Department of Education

INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports............................................................. F-10

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ F-12

Activities:

Education innovation and research................................................................................... F-15

Teacher and school leader incentive grants...................................................................... F-25

American history and civics education .............................................................................. F-33

Supporting effective educator development...................................................................... F-37

Charter schools grants...................................................................................................... F-42

Magnet schools assistance............................................................................................... F-55

Ready to learn programming ............................................................................................ F-61

Arts in education............................................................................................................... F-65

Javits gifted and talented education.................................................................................. F-70

Statewide family engagement centers .............................................................................. F-73
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-1

Appropriations Language

For carrying out activities authorized by [subparts] subpart 1 [, 3 and 4] of part B of title II, 

and parts C [,] and D [,] and [E and subparts] subpart 1 [and 4] of part F of title IV of the ESEA, 

[$1,035,556,000] $1,107,000,000: Provided, That [$279,815,000] $200,000,000 shall be for 

[subparts] subpart 1 [, 3 and 4] of part B of title II and shall be made available without regard to 

[sections] section 2201 [, 2231(b) and 2241]:

1 Provided further, That [$625,741,000] 

$907,000,000 shall be for parts C [,] and D [, and E] and subpart 4 of part F of title IV, and shall 

be made available without regard to sections 4311, 4409(a), and 4601 [of the ESEA]:

2

[Provided 

further, That section 4303(d)(3)(A)(i) shall not apply to the funds available for part C of title IV:]

3

Provided further, That of the funds available for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use not 

more than [$55,000,000] $125,000,000 to carry out section 4304 [, of which not more than 

$10,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 4304(k),] and not more than $185,000,000 to 

carry out section 4305, of which not more than $15,000,000 shall be available to carry out 

section 4305(a)(2) and not more than $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out the activities in 

section 4305(a)(3):4 Provided further, That the funds used to carry out section 4305(b)

[$135,000,000, to] shall remain available through March 31, [2020] 2021 [, to carry out section 

4305(b), and not more than $15,000,000 to carry out the activities in section 4305(a)(3)]:

5

Provided further, That notwithstanding section 4601(b), [$130,000,000] $300,000,000 shall be 

available through December 31, [2019] 2020 for subpart 1 of part F of title IV:

6 Provided further, 

That the Secretary may restrict eligibility under section 4611(b) to local educational agencies.

7

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)

NOTES

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

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

F-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1Provided, That [$279,815,000] 

$200,000,000 shall be for [subparts] subpart

1 [, 3 and 4] of part B of title II and shall be 

made available without regard to [sections]

section 2201 [, 2231(b) and 2241]: 

This language provides funding for Teacher 

and School Leader Incentive Grants, 

overriding the provisions of the ESEA that 

establish a particular distribution of funds 

appropriated under title II.

2Provided further, That [$625,741,000] 

$907,000,000 shall be for parts C [,] and D [, 

and E] and subpart 4 of part F of title IV, and

shall be made available without regard to 

sections 4311, 4409(a), and 4601 [of the 

ESEA]:

This language provides funds for Charter 

Schools Grants, Magnet Schools Assistance, 

and Education Innovation and Research 

without regard to the sections of the ESEA 

that specify the distribution of funds 

appropriated under title IV of the ESEA. 

3

[Provided further, That section 

4303(d)(3)(A)(i) shall not apply to the funds 

available for part C of title IV:]

This language overrides the statutory 

provision under the Charter Schools Grants 

program that requires the Department to 

award at least 3 grants to State entities and 

to frontload funding for year 2 of those 

awards. This proviso is unnecessary 

because the Department expects to make at 

least 3 such grants under the program.

4Provided further, That of the funds available 

for part C of title IV, the Secretary shall use 

not more than [$55,000,000] $125,000,000 to 

carry out section 4304 [, of which not more 

than $10,000,000 shall be available to carry 

out section 4304(k),] and not more than 

$185,000,000 to carry out section 4305, of 

which not more than $15,000,000 shall be 

available to carry out section 4305(a)(2) and 

not more than $20,000,000 shall be available 

to carry out the activities in section 

4305(a)(3):

This language establishes, from the Charter 

Schools Grants appropriation, a maximum 

amount for facilities grants and a maximum 

total amount for Charter Management 

Organization grants, Developer grants, and 

national activities (collectively authorized 

under section 4305 of the ESEA), including 

maximums for Developer grants and for 

national activities.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued 

F-3

Language Provision Explanation

5Provided further, That the funds used to 

carry out section 4305(b) [$135,000,000, to] 

shall remain available through March 31, 

[2020] 2021 [, to carry out section 4305(b), 

and not more than $15,000,000 to carry out 

the activities in section 4305(a)(3)]:

This language extends the period of 

availability 6 months beyond the year of the 

appropriation for the funds available for 

Charter Management Organization grants.

6Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 4601(b), [$130,000,000] 

$300,000,000 shall be available through 

December 31, [2019] 2020 for subpart 1 of 

part F of title IV:

This language provides a specific funding 

amount for Education Innovation and 

Research (EIR) overriding the authorized 

level. It also extends the period of Federal 

availability 3 months beyond the year of 

appropriation.

7Provided further, That the Secretary may 

restrict eligibility under section 4611(b) to 

local educational agencies:

This language allows the Secretary to restrict 

EIR competitions to local educational 

agencies.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-4

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

Discretionar yAppropriation.............................................................. $982,256 $1,035,556 $1,107,000

Total, discretionary appropriation.......................... 982,256 1,035,556 1,107,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2019....................................................................................................... $1,035,556

2020......................................................................................................... 1,107,000

Net change...................................................................... +71,444

Increases: 2019 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for the Education Innovation and Research 

program for activities to improve the quality and 

effectiveness of classroom instruction by empowering 

teachers to select their own professional development 

activities, and to promote innovation and reform in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education, including computer science.

$130,000 +170,000

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

especially students from low-income families or attending 

low-performing schools, by creating and expanding 

effective charter schools. 440,000 +60,000

Subtotal, increases +230,000

Decreases: 2019 base

Change

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for American History and Civics 

Education because the program has limited national 

impact and program activities can be supported with other 

Federal, State, local, or private funds. $4,815 -$4,815

Eliminate funding for Supporting Effective Educator 

Development (SEED) because the program supports 

activities that are core responsibilities for States, school 

districts, and institutions of higher education and can be 

supported with other Federal, State, and local funding. 75,000 -75,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Changes—continued 

F-6

Decreases: 2019 base

Change

from base

Eliminate funding for Ready to Learn Programming (RTL) 

because with the rise of the internet and the ready 

availability of a wide range of digital games and devices 

that support early learning, the RTL program is less 

relevant and less necessary to providing high-quality 

digital learning resources for young children and their 

families. $27,741 -$27,741

Eliminate funding for Arts in Education because the 

program has limited impact and funds activities that are 

more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, 

local, or private funds. 29,000 -29,000

Eliminate funding for Javits Gifted and Talented Education 

because the program has limited national impact and 

program activities can be supported with other Federal, 

State, local, or private funds. 12,000 -12,000

Eliminate funding for Statewide Family Engagement 

Centers because the program has limited impact and 

duplicates much larger Federal resources available to 

promote family engagement, including the $15.9 billion 

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. 10,000 -10,000

Subtotal, decreases -158,556

Net change +71,444
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-7

F-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2019

Authorized footnote

2019

Estimatefootnote

2020

Authorizedfootnote

2020

Request

Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) $90,6111 $130,000 $90,6111 $300,000

Teacher and school leader incentive grants 

(ESEA II-B-1) 230,3612 200,000 229,9092 200.000

American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) 6,5682 4,815 6,8482 0

Supporting effective educator development (SEED) 

(ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) 53,4662 75,000 53,5742 0

Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) 300,000 440,000 300,000 500,000

Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) 102,387 107,000 108,530 107,000

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

section 4643) (1) 27,741 (1) 0

Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) (1) 29,000 (1) 0

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

section 4644)

 

. 

(1)

 12,000

 

. 

(1) 

 0

Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) 

. 10,000 10,000

 

. 10,000 0

Total definite authorization 793,394 799,472

Total appropriation 1,035,556 1,107,000

Portion of request not authorized 409,389

1

For Part F of Title IV, a total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. For fiscal years 2019 and 2020, of the funds appropriated for 

Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3 and, of the remainder: 42 percent is authorized for the Education Innovation and Research program; 32 percent 

is authorized for Subpart 2; and 26 percent is authorized for Subpart 4, which includes the Ready to Learn Programming, Arts in Education, and Javits Gifted and 

Talented Education programs.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Authorizing Legislation—continued

(dollars in thousands)

F-8

F-8

2

For Part B of Title II, a total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2019 and a total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2020. Of the 

funds appropriated for Part B: for Subpart 1, the Teacher and School Leader Incentive program, 49.1 percent is authorized for fiscal year 2019 and 47 percent is 

authorized for fiscal year 2020; for Subpart 2, 34.1 percent is authorized for fiscal year 2019 and 36.8 percent is authorized for fiscal year 2020; for Subpart 3, 

1.4 percent is authorized for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, of which not less than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics Academies; for Subpart 4, 

15.4 percent is authorized for fiscal year 2019 and 14.8 percent is authorized for fiscal year 2020, of which not less than 74 percent is reserved for Supporting 

Effective Educator Development, not less than 22 percent is reserved for School Leader Recruitment and Support, not less than 2 percent is reserved for technical 

assistance and national evaluation, and not more than 2 percent for the STEM Master Teacher Corps.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-9

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation

Foot

note

2011 Discretionary $6,330,000 $1,870,1231$2,224,8432 $1,856,1793

2012 Discretionary 4,995,000 821,4114 1,740,21241,527,536

2013 Discretionary 4,332,166 799,1335 1,545,9665 1,447,637

2014 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A6 1,331,598 931,317

2015 Discretionary 5,335,000 N/A6868,7217852,111

2015 Mandatory 5,000,000 N/A60

7

0

2016 Discretionary 1,601,559 275,0008694,61681,181,226

2016 Mandatory 1,000,000 0

8

0

8

0

2017 Discretionary 1,411,556 632,9389942,7439887,575

2017 Mandatory 4,299,982 0

9

0

9

0

2018 Discretionary 1,208,026 757,90410 880,37510 982,25610

2019 Discretionary 1,777,647 1,058,44111 1,042,25611 1,035,55611

2020 Discretionary 1,107,000

1

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

2

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3

The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10).

4

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

Committee action only.

5

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

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

6

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

7

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

8

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

9

The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 appropriation 

bill.

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

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).

11 The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations

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

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-10

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports

Education Innovation and Research (EIR)

Senate: The Committee continues to direct the Department to work with other Federal 

agencies that issue grants in this area, including the National Science 

Foundation, to avoid duplication and ensure that activities funded under this 

program build on existing evidence or provide a unique benefit to the field. 

Further, within this amount, the Committee directs the Department to include 

funding to expand access to STEM education in rural areas, including grants to 

institutions of higher education, in partnership with rural school districts, to utilize 

virtual and remote access to makerspace technologies, such as 3D printers, to 

expand opportunities for students in rural areas where such tools are often cost 

prohibitive. Further, the Committee notes the importance of STEM knowledge 

and skills for individuals in and outside of the STEM workforce, including the 

workforce of national laboratories, for ensuring U.S. competitiveness globally. 

Finally, the Committee directs the Department to provide a briefing within 

60 days of enactment to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and the Senate on the Department’s current and planned STEM 

education activities within EIR and across the Department.

Managers’

Statement: The conferees direct the Secretary to submit the report described in section 313 

of division B of H.R. 6157 as passed by the Senate on August 23, 2018.

Response: The Department is working with a number of agencies, including the National 

Science Foundation (NSF), to coordinate science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) activities across agencies. One way the Department carries 

out this coordination is through membership in the STEM Education Advisory 

Panel required under the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017 

(AICA), which includes NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 

Panel has been charged with improving and coordinating STEM education efforts 

across the Federal Government. The Department also participated in the 

development of the Administration’s 5-year plan on STEM education, released in 

December 2018. The notices inviting applications for the EIR program were 

published on February 1, 2019, and the notices include language encouraging 

applicants propose projects that expand access to STEM education in rural 

areas, especially through partnerships with rural school districts that provide 

virtual and remote access to makerspace technologies, such as 3-D printers, in 

areas where the high costs of such tools otherwise may limit availability. In 

addition, the Department staff held conference calls with Committee staff in 

October and December of 2018 to provide a briefing on the Department’s 

planned STEM education activities within the EIR program.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports—continued 

F-11

Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED)

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to ensure that SEED grants are awarded 

to a diverse set of eligible entities, including National non-profit organizations 

implementing evidence-based activities (as defined in section 8101(21)(A)(i) of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) across a number of sites which 

can help bring to scale evidence-based programs of National significance across 

the country.

