared to nondisadvantaged students, and did not have greater access to effective teaching in any school 

district. The report authors estimated that providing these students with equal access to 

effective teaching would reduce the student achievement gap from 28 percentile points to 

 8 “Implementation Evaluation of Teacher Residency Programs,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_residency.asp. 9 “A Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_teacherprep_us.asp. 10 “Impact Evaluation of Math Professional Development,” 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_mathpd.asp. 11 “Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching,” http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_distribution.asp. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Improving teacher quality State grants

H-81

26 percentile points in ELA and from 26 percentile points to 24 percentile points in mathematics

in a given year. The final report will also explore any changes in that distribution that may be 

associated with district strategies to ensure an equitable distribution of effective teachers.

The Department is also examining the implementation of policies promoted through ESEA 

Titles I and II at the State, district and school levels, in four core areas: State content standards, 

aligned assessments, accountability and school turnaround, and developing effective teachers 

and leaders. The study will reflect the impact of ESEA flexibility and other initiatives on the 

implementation of Title I and Title II of the ESEA. The first report is expected in late 2014.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-82

Transition to teaching

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$13,762 0 -$13,762

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Transition to Teaching program helps high-need schools and local educational agencies 

(LEAs) recruit and employ qualified licensed or certified teachers by encouraging the 

development and expansion of alternative routes to certification. The program provides 3- to 

5-year grants to recruit, train, certify, and place talented individuals into teaching positions and 

to support them during their first years in the classroom. In particular, the program focuses on 

encouraging two groups of nontraditional teaching candidates to become classroom teachers: 

(1) mid-career professionals with substantial career experience, including highly qualified 

paraprofessionals, and (2) recent college graduates.

Under the program, the Department makes competitive grants to State educational agencies 

(SEAs), high-need LEAs, for-profit or nonprofit organizations (in partnership with SEAs or highneed LEAs) that have a proven record of effectively recruiting and retaining highly qualified 

teachers, institutions of higher education (in partnership with SEAs or high-need LEAs), regional 

consortia of SEAs, or consortia of high-need LEAs. Grantees must develop and implement 

comprehensive approaches to training, placing, and supporting teacher candidates they have 

recruited, including ensuring that candidates meet relevant State certification or licensing 

requirements.

Grantees are expected to ensure that program participants are placed in high-need schools in 

high-need LEAs and must give priority to schools that are located in areas with the highest 

percentages of students from families with incomes below the poverty line. A “high-need 

school” is defined as a school in which at least 30 percent of the students are from low-income 

families or that is located in an area with a high percentage of out-of-field teachers, is within the 

top 25 percent of schools statewide with unfilled teacher positions, is located in an area with a 

high teacher turnover rate, or is located in an area with a high percentage of teachers who are 

not licensed or certified. A “high-need LEA” is defined as an LEA for which at least 20 percent 

or 10,000 of the children served are from families with incomes below the poverty line and that 

has a high percentage of teachers teaching out-of-field or with emergency credentials.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-83

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.......................................................................$43,707

2011.........................................................................41,125

2012.........................................................................26,054

2013.........................................................................24,691

2014.........................................................................13,762

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes no funding for Transition to 

Teaching, which would be consolidated into the broader Excellent Instructional Teams authority 

through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. This authority would 

include (1) the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program, which would provide 

formula grants to States and districts to improve the effectiveness and equitable distribution of 

teachers and leaders, (2) ConnectEDucators, which would support educators as they transition 

to using technology to improve learning, and (3) the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund, 

which would award competitive grants to States and districts to support the development and 

implementation of innovative teacher and leader policies. With amounts reserved for evaluation 

and national activities under these programs—including a 10-percent set-aside within the 

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program that would help improve and expand 

high-quality teacher and leader pathways with evidence of effectiveness—the Department 

would build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and school 

leaders, and invest in efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions. 

The new Excellent Instructional Teams programs would build on lessons learned from the 

Transition to Teaching program’s support for alternative-route programs. The Effective 

Teachers and Leaders State Grants program and the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund 

would provide support for States and LEAs to reform their certification or licensure policies and 

practices. In addition, the Department would reserve a portion of the 10-percent set-aside 

within the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program to make direct awards to 

create or expand high-quality pathways into the teaching profession and other innovative 

approaches for recruiting, training, and placing mid-career professionals and recent college 

graduates whose knowledge and experience can help them become successful teachers in 

high-need schools. This initiative would also support State efforts to dramatically improve the 

quality of teacher preparation, including the development of systems to hold teacher preparation 

programs accountable, the enhancement of teacher certification and licensure standards so that 

those standards are based on performance, and the elimination of barriers to operating effective 

“alternative route” programs. In addition, the proposed Recognizing Education Success, 

Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project would more broadly 

support State and local efforts to improve teacher and principal preparation and support early in 

their careers; provide career ladders and other opportunities for educators to take on leadership 

roles as they transition to CCR standards; and create conditions in schools that support 

effective teaching, including great school leadership and time for collaboration.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-84

Under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, Transition to Teaching continuation grant 

costs in fiscal year 2015 would be funded from the proposed 10-percent national activities 

set-aside under the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Funding for continuation awards $24,568 $13,694 0

Number of continuation awards 50 30 0

Average continuation award $491 $456 0

Evaluation $123 $68 0

Number of participants 7,000 3,000 0

_________________

NOTE: Continuation costs of approximately $15,000 thousand in fiscal year 2015 would be provided from the 

proposed 10-percent national activities set-aside under the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

FY 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Transition to Teaching authorization requires that each grantee submit an interim 

evaluation report at the end of the third year of the 5-year grant period and a final evaluation 

report at the end of the grant. This evaluation must describe the extent to which the grantee 

met program goals relating to teacher recruitment and retention.

The Department established the following goal and performance indicators to assess the impact 

of the Transition to Teaching program:

Goal: To increase the number of mid-career professionals, qualified paraprofessionals, 

and recent college graduates who become highly qualified teachers in high-need schools 

in high-need LEAs and teach for at least 3 years. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-85

Objective: Recruit, prepare, and retain highly qualified teachers in high-need schools in 

high-need LEAs. 

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching participants who become teachers of 

record in high-need schools in high-need LEAs.

Year

2004 

Cohort 

Target

2004 

Cohort 

Actual

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007 

Cohort 

Actual

2010 85% 85% 83% 74% 79% 71%

2011 85 75 83 72

2012 85 79

2013

2014

2015

Year 2009 

Cohort Target

2009 

Cohort Actual

2011

Cohort Target

2011

Cohort Actual

2010 55%

2011 58% 70

2012 59 81 55% 74%

2013

2014

2015

Additional information: Because the Department does not expect participants to become 

“teachers of record” in the first year of the program, baseline data are not provided for the first 

year of each cohort.

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching participants receiving certification or 

licensure within 3 years.

Year

2004 

Cohort 

Target

2004 

Cohort 

Actual

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007 

Cohort 

Actual

2010 50% 61% 48% 45% 40% 33%

2011 50 54 48 44

2012 50 77

2013

2014

2015
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-86

Year 2009 

Cohort Target

2009 

Cohort Actual

2011

Cohort Target

2011

Cohort Actual

2010 17%

2011 18% 30

2012 19 79 25% 54%

2013

2014

2015

Measure: The percentage of Transition to Teaching teachers of record who teach in high-need 

schools in high-need LEAs for 3 years.

Year

2004 

Cohort 

Target

2004 

Cohort 

Actual

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort 

Actual

2010 77% 62% 42% 21%

2011 43% 53 35

2012 82 47%

2013

2014

2015

Additional information: This measure is the number of teachers of record who are still 

teaching after 3 years divided by the total number who began teaching 3 years earlier. Since it 

usually takes at least a year for a participant to find a teaching position, the baseline year for 

each cohort is 4 years after the start of the grant. 

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The cost per participant who teaches in a high-need school in a high-need LEA for 

3 years.

Year

2004 

Cohort 

Target

2004 

Cohort 

Actual

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort 

Actual

2010 $16,240 $13,640 $23,317 $21,951 $65,537

2011 18,317 19,657 $55,537 41,394

2012 18,317 50,537 25,603 $22,988

2013

2014

2015
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-87

Measure: The cost per participant receiving certification or licensure.

Year

2004 

Cohort 

Target

2004 

Cohort 

Actual

2006 

Cohort 

Target

2006 

Cohort 

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007 

Cohort 

Actual

2010 $11,500 $8,449 $18,505 $9,208 $37,392 $13,592

2011 18,505 10,508 32,392 14,320

2012 18,505 32,392 15,684

2013

2014

2015

Year 2009 

Cohort Target

2009 

Cohort Actual

2011

Cohort Target

2011

Cohort Actual

2010 $21,324

2011 $15,602 17,003

2012 10,602 13,210 $15,240 $18,240

2013

2014

2015

Additional information: The numerator for these measures is the cumulative amount of 

money expended for each cohort.

Other Performance Information

Transition to Teaching grantees are required to conduct an interim evaluation at the end of their 

third year and a final evaluation at the end of their grant period, focused on teacher recruitment 

and retention.

In 2006, the Department released “Transition to Teaching Program Evaluation: An Interim 

Report on the FY 2002 Grantees.” Using data collected from November 2004 to February 2006, 

the report examined the types of activities grantees implemented, the content and outcomes of 

the activities, and the characteristics and qualifications of participants in the program. The 

report noted that 74 percent of participants who entered the Transition to Teaching project in 

2002 were reported still to be teaching in 2004. In addition, the report found that 20 percent of 

program participants stated that they would likely not be teaching if they had not been involved 

in a Transition to Teaching project. 

The final report on the 2002 grantee cohort was published in 2013. The report found that of the 

more than 25,000 individuals recruited to participate in the program, over 19,000 (76 percent) 

became teachers of record in a high-need school in a high-need LEA, and over 13,000 received 

State certification. The report noted that many grantees worked closely with school district 

personnel (through both formal and informal partnerships) to find and place participants, 

including in positions as special education teachers, bilingual teachers, and teachers in rural 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Transition to teaching

H-88

school districts. Grantees reported having the most success recruiting mid-career professionals 

who were interested in beginning a second career as a teacher; a number of grantees also 

reported working with the Department of Defense’s Troops-to-Teachers program to recruit 

military personnel. Three grantees also reported that over 500 of their participants earned State 

certification; these projects attributed their “tremendous success” to strategies such as using an 

online system to track individuals’ progress towards certification, hiring dedicated staff focused 

on helping participants earn certification, and providing intensive test preparation. Finally, the 

report highlighted grantees’ strategies for supporting and retaining participants once they were 

placed as teachers in high-need schools in high-need districts, including by mentoring, providing 

workshops and professional development, and establishing support teams. The report found 

that nearly 80 percent of the participants who began teaching in school year 2006-07 remained 

in a high-need school in a high-need LEA 3 years later. Grantees reported that participants who 

left teaching within 3 years did so because of cuts to teaching positions, unsatisfactory 

evaluations, low salaries, negative student teaching experiences, and dissatisfaction with school 

culture and leadership. Grantees also reported substantial difficulty in placing and retaining 

program participants in small, rural, and remote high-need LEAs due to geographic barriers, in 

addition to generally low teacher salaries and a limited number of positions in those districts.