Response: The Department made 15 awards from the 2018 competition (14 in fiscal year 

2018 and 1 in fiscal year 2019) to entities in 8 States. These grantees will be 

providing services across the country. The grantees include 5 national nonprofit 

organizations and 10 universities. All grantees will be conducting evidence-based 

activities. With the exception of 1 new grant from the 2018 slate, all fiscal year 

2019 funds will be used for continuation awards.

Charter Schools Grants

Senate: The Committee requests the Department include in its CJs, starting with its 

submission for fiscal year 2020, a thorough discussion of how these investments 

are improving authorizing quality. Additionally, the Committee notes that the 

Department’s Inspector General issued the Nationwide Assessment of Charter 

and Education Management Organizations audit report in September 2016. The 

Committee requests the Department to include in its fiscal year 2020 CJ a 

description of actions it has taken or plans to take in response to the report’s 

findings and recommendations.

Response: The Department’s actions in response to these requests are discussed in the 

Charter Schools Grants program narrative.
F-12

F-12

Summary of R equest

Click here for accessible version

 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

 1. Education innovation and research (ESEA IV-F-1) D 120,000 130,000 300,000 170,000 130.77%

 2. Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) D 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0.00%

 3. American history and civics education (ESEA II-B-3) D 3,515 4,815 0 (4,815) -100.00%

 4. Supporting effective educator development (SEED) (ESEA II-B-4, section 2242) D 75,000 75,000 0 (75,000) -100.00%

 5. Charter schools grants (ESEA IV-C) D 400,000 440,000 500,000 60,000 13.64%

 6. Magnet schools assistance (ESEA IV-D) D 105,000 107,000 107,000 0 0.00%

 7. Ready to learn programming (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4643) D 27,741 27,741 0 (27,741) -100.00%

 8. Arts in education (ESEA IV-F-4, section 4642) D 29,000 29,000 0 (29,000) -100.00%

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

 10. Statewide family engagement centers (ESEA IV-E) D 10,000 10,000 0 (10,000) -100.00%

D 982,256 1,035,556 1,107,000 71,444 6.90%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Innovation and Improvement

Total 

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-13

Summary of Request

Programs in the Innovation and Improvement account support improving student achievement 

in two key ways: (1) providing parents with expanded public and private school options for the 

education of their children, including high-quality charter schools and magnet schools; and

(2) incentivizing and evaluating innovative teaching practices. For fiscal year 2020, the 

Administration requests a total of $1.1 billion for these activities. 

Expanding Educational Options

The request includes $500 million for Charter Schools Grants, an increase of $60 million to 

support the opening of new charter schools and the replication and expansion of high-quality 

charter schools. The proposed increase is a central element of the Administration’s efforts to 

empower States and communities to increase the number of high-quality educational options 

available to meet the needs of students and their families, particularly those from 

underprivileged backgrounds. The request would also provide significant increases for grants to 

States and nonprofit entities to improve charter schools’ access to facilities and for expanded 

national activities.

In addition, the Administration requests $107 million for Magnet Schools Assistance to LEAs 

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

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

available to parents and students.

Elevating the Teaching Profession

The request would provide $300 million for the Education Innovation and Research program, 

an increase of $170 million, to improve the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction by 

empowering teachers to select their own professional development activities. These funds also 

would support field-initiated projects that would promote innovation and reform in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, including computer science, 

consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on STEM education.

The Administration is requesting $200 million for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation, which would support a new 

competition aimed at recognizing and rewarding teaching excellence, improving continuing 

education for teachers, and expanding teacher preparation. In particular, the Department 

proposes to give priority to applicants that propose to create or enhance their performancebased compensation systems and human capital management systems to support (1) highquality mentoring and residencies for novice teachers, or (2) increased compensation for 

effective teachers, particularly in high-need STEM fields and subjects, including computer 

science. These grants would address two key challenges for effective human capital 

management systems in school districts: improving the effectiveness of novice teachers and

recruiting and retaining effective teachers in hard-to-staff fields. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Summary of Request—continued

F-14

Discontinued Programs

The Administration is not requesting funding for American History and Civics Education, 

Supporting Effective Educator Development, Ready to Learn Programming, Arts in 

Education, Javits Gifted and Talented Education, and Statewide Family Engagement 

Centers because these programs are narrowly focused or fund activities that can be supported 

through other Federal, State, local, or private funds.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-15

Activities:

Education innovation and research

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$130,000 $300,000 +$170,000

1

A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F, 

$5,000 thousand is reserved to carry out Subpart 3, of the remainder, 42 percent is available for programs under 

Subpart 1.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

achievement and attainment for high-need students. Like i3, the EIR program supports 

innovative and proven approaches that address persistent education challenges while also 

building knowledge of what works in education. The reauthorized program expanded the entities 

eligible to receive funds, created a new rural set-aside, and increased flexibility around matching 

funds. In particular, State educational agencies (SEAs) now are eligible to apply for funding.

The EIR program incorporates a tiered-evidence framework that ties the size of the Federal 

investment to the evidence base for funded interventions. For example, the program may 

provide $3 million in start-up funding to test promising innovations that are willing to undergo 

rigorous evaluation, while investing $15 million for large-scale replication of proven interventions 

to assess their effectiveness in multiple settings with diverse student populations. Types of 

awards include: (1) early-phase grants for the development, implementation, and feasibility 

testing of an intervention or innovation which prior research suggests has promise, in order to 

determine whether the intervention can improve student academic outcomes (similar to 

Development grants under i3); (2) mid-phase grants for implementation and rigorous evaluation 

of interventions that have been successfully implemented under early-phase grants or have met 

similar criteria for documenting program effectiveness (similar to Mid-phase grants under i3); 

and (3) expansion and replication of interventions or innovations that have been found to 

produce a sizable impact under a mid-phase grant or have met similar criteria for documenting 

program effectiveness (similar to Scale-up grants under i3). All grantees must carry out 

rigorous, independent evaluations of the effectiveness of their projects. 

Eligible applicants include: (1) local educational agencies (LEAs); (2) SEAs; (3) the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE); (4) consortia of LEAs or SEAs; (5) nonprofit organizations; or (6) SEAs, 

LEAs, or the BIE in consortia with a nonprofit organization, a business, an educational service 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-16

agency, or an institution of higher education. Awards length varies from 3 to 5 years. At least 

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

areas, contingent on receipt of enough applications of sufficient quality. Grantees must provide 

matching funds equal to 10 percent of their grant award (in cash or in-kind) from Federal, State, 

local, or private sources. The Department may waive this requirement under certain 

circumstances. In addition, the Department may reserve up to 5 percent of program funds to 

provide technical assistance and disseminate best practices.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2018............................................................................... .... 120,000

2019............................................................................... .... 130,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The request includes $300 million for the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) program, an 

increase of $170 million over the fiscal year 2019 level. The request would fund a $200 million 

demonstration aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction by 

empowering teachers to select their own professional development activities. Requested funds 

would also maintain strong support for field-initiated projects that would promote innovation and 

reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, including 

computer science.

The proposed $200 million professional development demonstration is aimed at elevating the 

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

determine how to address those needs—by empowering teachers to select and pay for 

individualized professional development. Funds would be awarded competitively to local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would then provide stipends to teachers to pay for 

professional development. Grantees would have flexibility in selecting the teachers or groups of 

teachers who would receive stipends, for example, stipends could be targeted to teachers of 

specific subjects such as math and science, to teachers in schools identified for comprehensive 

support and improvement or targeted support and improvement under the ESEA, or to teachers 

preparing for leadership roles in or out of the classroom. Grantees also could require teachers 

to select evidence-based training opportunities that have proven effective in improving 

classroom instruction, leadership skills (including mentoring skills), or student outcomes. 

Teachers seeking stipends would be required to describe how they would be used to support 

individual development plans (IDPs) designed to enhance instructional or leadership skills.

Although school-related factors such as curriculum, parent engagement, and funding contribute 

to student academic performance, research suggests that the single most important schoolbased factor impacting students’ achievement is their teacher (Stronge & Tucker, 2000). 

However, despite heavy investment in teacher preparation at the Federal, State, and district 

levels, most teachers do not appear to improve substantially their practice from year to year, 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-17

and improvements that are observed are not easily linked to a particular standardized 

professional development strategy.1 Moreover, professional development needs vary widely 

among teachers a various phases of their careers. For example, novice teachers may need to 

improve classroom management skills, content knowledge, and pedagogy. More experienced 

teachers may seek to develop the advanced skills and knowledge required to teach Advanced 

Placement or International Baccalaureate courses or the skills necessary to take on multiple 

leadership roles at the classroom, department, or school level. Consequently, the one-size-fitsall professional development activities typically funded by school systems are not likely to be 

effective and are not popular with teachers.

For these reasons, the Administration believes that empowering teachers to select their own

individualized professional development activities is a critical strategy for both elevating the 

teaching profession and improving teacher and school leader performance. While some 

teachers report receiving stipends for professional development, the practice is not widely used 

and its impact is unknown. The request would support a rigorous demonstration of teacher 

professional development stipends paired with rigorous, project-level evaluations of program 

effectiveness. The requested funds would allow the program to make grants to a wide range of 

grantees serving high-need students in diverse settings (e.g., large urban districts, rural 

communities, BIE schools) and to provide sufficiently large stipends to support meaningful 

professional development. The amount requested for the proposal would enable LEAs to 

provide stipends of $6,500 to approximately 25,000 teachers. The rigorous evaluations required 

under EIR potentially would also drive significant improvement in the use of other, much larger 

sources of Federal professional development funds, such as the nearly $16 billion provided 

through the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program. 

The request also would support the Presidential Memorandum on STEM education by investing 

approximately $100 million in field-initiated EIR projects that focus on expanding access to 

evidence-based, effective STEM programs and increasing the participation of all Americans in 

STEM fields. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that job opportunities in STEM 

occupations will grow faster over the next 10 years than the average for all occupations. In 

addition, wages in STEM occupations are higher than the median for all occupations, and STEM 

jobs pay more at all levels of education compared with other occupations.2 However, the 

likelihood of students completing postsecondary education (including technical programs and 

industry-recognized certifications) that enable them to pursue STEM occupations starts with the 

quality of their education in STEM subjects in elementary and secondary education. A 2013 

study published by the National Center for Education Statistics found that precollege academic 

preparation was one factor correlated with STEM attrition at the postsecondary level; i.e, 

students pursuing postsecondary STEM majors switching to non-STEM majors or leaving 

postsecondary education without attaining a degree or certificate.3 The EIR program is well1

The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher

development. Brooklyn, NY: Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf.

2

Vilorio, D. 2014. "STEM 101: Intro to Tomorrow's Jobs." Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Spring. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3 Che, X. (2013). “STEM Attrition: College Students’ paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.” (NCES 2014-0001). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-18

structured to provide the investment needed to improve elementary and secondary STEM 

education, including computer science education, thanks to its emphasis on the development 

and testing of new, innovative programs as well as the expansion of programs that have been 

determined to be effective. 

Consistent with the authorizing statute, the Department would reserve $15 million in fiscal year 

2020 for technical assistance, including technical assistance to help grantees develop and 

implement rigorous evaluations, and dissemination. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

EIR competition

EIR competition Amount for grants $115,445 $122,200 $282,000

EIR competition Number of new awards 18 15-20 30-40

EIR competition Range of new awards $3,000–15,000 $3,000–15,000 $3,000–15,000

Peer review of new award 

applications $633 $1,300 $3,000

National activities $3,922 $6,500 $15,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

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

this program.

The measures reported in this section include data for grants under both the predecessor 

program (i3) and EIR. Thus, the measures for Expansion grants include data for Scale-up 

grants that were still active in the reporting year; the measures for Mid-phase grants include 

data for Mid-phase grants; and the measures for Early-phase grants include data for 

Development grants. However, in the text below only the current terminology is used.

Performance measures

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

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

achievement and other student outcomes.

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

the country to serve a substantially larger numbers of students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-19

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

served.

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 50%

2016 66 66

2017 66 75

2018 66

2019 66

2020 66

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

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

Year Target Actual

2016 65% N/A

2017 65 N/A

2018 65

2019 65

2020 65

Measure: The percentage of Mid-phase grantees that reached their annual target of students 

served.

Year Target Actual

2015 65% 52%

2016 68 52

2017 68 50

2018 68

2019 68

2020 68

Measure: The percentage of Mid-phase grantees that reached the targeted number of 

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

Year Target Actual

2015 60% 80%

2016 65 N/A

2017 65 80%

2018 65

2019 65

2020 65
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-20

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

final performance reports submitted through March 2018. One of the goals of Mid-phase and 

Expansion grants is to expand the implementation of interventions for which there is evidence of 

effectiveness while continuing to evaluate it to ensure that it is implemented well and continues 

to be effective in a larger scale. Therefore, reaching the targeted number of students is an 

important measure of success for these projects. 

All five active Expansion grants and all 18 Mid-phase grants provided data on the GPRA 

measure. One Expansion grant two Mid-phase grants did not serve students in the reporting 

year and are thus excluded from the calculation. The Department will continue to develop and 

refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance to grantees in order to 

improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data, including the accurate setting of 

yearly targets for students served. Data for fiscal year 2018 will be available by December 2019.

No Expansion grants ended their grants in the reporting period through March 2018, so there is 

no cumulative data on students served to report for Expansion. Five Mid-phase grants ended 

their grants in the reporting period and provided data on students served. 

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 Expansion

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

their effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale and would meet the What Works 

Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2015 80% 100%

2016 83 100

2017 100 100

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-21

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Mid-phase

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

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

Standards with or without reservations.

Year Target Actual

2015 75% 97%

2016 78 96

2017 100 100

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Early-phase

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

outcomes.

Year Target Actual

2015 96% 98%

2016 96 98

2017 100 98

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100

Additional information: The source of the data is grantee evaluation plans. The Department 

will continue to develop and refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance 

to grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for 

fiscal year 2018 will be available by December 2019. 

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

2015 80% 100%

2016 83 100

2017 100 100

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-22

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Mid-phase 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

2015 90% 100%

2016 93 96

2017 100 100

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100

Measure: The percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Early-phase

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

2015 90% 99%

2016 95 98

2017 100 98

2018 100

2019 100

2020 100

Additional information: The source of the data is grantee evaluation plans. The Department 

will continue to develop and refine strategies for providing timely and useful technical assistance 

to grantees in order to improve the quality, completeness, and consistency of the data. Data for 

fiscal year 2018 will be available by December 2019. 

Efficiency measures

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

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

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

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

data. Data for this measure are based on total project costs minus evaluation costs divided by 

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

because evaluation costs for projects under this program tend to be large due to the complexity 

of the evaluation designs and the goal of meeting WWC standards. 

Data for 2017 represent grants that submitted an annual performance report and include four 

out of five Expansion grants (the fifth did not serve students and therefore does not have a cost 

per student), 16 out of 18 Mid-phase grantees (the two not included did not serve students and 

therefore do not have a cost per student), and 37 out of 45 Early-phase grants (four did not 

serve students and therefore do not have a cost per student, and four had incomplete data at 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-23

this time). An additional 11 Early-phase grantees were not required to submit annual 

performance reports due to short no-cost extensions and instead will submit a final performance 

reports at a later date. Data for the second efficiency measure represent grantees that 

submitted a final performance report and are cumulative costs per student for the entire grant 

and include 15 out of 15 Mid-phase grants and 26 out of 30 Early-phase grants. Data for fiscal 

year 2018 will be available by December 2019. 

Measure: The cost per student served by the Expansion, Mid-phase, or Early-phase grant.

Year Cost per student, 

Expansion grants

Cost per student, Midphase grantsCost per student, Earlyphase grants

2013 $237 $181 $140

2014 201 21,463 633

2015 99 874 1,137

2016 135 5,329 1,887

2017 278 962 1,049

Additional information: The increase in the cost per student served for Expansion grants 

appears to be due to one grant that had a lower number of students served than targeted. It 

appears that schools included in the project either served only a portion of students in the 

targeted grade or enrolled fewer students than initially estimated. The decrease in the cost per 

student reported for 2017 for Mid-phase grants is due to fewer new grants, which generally have 

higher start up implementation costs, as well as most grants having lower actual costs per 

student than expected. The cost per student reported for 2017 for Early-phase grants is similar 

to previous years.

Measure: The cost per student for the Expansion, Mid-phase, or Early-phase grant for 

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

outcomes for students. 

Year Cost per student, 

Expansion grants

Cost per student, Midphase grantsCost per student, Earlyphase grants

2015 $375 $1,154 $928

2016 N/A N/A 347

2017 N/A 728 776

Additional information: No Expansion projects ended in 2017, so this measure is not 

applicable for that year. For Mid-phase, eight projects ended in 2017, and six provided complete 

cost per student data. For Early-phase, 10 grant projects ended in 2017, and six provided 

complete cost per student data. The cost per student for Early-phase grants for 2017 is 

reflective of the scope of students served under these grants as well as estimated costs.

Other Performance Information

In June, 2018, the Department published The Investing in Innovation Fund: Summary of 67 

Evaluations Final Report, which examined the extent to which the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program, the predecessor to the EIR program, succeeded in its goal of building credible 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Education innovation and research

F-24

evidence that can be used to identify effective interventions that can improve student academic 

outcomes. This report examined 67 i3 impact evaluations and reached the following 

conclusions:

 Overall, nearly three-quarters of the 67 i3 impact evaluations unofficially met What 

Works Clearinghouse evidence standards.

 Almost 80 percent of the i3 implementation evaluations found that the interventions were 

implemented with adequate fidelity to the program models, with 18 percent evaluations 

finding positive impacts.

 Overall, nine evaluations (13 percent) met the long-term goal of i3 by finding evidence of 

both adequate fidelity and positive impacts on student academic outcomes.

 The findings from these evaluations, whether positive or negative, were sufficiently 

robust to help ED policymakers decide which educational programs warrant additional 

funding and testing.

 The i3 evaluations provide credible evidence to local decision makers considering 

whether to adopt particular interventions.

Additional information may be found at 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184013/pdf/20184013.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-25

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title II, Part B, Subpart 1, 

Section 2212)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$200,000 $200,0000 0

1

A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, 

Part B, 47 percent is available for Subpart 1 activities. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Teacher and School Leader (TSL) Incentive Grants program makes competitive awards to 

help eligible entities develop, implement, improve, or expand human capital management 

systems or performance-based compensation systems in schools served by the grantees.

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

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

Education (BIE); and partnerships of LEAs, State agencies, and the BIE with nonprofit or forprofit entities. The grant period is 3 years; the Department has discretion to provide up to an 

additional 2 years of funding if the grantee demonstrates success. In making grants, the 

Department is required to give priority to applicants that support teachers, principals, and other 

school leaders in high-need schools and to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of 

grants, including the distribution of grants between rural and urban areas. An LEA is permitted 

to receive (whether individually or as part of a consortium) a grant under this program only 

twice.

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

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

management systems (HCMSs) are defined as systems that enable the LEA to make and 

implement human capital decisions (such as decisions related to hiring, professional 

development, dismissal, tenure, and promotion) and that include a performance-based 

compensation system. Performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) are systems of 

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

compensation based in part on measureable increases in student academic achievement. The 

systems also may include differentiated levels of compensation for positions in hard-to-staff 

schools and subject areas, as well as for recognition of skills and knowledge of teachers, 

principals, and other school leaders demonstrated through additional responsibilities and 

evidence of professional achievement.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-26

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

improve, or expand an HCMS or PBCS, including:

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

demonstrated improvement in student achievement;

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

systems;

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

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

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

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

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

schools and raise student academic achievement;

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

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

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

other school leaders in high-need schools.

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

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

other Federal or State funds available to carry out activities.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

2018.......................................................... ....................................... 200,000

2019.......................................................... ....................................... 200,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $200 million for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive 

Grants program, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The request would support a 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-27

new competition in fiscal year 2020 as part of a comprehensive strategy to elevate the teaching 

profession by recognizing and rewarding teaching excellence, improving continuing education 

for teachers, and reforming teacher preparation. 

In particular, the Department proposes to give priority to applicants that propose to create or 

enhance their performance-based compensation systems and human capital management 

systems to support:

 High-quality mentoring of novice teachers, including teacher residencies, or 

 Increased compensation for effective teachers, particularly in high-need fields and 

subjects, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and 

computer science. 

These grants would address two key challenges for effective human capital management 

systems in school districts: improving the effectiveness of novice teachers and recruiting and 

retaining effective teachers in hard-to-staff fields.

Grantees under the expanding high-quality mentoring priority could carry out projects that 

develop and implement strategies that help new teachers improve their craft and become 

excellent instructors. An essential component of the grants would be an assessment of the 

effects of participation in the projects on teaching skills and retention. The focus of these 

projects would be on providing one-on-one continuous mentoring, rather than stand-alone 

workshops and training, a practice that has been found to be promising in improving student 

achievement.1 Residency programs could provide a year-long apprenticeship under the 

guidance of expert, effective teachers.

The second priority proposed for the fiscal year 2020 TSL competition reflects the Secretary’s 

strong belief that “great teachers need to be supported, should be better compensated, and 

should be treated as professionals.” Improved compensation practices are especially important 

for teachers in STEM fields, including computer science, where districts often face competition 

from technology-based private sector companies in recruiting talented individuals with the skills 

needed to improve student outcomes.

Grantees under the second priority would implement sustainable strategies for providing 

incentive payments or differential salary schedules for effective teachers, focusing particularly 

on subjects and areas for which recruitment and retention has traditionally been challenging 

(e.g., STEM fields, special education, and rural areas). Both State and local educational 

agencies would be eligible to receive grants. Priority would be given to applicants that provide 

concrete plans for sustaining increased compensation following the end of Federal funding.

The Department would evaluate the impact of projects funded under this proposal to build 

evidence on best practices for preparing and retaining effective teachers.

_______________

1

https://www.educationnext.org/taking-teacher-coaching-to-scale-can-personalized-training-become-standardpractice/
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-28

In addition to the new competition proposed for fiscal year 2020, the request would support 

continuation costs of the final year of 2016 grants made under the predecessor Teacher 

Incentive Fund program, technical assistance and evaluation activities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding

New awards fundi ng 0 0 $110,016

Continuation awards fundi ng $198,000 $198,000 87,634

Peer review of new award applications 

fundi ng 0 0 350

Evaluation and technical assistance fundi ng 2,000 2,000 2,000

Total fundi ng 200,000 200,000 200,000

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 0 0 1215

Range of new awards 0 0 $1,000$15,000

Number of continuation awards 27 27 13

Range of continuation awards $599$14,853 $781$14,871 $678$13,635

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

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

funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2018 but may do so in fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Any amount pooled under 

section 8601 would not exceed the 1 percent evaluation and technical assistance reservation authorized for the TSL 

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 that help provide 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 fiscal 

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

this program. 

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

2013; 35 applicants received awards and all were expected to report using these measures. 

The teacher and principal evaluation ratings for these measures are based, in significant part, 

on evidence of improved student outcomes. Selected information (e.g., data for only those 

teachers and principals rated at the highest level of effectiveness, and not at each level) is 

presented below. The Department collects these data from grantee annual performance reports, 

and the final year for which data will be available for the 2012 cohort of grantees is 2017.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-29

The changes in performance data from year to year should be interpreted with caution. 

Grantees partner with LEAs for their projects, and although the number of grantees in the 

2012 cohort remained the same over time, the number of participating LEAs dropped from 

169 in year 1 to 136 in year 2, and continued to decline to 90 in year 5. In addition, some 

grantees did not have data to report in the first 2 years of their projects because the participating 

LEAs did not have an evaluation system for either teachers or principals, or both. Thus, the data 

presented do not represent the same LEAs over time.

Measure: The percentage of teachers and principals who were rated at the highest level of 

effectiveness under their district’s evaluation system.

Year Actual for Teachers Actual for Principals

2014 17% 20%

2015 21 26

2016 26 14

2017

Additional information: The percentages rated at the highest level of effectiveness rose 

between 2014 and 2015 for both teachers and principals; between 2015 and 2016 the 

percentage rose for teachers but declined for principals. As noted above, data are not 

comparable across years. 

Measure: The percentage of teachers of high-need fields or subjects who were rated at the 

highest level of effectiveness under their district’s evaluation system.

Year Actual

2014 13%

2015 18

2016 17

2017

Additional information: The percentage of teachers of high-needs fields or subjects who were 

rated at the highest level of effectiveness, like the percentage of all teachers, increased 

between 2014 and 2015. However, it dropped slightly in 2016. In each year, the percentage of 

teachers of high-need fields or subjects who were rated at the highest level of effectiveness was 

lower than the percentage of all teachers who were rated at that level. The gap was 

largest9 percentage pointsin 2016.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-30

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

evaluation systems to inform key personnel decisions.

Personnel decision 2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Actual

Personnel decisi on: Recruitment 81% 79% 80%

Personnel decisi on: Hiring 87 89 89

Personnel decisi on: Placement 74 70 86

Personnel decisi on: Retention 66 95 93

Personnel decisi on: Dismissal 67 93 90

Personnel decisi on: Tenure 17 43 33

Personnel decisi on: Career advancement 89 87 90

Personnel decisi on: Professional development 100 97 93

Personnel decisi on: All of the above 7 30 28

Additional information: The Department assesses the use of educator evaluation systems to 

inform personnel decisions in eight areas. By 2016, the percentages were at or above 

80 percent for all areas except tenure.

The grantees in the 2016 TIF and 2017 TSL cohorts will report using the following measures, 

which were published in the notices inviting applications:

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

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

compensation.

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

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

educators participate in the project.

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

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

tenure, and promotion.

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

other non-TIF or TSL Federal resources.

 The percentage of teachers and principals who receive the highest effectiveness rating.