The Department published an interim report on the fiscal year 2004 grantee cohort in 2009, 

describing the extent to which those grantees met goals related to teacher recruitment, 

certification, and retention as described in their application. The report found that when 

grantees worked closely with their partnering LEAs, they generally identified and selected 

candidates who better matched the needs of the schools in which they could be placed (than 

was the case when there was not a close working relationship). In addition, the report noted 

that projects prepared participants for teaching with courses on a variety of topics, most 

commonly classroom management and instructional strategies. About half of the grantees 

reported offering courses online, and more planned to use this method and other distance 

learning strategies in the future to deliver information to participants. The number of certified 

teachers across projects varied greatly, due, in part, to differences in State certification 

requirements and the fact that many projects devoted significant resources to recruiting and 

preparing teachers in the first 3 years of implementation. Several grantees commented that 

providing specific test-taking assistance, such as courses tailored to the exam, test preparation 

workshops, and even staffing a “certification specialist,” helped teachers complete the 

certification process in a timely manner. Finally, the report also looked at the support grantees 

provided to new teachers, primarily in the form of mentoring and professional development 

workshops and seminars, to help them adjust to the challenges of the classroom. The data 

suggest that a relationship exists between this type of support and high retention rates. 

However, grantees provided little information about why those who were not retained had left 

their school or project prior to the 3-year benchmark.

The Department expects to release the final report on the 2004 grantee cohort, an interim report 

on the 2006 and 2007 grantee cohorts, and an interim report on the 2009 grantee cohort, in 

early 2014.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-89

Teacher quality partnership

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: Indefinite

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$40,592 0 -$40,592

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program seeks to improve student achievement and the 

quality of teachers working in high-need schools and early childhood education (ECE) programs 

by improving the preparation of teachers and enhancing professional development activities for 

teachers; holding teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing effective teachers; 

recruiting highly qualified individuals, including minorities; and attracting talented professionals 

from outside the teaching pipeline into the classroom. Projects may also include a component 

to train school leaders in high-need or rural local educational agencies (LEAs) or a component 

to partner with a public broadcast television station or another entity that develops digital 

education content, to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs. The program is 

intended to help create a variety of effective pathways into teaching and support our Nation’s 

teaching force in improving student outcomes.

Only partnerships may apply for funding under this program. Partnerships must include a highneed LEA; a high-need school or high-need ECE program (or a consortium of high-need 

schools or ECE programs served by the partner LEA); a partner institution of higher education 

(IHE); a school, department, or program of education within the partner IHE; and a school or 

department of arts and sciences within the partner IHE. A partnership may also include, among 

others, the Governor of the State, the State educational agency, the State board of education, 

the State agency for higher education, or a business.

In order to maximize resources and avoid duplication, applicants are required to explain how 

they plan to coordinate activities under the TQP program with other federally funded programs 

aimed at improving teacher effectiveness (e.g., Teacher Quality State Grants under Title II of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Teacher Incentive Fund).

The following three types of grants are eligible for funding through the program: 

Pre-Baccalaureate Preparation of Teachers program (Pre-Baccalaureate) – Grants are provided 

to implement a wide range of reforms in teacher preparation programs and, as applicable, 

preparation programs for early childhood educators. These reforms may include, among other 

things, implementing curriculum changes that improve and assess how well prospective 

teachers develop teaching skills; using teaching and learning research so that teachers 

implement research-based instructional practices and use data to improve classroom 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher quality partnership

H-90

instruction; developing a high-quality and sustained preservice clinical education program that 

includes high-quality mentoring or coaching; creating a high-quality induction program for new 

teachers; implementing initiatives that increase compensation for qualified early childhood 

educators who attain 2-year and 4-year degrees; developing and implementing high-quality 

professional development for teachers in partner high-need LEAs; developing effective 

mechanisms, which may include alternative routes to certification, to recruit qualified individuals 

into the teaching profession; and strengthening literacy instruction skills of prospective and new 

elementary and secondary school teachers.

Teaching Residency program – Grants are provided to develop and implement teacher 

residency programs that are based on models of successful teaching residencies and that serve 

as a mechanism to prepare teachers for success in high-need schools and academic subjects. 

Grant funds must be used to support programs that provide rigorous graduate-level course work 

to earn a master’s degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship; learning 

opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher; and clear criteria for 

selecting mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness. Programs must place 

graduates in targeted schools as a cohort in order to facilitate professional collaboration and 

provide a 1-year living stipend or salary to members of the cohort, which must be repaid by any 

recipient who fails to teach full time at least 3 years in a high-need school and subject or area.

School Leadership program – Grants are provided to develop and implement effective school 

leadership programs to prepare individuals for careers as superintendents, principals, early 

childhood education program directors, or other school leaders. Such programs must promote 

strong leadership skills and techniques so that school leaders are able to:

• Create a school climate conducive to professional development for teachers;

• Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom 

instruction; 

• Use data to evaluate teacher instruction and drive teacher and student learning;

• Manage resources and time to improve academic achievement;

• Engage and involve parents and other community stakeholders; and 

• Understand how students learn and develop in order to increase academic achievement. 

Grant funds must also be used to develop a yearlong clinical education program, a mentoring 

and induction program, and programs to recruit qualified individuals to become school leaders. 

Partnerships may apply for funding under the Pre-Baccalaureate program, the Teaching 

Residency program, or both, and may also seek separate funding under the School Leadership 

program. In addition, grant funds are available to develop digital education content to carry out 

the activities for Pre-Baccalaureate or Teaching Residency programs, but not for School 

Leadership programs. Partnerships are eligible to receive grants to support Pre-Baccalaureate 

or Teaching Residency programs for up to 5 years and must provide matching funds from nonFederal sources equal to at least 100 percent of the grant amount.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher quality partnership

H-91

Program funds also can be used to support evaluations of program activities; in 2010, the 

Department awarded a contract for an evaluation of teacher residency programs supported 

through grants awarded in 2009 and 2010. 

The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, also allows the Department to use program 

funds to support the State teacher quality accountability reporting system, as authorized by 

sections 205-207. The State teacher quality accountability reporting system gathers data from 

all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the outlying areas, and the Freely 

Associated States on such topics as the completion rates for traditional and alternative route 

teacher preparation programs, as well as State teacher assessments and certifications. These 

data are reported to Congress and the Nation through the Secretary’s annual report on teacher 

quality, and they provide critical information on both the progress toward the Nation's goal of a 

highly qualified teacher in every classroom, and the areas needing further improvements 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/teachprep/index.html). 

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)fo

ot

no

te

2010..................................................................................... $43,000

2011....................................................................................... 42,914

2012....................................................................................... 42,833

2013....................................................................................... 40,592

2014....................................................................................... 40,592

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes no funding for Teacher Quality 

Partnerships (TQP), which under the Administration’s ESEA reauthorization proposal would be 

consolidated into a new Excellent Instructional Teams initiative. The new authority would have 

three components: (1) Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants, a formula grant program 

with a 10-percent competitive grant set-aside; (2) ConnectEDucators, a discretionary grant 

program designed to support educators as they transition to using technology and data to 

improve student learning, including educators in schools receiving technology upgrades through

the Administration’s ConnectED initiative; and (3) the competitive Teacher and Leader 

Innovation Fund. Together, these programs would provide formula grants to States and districts 

to improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders and to support a more equitable 

distribution of effective teachers and leaders; investments in the development, improvement, 

and expansion of high-quality teacher and leader pathways with evidence of effectiveness; and 

competitive grants to States and districts to support the integration of technology into instruction 

and the development and implementation of innovative teacher and leader policies. With 

amounts reserved for evaluation and competitive grants, the Department would build evidence 

on how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and school leaders while

continuing to invest in efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions.

The Excellent Instructional Teams programs will also reinforce reforms that 44 States and 

several school districts are making under the Department’s ESEA flexibility initiative. States and 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher quality partnership

H-92

LEAs that were approved for ESEA flexibility are adopting new systems for evaluating and 

supporting teachers and principals based in part on student growth, as well as implementing 

academic standards linked to college- and career-readiness, new assessments aligned with 

those standards, and instituting differentiated approaches to school accountability that target 

improvement resources to the lowest-performing schools and those with the largest 

achievement gaps.

The Excellent Instructional Teams programs would also complement the $5 billion proposed in 

mandatory funding for a targeted implementation of the Recognizing Education Success, 

Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project. The proposed 

RESPECT Project would more broadly support State and local efforts to reform teacher and 

principal recruitment, preparation, and mentoring, and redesign educator career ladders to help 

attract and retain top talent.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2013 footnote2014 footnote2015

Partnership Grants

New 0 $40,0541 0

Continuations $40,0962 0 0

Subtotal 40,096 40,054 0

State teacher quality accountability reports 497 538 0

________________________

NOTE: FY 2015 projected costs of $538 thousand for data collection for the State teacher quality accountability 

reports would be provided from the funds set aside under the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program. 

There will be no grant continuation costs for the TQP program in FY 2015. 1 The FY 2014 new awards total includes approximately $32,043 in FY 2014 funds for support of continuations 

costs in fiscal years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. 2 Continuation costs for these grants in 2013 are $56,833 thousand, which exceeded the amount available, so 

the awards were reduced.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

In 2008, the program was reauthorized and extensively revised as part of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act. The Department concluded that the performance measures that had been 

developed for the antecedent program were no longer appropriate. As a result, the Department 

developed new measures for the program. Data for the new measures will not be available until 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher quality partnership

H-93

fall 2015 at the earliest. For the interim period, the Department has created measures that will 

provide data in a shorter period of time. Data for these measures will come from the revised 

annual performance report. It is expected that initial data for these measures will not be 

available until spring 2014 at the earliest. 

Goal: To increase the quality of teachers in high-need schools and early childhood 

education programs.

Objective: To increase the number of new teachers graduating from high-quality teacher 

preparation programs.

Measure: The percentage of program completers who (1) attain initial certification/licensure by 

passing all necessary licensure/certification assessments and attain a bachelor’s degree (preBaccalaureate program) within 6 years or a master’s degree (residency program) within 2 years 

or (2) attain highly competent early childhood educator status with a bachelor’s degree within 

6 years or an associate’s degree within 3 years.

Interim Measure: The percentage of program participants who did not graduate in the previous 

reporting period and who persisted in the postsecondary program in the current reporting 

period.

Objective: To improve the subject matter competency of new teachers.

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report improved scores for initial State certification 

or licensure of teachers.

Objective: To increase the retention rate of new teachers in high-need school districts.

Measure: The percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in teaching in the partner 

high-need local educational agency or early childhood education program 3 years after initial 

employment.

Interim Measure: The percentage of beginning teachers who are retained in teaching in the 

partner high-need LEA or ECE program 1 year after initial employment.

Efficiency Measure

The Department also developed an efficiency measure for this program. The measure is the 

cost of a successful outcome, where successful outcome is defined as retention in the partner 

high-need LEA or ECE program 3 years after initial employment. This efficiency measure ties in 

with the program’s new performance measures. Data for this measure will come from the 

revised annual performance report and will not be available until fiscal year 2014 at the earliest.

Other Performance Information

In 2010, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) awarded a contract for an evaluation of the 

teacher residency projects supported through the TQP program to Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. Although the evaluation was originally intended to be an impact study that would 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher quality partnership

H-94

examine whether having a teacher residency program graduate as a teacher had an effect on 

student achievement, IES determined that an experimental research design was not feasible. 

Instead, the evaluation has been restructured as an implementation study.

In spring 2011, the evaluator surveyed all 28 TQP teacher residency projects in order to collect 

descriptive information on the characteristics and implementation of the projects. In order to 

limit the administrative burden on schools and districts, for a subset of projects, the evaluator 

conducted interviews with project directors and surveyed teacher residents and their mentors in 

spring 2011. In spring 2012, the evaluator began conducting additional surveys of the teachers 

of record, collecting student administrative data and teacher employment verification data, and 

conducting a survey on teacher mobility. 