 The percentage of teachers and principals in high-needs schools who receive the highest 

effectiveness rating.

The 2017 TSL competition included one additional measure, the number of high-need schools 

within districts participating in a TSL grant that use educator evaluation and support systems to 

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

and promotion. Initial data for the 2016 and 2017 cohorts will be available in the late spring of 

2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-31

Other performance information

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) conducted two recent studies that provide information 

on effective practices relevant to the TSL program:

The Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Performance Evaluation Systems1examined 

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

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

$21.5 million over 6 years, was completed in December 2017. The key findings were:

 The study’s performance measures were implemented generally as planned. For instance, 

in both study years, teachers and principals received multiple rounds of ratings and 

feedback on their practices.

 While the study’s measures provided some information to identify educators who needed 

support, they provided limited information to indicate the areas of practice most needing 

improvement.

 The study’s performance evaluation system had a positive impact on teachers’ classroom 

practice on one of the two observation measures, and it also had a positive impact on both 

of the principal leadership measures. However, there was limited impact on student 

achievement: there was no impact on reading/English language arts achievement in either 

study year, and there was a mathematics impact in only 1 of the 2 study years. The 

mathematics impact was the equivalent of about 4 weeks of learning.

The Impact Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund2examined the characteristics of 

144 districts participating in 2010 TIF grants during 20132014 school year and assessed the 

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

$13.7 million over 8 years, was published in December 2017.

Key findings from all participating districts in the 2010 TIF cohort are:

 Implementation was similar across the 4 years of the study, with most districts implementing 

at least three of the four required components for teachers (measures of teacher 

effectiveness, pay-for-performance bonuses, additional pay opportunities, and professional 

development) for teachers. Only about half implemented all four requirements.

 Many districts reported that sustaining their program was a major challenge, and slightly 

fewer than half planned to offer pay-for-performance bonuses after their grant ended.

However, most districts reported that they planned to continue three key components of TIF: 

professional development based on teachers’ performance ratings (90 percent), measures 

of performance similar to those used in TIF (at least 80 percent), and additional pay for 

taking on extra roles or responsibilities (74 percent).

1

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

2

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

Teacher and school leader incentive grants

F-32

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

 There was a small positive effect on student achievement. On average, pay-for-performance 

bonuses led to slightly higher reading and mathematics achievement (1 to 2 percentile 

points) in schools that offered such bonuses than in schools that did not. This difference was 

equivalent to a gain of 3 to 4 additional weeks of learning.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-33

American history and civics education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$4,815 0 -$4,815

1

A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

1.4 percent is available for Subpart 3, of which not less than 26 percent is reserved for American History and Civics 

Academies.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

instruction and professional development for teachers and school leaders.

American History and Civics Academies

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

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

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

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

knowledge through instruction and interaction with primary scholars and accomplished teachers 

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

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

history and civics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal to 100 percent of the grant amount.

To promote a seamless delivery of training and instruction and to maximize project benefits for 

participants, the Department has required that grantee projects include both a Presidential and 

a Congressional Academy.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-34

National Activities

National Activities grants promote evidence-based instructional methods and professional 

development programs in American history, civics and government, and geography, particularly 

those methods and programs that benefit students from low-income families and underserved 

student populations. Grants support the development, implementation, expansion, evaluation, 

and dissemination of methods and programs that show potential to improve teaching and 

learning and demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved 

student populations. Grant projects may include civic engagement activities and educational 

programs on the history and principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Department 

makes competitive grants to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit or for-profit 

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

grants for an additional 2 years.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2018............................................................. ...........................................$3,515

2019............................................................. ...........................................$4,815

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for American History and Civics Education, consistent with 

the Administration’s overall goal of refocusing Federal education investments on flexible State 

formula grant programs, eliminating duplicative activities, streamlining Federal program 

administration, and putting decision-making power back in the hands of States and local 

communities. The American History and Civics Education programs support only a few awards, 

and American History and Civics Academies grants reach a very limited number of teachers and 

students each year: under the statute, an academy may select no more than 300 teachers or 

students for participation annually. The Administration believes that such small, narrowly 

targeted programs do not reflect an appropriate Federal role and are better supported with 

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

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

the $15.9 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program, which makes awards annually to all States and 

approximately 15,000 LEAs.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-35

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

American History and Civics Academies 

grants

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Amount for new awards $1,815 0 0

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Number of new awards 3 0 0

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Amount for continuation awards 0 $1,815 0

American History and Ci vics Academi es grants Number of continuation awards 0 3 0

National Activities grants

National Acti viti es grants Amount for new awards $1,571 $1,822 0

American Nati onal Acti vi ties grants Number of new awards 2 3 0

National Acti viti es grants Amount for continuation awards $129 $1,178 0

American Nati onal Acti vi ties grants Number of continuation awards 1 2 0

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

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

The Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, but may do so in fiscal 

year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets are shown for 2020 

because the program is proposed for elimination.

Goal: To improve the quality of teaching and learning in American history, civics and 

government, and geography in elementary and secondary schools.

Objective: Participants will demonstrate through pre- and post-assessments an increased 

understanding of American history and civics that can be directly linked to their participation in 

the Presidential or Congressional academy.

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

Presidential Academy.

Year Target Actual

2017 13%

2018 15

2019 TBD
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

American history and civics education

F-36

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

Congressional Academy.

Year Target Actual

2017 10%

2018 15

2019 TBD

Additional information: Data are for the 2016 grantee and from assessments created by the 

grantee's evaluator drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests. 

The 2017 grantee did not use traditional testing instruments but rather conducted pre- and postassessments of teacher lesson plans (in the case of the Presidential Academy) and student 

research papers (for the Congressional Academy) using a rubric developed by an external 

evaluator. Because of this grantee’s approach to assessment, the Department does not believe 

it is appropriate to aggregate its performance data with those of the 2016 grantee. The 2017 

grantee reported average content knowledge gains of 25 percent for Presidential Academy 

teachers and 20 percent for Congressional Academy students in 2018. 

The Department may establish targets for these measures based on actual grantee 

performance in future years, including that of the three 2018 grantees in 2019. 

Objective: Participants will demonstrate through pre- and post-assessments an increased 

understanding of American history, civics and government, and geography that can be directly 

linked to their participation in National Activities grant activities.

Measure: The average percentage gain on an assessment after participation in National 

Activities grant activities.

For the 2017 grantee, there was an average percentage gain of 28 percent in 2018. 

Additional information: Data are from assessments created by the grantee's evaluator 

drawing on questions from nationally validated U.S. History tests. The Department may 

establish targets for this measure based on actual grantee performance in future years, 

including that of the two 2018 grantees in 2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-37

Supporting effective educator development

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change

$75,000 0 -$75,000

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

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

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

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

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

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program. Separate authority for SEED as a distinct 

program was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The program provides competitive grants to institutions of higher 

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

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

Allowable activities must be evidence-based and include:

 Supporting non-traditional preparation and certification pathways that allow teachers, 

principals, or other school leaders to obtain employment in traditionally underserved local 

educational agencies (LEAs);

 Providing evidence-based professional development that addresses literacy, numeracy, 

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

 Providing professional development to improve instruction in dual enrollment programs or 

early college high school settings;

 Making professional development and related learning opportunities freely available to 

LEAs, including through publicly accessible electronic means; or

 Providing teachers, principals, or other school leaders with evidence-based professional 

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

Grants may be awarded for up to 3 years; the Department has the discretion to renew awards 

for an additional 2-year period if grantees demonstrate success. To the extent practicable, the 

Department must ensure that grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve 

geographically diverse areas. The statute requires grantees to use non-Federal sources, in cash 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-38

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

modify this cost-sharing requirement in cases of demonstrated financial hardship.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

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

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

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

2018............................................................ ................................................75,000

2019............................................................ ................................................75,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for the SEED program. Instead, the request includes a 

significant increase for the Education Innovation and Research program to support the 

Administration’s goal of elevating the teaching profession—treating teachers like professionals 

who can identify their own needs and select professional development that addresses those 

needs—and improving teacher quality. Teacher recruitment, training, placement, and ongoing 

professional development are core responsibilities for States, school districts, and institutions of 

higher education, which are best positioned to identify and respond to local and regional needs 

for effective educators. In the Federal context, SEED duplicates and has a much more limited 

impact than, for example, the Title I Grants to LEAs program, which makes available 

$15.9 billion annually to approximately 15,000 LEAs that can be used for all SEED-authorized 

activities. The Administration expects many providers previously or currently funded by the 

SEED program will likely continue their activities by marketing their services to States and 

LEAs, which can pay for such services with other Federal, State, or local funds. In particular, 

because SEED funds only activities and interventions with evidence of effectiveness, LEAs can 

be expected to turn to current and former SEED grantees when implementing the evidencebased school improvement plans required by the ESEA. For this reason, and consistent with the 

fiscal discipline required to reduce the Federal budget deficit while maintaining support for 

higher priority State formula grant programs serving the most vulnerable student populations, 

the request would terminate funding for the SEED program.

Grants awarded in fiscal year 2017 will receive their third and final year of funding in 2019. 

Grants awarded in fiscal year 2018 would receive only 2 years of funding, while the one new 

grant awarded in 2019 from the 2018 competition would receive funding for just 1 year.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-39

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Project Funding:

New grant awards $33,638 $8,444 0

Continuation grant awards 41,043 66,181 0

Peer review of new award applications 269 0 0

Evaluation 50 375 0

Total 75,000 75,000 0

Grant Award Information

Number of new awards 14 1 NA

Range of new awards $971-$3,591 NA NA

Number of continuation awards 10 24 NA

Range of continuation awards $1,830$6,075 $505-$5,417 NA

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

including Supporting Effective Educator Development, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. The Department pooled $50,000 in fiscal year 2018 and may reserve funds in fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data that help provide an 

assessment of the progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program 

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

the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets are provided for 

2020 because the Administration is not requesting funding for the program.

The Department first conducted a competition for SEED grants in fiscal year 2012 and 

established two performance measures for the program:

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

students, are highly effective, and serve for at least 2 years, and the cost per such 

participant (for grantees addressing priorities on teacher and principal recruitment, selection, 

and preparation and on professional development for teachers of English language arts).

 The percentage of teacher participants who receive advanced certification or advanced 

credentialing and are highly effective, and the cost per such participant (for grantees 

addressing the priority on advanced certification and advanced credentialing).

Three grantees received awards in 2012, all of which addressed these priorities. Establishing 

measures that can be used across very different types of projects is difficult, and due to 

differences in interpretation of the terms used (e.g., what constituted effectiveness) and the 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-40

length of some of the grants, performance data for these grantees are limited, and do not 

include the cost per participant. All participants in one project served concentrations of highneed students, and nearly two-thirds of participants in the second project served such students. 

Seventeen percent of the participants in this project served high concentrations of high-need 

students and were highly effective.

The same performance measures were used in the 2013 competition, which resulted in five 

awards. Again, due to differences in reporting and grant length, data are limited and do not 

include the cost per participant. However, data for all five grantees suggest that most 

participants serve schools with concentrations of high-need students, with percentages (across 

grantees and reporting years) ranging from 58 to 100 percent. Data on the percent serving highneed students who were highly effective were available for two grantees, which reported values 

of 31 and 54 percent.

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

fiscal year 2015 SEED grantees:

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

students;

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

students and are highly effective; 

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

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

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

2 years.

Year 1 data on the first two measures are available for this cohort of grantees. Nine of the 13 

2015 grantees provided data on both the number of participants and the number of participants 

who served concentrations of high-need students. These grantees served a total of 8,170 

participants (with a range of 3 to 4,100), 6,956 of whom were in schools with concentrations of 

high-need students (range of 2 to 4,100), for an overall percentage of 85 percent. Across grants, 

the percentage ranged from 67 to 100 percent. The largest of these grantees (in terms of 

participants served) reported that 28 percent of the participants served in schools with 

concentrations of high-need students and were highly effective. Updated data for the first two 

measures in the spring of 2019. Data are not yet available for the remaining two measures.

The four measures used in the 2015 competition also were used in the 2017 and 

2018 competitions. In addition, beginning with the 2017 competition the following new measure 

was used: the number of grantees with evaluations that meet the What Works Clearinghouse

standards with reservations. Information for the 2017 grantees is expected to be available in 

late 2019; information for the 2018 grantees is expected to be available in late 2020.

The Department also expects to receive information in early 2019 from 2-year evaluation 

extension awards made in 2016 to three of the 2013 grantees, the National Writing Project, the 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Supporting effective educator development

F-41

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Institute for Excellence in 

Teaching.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-42

Charter schools grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title IV, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $300,000

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$440,000 $500,000 +$60,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Charter schools play a critical role in American public education by increasing educational 

options for families and driving innovative instructional practices that can benefit students 

across a range of school settings. Research shows that charter schools—which, in exchange 

for stricter accountability, are generally exempt from many of the State and local requirements 

governing other public schools—can deliver impressive results for our Nation’s students, 

including those living in poverty or at risk for educational failure.