The implementation study is addressing the following research questions:

• How do teachers who complete teacher residency projects compare to other novice 

teachers and to all teachers in their district?

• What is the retention rate of the residency project teachers compared to their novice 

colleagues who weren’t prepared through a teacher residency project?

• What are the characteristics of the teacher residency projects (e.g., length of overall 

program, nature of required coursework and apprenticeship activities, characteristics of 

their assigned mentor teacher, criteria for selecting program participants)?

• What are the characteristics of the teacher applicants and participants in the teacher 

residency projects?

The descriptive study includes approximately 300 teachers prepared through the TQP program, 

and the study is following a subset of these teachers for an additional 2 years to collect data on 

teacher retention. IES plans to release the findings of this study in two reports, which are 

scheduled to be completed in spring and fall 2014. The Department hopes that the findings will 

help inform the implementation of the Excellent Instructional Teams initiatives.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-95

Teacher incentive fund

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$288,771 0 -$288,771

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Department proposes to continue funding this program 

in FY 2015 under new legislation.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) supports States and school districts that develop and 

implement innovative strategies for providing financial incentives to teachers and principals who 

raise student achievement and close achievement gaps in some of our highest need schools. 

The goals of TIF are to improve student achievement by increasing teacher and principal 

effectiveness; reform teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and 

principals are rewarded for gains in student achievement; increase the number of and retain 

effective teachers teaching low-income, minority, and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff 

subjects; and create sustainable performance-based compensation systems. These systems 

also provide educators with professional development and additional compensation for taking 

on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

Under TIF, the Department makes competitive 5-year grants to support the development and 

implementation of performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) that include professional 

development and career advancement opportunities for public school teachers and principals in 

high-need schools. Eligible entities include (1) local educational agencies (LEAs), including 

charter schools that are LEAs; (2) States; and (3) nonprofit organizations in partnership with an 

LEA, a State, or both. Applicants must propose PBCSs that take into consideration gains in 

student achievement as well as other factors, including classroom observations conducted 

multiple times during the year, and must demonstrate a commitment to ensuring the fiscal and 

programmatic sustainability of their projects.

The Department may also use up to 5 percent of TIF funds for technical assistance, training, 

peer review of applications, program outreach, and evaluation activities.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provided an additional 

$200 million for TIF in 2009 to allow the Department to significantly expand support for PBCSs. 

The Recovery Act also required the Department, through the Institute of Education Sciences 

(IES), to conduct a rigorous national evaluation to assess the impact of performance-based 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher incentive fund

H-96

teacher and principal compensation systems on teacher and principal recruitment and retention 

in high-need schools and subjects. The Recovery Act, in addition to providing a 5-percent 

reservation for an evaluation, allowed the Department to reserve up to 1 percent for 

management and oversight of activities supported by those funds.

The fiscal year 2012 competition included a priority on supporting projects with performancebased compensation systems that not only are well-designed and implemented LEA-wide, but 

also are part of a broader districtwide plan to evaluate teachers and principals fairly and 

rigorously, improve LEA human capital management, improve instruction, and positively affect 

student achievement. This competition also supported projects that proposed innovative ways 

to use performance-based compensation systems to improve instruction and student 

achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to build career ladders 

that include school-based instructional leadership positions (such as master teachers, mentor 

teachers, or instructional coach roles).

Funding is appropriated for TIF under the Fund for the Improvement of Education, authorized by 

Title V, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but key program 

requirements are established through annual appropriations language.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 ..................................................................... $400,000

2011 ....................................................................... 399,200

2012 ....................................................................... 299,433

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests no funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) for fiscal year 

2015. In place of several narrowly targeted programs that serve current and prospective 

teachers and school leaders, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act would create a broader Excellent Instructional Teams authority. 

This authority would include a new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund that would build on the 

experience of the TIF program to support State and school district efforts to develop and 

implement innovative approaches to creating human capital systems that improve teacher and 

leader effectiveness and student outcomes. The new program would focus on recruiting and 

preparing promising candidates and retaining, promoting, and rewarding teachers and principals 

who raise student achievement and close the achievement gap in high-need schools.

Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund grantees would use program funds to reform teacher and 

school leader compensation and career advancement systems; incorporate the use of 

evaluation results in retention, compensation, and other personnel decisions; reform hiring and 

placement practices; improve certification and licensure systems; and implement other 

innovative strategies to strengthen the workforce.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher incentive fund

H-97

The proposed Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would reinforce the broader Excellent 

Instructional Teams initiative by supporting compensation systems that reward effective and 

highly effective teachers and leaders. These systems can be an important tool in efforts to 

attract effective and highly effective teachers and leaders and build strong instructional and 

school leadership teams in high-need schools, to create robust career advancement systems for 

teachers and other school leaders, and to create more effective professional development 

systems. In addition, the proposed Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, 

and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT) Project would more broadly support State and local 

efforts to identify, support, and reward educators who take on leadership roles, such as master 

teacher positions, to help all teachers in their school excel. 

Under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, in fiscal year 2015, TIF continuation grant 

costs would be funded from the new Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount for continuation awards $271,555 $280,013 0

Number of continuation awards 92 92 0

Average continuation award $2,952 $3,044 0

Technical assistance, training, 

outreach, and evaluation

$12,216 $8,758 0

_________________

NOTE: Continuation costs in 2015 of approximately $230,000 thousand would be provided from the 

appropriation for the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department has established the following goal and performance indicators to assess the 

impact of the Teacher Incentive Fund. The Department has not set targets for these indicators 

because the Administration has proposed to consolidate the program in its last several budget 

requests.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher incentive fund

H-98

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

reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals 

are rewarded for increases in student achievement. 

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

who have a record of effectiveness. 

Measure: The percentage of teachers and principals in high-need schools who have a record 

of effectiveness.

Year 2006 Cohort

Actual

2007 Cohort

Actual

2010 Cohort

Actual

2009 33.0% 44.2%

2010 35.7 47.5

2011 29.3 46.3 70.8%

2012 44.3 79.9

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

reports. Only 14 of the 60 grantees in the 2010 cohort reported results for this measure for 

2011; for the remaining grantees in the 2010 cohort, 2011 was a planning year. A number of 

grantees in each cohort reported very high percentages of “effective” teachers and principals 

based on the percentage of educators who received incentive payments. In those cases, 

grantees made incentive payments to a substantial number of teachers and principals in highneed schools, but the amounts of those payments might have varied by individual. The 

Department has addressed this reporting issue by establishing new measures for the 

2012 Cohort, as described below.

Objective: Show an increase in the percentage of a district’s personnel budget that is used for 

performance-related payments to effective (as measured by student achievement gains) 

teachers and principals. 

Measure: The percentage of a district’s personnel budget that is used for performance-related 

payments to effective teachers and principals (as measured by student achievement gains).

Year 2006 Cohort

Actual

2007 Cohort

Actual

2010 Cohort

Actual

2009 0.7% 0.9%

2010 1.0 0.8

2011 1.2 0.9 0.7%

2012 0.9 1.0

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

reports.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher incentive fund

H-99

New Measures

The Department established four new measures as part of the 2012 grant competition: (1) the 

percentage of teachers and principals who are rated at each effectiveness level; (2) the 

percentage of teachers teaching in a high-need field or subject, such as teaching English 

Learners, students with disabilities, or STEM, who are rated at each effectiveness level; (3) the 

percentage of teachers and principals who were rated at each effectiveness level in the 

previous year and who returned to serve in the same high-need school in the LEA; and (4) the 

percentage of school districts participating in a TIF grant that use educator evaluation systems 

to inform key personnel decisions.

Other Performance Information

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is conducting a rigorous national evaluation, using a 

randomized controlled methodology, to assess the impact of performance-based compensation 

systems (PBCSs) on student achievement and on teacher and principal recruitment and 

retention in high-need schools and subjects. The Department will release an initial report in 

fall 2014. IES is also conducting a study to assess the impact of implementing a teacher and 

leader performance evaluation system on student achievement, classroom practices, and 

teacher and principal mobility. The Department expects to publish an initial report in early 

2015 and a final report in summer 2016.

In 2012, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) published an 

implementation study of the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. The study found, among other things, that 

most of the 34 grantees recognized the importance of providing teachers opportunities to learn 

how to improve their practices so they could earn an award. However, the report noted that in 

the majority of projects almost all teachers and administrators received awards and that many of 

the performance-pay projects faced significant challenges to financial sustainability.

In addition, PPSS’s “Results in Brief: Providing Effective Teachers for All Students: Examples 

from Five Districts,” also published in 2012, looked at five districts that use data on student 

achievement growth to identify effective teachers, implement performance pay initiatives or 

other human resource policies, and seek to ensure an equitable distribution of effective 

teachers, particularly in high-need schools. Three of the districts received TIF grants, and 

another benefited from TIF support through a State grantee. The report described how these 

districts measure teacher effectiveness and some of the challenges they faced, such as hurdles 

in implementing classroom observation systems that were both rigorous and manageable in 

terms of scheduling complexity and time required.

A 2010 report supported by the Gates Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the National 

Institute for Excellence in Teaching, “Performance-Based Compensation: Design and 

Implementation at Six Teacher Incentive Fund Sites,” highlighted six particularly successful 

grantees in the 2007 Cohort. The report underscored not only improvements in teacher 

practices and outcomes, such as increases in collaboration and retention rates, but also 

significant increases in student achievement at many project sites. For example, students who 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Teacher incentive fund

H-100

attended participating rural and urban schools in South Carolina and Texas, and participating 

charter schools in New Orleans and Philadelphia, averaged more than the expected level of 

academic growth per school year.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-101

School leadership

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 

2151(b))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$25,763 $35,000 +$9,237

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The School Leadership program provides competitive grants to assist high-need local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in recruiting, training, and retaining principals and assistant 

principals. A high-need LEA is defined as one that: (1) serves at least 10,000 children from 

low-income families or serves a community in which at least 20 percent of the children are from 

low-income families, and (2) has a high percentage of teachers teaching either outside of their 

area of certification or with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification.

Entities eligible for grants include high-need LEAs, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of 

higher education. Grantees may use their funds to recruit and retain individuals to serve as 

principals in high-need LEAs by: (1) providing financial incentives to aspiring new principals, 

(2) providing stipends to principals who mentor new principals, (3) carrying out professional 

development programs in instructional leadership and management, and (4) providing 

incentives that are appropriate for teachers or individuals from other fields who want to become 

principals and that are effective in retaining new principals.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.......................................................................$29,220

2011.........................................................................29,162

2012.........................................................................29,107

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $35.0 million for School Leadership for fiscal year 2015, 

approximately $9.2 million more than the fiscal year 2014 level. With this increase in funding, 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

School leadership

H-102

the Department would hold a competition for new grant awards focused on training highly 

effective leaders for high-need schools and districts.

Emerging research shows that effective leaders play a critically important role in students’ 

academic success, especially in high-need schools, by creating cultures of high expectations for 

all students and by recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers.1

 This research indicates 

that effective leaders create a vision of academic success for all children in their schools and 

encourage other educators to take on leadership roles and responsibilities. Moreover, effective 

principals also provide instructional leadership in addition to carrying out administrative

responsibilities.2

The request would support grants for high-quality, large-scale professional development for 

school leaders that build evidence of effectiveness. In particular, the Department would give 

priority to projects that propose to help current principals and school leadership teams master 

essential school leadership skills (such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, 

analyzing student data, developing school leadership teams, and creating a positive school 

climate). The request would also support projects that deepen school leaders’ understanding of 

college- and career-ready (CCR) standards and effective instruction aligned to those standards. 

Grantees serving current school leaders would provide principal managers (such as district 

superintendents) training on how to support and evaluate school leaders, based on research 

showing that district-level staff play an important role in helping develop and retain effective and 

highly effective principals.3

In addition, the Department would create incentives for applicants to set ambitious goals for 

their professional development programs, including goals related to student achievement gains. 

These incentives would also support the adoption of district-level reforms that would empower

strong school leaders, such as providing effective principals with greater autonomy over areas 

like staffing, budgeting, and scheduling. 

The Department began building the evidence base to support the new program emphasis in the 

2013 competition, which encouraged applicants to address the challenges of preparing and 

supporting principals by creating or enhancing projects that contribute to the limited body of 

high-quality evidence on principal preparation, professional development for principals, or both. 

Applicants were asked to include an evaluation plan that is likely to produce valid, reliable, and 

rigorous evidence of the federally funded project’s impact on producing effective principals, as 

measured, at least in part, using student outcome data where available.

The request reflects the growing recognition of the importance of strong school leadership in 

reaching the Nation’s education reform goals and improving student achievement, and is 

designed to complement the Administration’s other proposals for fiscal year 2015. For example, 

 1 Loeb, Kalogrides & Béteille, “Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and 

Retention,” Journal of Education Finance and Policy (2012).

2 Wallace Foundation, “The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and 

Learning” (2013).

3 Béteille, Kalogrides & Loeb, “Stepping Stones: Principal Career Paths and School Outcomes,” CALDER 

Working Paper No. 58 (2011); Mitgang, “Districts Matter: Cultivating the Principals Urban Schools Need,”

Wallace Foundation (2013).
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

School leadership

H-103

the Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching 

(RESPECT) Project would more broadly support State and local efforts to improve teacher and 

principal preparation and support early in their careers; provide career ladders and other 

opportunities for educators to take on leadership roles as they transition to CCR standards; and 

create conditions in schools that support effective teaching, including great school leadership 

and time for collaboration. The Department also is proposing to use a portion of the 10-percent 

set-aside within the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program to support the 

recruitment, preparation, and retention of school leaders and development of school leadership 

teams that are able to turn around low-performing schools. Competitive grants under the setaside would also help States and LEAs dramatically improve the quality of teacher and principal 

preparation, including through the development of rigorous accountability systems for 

preparation programs, the enhancement of certification and licensure standards so that those 

standards are based on performance, and the development and improvement of educator 

evaluation systems. Competitive Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund grants would also 

support innovative strategies undertaken by States and LEAs to raise the quality of teaching 

and school leadership, including by empowering principals in high-need schools with greater 

authority to select effective instructional teams for their schools.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Funding for new awards $13,421 0 $17,975

Number of new awards 20 0 8

Average new award $671 0 $2,247

Funding for continuation awards $14,097 $25,705 $16,500

Number of continuation awards 21 34 20

Average continuation award $671 $756 $825

Peer review of new award 

applications $66 0 $350

Evaluation 0 $58 $175

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including GPRA goals, 

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2015 

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

School leadership

H-104

The Department has established the following goal with two objectives and corresponding 

performance indicators to measure the impact of the School Leadership program: 

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

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

high-need schools in high-need LEAs. 

Objective: To recruit, prepare, and support teachers and individuals from other fields to 

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

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

principal or assistant principal.

Year

2008 

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 

Cohort

Actual

2010 40% 58% 30% 20% 20% 33%

2011 50 69 40 32 30 57

2012 60 92 50 41 40 70

2013 60 50

2014 60

2015

Measure: The percentage of participants who are certified and hired as a principal or assistant 

principal in a high-need local educational agency.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010 

Cohort

Actual

2010 60% 32% 50% 35% 40% 57%

2011 70 31 60 45 50 69

2012 80 31 70 38 60 48

2013 80 70

2014 80

2015
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

School leadership

H-105

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

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

2 years.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2010

2011

2012 29% 98%

2013 74 84 67%

2014

2015

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to train and certify new principals and assistant principals. Grantees report data 

through annual performance reports. The Department will use baseline progress results to set 

targets for future years.

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

LEAs in order to improve their skills and increase retention.

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

local educational agencies who participated in School Leadership-funded professional 

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

measure of principal skills.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2010 60% 57% 50% 81% 40% 11%

2011 70 25 60 39 50 30

2012 80 52 70 60 60 57

2013 80 70

2014 80

2015
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

School leadership

H-106

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

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

remained in their administrative position for at least 2 years.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2010

2011

2012 27% 11%

2013 57 23 60%

2014

2015

Additional information: These measures track participants who are enrolled in projects 

designed to support individuals currently serving as principals and assistant principals in highneed LEAs. Grantees report data through annual performance reports. The Department will 

use baseline progress results to set targets for future years.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-107

Exp anding education al option s:

Expanding educational options

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

0 $248,172 +$248,172

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) would create a new Expanding Educational Options authority to increase the supply of 

high-quality public school options available to students, especially students attending lowperforming schools, by supporting the development and expansion of effective charter and other 

autonomous schools and by implementing comprehensive systems of public school choice.

The proposed authority includes two component programs: (1) Supporting Effective Charter 

Schools Grants and (2) Promoting Public School Choice Grants. Under Supporting Effective 

Charter Schools Grants, the Department would make competitive grants to State educational 

agencies (SEAs), charter school authorizers, charter management organizations, local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and other nonprofit organizations to start or expand effective 

charter and autonomous schools and to develop and implement outreach programs that provide 

high-quality information to parents and students about the public school options available to 

them. Autonomous schools would be defined as public schools that have autonomy over key 

areas of operations, including staffing, budget, schedule, management, and instructional 

program, and that are subject to higher levels of accountability than traditional public schools. 

The Department would give priority to the creation of high-quality schools by selecting 

applicants based on their record of success in (depending on the type of grantee) authorizing, 

supporting, funding, overseeing, or operating effective charter and autonomous schools, 

including their record of closing (or terminating funding for) ineffective schools. The Department

would also ensure that funding is targeted to areas most in need by selecting applicants that 

demonstrate that they will expand options for students attending low-performing schools. The 

Department would give priority for grants to applicants proposing to create or expand charter 

schools and to applicants that would create or expand schools (whether charter or autonomous 

schools) with significant percentages of students from low-income families, and could also give 

priority to applicants whose schools will work to increase the diversity of their enrollment.

In addition, the Department would be authorized to use Supporting Effective Charter Schools

funds to make competitive grants to SEAs, LEAs, community development financial institutions, 

and State financing authorities for the purposes of improving the access of high-performing 

charter schools to facilities and facilities financing.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Expanding educational options

H-108

Under the second program within the Expanding Educational Options initiative, Promoting 

Public School Choice Grants, the Department would make competitive grants to high-need 

LEAs, and to SEAs in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs, to implement programs of 

public school choice that increase the range of high-quality educational options available to 

students in high-need schools. Grantees would use funds to: (1) develop and implement a 

comprehensive public school choice plan, which could include creating or expanding interdistrict 

and intradistrict choice programs, theme-based school programs, online learning programs, or 

“academic pathway” programs; and (2) develop and implement activities to assist parents and 

students in identifying and accessing high-quality educational options. The Department would 

give priority for grants to applicants that propose to implement or expand an interdistrict choice 

program and to applicants that propose to implement or expand a program that will increase 

diversity. 

The Department would be authorized to reserve up to 5 percent of program funds for national 

activities, including research and development, data collection and analysis, technical 

assistance, and outreach and dissemination.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requests $248.2 million for the proposed Expanding 

Educational Options program, the same as the fiscal year 2014 level for Charter Schools 

Grants. The request recognizes the continued importance of increasing the availability of highquality educational options, especially for students attending low-performing schools, and 

ensuring that families have the information they need to choose from among their options. The 

reauthorized program would improve on existing ESEA public school choice programs by, 

among other things, funding applicants based on their record of success with respect to charter 

and autonomous schools and by supporting strengthened information and outreach campaigns. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Department would use funds only for Supporting Effective Charter 

Schools Grants and for national activities, and would not fund Promoting Public School Choice 

Grants.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Supporting Effective Charter Schools Grants

Amount for new awards $160,101

Number of new awards 20-40

Peer review of new award applications $248
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Expanding educational options

H-109

Measures 2015

Continuation awards for antecedent programs $75,414

National activities $12,409 _______________

NOTE: Approximately $75,414 thousand would be provided in fiscal year 2015 under Supporting Effective 

Charter School Grants to fund continuation awards for grants made under Charter Schools Grants, including 

$45,954 thousand for SEA grants, $4,350 thousand for Non-SEA Eligible Applicant grants, $14,110 thousand for 

Charter Management Organization grants, and $11,000 thousand for State Facilities Incentive grants.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

Expanding Educational Options programs.

.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-110

Charter schools grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part B, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$248,1722 0 -$248,172

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2015 under new legislation. 2

 From the amount appropriated for Charter Schools Grants, the fiscal year 2014 appropriations act requires the 

Department to use not less than $12,000 thousand for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Charter Schools program supports the planning, development, initial implementation, and 

replication of charter schools, which increase educational options for parents and students and, 

in exchange for stricter accountability, are exempt from many State and local requirements 

governing traditional public schools.

State educational agencies (SEAs) in States in which State law permits charter schools to 

operate are eligible to compete for grants (SEA grants). States receiving grants make 

subgrants to charter school developers, which may include individuals and public and private 

nonprofit organizations. If an eligible SEA does not receive a grant, charter school developers 

in the State may apply directly to the Department for funding (Non-SEA Eligible Applicant 

grants). Developers receive up to 3 years of assistance, of which they may use not more than 

18 months for planning and program design and not more than 2 years for the initial 

implementation of a charter school. States may reserve up to 10 percent of their grants to make 

subgrants to successful charter schools for information dissemination activities; charter schools 

in eligible States not receiving a grant may also apply directly to the Department for grants for 

dissemination.

In awarding SEA grants, the Department must give priority to States that provide for review and 

evaluation of charter schools by their chartering agencies at least once every 5 years to 

determine whether the schools are meeting their charter terms and their requirements and goals 

for student academic achievement. The Department must also give priority to States that do 

one or more of the following: (1) demonstrate progress in increasing the number of charter 

schools that are held accountable for results; (2) have chartering agencies that are not local 

educational agencies (LEAs) or, if only LEAs are chartering agencies, have an appeals process 

for prospective charter schools that initially fail to gain approval; (3) and provide charter schools 

a high degree of autonomy over their budgets and expenditures.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-111

Under the authorizing statute, the Department must use the amount appropriated above 

$200 million but not exceeding $300 million, as well as 50 percent of any funds exceeding 

$300 million, to make competitive 5-year grants under the State Facilities Incentive program. 

State Facilities Incentive grants support per-pupil aid programs that assist charter schools with 

facility costs. States pay an increasing share of the cost of their per-pupil aid programs over the 

course of their grants.

Beginning in fiscal year 2010, appropriations language has revised the program’s allocation 

rules to authorize or require the Department to use specific amounts for State Facilities 

Incentive grants and Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities grants and to make

grants to charter management organizations and other nonprofit entities for the replication and 

expansion of successful charter school models (Charter Management Organization grants). For 

fiscal year 2014, the appropriations act requires the Department to use not less than $11 million

for State Facilities Incentive grants, not less than $12 million for Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities grants, and not less than $45 million for Charter Management Organization 

grants.