Through Charter Schools Grants, the Department supports the startup of new charter schools 

and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools serving students in 

prekindergarten through grade 12. Funds also support grants to improve charter schools’ 

access to facilities and information dissemination and evaluation activities.

Grants for the Opening of New Charter Schools and the Replication and Expansion of 

High-Quality Charter Schools

State Entity Grants

Section 4303 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes the 

Department to make competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), State charter 

school boards, State governors, and statewide charter school support organizations. Recipients 

of State Entity grants must use not less than 90 percent of grant funds to make subgrants to 

charter school developers to enable them to open new charter schools or to replicate or expand 

high-quality charter schools, not less than 7 percent to provide technical assistance to 

developers and to conduct activities to improve the quality of charter school authorizing and 

oversight, and not more than 3 percent for administrative costs. Developers—individuals and 

public and private nonprofit entities, which may include charter management organizations 

(CMOs)—may receive subgrants for up to 5 years, of which they may use not more than 

18 months for planning and program design, including hiring and compensating school leaders 

and instructional staff. Developers may also use funds for activities such as providing 

professional development, making necessary renovations to school buildings, acquiring 

equipment and supplies, engaging the community, and developing student transportation 

systems.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-43

In making awards, the Department must give priority to State entities that support charter 

schools for at-risk students and that ensure all charter school authorizers implement recognized 

school approval and monitoring standards and procedures. In addition, priority must be given to 

State entities in States that: (1) have charter school authorizers that are not local educational 

agencies (LEAs) or, if only LEAs are authorizers, have an appeals process for prospective 

charter schools that initially fail to gain approval from the LEA; (2) ensure equitable funding for 

charter and other public schools; (3) provide funding or other support for charter school facilities; 

and (4) use best practices from charter schools to support traditional school and LEA 

improvement.

Developer Grants

If no State entity in a State receives a grant, charter school developers in the State may apply 

directly to the Department for Developer grants, which are awarded under the same terms and 

conditions as for State Entity subgrants to start up new charter schools or replicate or expand 

high-quality charter schools.

CMO Grants

Under section 4305(b), the Department makes competitive grants to nonprofit CMOs to replicate 

and expand high-quality charter schools. Priority for these awards must be given to CMOs that: 

(1) plan to operate schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies; 

(2) demonstrate success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive 

support and improvement under Title I, Part A of the amended ESEA; (3) propose to replicate or 

expand schools serving high school students; or (4) propose to operate schools that focus on 

dropout recovery and academic reentry. As with Developer grants, CMO grants are awarded 

under the same terms and conditions as for State Entity subgrants, including requirements that 

the schools to be replicated or expanded have demonstrated success in increasing student 

achievement and (where applicable) graduation rates, for all students and for each student 

subgroup, and have no significant compliance issues in the areas of student safety or school 

financial or operational management.

Facilities Grants

Section 4304 authorizes two programs through which the Department makes grants to improve 

charter schools’ access to high-quality facilities: Credit Enhancement for Charter School 

Facilities (Credit Enhancement) and State Facilities Incentive grants. 

Credit Enhancement Grants

The Department makes annual competitive Credit Enhancement grants to public and private 

nonprofit entities (such as finance authorities and community development financial institutions) 

that assist charter schools in acquiring, constructing, and renovating facilities by enhancing the 

availability of loan or bond financing. Grantees must deposit grant funds into a reserve account 

that is used to, among other things, guarantee and insure debt to finance charter school 

facilities and guarantee and insure leases of personal and real property. These credit 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-44

enhancements are intended to reduce risk to lenders, thereby creating access to credit or 

lowering interest rates and costs of borrowing for charter schools.

Grantees must invest reserve account funds in low-risk securities, and any earnings on such 

investments must be re-invested. Grantees continue to implement their projects until funds 

have been fully expended for grant purposes (such as to cover debt obligations of charter 

school borrowers in the event of default) or until financing facilitated by the grant has been 

retired.

State Facilities Incentive Grants

Authorized under section 4304(k) of the ESEA, the competitive State Facilities Incentive grants 

help States establish or enhance programs that provide dedicated State per-pupil funding for 

charter school facilities. The Department makes State Facilities Incentive awards for a period of 

up to 5 years, over which States pay an increasing share of program costs. States may partner 

with other organizations to provide up to 50 percent of the State share of costs. 

National Activities

Under section 4305(a)(3), the Department uses funds to provide technical assistance to State 

entities in awarding subgrants and to recipients of facilities grants; disseminate best practices 

regarding charter schools; and evaluate the impact of Charter Schools Grants, including on 

student achievement. Consistent with this authority, the Department currently uses national 

activities funds to, among other things, support a National Charter School Resource Center and 

administer National Dissemination grants, through which State entities, charter school 

authorizers, and nonprofit organizations that operate, manage, or support charter schools can 

receive funds to disseminate information on issues of national significance.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015.................................................................................$253,172

2016...................................................................................333,172

2017...................................................................................342,172

2018...................................................................................400,000

2019...................................................................................440,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-45

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $500 million for Charter Schools Grants for fiscal year 2020, an 

increase of $60 million over the fiscal year 2019 level. The request is a central element of the 

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

particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds.

The request includes appropriations language that would override both the authorized fiscal 

year 2020 funding level and the ESEA’s within-program funding allocations and allow the 

Department to use funds as follows:

 Not less than $190 million for State Entity grants. The request will support additional 

new State Entity awards under the reauthorized ESEA, which, among other things, 

requires State Entity grantees to use between 7 and 10 percent of grant funds to provide 

technical assistance to improve charter school developer and authorizer quality, allows 

grantees to make subgrants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter 

schools in addition to subgrants to open new schools, increases the maximum subgrant 

period from 3 to 5 years, and broadens the range of allowable subgrantee activities to 

include necessary building renovations and transportation startup costs. 

 Up to $125 million for facilities grants, a maximum increase of $70 million over the 

amount for these grants in fiscal year 2019. The request would provide the Department 

flexibility to direct significantly more funding than in prior years to Credit Enhancement 

and State Facilities Incentive grants, both of which are designed to support cost-effective 

investments of Federal funds to address ongoing charter school facility needs. 

Specifically, the request would increase the size and number of new Credit 

Enhancement grants, further leveraging capital and expanding charter school access to 

facility loans and bonds, while providing additional new support for the startup of 

dedicated State charter school facility funding streams.

 Up to $185 million for Developer grants, Charter Management Organization (CMO) 

grants, and national activities (collectively authorized under section 4305 of the ESEA), 

of which up to $15 million may be used for Developer grants and up to $20 million for 

national activities. 

The request would maintain the fiscal year 2019 level for Developer grants and be 

supported by rulemaking that the Department intends to conduct in fiscal year 2019 to 

ensure, among other things, that Developer grant funds continue to be targeted to 

disadvantaged student populations and focused on developers currently operating at 

most one charter school (i.e., to applicants that are not CMOs). 

The request would also support a strengthened set of national activities, which could 

include new National Dissemination grants on priority topics and new, rigorous 

evaluation studies. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-46

Finally, the request includes an increase of approximately $15 million for CMO grants 

over fiscal year 2019, and would retain the 18-month period of availability of CMO funds 

first provided in fiscal year 2018. The Administration anticipates continued strong 

demand for these grants, which through rulemaking completed in early fiscal year 2019 

will be targeted to disadvantaged or underserved student populations, particularly 

students from low-income families and students in rural communities.

Charter Schools Grants have supported a significant percentage of the charter schools in 

operation today.1 However, there is clearly room for growth and strong demand from families 

for more options. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has estimated that parents 

of approximately two million students would choose to enroll their children in a charter school if 

seats were available.2 The requested increase for Charter Schools Grants would help ensure 

that more of these students can enroll in a high-quality public school of their choice by providing 

critical support for the startup and expansion of charter schools and for the acquisition of 

affordable, high-quality charter school facilities. At the request level, new State Entity, 

Developer, and CMO grants would support the startup or expansion of an estimated 340 

schools serving 135,000 students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

State Entity grants

State Entity grants:Amount for new awards $77,791 $106,373 $47,948

State Entity grants: Number of new awards 8 3–8 3–6

State Entity grants:Amount for continuation awards $120,006 $113,189 $141,302

State Entity grants::Number of continuation awards 21 22 21–26

Developer grants

Devel oper grants:Amount for new awards $16,165 $14,250 $9,180

Devel oper grantsNumber of new awards 32 25–35 16–24

Devel oper grantsAmount for continuation awards $1,721 $750 $5,820

Devel oper grantsNumber of continuation awards 7 32 53–63

Peer review of new State Entity and 

Developer award applications $318 $438 0

CMO grants

CMO grants:Amount for new awards $100,230 $56,360 $79,072

CMO grantsNumber of new awards 20–30 13–19 16–24

CMO grantsAmount for continuation awards $19,648 $78,518 $70,928

CMO grants:Number of continuation awards 49 62–72 63–79

CMO grants:Peer review of new award applications $121 $122 0

1

See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf.

2

See http://www.publiccharters.org/press/national-alliance-statement-presidents-fy2018-budget/.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-47

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Credit Enhancement grants

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for new awards $39,922 $39,721 $95,000

Credit Enhancement grantsNumber of new awards 4 3–5 8–12

Credit Enhancement grants: Amount for supplemental awards 0 $5,078 0

Credit Enhancement grantsNumber of supplemental awards 0 1 0

State Facilities Incentive grants

State Facilities Incenti ve grants:Amount for new awards 0 $10,000 $20,000

State Facilities Incenti ve grants : Number of new awards 0 1–3 2–4

State Facilities Incenti ve grants :Amount for continuation awards $10,000 0 $10,000

State Facilities Incenti ve grantsNumber of continuation awards 1 0 1–3

Peer review of new Credit Enhancement 

and State Facilities Incentive award 

applications $78 $201 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $750 

National activities $14,000 $15,000 $20,000

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

including Charter Schools Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department 

did not reserve funds for this purpose from Charter Schools Grants in fiscal year 2018, but may do so in fiscal years 

2019 and 2020.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

in fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by this program.

The 2017 data for these performance measures are preliminary. The Department is considering 

revising the measures to more effectively assess performance under the reauthorized law.

Goal: To support the creation of a large number of high-quality charter schools.

Objective: Encourage the development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that

are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling 

students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-48

Measure: The number of charter schools in operation around the Nation.

Year Target Actual

2015 7,540 6,752

2016 8,010 6,859

2017 8,480 7,014

2018 8,950

2019 9,420

2020 9,890

Additional information: Data on the total number of charter schools in operation, including 

those funded by Charter Schools Grants, are provided annually by SEAs and are verified by the 

Department. The Department is considering revising the targets for this measure due to slowerthan-anticipated growth in the number of schools in operation in recent years.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2015 74.2% 48.3%

2016 79.2 49.4

2017 84.2 49.8

2018 89.2

2019 94.2

2020 99.2

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2015 71.4% 44.1%

2016 76.4 45.8

2017 81.4 46.8

2018 86.4

2019 91.4

2020 96.4
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-49

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in reading.

Year Target Actual

2015 76.6% 52.3%

2016 81.6 53.8

2017 86.6 52.3

2018 91.6

2019 96.6

2020 100.0

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade charter school students who are achieving at or 

above the proficient level on State assessments in mathematics.

Year Target Actual

2015 63.7% 39.4%

2016 68.7 40.6

2017 73.7 43.2

2018 78.7

2019 83.7

2020 88.7

Additional information: The low percentages of students scoring at or above the proficient 

level in 2015 and 2016 can be explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous 

assessments based on college- and career-ready standards. Analysis of the data has found 

notable variation in performance among funded schools.

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 2014 Cohort Target 2014 Cohort Actual

2015 1.11 : 1 1.99 : 1

2016 1.25 : 1 3.99 : 1

2017 1.67 : 1 3.99 : 1

2018 2.50 : 1 6.11 : 1

2019 5.00 : 1

Additional information: The leveraging ratio is the total funds available (the Federal grant 

and the State match) compared to the Federal grant for a given year. The State match amount 

excludes State and local funds that would otherwise be used to provide charter school per-pupil 

facilities aid in absence of participation in the program.

The Department also tracks the amount of funds leveraged and the number of schools served 

under Credit Enhancement grants. In 2017, Credit Enhancement grants leveraged $500 million 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-50

in facilities financing for 72 schools. Between program inception and 2017, Credit Enhancement 

funds have helped enable approximately $5.3 billion in financing for facilities of 757 charter 

schools.

The Department also developed a measure to assess the cost efficiency, across States, of the 

Federal investment in supporting charter school start-ups. The measure is defined as the 

Federal cost per student of launching a successful school (defined as a school in operation for 

3 or more years). Data for 2015 show an average cost of $1,129, for 2016 an average cost of 

$1,173, and for 2017 an average cost of $1,168. Data for this measure, collected through 

grantee annual performance reports, assist the Department in understanding the different costs 

per student for different types of charter schools.

Other Performance Information

Supporting Efforts to Strengthen Charter School Authorizing

Strong authorizing practices are essential to the success of the schools supported under 

Charter Schools Grants. In its effort to help strengthen school authorizing and oversight, the 

Department employs a multi-faceted approach that includes activities focused specifically on 

State Entity grantees and those designed to benefit States and authorizers more generally.

The Department’s efforts to assist State Entity grantees begin by ensuring, through a thorough 

budget review prior to making awards, that they reserve between 7 and 10 percent of funds, as 

required by statute, for activities to improve authorizer quality and to assist charter school 

developers. The Department, both directly and through contracts, monitors grantees for 

compliance with these set-aside requirements and provides general and individualized technical 

assistance as needed in developing and improving set-aside activities. In particular, the 

Department’s National Charter School Resource Center (Resource Center) has developed an 

authorizer evaluation protocol (based in part on the National Association of Charter School 

Authorizers’s Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing) and is available 

to assist State Entity grantees in implementing the protocol for authorizers in their States. 

State Entity grantees—the first cohort of which began implementing grant projects in fiscal year 

2018—are still in the beginning phases of designing and carrying out their set-aside activities. 

At a later date, the Department (through the Resource Center) will prepare an initial summary 

and analysis of those activities. However, notable activities as reflected in grantee applications 

have included: providing authorizer training or stipends for training; developing and 

implementing authorizing standards, principles, and frameworks; developing authorizer report 

cards; providing technical assistance on authorizing practices specifically to LEAs that are 

authorizers; and providing training on authorizer closure.

The Department’s general support for authorizer quality notably includes the National 

Dissemination grants. Four of the program’s eight inaugural awards in fiscal year 2018 were 

made under an absolute priority for projects that disseminate information to strengthen charter 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-51

school authorizing and oversight.1 These projects, which began earlier this fiscal year, are 

intended to target dissemination efforts where they are needed most, including toward States 

that recently enacted charter school laws, authorizers with fewer than 10 charter schools (i.e., 

authorizers that generally are new or have limited resources), and authorizers with multiple 

schools experiencing significant low performance or compliance issues. The Department will 

provide more information on the implementation and effects of these projects in future budget 

requests.

The Resource Center is also engaged in ongoing general efforts to improve authorizing, with the 

most recent Resource Center contract featuring a task devoted explicitly to the topic and 

including, among other activities, a compilation of State authorizing initiatives and the 

identification and dissemination of key authorizing lessons learned.

Lastly, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service has initiated development of a set 

of in-depth profiles of exemplary charter school practices, including practices related to school 

authorizing. The profiles, which are expected to be released in spring 2020, will be on topics 

identified based on a research review and recommendations of an expert panel, and will include 

descriptive data and information from schools identified through a “beating-the-odds” analysis 

as outperforming other schools with similar characteristics.

Monitoring and Mitigating Risk in Charter School Contractual Relationships with Management 

Organizations

In September 2016 the Department’s Inspector General issued a report examining the 

relationships between charter schools and their management entities, including CMOs and 

education management organizations (EMOs).2 The report, which was based in part on a 

review of 33 charter schools in 6 States, identified internal control weaknesses in these 

relationships that may pose financial and performance risks to Department program objectives 

and recommended that the Department take steps to mitigate these risks. The Department 

developed a corrective action plan in response to the report’s specific recommendations. Each

of the actions in the plan (summarized below) has been completed, with the exception of the 

release of the Dear Colleague Letter, which the Department expects to complete in early spring 

2019:

 The Department established a formal oversight group to determine the most appropriate 

manner to review and assess risks posed to Department programs by charter school 

contractual relationships with CMOs or EMOs and to determine how best to respond to 

recommendations in the audit report. 

 The Department will release a Dear Colleague Letter that provides SEAs with a 

suggested framework and strategy for performing a minimum level of monitoring, risk 

1

See https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/charter-schools/expanding-opportunity-through-quality-charter-schoolsprogram-csp-national-dissemination-grants/awards/. 

2

See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2016/a02m0012.pdf. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-52

assessment, and mitigation procedures related to charter school contractual 

relationships with CMOs or EMOs.

 The Department modified its fiscal review monitoring protocols to assist States in 

meeting their monitoring and oversight responsibilities under the Title I statute and 

regulations with respect to charter school contractual relationships with CMOs or EMOs. 

 The Department revised and updated its monitoring protocols for the various Charter 

Schools Grants programs to assist grantees in meeting their monitoring and oversight 

responsibilities with respect to CMOs or EMOs.

 The Department developed and modified monitoring protocols to assist States in 

meeting their monitoring and oversight responsibilities under the IDEA statute and 

regulations with respect to charter school contractual relationships with CMOs or EMOs.

 The Department contacted the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the 

National Association of Charter School Authorizers to discuss how external partners and 

interest groups can assist SEAs and other authorizers in considering risks to Federal 

funds in their evaluation of proposals for charter schools and in determining what is an 

acceptable level of risk related to charter school contractual relationships with CMOs or 

EMOs. These external partners agreed to convene a taskforce or working group to 

examine these issues and develop steps to address the identified risks. The Department 

continues to work with these external partners as they develop and implement their work 

plan. 

 The Department updated the OMB Uniform Guidance Compliance Supplement to 

include procedures to determine whether SEAs and LEAs, as appropriate, have internal 

controls to ensure that charter schools with contractual relationships with CMOs or 

EMOs have effective controls to mitigate financial risks, provide for accountability over 

Federal funds, and mitigate performance risks.

2015 Charter Schools Grants Data Analysis

In December 2015, the Department released an analysis of data on grantees and subgrantees 

under the State Entity, Developer, and CMO competitions.1 Using data from grantee annual 

performance reports and the Department’s Common Core of Data and Civil Rights Data 

Collection, the analysis found, among other things, that:

 Of the 6,467 charter schools in operation in the 2013-2014 school year, 2,676 (or 

41 percent) had received funding under the competitions between the 2006-2007 and 

2013-2014 school years;

1

See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter/cspdata.pdf.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-53

 Of the 4,582 charter schools that opened between the 2006-2007 and 2013-2014 school 

years, 2,626 (or nearly 60 percent) had received funding; and

 Compared to traditional public schools, schools that received funding served higher 

percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, Black students, and 

Hispanic students, and similar percentages of students with disabilities and English 

learners.

2013 CREDO National Charter School Study

The “National Charter School Study 2013,” a study by researchers at Stanford University’s 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) that updated and expanded CREDO’s 

2009 study “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” examined longitudinal 

student-level data from a sample of 3,620 charter schools across 25 States, the District of 

Columbia, and New York City (NYC) (treated separately from the rest of the State) to determine 

whether students who attend charter schools performed better academically than if they had 

attended a traditional public school.1 The researchers found that 29 percent of charter schools 

in the sample demonstrated significantly higher growth in mathematics achievement and 

25 percent demonstrated significantly higher growth in reading compared to traditional public 

schools in the sample while 31 percent of charter schools in the sample posted mathematics 

gains and 19 percent posted reading gains that were significantly below what those students 

would have seen if enrolled in a traditional public school. Overall, the students in sample 

charter schools have shown improvement over the results from 2009 and steady progress over 

the past 5 years, with the average student gaining an additional 8 days of learning each year in 

reading, compared with the loss of 7 days reported in 2009. The study also showed, on 

average, no gap in learning days for mathematics for students in sample charter schools, 

whereas in 2009 these students posted an average of 22 fewer days of mathematics learning 

than their peers in traditional public schools. Among the group of 16 States from the original 

study in 2009, the rise in performance was attributed in part to the closure of poorly performing 

charter schools and by declining performance in traditional public schools over the same period 

of time.

The CREDO analysis also showed that, in general, charter schools have had different effects on 

students of different family backgrounds. For students from low-income families, AfricanAmerican students, and English Learners, charter schools had a larger positive effect 

academically compared to traditional public schools. The researchers also found that students 

perform better in charter schools over time, with charter school students on average 

experiencing smaller learning gains than their peers in traditional public schools in their first year 

but significant improvement in learning gains in the second year and beyond.

1

See http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html for links to reports from the CREDO studies.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Charter schools grants

F-54

2015 CREDO Urban Charter School Study

In March 2015, CREDO published a report focusing on the performance of charter schools in 

urban areas. The Urban Charter School Study used a similar “virtual peer” methodology as in 

the 2013 CREDO national study to compare the performance of charter schools and traditional 

public schools in 41 major urban areas in 22 States over a 5-year period from school years 

2006–07 to 2011–2012. The researchers found that charter schools produced positive impacts 

over traditional public schools in mathematics in 63 percent of the areas, and in 56 percent of 

the areas in reading, compared to 27 and 23 percent of areas in which charter schools lagged 

traditional public schools in mathematics and reading, respectively. In the aggregate, charter 

schools in the study provided approximately 40 more days of learning in mathematics and 

28 more days in reading per year than their traditional public school counterparts. The report 

also mirrored the findings of the national study with respect to student characteristics, showing 

that charter school gains were larger for low-income students, Black students, Hispanic 

students, and students with disabilities.

2013 and 2017 CREDO Charter School Growth and Replication Studies

In January 2013, CREDO also released findings from “Charter School Growth and Replication,” 

which examined, in charter schools across 25 States, the District of Columbia, and NYC, 

changes in school performance in the years following a school’s opening and the implications of 

these changes for school replication. The study found, among other things, that schools with 

initial high performance with respect to student achievement tended to stay high performers 

over time, while the performance of initially low-performing schools remained low. The study 

also found that schools opened by a CMO typically performed at a level similar to the average of 

the other schools operated by the CMO, and that CMO schools on average produced stronger 

results for minority students and students from low-income families than did independently 

operated charter schools. 

CREDO released a second volume of this study in June 2017, largely affirming previous 

findings and providing additional analyses, including on student academic growth by type of 

school network management structure. The study found that academic growth, relative to that 

in traditional public schools, was higher on average for students in networks of charter schools 

operated by a CMO (i.e., networks of schools for which the charter holder is also the 

management entity) than for students in networks operated by a contracted vendor.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-55

Magnet schools assistance

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $108,530

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$107,000 $107,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) provides Federal resources to assist eligible 

local educational agencies (LEAs) in the desegregation of schools by providing high-quality 

educational options to the students they serve.

Grantees establish and operate magnet schools that are part of court-ordered, agency-ordered, 

or federally approved voluntary desegregation plans. The ultimate goal is to eliminate, reduce, 

or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening 

students’ knowledge of academic subjects and equipping them with college- and career-ready 

skills. The program accomplishes this goal by supporting the creation of magnet schools that: 

(1) increase the options that parents and families have when determining the type of school that 

will best serve their children; and (2) offer special curricula or instructional programs that appeal 

to parents and students from diverse backgrounds.

Grantees receive awards for up to 5 years and may not receive more than $15 million over the 

course of the project. Funds must be used for activities that will improve academic achievement 

and may be used for planning and promotional activities; acquiring books, materials, and 

equipment; and paying the salaries of effective teachers and other instructional personnel. 

Grantees may spend no more than 50 percent of project costs in the first year and 15 percent in 

the second and third years on planning activities. Additionally, the ESEA authorizes grantees to 

use funds to transport students enrolled in magnet schools, provided the costs do not consume 

a significant portion of the grant award and that the transportation strategy is sustainable at the 

end of the grant period.

By statute, the Department gives priority to applicants that: (1) demonstrate the greatest need 

for assistance; (2) propose to carry out new, evidence-based magnet school programs, 

significantly revise existing programs using evidence-based methods and practices, or replicate 

an existing magnet school program with a demonstrated record of success of increasing student 

achievement and reducing racial isolation; (3) use methods other than academic examinations 

(such as a lottery) to admit students; and (4) increase racial integration by designing and 

implementing magnet school programs that increase socioeconomic diversity. Applicants that 

did not receive a grant the previous year receive priority for any funds appropriated above 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-56

$75 million. In addition, the Department may use up to 1 percent of funds to provide technical 

assistance and disseminate best practices.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................... .... $91,647

2016..................................................................................... .... 96,647

2017..................................................................................... .... 97,647

2018................................................................................... .... 105,000

2019................................................................................... .... 107,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $107 million for MSAP, the same as the fiscal year 2019 

appropriation, to maintain strong support for a program that expands the range of high-quality 

educational options and puts more decision-making power in the hands of students and their 

families. The request would support 36 continuation awards and the Department also would use 

up to 1 percent of appropriated funds for national activities to provide technical assistance to 

grantees and disseminate best practices. For example, in previous years, MSAP has used its 

national activities authority to maintain a technical assistance website, publish white papers on 

topics of interest to the magnet schools community, and aggregate and analyze 

performance data. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for awards $103,948 $105,395 $105,395

Number of new awards 4

1

0 0

Number of continuation awards 32 36 36

National activities $1,050 $1,070 $1,070

Pooled Evaluation 0 $535 $535

Peer review of new award 

applications $2 0 0

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

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

funds for this purpose from MSAP in fiscal year 2018, but expects to do so in fiscal years 2019 and 2020.