The authorizing statute also permits the Department to use up to $8 million of the appropriation 

for national activities. Recent years’ appropriations acts have overridden this cap and allowed 

the use of a higher amount for this purpose, including for technical assistance to public 

chartering agencies to increase the number of high-performing charter schools. The fiscal year 

2014 appropriations act authorizes the Department to use up to $11 million for these activities.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.........................................................$256,031

2011...........................................................255,519

2012...........................................................254,836 1

2013...........................................................241,507

2014...........................................................248,172

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $200 thousand from Charter Schools Grants to Advanced 

Placement.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Charter Schools program for fiscal year 

2015. In place of this and other narrowly targeted programs that seek to expand educational 

options for students and families, the Administration has proposed to create a broader initiative, 

Expanding Educational Options, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

reauthorization. This new initiative would address the need to increase the supply of highquality public educational options available to students, especially students attending lowperforming schools, through support of effective charter and autonomous schools and

comprehensive systems of public school choice. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-112

The proposed Expanding Educational Options authority, described in more detail elsewhere in 

this account, includes a new Supporting Effective Charter Schools Grants program. Under this 

program, the Department would make competitive grants to SEAs, charter school authorizers, 

charter management organizations, LEAs, and other nonprofit organizations to start or expand 

effective charter and autonomous schools and to develop and implement outreach programs 

that provide high-quality information to parents and students about the public school options 

available to them. Funds would also be available for competitive grants for charter schools 

facilities programs. Recipients of funds under the current Charter Schools program and other 

applicants would be eligible to apply for funds under the new Supporting Effective Charter 

Schools grants program to start or expand charter and autonomous schools. 

The creation and expansion of charter schools remains a key element of the Administration’s 

strategy to promote successful models of school reform. The Department would work to ensure 

that funding is focused on the creation of high-quality schools by selecting applicants based on 

their record of success in (depending on the type of grantee) authorizing, supporting, funding, 

overseeing, or operating effective charter and autonomous schools, including their record of 

closing (or terminating funding for) ineffective charter and autonomous schools. The 

Department would also ensure that funding is targeted to areas most in need by selecting 

applicants that demonstrate that they will expand options for students attending low-performing 

schools. The Department would give priority for grants to applicants proposing to create or 

expand charter schools and to applicants that would create or expand schools (whether charter 

or autonomous schools) with significant percentages of students from low-income families, and 

could also give priority to applicants whose schools will work to increase the diversity of their 

student bodies. 

Under the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, fiscal year 2015 Charter Schools grant 

continuation costs would be funded from the appropriation for the new Expanding Educational 

Options initiative. 

If the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to enactment of fiscal year 2015

appropriations, the Administration will request authority through appropriations language to use 

up to $75 million of the 2015 appropriation for Charter Management Organization grants and to 

continue the policy initiated in fiscal year 2014 appropriations of allowing grantees to use funds 

to support preschool education in charter schools, which most grantees would otherwise not be 

permitted to do under the current-law definition of “charter school.”

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

SEA grants

Amount for continuation awards $177,320 $144,653 0

Non-SEA Eligible Applicant grants

Amount for new awards 2,899 4,000 0

Amount for continuation awards 3,758 5,208 0
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-113

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Charter Management Organization 

grants

Amount for new awards 0 $26,445 0

Amount for continuation awards $29,130 33,666 0

State Facilities Incentive grants

Amount for new awards 11,000

Amount for continuation awards 10,000 0 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 47 200 0

National activities 5,353 11,000 0 _______________

NOTES: The amounts shown on this table do not include $13,000 thousand in 2013 and $12,000 thousand in 

2014 for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities, which are shown in the program output measures for that 

activity.

Continuation costs of approximately $75,414 thousand (including $45,954 thousand for SEA grants, 

$4,350 thousand for Non-SEA Eligible Applicant grants, $14,110 thousand for Charter Management Organization 

grants, and $11,000 thousand for State Facilities Incentive grants) would be provided from the appropriation for 

Expanding Education Options in fiscal year 2015.

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 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: To encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools 

that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for 

enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all 

students.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-114

Measure: The number of States that have charter school legislation (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico). 

Year Target Actual

2010 44 41

2011 44 42

2012 44 43

2013 44 43

2014 44 43

2015 44

Additional information: In 2011 and in 2012, after more than 8 years with no change in the 

number of States with charter school legislation, this number increased when first Maine (in 

2011) and then Washington (in 2012) approved such legislation. The remaining States without 

charter school laws are mainly rural States (e.g., South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia). 

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

Year Target Actual

2010 5,190 4,991

2011 5,660 5,339

2012 6,130 5,741

2013 6,600

2014 7,070

2015 7,510

Additional information: Data on the number of charter schools in operation are provided 

annually by State educational agencies and are verified by the Department. The 2013 data for 

this measure are expected to be available in December 2014.

Measure: The percentage of 4th-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above 

proficient on State assessments in reading. 

Year Target Actual

2010 79.5% 72.2%

2011 84.6 70.9

2012 89.7 68.6

2013 94.8

2014 100.0
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-115

Measure: The percentage of 4th-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2010 78.0% 72.6%

2011 83.5 71.2

2012 89.0 65.1

2013 94.5

2014 100.0

Measure: The percentage of 8th-grade charter school students who are achieving at or above 

proficient on State assessments in reading. 

Year Target Actual

2010 79.8% 70.9%

2011 84.8 71.2

2012 89.9 68.7

2013 94.9

2014 100.0

Measure: The percentage of 8th-grade students in charter schools who are achieving at or 

above proficient on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2010 72.1% 59.5%

2011 79.1 60.2

2012 86.1 56.5

2013 93.1

2014 100.0

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures are based on the ESEA goal 

of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. The Department will 

develop targets for these measures for 2015 and future years at a later date. Data for these 

measures are collected through grantee annual performance reports. Analysis of the data has 

found notable variation in performance among the schools funded. The 2013 data for these 

measures are expected to be available in December 2014.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-116

Efficiency Measures

Measure: The ratio of funds leveraged by States for charter facilities to funds awarded by the 

Department under the State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program.

Year 2009 Cohort Target 2009 Cohort Actual

2010 Baseline 1.6

2011 2.9 2.4

2012 4.2 3.1

2013 5.8 3.4

2014 6.3

Additional information: This efficiency measure assesses the State Facilities Incentive grants 

by examining the ratio of funds leveraged by grantees to funds awarded by the Department. 

The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant and the State match) divided 

by the Federal grant for a given year. 

The Department has also developed a measure to assess the cost efficiency, across States, of 

the Federal investment in supporting charter school start-ups. The measure is defined as the 

Federal cost per student of launching a successful school (defined as a school in operation for 

3 or more years). Data for 2010 show an average cost of $789 per student, for 2011 an 

average cost of $920 per student, and for 2012 an average cost of $1,010. Data for this 

measure, collected through grantee annual performance reports, assist the Department in 

determining what constitutes a reasonable cost per student for different types of charter 

schools. 

Other Performance Information

In 2010, the Department released findings from its first impact evaluation of charter schools, 

which addressed the effects of charter school strategies on student achievement and 

satisfaction and on parent satisfaction. Researchers also examined school factors that affect 

student outcomes (e.g., school or class size, proportion of certified teachers) and the extent to 

which policy conditions and autonomy in school operation influence effectiveness. 

Approximately 36 charter middle schools across 15 States participated in this random 

assignment study. The researchers followed two treatment groups of students and a control 

group for two consecutive grade levels and also surveyed students, parents, and principals. 

The evaluation showed that the impact of charter middle schools on student achievement varied 

across participating schools, with schools that served more low-income or low-achieving 

students showing statistically significant positive effects in mathematics and no significant 

effects in reading, and with schools that served more advantaged students showing significant 

negative effects in both subjects. The evaluation also examined whether achievement impacts 

were associated with certain school characteristics and found some positive impacts for charter 

schools with comparatively longer hours of operation or with comparatively higher revenue per 

student, but these findings were not statistically significant once the researchers controlled for 

school and student characteristics. Lastly, the evaluation found no significant relationship 

between charter school policies and student achievement. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-117

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

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), is an update and expansion of 

CREDO’s 2009 study “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States.” The 

2013 study examined longitudinal student-level data from a sample of 3,620 charter schools 

across 25 States, the District of Columbia, and New York City (treated separately from the rest 

of the State) to determine whether students who attend charter schools performed better 

academically than if they had attended a traditional public school. The researchers found that 

29 percent of charter schools in the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in 

mathematics achievement and 25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading 

compared to traditional public schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the 

sample posted mathematics gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly 

below what those students would have seen if enrolled in a traditional public school. Overall, 

the students in these charter schools have shown improvement over the results from 2009 and 

slow and steady progress over the past 5 years. Among the group of 16 States from the original 

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

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

of time.

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

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

academically compared to similar students in traditional public schools. The researchers also 

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

average experiencing smaller learning gains than their peers in traditional public schools in their 

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

Other recent studies have used a more rigorous experimental research design to compare the 

performance of students who were admitted by lottery into oversubscribed charter schools and 

those who were not admitted and instead attended traditional public schools. Hoxby, Murarka, 

and Kang, in a 2009 report for the New York City (NYC) Charter School Evaluation Project, 

found a positive achievement effect for students attending the city’s charter schools. By the

3rd-grade, the average NYC charter school student scored 5.3 scale-score points above his or 

her peers in traditional public schools in English language arts and 5.8 scale-score points above 

in mathematics. In grades 4 through 8, the average charter school student gained 3.6 more 

scale-score points in English language arts and 5.0 more scale-score points in mathematics 

than did peers in traditional public schools each year. Hoxby and colleagues noted that, on 

average, students who attended a charter school for grades kindergarten through eight scored 

about 23 scale-score points higher in English language arts and 30 scale-score points higher in 

mathematics compared to their peers in traditional public schools, closing about 66 and 

86 percent of the achievement gap in those subject areas, respectively. The evaluation also 

found that students applying to NYC charter schools were more likely to be African-American 

(63 percent versus 34 percent) and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (92 percent versus 

72 percent) than students in the traditional public schools in the district. The researchers also 

examined charter school policies in relation to achievement and found that effects on 

achievement were associated with the length of the school year, the number of minutes devoted 

to English language arts during the school day, whether teacher compensation was based on 

performance, and whether a school’s mission statement emphasized academic performance. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Charter schools grants

H-118

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

which examines, in charter schools across 25 States, changes in school performance in the 

years following a school’s opening and the implications of these changes for school replication. 

The study found, among other things, that schools with initial high performance with respect to 

student achievement tended to stay high performers over time, while the performance of initially 

low-performing schools remained low. The study also found that schools opened by a charter 

management organization (CMO) typically performed at a level similar to the average of the 

other schools operated by the CMO. 