1 Due to an increase in funding from the 2017 appropriation, MSAP funded four additional high-quality applications

from the 2017 competition in fiscal year 2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-57

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

this program.

Goal: Students have access to high-quality education in desegregated magnet schools.

Objective: Federally funded magnet schools will eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group 

isolation in targeted elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of 

minority students.

Measure: Percentage of magnet schools receiving assistance reporting enrollment data 

demonstrating success in reducing, eliminating, or preventing minority-group isolation.

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort 2017 Cohort

2015 26.0%

2016 23.5

2017 39.0%

2018 21.1 45.2%

2019

2020

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. Grantees set their own annual targets in their 

original applications; the program does not set aggregate performance targets.

Eight out of 38 schools supported by 2016 MSAP grantees met their minority-group isolation 

targets in fiscal year 2018. Of the 30 schools that did not meet their targets, 19 schools made 

progress toward achieving their targets. For the 2017 MSAP cohort, 52 out of 115 schools that 

reported data met their targets for this measure.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-58

Objective: Magnet school students meet their State's academic achievement standards.

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score at the 

proficient level or above on State assessments in reading/language arts.

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2015 40.3%

2016 43.5

2017 35.4%

2018 39.3

2019

2020

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. Grantees set their own annual targets in their 

original applications; the program does not set aggregate performance targets. Based on 

lessons learned administering the program, the Department has revised the measure for the 

2017 cohort to focus in the percentage increase of students who score proficient or above State 

standards in reading/language arts (see below). 

Measure: Percentage of students in magnet schools receiving assistance who score at the 

proficient level or above on State assessments in mathematics.

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2015 34.5%

2016 36.0

2017 34.1%

2018 35.9

2019

2020

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. Grantees set their own annual targets in their 

original applications; the program does not set aggregate performance targets. Based on 

lessons learned administering the program, the Department has revised the measure for the 

2017 cohort to focus in the percentage increase of students who score proficient or above State 

standards in mathematics (see below).
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-59

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed a measure to assess the efficiency of Federal investments in 

supporting magnet schools. The measure is defined as the Federal cost per student in a magnet 

school receiving assistance.

Year 2013 Cohort 2016 Cohort

2015 $1,122

2016 916

2017 $722

2018 1,235

2019

2020

Additional information:

In grant year 2 for the 2016 cohort, the average cost per student of $1,235. The Department has 

discontinued this measure for the 2017 cohort because it has not proven to be a useful indicator 

of grantee performance.

In addition to these performance measures, the Department introduced two new measures for 

the 2017:

Measure: Percentage increase of students who scored proficient or above State standards in 

reading/language arts.

Year 2017 Cohort

2018 5.7%

2019

2020

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. Grantees set their own annual targets in their 

original applications; the program does not set aggregate performance targets.

Across the 2017 grant projects, 34.41 percent of students in MSAP schools tested proficient or 

above State annual progress standards in reading/language arts in Year 1, and 32.53 percent of 

students in MSAP schools tested proficient or above State annual progress standards in 

reading/language arts in the baseline year (grantees compared assessment data from the first 

grant year to baseline data provided in their funded applications). Of the 116 MSAP schools that 

reported school achievement data for reading/language arts, 72 schools (62 percent) had 

percentage increases for all students who scored proficient or above State standards, and 

44 schools (38 percent) had percentage decreases for all students who scored proficient or

above State standards.

The calculations showed the percentage increase of students by racial and ethnic groups who 

scored proficient or above State assessment standards in reading/language arts from school years 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Magnet schools assistance

F-60

2016-17 to 2017-18: -1.94 American Indian or Alaskan Native, -3.22 percent of Asian students, 

3.03 percent of Black/African American students, 10.25 percent of Hispanic/Latino students, 

0.03 percent of White students, and -6.17 percent of two or more races students.

Measure: Percentage increase of students who scored proficient or above State standards 

in mathematics.

Year 2017 Cohort

2018 9.4%

2019

2020

Additional information: The data for this performance measure are collected from annual 

performance reports. Descriptive characteristic data for each school are also collected to 

provide context for the performance measure. Grantees set their own annual targets in their 

original applications; the program does not set aggregate performance targets.

Across the 2017 grant projects, 29.61 percent of students in MSAP schools tested proficient or 

above State annual progress standards in mathematics in Year 1, and 27.06 percent of students 

in MSAP schools tested proficient or above State annual progress standards in mathematics in 

the baseline year (grantees compared assessment data from the first grant year to baseline 

data provided in their funded applications). Of the 115 schools that reported school achievement 

data for mathematics, 68 schools (59 percent) had percentage increases for all students who 

scored proficient or above State standards, and 47 schools (41 percent) had percentage 

decreases for all students who scored proficient or above state Standards. 

The calculations showed the percentage increase of students by racial and ethnic groups who 

scored proficient or above State assessment standards in mathematics from school years 2016-17 

to 2017-18: 16.22 American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2.81 percent of Asian students, 3.17 percent 

of Black/African American students, 14.70 percent of Hispanic/Latino students,-31.43 percent Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 9.78 percent of White students, and -7.45 percent of two or more 

races students.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-61

Ready to learn programming

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2019 2020 Change 

$27,741 0 -$27,741

1

A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Title IV, Part F. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F, 

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which 

include the Ready to Learn program.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Ready to Learn (RTL) Programming is designed to facilitate student academic achievement by 

supporting the development and distribution of educational video programming for preschool 

and elementary school children and their parents, caregivers, and teachers. At least 60 percent 

of the funding must be used to:

 Develop educational television programming for preschool and elementary school children 

and the accompanying support materials and services that can be used to promote the 

effective use of such programming;

 Develop television programming (and digital content, such as applications and online 

educational games, containing RTL-based children’s programming) that is specifically 

designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting 

channels and the Internet, along with accompanying resources for parents and 

caregivers; and

 Support contracts with public telecommunications and related entities to ensure that

programs are widely distributed.

Remaining funds may be used to develop and disseminate education and training materials, 

including interactive programs that are designed to promote school readiness through the 

effective use of educational video programs.

Funds are awarded competitively and only public telecommunications entities are eligible to 

receive awards. Applicants must have the capacity to: develop and distribute high-quality 

educational and instructional television programming that is accessible to disadvantaged 

preschool and elementary school children; contract with the producers of children’s television 

programming; negotiate these contracts in a manner that returns to the grantee an appropriate 

share of income from sales of program-related products; and target programming and materials 

to meet specific State and local needs, while providing educational outreach at the local level.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-62

Grantees are required to consult with the Departments of Education and Health and Human 

Services on strategies for maximizing the use of quality educational programming for preschool 

and elementary school children. Grantees must also coordinate activities with other Federal 

programs that have major training components related to early childhood development. 

The Department awarded two 5-year grants in 2015:

 Twin Cities Public Television is using RTL funds to produce Superhero School, using 

narrative storytelling and interactive media, across multiple platforms, to engage children 

ages 5 to 8 from low-income families in building key science content and thinking skills, 

learning related academic vocabulary, improving their reading and writing abilities, and 

gaining experience using new technology.

 The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in partnership with the Public Broadcasting 

Service, is creating a comprehensive media initiative to support the learning needs of 

children in low-income communities. The project’s primary goal is to improve science and 

literacy learning outcomes for young children, especially those from low-income families, in 

order to prepare them for success in school and in life.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

footnote

2015...................................................................................$25,741

2016.....................................................................................25,741

2017.....................................................................................25,741

2018.....................................................................................27,741

2019.....................................................................................27,741

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for Ready to Learn (RTL) Programming in fiscal 

year 2020, a reduction of $27.7 million below the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. Widespread 

access to the internet and the ready availability of a wide range of digital games and devices 

that support early learning have long made the RTL program less relevant and necessary than 

in the past. Private corporations increasingly produce and disseminate programming, online 

games, and “apps” that are both educational and entertaining without Federal support. 

Consequently, and particularly in view of its goals of restoring the traditional, limited Federal role 

in education and making scarce Federal resources available for other priorities, the 

Administration believes that RTL programming is more appropriately supported with other 

Federal, State, local, and private funds. Public television networks and stations may tap private 

and non-profit sources of funding to continue their work or apply for funding under other Federal 

programs. Such entities have a demonstrated ability to raise funds from non-Federal sources, 

as Federal funding made up just 16 percent of public television’s total revenue in 2015. The 

Department will award the fifth and final year of support for the 2015 grantees in fiscal year 

2019, and thus the request would not adversely affect any current grantees.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-63

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of continuation awards 2 2 0

Continuation award funding $27,711 $27,691 0

Evaluation (review of grant products) $30 $50 0

Total 27,741 27,741 0

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

including the RTL program, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department 

did not reserve funds from RTL for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, it may do so in fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Performance Measures

The Department uses the following performance measures to assess RTL’s effectiveness in 

improving what children learn, the quality of RTL-funded transmedia products, and the number 

of children RTL is reaching: 

(1) the percentage of summative experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that 

demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills when RTL 

transmedia properties, such as applications and online educational games, are compared 

to similar non-RTL-funded digital properties or to other more traditional educational 

materials; 

(2) the percentage of educational transmedia products, along with necessary supporting 

materials, that are deemed to be of high-quality in promoting learning of math or literacy by 

an independent panel of expert reviewers; and 

(3) the number of children who use RTL-produced educational media products, 

disaggregated by individual product, as determined by appropriate industry standard 

metrics or, when available, by tracking tools.

The two 2015 grantees planned a total of four experimental or quasi-experimental research 

studies, to be conducted beginning in year 4 of the grant, that will provide data on the first 

performance measure. The Department expects to receive the first of the studies in 2019. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Ready to learn programming

F-64

For the second performance measure, the Department asked expert panel members to review a 

random sample of current RTL transmedia products and provide a quality rating using criteria 

developed by the Department. The panel members rated products on a 5-point scale. In order 

for any particular product to achieve a rating of “high-quality,” a product had to secure an 

average score of 3.8 across the panel members. In 2017, the Department received two 

transmedia product suites from one grantee to review. One of the transmedia product suites 

reviewed was of high-quality, with a score of 4.41. The other suite received a score of 3.74, just 

under the cutoff for high-quality. In 2018, the Department received one transmedia product 

suite from one grantee to review. That transmedia produce suite was of high-quality, which a 

score of 4.02.

For the third performance measure, grantees reported on the number of children who used 

RTL-produced products, by type of product. In 2018, 22.0 million users accessed RTL-produced 

educational media products. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) reported 

22.0 million users, of which 14.0 million watched CPB television shows and 8.0 million used 

Web-based games. Twin Cities Public Television did not report any users for 2018.

Efficiency Measure

The Department uses a single efficiency measure for the RTL program: dollars leveraged from 

non-Federal sources over 5 years (the length of each grant award) per Federal dollar dedicated 

to core non-outreach program activities. In the second year of the 2015 grants, the two grantees 

leveraged $6.9 million of non-Federal support compared to $19.9 million in Federal dollars spent 

on production, or $0.35 of non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. In the third year of 

the 2015 grants, the two grantees leveraged $8.8 million of non-Federal support compared to 

$12.0 million in Federal dollars spent on production, or $0.73 of non-Federal dollars for every 

Federal dollar spent. Grantees did not report on the efficiency measure for the first year of the 

grant. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-65

Arts in education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$29,000 0 -$29,000

1

A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Title IV, Part F. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F,

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities which 

include the Arts in Education program. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Arts in Education program supports national demonstration and Federal leadership 

activities to promote arts education for students, including disadvantaged students and students 

who are children with disabilities. The program includes the following allowable activities: 

(1) professional development for arts educators, teachers, and principals; (2) development and 

dissemination of accessible instructional materials and arts-based educational programming, 

including online resources, in multiple arts disciplines; and (3) national and community outreach 

activities that strengthen and expand partnerships among schools, local educational agencies 

(LEAs), communities, or centers for the arts, including national centers for the arts. 