In light of the changing charter school landscape and recent research findings, the Department 

has initiated new data collection and analysis activities, including the development of a central 

warehouse of data on charter schools providing detailed information on a complete list of 

charter schools in operation across the Nation and a data-reporting guide for States. The 

development of the data warehouse, which included a reconciliation of multiple charter school 

data sets, was completed in November 2012. The data-reporting guide, which incorporates 

lessons learned from the reconciliation, has been released and is available at 

www.ed.gov/edfacts under “EDFacts System Documentation” (see “SY 2013-14 EDFacts 

Charter Workbook”). The Department believes that these activities have improved and will 

continue to strengthen the quality and reliability of our charter school data. We also expect to 

complete a set of internal analyses to help identify future directions for data collection and 

analysis in 2014.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-119

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part B, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2014 2015 Change

$12,0002 0 -$12,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2004. The Administration proposes to consolidate the program in 

FY 2015 under new legislation. 2 The FY 2014 appropriations act does not provide a separate appropriation for this program; instead, from the 

amount provided for Charter Schools, the appropriations language requires the Secretary to use at least

$12,000 thousand for Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program provides assistance to help 

charter schools meet their facility needs. Under this program, funds are provided on a 

competitive basis to public and nonprofit entities, and consortia of such entities, to leverage 

funds and help charter schools obtain school facilities through such means as purchase, lease, 

and donation, as well as the construction and renovation of school facilities. The grant period 

runs until the Federal funds and earnings on those funds have been expended for grant 

purposes or until financing facilitated by the grant has been retired, whichever is later.

To help leverage funds for charter school facilities, grant recipients may, among other things: 

guarantee and insure debt to finance charter school facilities; guarantee and insure leases for 

personal and real property; and facilitate charter schools’ facilities financing by identifying 

potential lending sources, encouraging private lending, and other, similar activities. These

credit enhancements are intended to reduce risk to the lender, thereby creating access to credit 

or lowering interest rates and costs of borrowing for charter schools.

Some of the grantees have been community development financial institutions (CDFIs), which 

typically specialize in project finance and economic development in low-income communities. 

The remaining grantees have been nonprofit organizations, State public finance authorities, and 

one local public finance authority.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities

H-120

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2010 ......................................................................... $8,300

2011 ......................................................................... 10,036

2012 ......................................................................... 11,036

2013 ......................................................................... 13,000

2014 ......................................................................... 12,000 _________________

NOTE: Since FY 2008, appropriations acts have not provided a separate appropriation for this program and, 

instead, have permitted or required the Department to use funding from the Charter Schools appropriation for Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School Facilities.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities program for fiscal year (FY) 2015. In place of this and other narrowly targeted 

programs that seek to expand educational options for students and families, the Administration

is proposing to create a broader authority, Expanding Educational Options, as part of its 

proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This new authority would 

help increase the supply of high-quality public educational options available to students, 

especially students attending low-performing schools, by creating and expanding effective 

charter and other autonomous schools, implementing comprehensive systems of public school 

choice, and strengthening parent information and outreach efforts across these programs.

More specifically, Expanding Educational Options would authorize a new Supporting Effective 

Charter Schools Grants program that, in addition to providing competitive grants to start or 

expand effective charter and autonomous schools, also would support charter schools facilities 

programs.

The Administration recognizes the challenges that charter schools encounter in financing and 

obtaining adequate facilities and the resulting ongoing need for Federal support for charter 

school facilities, particularly due to the significant demand for facilities arising from both the 

expansion of the number of public charter schools and rapidly increasing enrollments in existing 

charter schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, while overall 

enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 0.5 percent between 

school years 2007-08 and 2010-11, charter school enrollment increased by 40 percent. 

While charter schools receive public funding for operations, they often must find and finance 

their own facilities and have had difficulty obtaining funds in the same manner as traditional 

local educational agencies (LEAs) and public schools. Additionally, charter schools are less 

likely to be able to take advantage of economies of scale in their acquisition, construction, and 

renovation of facilities because they generally have smaller enrollments. In the 2010-11 school 

year, average enrollment across all public schools was 498, while average enrollment in charter 

schools was 339. 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities

H-121

Charter schools continue to receive mediocre credit ratings, which has made capital financing 

challenging. In 2012, Moody's Investors Service found that a sample of $285 million in 

outstanding charter school debt had a median rating at the lowest investment grade. The 

2010 Standard & Poor’s report “Despite Funding And Regulatory Hurdles, The U.S. Charter 

School Sector Continues To Grow” states that “complicating many schools' limited ability to 

respond to tighter funding are their already weak fundamental financial profiles, which underlie 

the largely speculative-grade credit quality of the sector. These factors could put pressure on 

some schools' ratings and could lead to downgrades in the face of reduced operating flexibility.” 

The Expanding Educational Options proposal would respond to these challenges by making 

grants to State educational agencies, LEAs, CDFIs, and State financing authorities to improve 

access to facilities and facilities financing for high-performing charter schools, including by 

supporting implementation of credit enhancement strategies.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Amount of new grants $6,019 $11,900 0

Number of new grants 1 2 0

Amount of grant supplements $6,981 0 0

Number of grant supplements 2 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 1 $100 0

Estimated amount of charter school 

facilities funds leveraged over the life 

of the grants $400,0002 $400,000 2 0

Estimated number of charter schools 

served over the life of the grants 50 50 0

_________________

1 In FY 2013, the Department funded applicants from the FY 2011 slate. 2 The amount leveraged is the dollar amount raised as a direct result of the guarantee, bond insurance, or other 

credit-enhancing instrument. If the grantee received a non-Department of Education grant or a New Markets Tax 

Credit allocation and is using it to provide additional financing for a school served by the Credit Enhancement grant, 

funds leveraged from these other sources may also be counted as funds leveraged by the grant.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

efforts invested by those served by this program.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities

H-122

Goal: To increase the number of charter school facilities acquired, constructed, or 

renovated.

Objective: Increase funds available for the acquisition, renovation, or construction of charter 

school facilities.

Measure: The amount of funding Credit Enhancement program grantees leverage for the 

acquisition, construction, or renovation of charter school facilities (in millions of dollars).

Year Target Actual

2010 $200 $421

2011 200 563

2012 200 546

2013 200

2014 200

2015 200

Objective: Increase the number of charter schools facilities acquired, constructed, or 

renovated.

Measure: The number of charter schools served through the Credit Enhancement for Charter 

School Facilities Program.

Year Target Actual

2010 60 41

2011 60 49

2012 60 38

2013 60

2014 60

2015 60

Additional information: The data for charter schools served reflect the number of schools new 

to the program and do not include schools that have benefitted or continue to benefit from 

previous credit enhancements. Data for 2013 will be available in spring 2014. Targets for 

2015 are included because, while this program does not make multi-year awards (and, thus, will 

have no continuation costs in FY 2015), the grant activities are implemented over a number of 

years and existing grantees will continue to report on these measures. Over the life of the 

program, it has provided 466 schools (8 percent of the Nation’s charter schools) with $3.2 billion 

in total financing, including leveraged funds. 

Other Performance Information

The Department has tracked the level of defaults on loans facilitated. As of 2012, only $0.91 of 

every $100 of grant funds had been lost to default over the life of the program. When leveraged 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Credit enhancement for charter school facilities

H-123

funds are taken into account, this comes to approximately $0.07 for every $100 of the total 

amount supported through the program. 

The Department completed an evaluation of the program in 2008. The evaluation addressed 

three primary research questions: 

• Is the program achieving its legislative purpose?

• Does the program provide for improved access to capital markets for facilities and for 

better rates and terms on financing than would be otherwise available to charter 

schools?

• Do certain models of credit enhancement provide for more favorable outcomes than 

others?

The study found that the program is achieving its purpose and improving the borrowing 

capabilities of charter schools. Representatives of grantees, commercial lenders, investment 

banks, and rating agencies reported that, without the program, assisted schools would not have 

received facilities loans at any price. Unsuccessful applicants generally were not able to 

support their proposed lending levels, providing evidence that the program does provide 

improved access. Entities that used their program funds to credit-enhance a loan made by a 

lender or a bond purchased by an investor supported higher lending volumes and a greater 

number of schools than those making direct loans, indicating that the grantees tend to be more 

effective when acting as a third-party credit-enhancing agent rather than as a direct lender. 

(However, this finding is not conclusive, since it was based on only the eight grantees from the 

2002, 2003, and 2004 cohorts.) Additional findings include that entities that had experience 

making direct loans to charter schools before becoming grantees were able to provide a 

significantly higher volume of loans after receiving program awards, and that charter schools 

assisted through the program were generally located in census tracts with a lower median 

household income than the relevant county as a whole and had a significantly higher proportion 

of minority students (76 percent) than public schools as a whole (42 percent) or even other 

charter schools (58 percent).
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-124

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$91,647 $91,647 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance program (MSAP) provides grants to eligible local educational 

agencies to establish and operate magnet schools that are part of a court-ordered, agencyordered, or federally approved voluntary desegregation plan. Magnet school programs aim to 

eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority-group isolation in elementary and secondary schools 

while strengthening students' knowledge of academic subjects and their grasp of marketable 

career and technical skills. The special curriculum of a magnet school can attract substantial 

numbers of students from different socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds and provide 

greater opportunities for desegregation efforts to succeed.

MSAP grantees receive awards for up to 3 years and may not receive more than $4 million per 

year. Funds must be used for activities intended to improve academic achievement and may be 

used for, among other things, planning and promotional activities, salaries of teachers and other 

instructional personnel, and acquisition of books, materials, and equipment. Expenditures for 

planning are limited to no more than 50 percent of a grant in the first year and 15 percent in the 

second and third years.

By statute, the Department gives priority for grants to applicants that demonstrate the greatest 

need for assistance, that propose to develop new magnet schools or significantly revise existing 

magnet school programs, and that use methods other than academic examinations (such as a 

lottery) to admit students. In addition, applicants that did not receive an MSAP grant the 

previous fiscal year receive priority for any funds appropriated above $75 million. In the most 

recent MSAP grant competition (in fiscal year 2013), the Department also gave priority to 

applicants whose projects promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

education. 

The Department may use up to 2 percent of an MSAP appropriation for national activities 

including evaluation, technical assistance, and dissemination of information on successful 

magnet school programs.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Magnet schools assistance

H-125

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010.........................................................$100,000

2011.............................................................99,800

2012.............................................................96,7051

2013.............................................................91,647 

2014.............................................................91,647

_________________

1 Reflects a reprogramming in fiscal year 2012 of $2,906 thousand from Magnet Schools Assistance to 

Advanced Placement.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $91.6 million for MSAP for fiscal year 2015, the same as the fiscal 

year 2014 level. The fiscal year 2015 appropriation would support the final year of continuation 

funding for grantees in the fiscal year 2013 cohort.

The Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal 

for MSAP would strengthen the Federal commitment to increasing the number of high-quality 

educational options for parents and students and to increasing diversity in schools by placing a 

greater emphasis on funding magnet school programs, particularly whole-school programs, that 

have a record of effectiveness in raising student achievement and reducing minority-group 

isolation.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures

2013 2014 2015

Amount of awards $89,814 $89,814 $89,814

Number of new awards 27 1 0

Number of continuation awards 0 27 28

Range of awards $738–$4,000 $557–$4,000 $757–$4,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $311 0 0

National activities $1,522 $1,833 $1,833
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Magnet schools assistance

H-126

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 2015 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

The Department will establish targets for these measures for the 2013 cohort (for years 2014, 

2015, and 2016) at a later date.

Goal: Students have access to high-quality education in desegregated magnet schools.

Objective: Federally funded magnet schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group 

isolation in targeted elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of minority 

group students.

Measure: The percentage of magnet schools in which the student applicant pool reduces, 

prevents, or eliminates minority group isolation.