The program supports a number of arts education activities through 4-year grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in which 20 percent or more of the students are from low-income 

families; State educational agencies (SEAs); national nonprofit organizations; institutions of 

higher education; organizations with expertise in the arts; museums or cultural institutions; the 

Bureau of Indian Education; and partnerships of these entities. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015...................................................................................$25,000

2016.....................................................................................27,000

2017.....................................................................................27,000

2018.....................................................................................29,000

2019.....................................................................................29,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for the Arts in Education program in fiscal year 

2020, a reduction of $29.0 million below the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The Administration 

is proposing to eliminate funding for this program because it has limited impact, does not 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-66

sufficiently target services to the highest-need students, and funds activities that are more 

appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private funds. For example, the 

program duplicates activities that may be supported through the $15.9 billion Title I Grants to 

LEAs program, under which LEAs and schools may support integrated arts instruction as part of 

a schoolwide Title I program. Title I also makes available $1 billion in funding for school 

turnaround plans, which may include arts instruction and related activities.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Arts Development and 

Dissemination

Arts D evelopment and Dissemination:Total funds available $14,219 $13,332 0

Amount for new awards $13,266 0

Number of new awards 22 0

Arts D evelopment and Dissemination:Amount for continuation awards $450 $12,907 0

Arts D evelopment and Dissemination:Number of continuation awards 1 23 0

Arts D evelopment and Dissemination: Interagency transfer to support the Arts 

Education Partnership $425 $425 0

Peer review of new award applications $78 0 0

Professional Development for Arts 

Educators (PDAE)

Professi onal D evelopment for Arts Educators:Total funds available $6,186 $7,136 0

Amount for new awards $231 0 0

Number of new awards 1

1

0 0

Professi onal D evelopment for Arts Educators:Amount for continuation awards $5,955 $7,136 0

Professi onal D evelopment for Arts Educators:Number of continuation awards 20 21 0

National Arts in Education Program 

(AENP)

National Ar ts i n Education Program: Total funds available $8,077 $8,000 0

National Ar ts i n Education Program: Amount for new awards $8,000 0 0

National Ar ts i n Education Program: Number of new awards 1 0 0

National Ar ts i n Education Program: Amount for continuation awards 0 $8,000 0

National Ar ts i n Education Program: Number of continuation awards 0 1 0

Peer review of new award applications $77 0 0

Evaluation $518 $532 0

_________________________

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

including Arts in Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department 

did not reserve funds from the Arts in Education program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, it may do so in fiscal 

year 2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-67

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

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

grantees, to the extent possible, to complete their planned projects or transition to support from other Federal, State, 

or local sources of funding.

1

The Department funded a new application for grants in fiscal year 2018 from the fiscal year 2017 slate.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based GPRA 

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

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

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

because the program is proposed for elimination.

Goal: To help ensure that all program participants meet challenging State academic 

content standards in the arts.

Objective: Activities supported with Federal funds will improve the quality of standards-based 

arts education for all participants.

Measure: The percentage of teachers participating in the Professional Development for Arts 

Educators program who receive professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2015 50% 19%

2016 55 58

2017 60 74

2018 65 81

2019 70

Additional Information: Sustained and intensive professional development for the PDAE 

program is defined as completion of 40 or more of the professional development hours offered 

by the PDAE-funded project during the reporting period; completion of 75 percent of the total 

number of professional development hours offered by the PDAE-funded project during the 

reporting period; and completion of these professional development hours over at least a 

6-month period during the reporting period.

The low actual data for 2015 is likely explained by the fact that fiscal year 2014 cohort grantees 

reported on the progress made in the first year of their award, which focused on planning 

activities rather than provision of professional development.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-68

Measure: The percentage of PDAE projects in which teachers show a statistically significant 

increase in content knowledge in the arts.

Year Target Actual

2015 100% 100%

2016 100 86

2017 100 100

2018 100 90

2019 100

Additional Information: Grantees administer a pre-test and a post-test of teacher content 

knowledge in the arts and include those data in their annual performance reports. The 2016 

actual is based on the 14 of 17 PDAE grantees who reported on this measure.

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Model Arts programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2015 39% 35%

2016 35 32

2017 38 31

2018 37 32

2019 33

Measure: The percentage of students participating in Model Arts programs who demonstrate 

proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Year Treatment Control

2015 43% 40%

2016 39 38

2017 40 36

2018 39 35

2019

The Department also developed the following four measures for the Arts in Education National 

Program (AENP). Targets for these measures are set annually by the AENP grantee.

Measure: The total number of students who participate in standards-based arts education 

sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2015 859,273 1,245,824

2016 2,100,000 2,140,365

2017 1,820,000 1,823,785

2018 1,911,000 2,151,664

2019
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Arts in education

F-69

Measure: The total number of students from low-income families who participate in standardsbased arts education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2015 322,020 769,397

2016 800,000 806,092

2017 660,000 666,399

2018 693,500 693,065

2019

Measure: The total number of students with disabilities who participate in standards-based arts 

education sponsored by the grantee.

Year Target Actual

2015 100,028 221,859

2016 200,000 219,316

2017 160,000 165,870

2018 168,000 173,195

2019

Measure: The percent of teachers participating in the grantee’s program who receive 

professional development that is sustained and intensive.

Year Target Actual

2015 28% 48%

2016 50 52

2017 55 54

2018 57 85

2019

Additional Information: Data for 2015 and 2016 are based on teacher participation in 

Changing Education Through the Arts, one of the programs administered by the Kennedy 

Center.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-70

Javits gifted and talented education

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 4, Section 4644)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change 

$12,000 0 -$12,000

1 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Title IV, Part F. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, Part F,

$5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3; of the remainder, 26 percent is reserved for Subpart 4 activities, which 

include Javits Gifted and Talented Education.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Javits Gifted and Talented Education supports a coordinated program of research, 

demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and other activities to build and enhance the 

capacity of elementary and secondary schools to identify gifted and talented students and meet 

their special educational needs. The Department makes grant or contract awards, typically for 

5 years, to State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies, the Bureau of Indian 

Education of the Department of the Interior, institutions of higher education (IHEs), and other 

public and private agencies and organizations to carry out projects to fulfill this purpose,

including an award to one or more IHEs or SEAs to establish a National Research Center for 

the Education of Gifted and Talented Children.

Award recipients may use funds to: conduct research on methods and techniques for 

identifying and teaching gifted and talented students and on applying gifted and talented 

educational methods to all students, including low-income and at-risk students; establish and 

operate gifted and talented education programs, which may include innovative methods and 

strategies for identifying and teaching students traditionally underserved in such programs; and 

provide technical assistance and disseminate information. Funds may also be used for 

personnel training.

By statute, the Department gives priority in making awards to projects that include evidencebased activities or that develop new information to improve the capacity of schools to operate 

gifted and talented education programs or to assist schools in identifying and serving 

traditionally underserved students. 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-71

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2015...................................................................................$10,000

2016.....................................................................................12,000

2017.....................................................................................12,000

2018.....................................................................................12,000

2018.....................................................................................12,000

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The request does not include funding for Javits Gifted and Talented Education, consistent with 

the Administration’s overall goal of refocusing Federal education investments on flexible State 

formula grant programs, eliminating duplicative activities, streamlining Federal program 

administration, and putting decision-making power back in the hands of States and local 

communities. The Administration appreciates the importance of engaging and developing the 

unique skills of high-ability learners but believes that limited Federal education program dollars 

should be focused on improving outcomes for our Nation’s most educationally disadvantaged 

children, consistent with the longstanding Federal role in elementary and secondary education 

and the core purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Javits Gifted 

and Talented Education has limited impact, and programs serving gifted and talented students 

are more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, or private resources, including 

the $15.9 billion ESEA Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, which includes 

provisions regarding identifying and improving instruction for gifted and talented students. In 

addition, the Department can support research on gifted and talented education through funding 

for the Institute of Education Science’s Research, Development, and Dissemination program, 

including research on identifying and serving students traditionally underrepresented in gifted 

and talented programs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for new awards $885 $3,670 0

Number of new awards 1 6–9 0

Amount for continuation awards $10,114 $7,210 0

Number of continuation awards 25 17 0

National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth $1,000 0 0

Peer review of new award applications $1 $120 0

______________

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

including Javits Gifted and Talented Education, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The 
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Javits gifted and talented education

F-72

Department did not reserve funds from the program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, but may do so in fiscal year 

2019.

The Department anticipates that we will not make a new award for the National Research Center for the Education of 

Gifted and Talented Children and Youth (Center) in fiscal year 2019, as we expect the current Center grantee will 

continue to operate under a no-cost extension.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department reports data for the below measures twice over the grant period (at the middle 

and end of the period); results below are from the mid-term review of the 2014 and 2015 

grantee cohorts. The Department is considering revising the measures to more effectively 

assess program performance in future years.

Goal: To improve the teaching and learning of gifted and talented students through 

research, demonstration projects, personnel training, and other activities of national 

significance.

Objective: Develop models for developing the talents of students who are economically 

disadvantaged, are English learners, or have disabilities.

Measure: The number of Javits Gifted and Talented Education project designs with average 

reviewer ratings for quality of high or above.

Nine of the 13 grantees in the 2014 cohort received an average reviewer rating of high or above 

in 2018.

Measure: The number of Javits Gifted and Talented Education projects with significant gains in 

academic achievement among target student populations.

Eleven of the 13 grantees in the 2014 cohort reported significant gains in academic 

achievement among target student populations in 2018.

Measure: The number of Javits Gifted and Talented Education project designs for effective 

professional development focusing on gifted and talented education with average reviewer 

ratings for quality of high or above.

Two of the eight grantees in the 2015 cohort, whose projects focused on professional 

development, received an average reviewer rating of high or above in 2018.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

F-73

Statewide family engagement centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $10,000

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$10,000 0 -$10,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program provides funding to statewide 

organizations, or consortia of such organizations, to establish statewide centers that (1) carry 

out programs that promote parent and family engagement in education or (2) provide 

comprehensive training and technical assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), schools, and organizations that support partnerships between 

families and schools. 

Grantees must use funds to: assist parents in effectively participating in their children’s 

education; partner with SEAs to develop and implement systemic family engagement initiatives; 

and develop and implement parental involvement policies. Grantees must use at least 

65 percent of their funds to serve LEAs, schools, and community-based organizations that serve 

high concentrations of disadvantaged students. In addition, grantees must use at least 

30 percent of their funds to establish or expand technical assistance for evidence-based parent 

education programs. By statute, the Department gives priority to applicants that propose to use 

evidence-based strategies for improving family engagement in schools in general. 

To help ensure that SFEC projects are supported in local communities and financially

sustainable, grantees must secure matching funds from non-Federal sources after the first year 

of their projects. The Department may not award less than $500,000 to an individual project, 

and may use up to 2 percent of funds to provide technical assistance to grantees on the 

establishment, development, and coordination of statewide family engagement centers. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

2016.............................................................................................. .... 0

2017.............................................................................................. .... 0

2018................................................................................... .... $10,000

2019..................................................................................... .... 10,000
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

F-74

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2020 request does not include funding for the SFEC program,

reflecting an overall effort to refocus Federal education investments on flexible formula grant

programs serving the Nation’s most vulnerable student populations, eliminate duplicative 

activities, streamline Federal program administration, minimize regulations and requirements 

from Washington, and put decision-making power back in the hands of States and 

local communities. 

While ensuring that families have access to a wide range of high-quality educational options 

remains a key priority, the Administration believes that the SFEC program is not designed to 

catalyze meaningful change for students and their families on a national scale. Moreover, other 

much larger Federal education programs already provide significant support for family 

engagement. For example, States participating in Title I, Part A of the ESEA must collect and 

disseminate effective parent and family engagement strategies to LEAs, which in turn must 

have written parent and family engagement policies as part of their local Title I plans and use a 

minimum of 1 percent of their Title I allocations (a potential total of approximately $150 million 

nationwide) to conduct outreach to parents and family members and implement programs and 

activities to enhance their engagement in their children’s education. Most other ESEA formula 

programs include similar requirements for State and local consultation with parents and other 

activities to promote parent and family involvement for the purpose of improving student 

achievement and other outcomes. Consequently, there is little need for a separate State-level 

family engagement program with a much more limited impact.

In fiscal year 2019, the Department funded one additional application from the 2018 slate that 

was not initially reviewed due to a clerical error and expects to use remaining funds for 

continuation awards. The Department would then encourage grantees to use statutorily required 

non-Federal matching funds to continue key activities in future years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Amount for awards $9,705 $9,800 0

Number of new awards 11 1 0

Number of continuation 

awards 0 11 0

Technical assistance $200 $200 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $95 0 0

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

including SFECs, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department did not 

reserve funds from the SFEC program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, it may do so in fiscal year 2019.
INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT

Statewide family engagement centers

F-75

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. 

Fiscal year 2018 was the first year in which funds were appropriated for this program, so no 

performance data are currently available. The Administration set the following performance 

measures for the program:

 The number of parents who are participating in program activities designed to provide them 

with the information necessary to understand their annual school report cards and other 

opportunities for engagement under section 1116 and other related ESEA provisions.

 The number of high-impact activities or services provided to build a statewide infrastructure 

for systemic family engagement that includes support for State and local educational agency 

level leadership and capacity-building.

 The number of high-impact activities or services implemented to ensure that parents are 

trained and can effectively engage in activities that will improve student academic 

achievement, to include an understanding of how they can support learning in the classroom 

with activities at home or outside the school generally, as well as how they can participate in 

State and local decision-making processes.

 The percentage of parents and families receiving services who report having enhanced 

capacity to work with schools and service providers effectively in meeting the academic and 

developmental needs of their children.