FY 2007 Cohort

Target

FY 2007 Cohort

Actual

FY 2010 Cohort

Target

FY 2010 Cohort

Actual

2010 80% 59%

2011 85.2% 39.2%

2012 90.1 46.4

2013 95.0 38.4

Additional information: For the 2007 cohort, this measure tracks the percentage of magnet 

schools receiving assistance for which the applicant pool reflects a racial and ethnic 

composition that, in relation to the districtwide average percentage of minority students at the 

same grade levels, reduces, prevents, or eliminates minority-group isolation. (Minority-group 

isolation refers to a condition in which minority students constitute more than 50 percent of the 

enrollment of a school.) In 2006, the Department established annual performance targets for 

this measure using a baseline of 58.3 percent and a goal of having 100 percent of schools 

reduce, prevent, or eliminate minority-group isolation in 2014. 

In 2010, the Department published interim final regulations for the program that provide districts 

with greater flexibility in demonstrating that their magnet or feeder schools will eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent racial group isolation and that their voluntary desegregation plans are adequate 

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The regulations removed the definition of “minority-group 

isolation” because it required districts to use binary racial classifications and prohibited the 

creation of magnet schools that result in minority-group enrollments in magnet and feeder 

schools that exceed the districtwide average of minority-group students. These interim final 

regulations, which were adopted as final in November 2012, apply to the 2010 cohort. As a 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Magnet schools assistance

H-127

result, this measure reflects the percentage of magnet schools that have met individually 

determined objectives for reducing minority group isolation, without reference to districtwide 

averages. The measure also examines the enrollment of schools in the 2010 cohort, not the 

applicant pool of those schools.

Objective: Magnet school students meet their State's academic achievement standards.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools in which students from major racial and ethnic groups 

meet or exceed their State's annual progress standards in reading.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools in which students from major racial and ethnic groups 

meet or exceed their State's annual progress standards in mathematics.

Year

FY 2007 Cohort 

Target

FY 2007 Cohort 

Actual

FY 2010 Cohort 

Target

FY 2010 Cohort 

Actual

2010 85% 54%

2011 88.5% 56.7%

2012 92.3 54.3

2013 96.1 50.2

Additional information: These measures track the percentage of students in participating 

magnet schools who score at the proficient level or above on State assessments in reading and 

in mathematics. Targets for these measures for the 2007 and 2010 cohorts are based on the 

ESEA goal of all students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. 

The remaining performance measures focus on sustainability and examine the percentage of 

magnet schools in operation 3 years after Federal funding ends and the percentage of magnet

schools that meet State adequate yearly progress standards at least 3 years after Federal 

funding ends. Analysis of the sustainability data for the 2004 cohort found that nearly 

99 percent of magnet schools that received funding remained in existence in the 2009-10 school 

year and that 45 percent of those magnet schools made adequate yearly progress at the end of 

the 2009-10 school year, roughly the same percentage that made adequate yearly progress at 

the conclusion of the grant period (46 percent). 

Efficiency Measure

The Department has developed a measure to assess the efficiency of Federal investments in 

supporting magnet schools. The measure is defined as the Federal cost per student in a 

magnet school receiving assistance. Data for the 2010 cohort show an average cost of 

$753 per student in 2011, $958 per student in 2012, and $840 per student in 2013. 

Year

FY 2007 Cohort 

Target

FY 2007 Cohort 

Actual

FY 2010 Cohort 

Target

FY 2010 Cohort 

Actual

2010 85% 49%

2011 88.4% 57.3%

2012 92.2 54.5

2013 96.0 53.1
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Magnet schools assistance

H-128

Other Performance Information

In 2008, following a year-long feasibility study, the Department initiated a national evaluation of 

magnet schools that focuses on a single category of schools receiving funding through the 

MSAP program: elementary schools that convert to whole-school magnets. The study is 

examining the relationship of magnet conversion to outcomes for resident students (those who

live within a magnet school’s attendance zone) and non-resident students (those who live 

outside the attendance zone but choose to attend the school). The evaluation involves fiscal 

year 2004 and 2007 grantees and uses a comparative interrupted time series design to examine 

the relationship between magnet school conversion and student achievement and other 

outcomes, including minority-group isolation in schools. The evaluation is also examining how 

factors related to student achievement vary according to characteristics of the magnet schools 

and comparison schools and includes principal and magnet school coordinator surveys. A final 

evaluation report is expected to be released in spring 2014.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-129

Fund for the improvement of education: programs of national significance

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Period of Fund Availability 2014 2015 Change

$42,376 $24,276 -$18,100

_______________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing language is sought for FY 2015.

NOTE: The 2014 appropriation includes $5 million for the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education 

program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE) provides authority for the Department to 

support nationally significant programs to improve the quality of elementary and secondary 

education at the State and local levels and help all students meet challenging State academic 

content standards and student achievement standards. The types of programs that may be 

supported include:

• Activities to promote systemic education reform at the State and local levels, including 

scientifically based research, development, and evaluation designed to improve student 

academic achievement and strategies for effective parent and community involvement;

• Programs at the State and local levels that are designed to yield significant results, including 

programs to explore approaches to public school choice and school-based decisionmaking;

• Recognition programs, including financial awards to States, local educational agencies

(LEAs), and schools that have made the greatest progress in improving the academic 

achievement of economically disadvantaged students and students from major racial and 

ethnic minority groups and in closing the academic achievement gap for those groups of 

students farthest away from the proficient level on the academic assessments administered 

by the State;

• Scientifically based studies and evaluations of education reform strategies and innovations, 

and the dissemination of information on the effectiveness of those strategies and 

innovations;

• Activities to support Scholar-Athlete Games;

• Programs to promote voter participation in American elections; and
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fund for the Improvement of education: programs of national significance

H-130

• Demonstrations of the effectiveness of programs under which school districts or schools 

contract with private management organizations to reform a school or schools.

The Department may carry out activities under this authority directly or through grants and 

contracts to State or LEAs; institutions of higher education; and other public and private 

agencies, organizations, and institutions. Awards may be based on announced competitions or 

may support unsolicited proposals.

All funded activities must be designed so that their effectiveness is readily ascertainable and is 

assessed using rigorous research and evaluations. Each application for funds must establish 

clear objectives, which are based on research, for the proposed grant or contract and describe 

the activities the applicant will carry out in order to meet the stated objectives. The Department 

must use a peer review process to review applications for awards. Recipients of awards must 

evaluate the effectiveness of their activities and report such information as may be required to 

determine program effectiveness, and the Department must make the evaluations publicly 

available. The Department may require matching funds for activities under this program.

In fiscal year 2014, the Department is using FIE funds to support the “Data Quality Initiative,”

which began in 2006 and is designed to improve the quality, analysis, and reporting of 

Department of Education elementary and secondary program data. In addition, the Department 

is using approximately $10 million in fiscal year 2014 funds to make new and continuation 

grants under the Full-Service Community Schools program. Fiscal year 2015 continuation costs 

for these grants would be provided under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

program in the Supporting Student Success account. In fiscal year 2014, FIE is also funding a 

new competition under the Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative, which awards 

competitive grants to national nonprofit organizations and LEAs for provision of books and 

literacy activities to children and families in high-need communities.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2010 ....................................................................................$125,4611

2011 ....................................................................................... 12,009

2012 ....................................................................................... 40,823

2013 ....................................................................................... 38,280

2014 ....................................................................................... 42,376

1 Includes $88,791 thousand for congressional earmarks.

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $24.3 million for the Fund for the Improvement of Education

(FIE) Programs of National Significance in 2015, $18.1 million less than the 2014 level. The 

requested level of funding would allow the Department to support the following activities in 

2015:
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fund for the Improvement of education: programs of national significance

H-131

• $10 million for a non-cognitive initiative, which would provide competitive grants to school 

district and researcher partnerships to develop and test interventions to improve students’ 

non-cognitive skills in the middle grades, which are foundational to students’ academic 

achievement and life success. 

An emerging body of research indicates that non-cognitive interventions, which improve 

factors like self-control and social and emotional skills, can have as much, if not more, 

impact on their grades and perseverance in school than academic interventions. Academic 

perseverance, which is defined as persisting in the pursuit of academic goals despite 

challenges and setbacks, requires multiple non-cognitive skills, and is one of the important 

non-cognitive factors that determine students’ success. However, relatively little is known 

about how schools can implement efforts to improve non-cognitive skills in a comprehensive 

fashion, integrating them into classroom practices and school culture. This initiative would 

develop and test various approaches (including both professional development for teachers 

and comprehensive models that include interventions for students) to non-cognitive skills 

development during the middle grades. The middle grades are a critical time in students’ 

academic trajectories; during this period, many children lose interest in, engagement with, 

and motivation for academic work, increasing their likelihood of dropping out of high school. 

Grants would be structured so that researchers assist in program development, provide 

ongoing feedback in a continuous improvement framework, document lessons learned, and 

conduct a rigorous evaluation. These grants would enable districts to lead innovation and 

development in this area and provide models for districts and schools around the country. 

Grants would be for $1-2 million over a 4-year time period that includes a planning year and 

a final evaluation.

• $8 million for a Disconnected Youth Initiative, which would strengthen services and improve 

outcomes for disconnected youth (often defined as individuals, ages 14-24, who are neither 

employed nor enrolled in an educational institution or who are at high-risk of dropping out of 

high school). This initiative may include activities to support the development and 

implementation of Performance Partnerships pilots, which would give States and localities 

enhanced flexibility in administering Federal youth-serving programs in exchange for greater 

accountability for results, as well as Pay for Success projects and evaluations. Departments 

of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act of 2014 provided authority to carry out up to 10 Performance Partnership Pilots in fiscal 

year 2014. The Interagency Forum on Disconnected Youth (IFDY), led by the Department 

of Education and representing all involved agencies, is currently working to implement this 

authority. The 2015 Budget proposes establishing up to 10 additional pilots and expanding 

their scope to include programs in the Department of Justice. 

The IFDY will continue to work across Federal agencies and with States, regions and 

localities to test cross-sector, outcome-focused strategies for improving outcomes for 

disconnected youth. The Department would use the funds provided in FIE to address 

issues such as (1) our limited knowledge of which program models are most effective in 

helping disconnected youth achieve positive outcomes; (2) a relative lack of attention to this 

population at the Federal, State, and local levels; and (3) the need for more comprehensive 

approaches to meeting the multi-faceted needs of youth who may have educational deficits, 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fund for the Improvement of education: programs of national significance

H-132

unstable housing, health challenges, and histories of involvement with the criminal justice 

system. 

• $5 million for a Youth Data Pilot that would enhance communities’ tracking of and 

performance on multiple outcomes for at-risk youth using existing data sets. This initiative 

would support communities that seek to gain a comprehensive picture of the progress of 

their youth towards healthy, productive lives by looking across multiple data sources at a 

variety of outcomes, such as high school attendance and graduation rates, postsecondary 

enrollment and credentials, employment, incarceration rates, birth outcomes, and shelter 

stays. Activities might include establishing common indicators of youth success, integrating 

administrative data sources, and developing easy-to-understand scorecards to help drive 

decisionmaking. Policymakers, community leaders, and other stakeholders will be able to 

use these tools to improve or reassess a community’s service delivery models and redirect 

resources into the most effective strategies and programs. This could also enable local, 

regional, and national benchmarking. 

Funds would support this work by (1) sponsoring a prize or challenge for leading-edge 

communities to demonstrate how to make data on youth outcomes easily accessible across 

a range of indicators and how to use that data to secure community-wide commitments to 

set concrete goals for improvement on those outcome indicators while protecting student 

privacy, and (2) providing planning grants and technical assistance to communities that are 

just starting the work of developing common indicators and integrating administrative data to 

better track and use data on youth outcomes. The Department of Education will work 

closely with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Justice on planning 

and implementing this cross-sector initiative.

• $1.3 million to continue the Data Quality Initiative (DQI), which is designed to improve the 

quality, analysis, and reporting of the Department’s elementary and secondary program 

performance data. The DQI contractor provides program office staff with guidance on how 

to structure grant competitions so as to encourage grantees to plan for and collect highquality program performance and evaluation data; provides technical assistance to grantees 

as they collect the data; and provides assistance to program offices and program analysis 

staff to improve the quality of data analysis.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Full-Service Community Schools grants:

2010 grantees (11 awards) $5,344 $5,344 0

2014 grantees 0 4,656 0

Subtotal 5,344 10,000 0

Non-Cognitive Initiative 0 0 $10,000

Disconnected Youth Initiative 0 0 8,000

Youth Data Pilot 0 0 5,000
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fund for the Improvement of education: programs of national significance

H-133

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Innovative Approaches to Literacy $27,567 $25,000 0

Data Quality Initiative 1,276 1,276 $1,276

Education Facilities Clearinghouse 974 984 0

Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education 0 5,000 0

Peer review of new award applications 2 100 0

Other 3,119 16 0

Total 38,280 42,376 24,276

___________________________

NOTES: In fiscal year 2013 $407 thousand was reprogrammed to Advanced Placement to cover a shortfall in 

the Advanced Placement Test Fee program. 

In fiscal year 2015, Full-Service Community Schools continuation costs of approximately $4,656 thousand would 

be provided under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program in the Supporting Student Success 

account. 

In fiscal year 2015, Innovative Approaches to Literacy continuation costs of approximately $25,000 thousand 

would be provided from the appropriation for the Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program in the Education 

Improvement Programs account. 

In fiscal year 2015, Education Facilities Clearinghouse continuation costs of approximately $994 thousand would 

be provided from the appropriation for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program in the Supporting Student 

Success account. 

In fiscal year 2015, Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education program continuation costs of approximately 

$5,000 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program 

in the Education Improvement Programs account. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act contains specific accountability provisions for FIE 

grantees. Each application for funds must include clear objectives for the project that are based 

on scientifically-based research and must describe the activities to be carried out to meet those 

objectives. In addition, recipients must evaluate the effectiveness of their funded programs and 

submit evaluations to the Department. The Department has not established general 

performance measures for the program, but does establish measures for specific grant 

competitions and monitors the progress of the grantees against these measures.

• For the Education Facilities Clearinghouse, the performance measure is the percentage of 

recipients of clearinghouse onsite training or technical assistance that implement one or 

more changes to improve their education facility based upon clearinghouse 

recommendations within 6 months of the training or technical assistance. Baseline data 

(corresponding to the 2012 performance period for the Clearinghouse grantee) 

include: 62.5 percent of recipients of clearinghouse onsite training or technical assistance 

implemented one or more changes to improve their education facility based on 

clearinghouse recommendations within 6 months of the training or technical 

assistance. More specifically, 100 percent (2 out of 2) of recipients of clearinghouse onsite 

training met this measure, and 50 percent (3 out of 6) recipients of clearinghouse technical 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Fund for the Improvement of education: programs of national significance

H-134

assistance met this measure. Data for the 2013 performance period will be available later in 

2014.

• For Full-Service Community Schools, the measure is the percentage of individuals targeted 

for services who receive services during each year of the project period. All grantees must 

submit an annual performance report documenting their contribution in assisting the 

Department in measuring the performance of the program against this indicator, as well as 

performance on project-specific indicators. In 2008, 96.3 percent of targeted individuals 

received services. In 2009, 100 percent of targeted individuals received services. 

In 2010, 98 percent of targeted individuals for the 2008 cohort received services; 

100 percent of targeted individuals for the 2010 cohort received services. In 2011, 

91 percent of targeted individuals for the 2008 cohort received services; additionally, 

84 percent of targeted individuals for the 2010 cohort received services in 2011. In 2011, 

some grantees served more than their targeted number of individuals.

• For the Innovative Approaches to Literacy initiative, the performance measures are: (1) the 

percentage of 4-year-old children participating in the project who achieve significant gains in 

oral language skills; (2) the percentage of participating 3rd-grade students who meet or 

exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments; (3) the percentage of 

participating 8th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or 

language arts assessments; and (4) the percentage of participating high school students 

who meet or exceed proficiency on State reading or language arts assessments. The target 

for all grantees on all performance measures was 70 percent. In 2012, on Performance 

Measure 1, 52.4 percent of grantees met the target. On Performance Measures 

2 through 4, 18.2 percent of grantees, 38.5 percent of grantees, and 18.2 percent of 

grantees, respectively, met the target. Note that grantees were only required to report on 

measures applicable to the populations served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on 

each performance measure.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

H-135

Recognizing education success, professional excellence, and collaborative teaching

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

0 $5,000,000 +$5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Recognizing Education Success, Professional Excellence, and Collaborative Teaching 

(RESPECT) Project would provide significant, one-time support for educators across the 

country to directly address the needs identified by educators in a changing school environment, 

including support for transitioning to new college- and career-ready (CCR) standards while 

adapting to new educator evaluation systems. With so many demands placed on teachers and 

school leaders, districts, States, and the Federal Government must do more to meet educators’ 

needs at important stages of their careers. Educators are making clear that, to be successful, 

they need greater support that is both comprehensive and targeted to their needs.

RESPECT would support competitive grants to States and districts—alone or in partnership with 

nonprofit organizations, including teacher and administrator organizations, or institutions of 

higher education (IHEs)—that propose ambitious plans to address needs educators are asking 

for: improving teacher and principal preparation and support early in their careers; providing

career ladders and other opportunities for educators to take on leadership roles as they 

transition to CCR standards; and creating conditions in schools that support effective teaching, 

including great school leadership and time for collaboration. 

The Department would reserve up to 0.5 percent of RESPECT funds to provide technical 

assistance and share best practices on recruitment, preparation, early career support, master 

educator positions, school leadership, and professional collaboration. These efforts would be 

coordinated with existing resources, such as the Comprehensive Centers, the Teacher Incentive 

Fund’s technical assistance centers, and the Reform Support Network, and proposed programs 

like Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants, ConnectEDucators, and the Teacher and 

Leader Innovation Fund. The RESPECT proposal also builds on existing reforms initiated 

through Race to the Top, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and ESEA flexibility activities. These 

reforms have already increased the focus on the importance of supporting educators across 

their careers so they can perform their best for students.
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Recognizing education success, professional excellence, and collaborative teaching 

H-136

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is proposing to authorize $5 billion in one-time mandatory funding for the 

RESPECT Project, which was developed following extensive outreach with educators and 

listening sessions in schools and communities across the country that identified the highest

priority needs for transforming the teaching profession. RESPECT would focus on improving 

preparation and early career assistance; ensuring that educators have opportunities to develop, 

advance, and lead as they transition to CCR standards; and ensuring that teachers have a 

supportive work environment. 

Improving Teacher and Principal Preparation and Early Career Support

Surveys and other feedback make clear that most educators leave their preparation programs 

ill-prepared for the classroom, with much professional development taking place on-the-job 

without adequate support and mentorship. This all too common sink-or-swim experience helps 

explain why it is particularly difficult to find talented teachers and leaders in certain schools and 

subjects, since such support and mentorship is least likely to be available in high-poverty 

districts and schools or in high-need subjects like mathematics and science. RESPECT would 

help States and districts address these problems through better preservice preparation, 

including the development and expansion of high-quality pathways into teaching and school 

leadership that provide sufficient clinical experiences, such as residency programs. The 

program also would provide incentives for States to eliminate or improve low-performing teacher 

preparation programs, as informed by educator evaluation ratings and alumni feedback. 

Another potential reform would be better aligning educator preparation program standards and 

educator evaluation systems so that educators are prepared and evaluated using the same 

criteria centered on instruction and student learning. Grantees could also partner with IHEs and 

nonprofit organizations to recruit and prepare educators to better provide instruction aligned with 

CCR standards, use student data to inform instruction, and address local shortages of effective 

teachers and leaders (for example, the need for highly qualified mathematics teachers or 

principals trained to turn around low-performing schools) so that preparation programs are 

aligned with the needs of schools and districts. RESPECT grantees could also propose 

comprehensive ways to support teachers and leaders early in their careers through induction 

and mentoring programs that provide new educators with personalized support and 

development, including sufficient in-school time for planning, collaboration, and reflection.

Strengthening Support for Implementation of CCR Standards

Teachers and principals are working hard to implement more rigorous standards for their 

students, but if CCR standards are going to succeed, educators will need to have more 

opportunities to take on leadership roles. RESPECT will support State and district efforts to 

create instructional leadership positions for effective educators who help other teachers improve 

student outcomes by delivering high-quality instruction aligned with CCR standards. These 

master teachers would take on additional responsibilities in their schools by designing and 

leading professional development, identifying high-quality instructional materials aligned with 

CCR standards, modeling strong lessons, working with data to help teachers understand 

student outcomes, and observing and providing feedback to help teachers improve. Teachers 

recruited to be master teachers would excel at teaching curriculum aligned with CCR standards, 
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Recognizing education success, professional excellence, and collaborative teaching 

H-137

especially in high-need settings, and would be provided with personalized training to ensure that 

they can effectively help other teachers improve instruction. Master teachers would be 

responsible for supporting other teachers in their schools to become more effective and, in 

return, would have opportunities to be recognized and rewarded for those additional 

responsibilities. Funding would also support States’ and districts’ efforts to provide teachers 

with personalized support and development opportunities in implementing CCR standards that 

are designed and driven by educators and informed by student and teacher data. Finally, 

RESPECT would support the development and implementation of new opportunities for 

educators to provide input into local curriculum and assessment choices, and to incorporate 

high-quality digital learning tools into instruction in order to improve practice and student 

learning.

Providing More Supportive Work Environments

Teachers often point to non-financial factors, such as a lack of strong school leadership, as 

reasons for leaving the education profession. In addition, teachers have articulated a need for 

more professional collaboration around shared challenges in their classrooms. RESPECT 

would support State and local efforts to improve working conditions in schools so that teachers 

and leaders can thrive in a cohesive, collaborative, and supportive environment that promotes 

respect and focuses on student learning. This would translate into stronger school leadership

that supports effective teaching, increased opportunities for meaningful professional 

collaboration, and other necessary resources to foster teacher and student success. For 

example, States and districts could use RESPECT grant funds to improve school leadership by 

implementing leadership structures that allow principals to focus on improving instruction while 

allowing teachers to contribute to important decisions about their school, including staffing, 

professional development, and the structure of the school day. Another form of support for 

strong leadership could be coaching for school leaders to improve the educator evaluation 

process so that teachers’ classroom observations are reflective of and aligned with actual 

practice and student learning, and that feedback for teachers is specific, actionable, and 

accompanied with relevant professional development opportunities that help teachers improve. 

RESPECT grants could also be used to help schools redesign the school day, week, and year 

to allow for increased planning and collaboration time for educators, hire coaches to foster 

collaborative work between teacher teams, and connect educators to communities of practice to 

improve instruction and retain highly effective educators.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015

Amount for new awards $4,975,000

Number of new awards 500-1000

Range of new awards $5,000-$50,000

Number of teachers served 1,600,000

Technical assistance, training, outreach, and evaluation $25,000
INNOVATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL TEAMS

Recognizing education success, professional excellence, and collaborative teaching 

H-138

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

RESPECT Project. The new goals and indicators would be aligned with information collected 

through State Report Cards under the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program 

and focus on measures concerning educator preparation, support, retention of effective 

educators, and working conditions.